This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
So ... does this mean that frequent users of Wikipedia are more likely to suffer macular degeneration in old age? John Riemann Soong (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The article says only to people with retinal decease, for example if you need to wear special sunglasses then yeah is dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Only people with retinal decease? I don't think so. The article says: "HEV light has been implicated as a cause of age-related macular degeneration". Also see the referenced sources. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The main problem are not the blue links (~ 3% of the total screen) but rather the white background! --18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
So essentially all light will result in our retinas exploding? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I was about to make the same comment about the wiki links. But once I saw some1 else post it, it wasn't as funny as I thought it'd be... but news on the television sure has a lot of blue. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
So.. I don't understand. White light has blue in it, how are we going to avoid blue light? I think this is bad science, and a lie. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Consider light sources like fluorescent bulbs or white LEDs. Instead of emitting light in a broad, black-body like spectrum, they have significant emission peaks. For instance white LEDs are often made by coating a blue LED (emission peak in high energy visible specturem, around 450 to 470nm) with a yellow phosphor. The combination of the blue peak and the yellow give a white appearance. But it may have a more concentrated emissions in that peak than an incandescent source would with the same effective color and light output.
Cool White Fluorescent bulbs may have emission peaks at even shorter wave lengths. (e.g., 400, 435, 550) Zodon (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that a narrow-peaked emission spectrum is more hazardous than a broad spectrum with the same integrated flux (even if convolved with the relevant action spectrum)? It may be a naive misconception that a higher spectral intensity may lead to similarly higher damage caused by this light in the same way as spatially concentrated light (e.g. behind a lens) does. In case of mercury-based lamps this would only be the case if our retina would also work with mercury as a major agent for photo reception (which would imply a very narrow/spiked response spectrum of the retina). But this isn't the case. Therefore, I strongly suppose that only the integrated intensity (times a wavelength-dependent action factor) matters. In this case, the blue mercury spike of cool-white fluorescent indoor lighting of about 1000 lux would be equivalent to only one per cent of the noon Sun (about 100,000 lux).
In other words: Is there any proper reason to worry about blue-light hazard from home lighting (even if one preferres cool-white light) at Central European (or U.S.) latitudes?--SiriusB (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I second SiriusB's above question. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
LCD monitors brightness around 300cd/m2, I'm stare into it over 8 hours per day.Monitors used to be CCFL backlit mainly in the market, nowdays LED backlit gradually take the place. CCFL got UV and Mercury problem,LED got high intensity blue light in it's spectrum and more noticeable flicker.They all got high intial brightness and low flicker frequency due low brightness.I need purchase a monitor recently. CCFL vanish more quickly in my country for energy saving issue. I'm freak out. --月夜长灯 (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Does UV emitted from CCFL backlit can cause more damage than LED backlit blue light?if so,they all create white light through phosphor,LED backlit definitely safer,it does not leakage UV at all --月夜长灯 (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I Suspected the same a fair time back, ever since i saw a UV led i installed in a computer gave burns to a plant i had sitting in front of it, so ever since considered it a safty hazard. I see the spectrum of Blue leds to be a peak with minimal output of higher and lower wavelength on either side. I didnt suspect the blue peak but the curve. My suspicions were proved correct when i opened some certain laptops, the lens on the SMDs were quite degraded (applying heat did further but i dont think it got that hot in there).
A greater worry of mine are these new HID* and other very "white" lights on the front of cars. part of me wonders if i need to wear sunglasses at night! I know the glass and the plastic attenuates UVa and b but there is probably still risk, an experiment would be to see if it degrades inks... *there are idiots breaking rules, HIDs are especailly dangerous because thats an arc and UV filters are not provided in kits. Charlieb000 (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
When I first heard about the danger from blue light in the 1980's, it was explained to me as partly due to chromatic aberration. The retina is constructed in a non-obvious way: the photo receptors are furthest from the lens. The eye adjusts to focus the light on this layer of rods and cones. But to reach them the light must pass through the receptor cell bodies. Because blue light is refracted more strongly than longer wavelengths, the blue components are more intense in the cell body. So the blue light is not only more actinic, but also more focused on this vulnerable part of the retina. The basic idea is simple optics: blue bends more. I do not see that concept in this article. I do not know that the idea has been discredited or deemed insignificant. I do not have a reference to offer though. --AJim (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. There does not appear to be sufficient clarity about the proper name of this article to support a move at this time. (non-admin closure) Bradv 01:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
High-energy visible light → Blue light hazard – I propose a rename of this article to Blue Light Hazard or something similar (the name of the main section of this article). I can't find much reliable evidence that high-energy visible light is a widespread and accepted term for blue light (I can find no sources with a precise definition), it is used as a general term in some scientific publications I have come across but rarely as a specific term worthy of its own article (or as the initialism HEV) Two of the three sources in the lead refer to blue light rather than high energy visible light. I would argue the current title is therefore not recognisable, natural or precise Beevil (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose – there is plenty of evidence for the widespread use of the current term in opthamology and related fields. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment – 79 results for that particular search does not, to me, indicate widespread use. More than one of the results refers to "high-energy visible light such as blue light" (emphasis mine). There is more evidence for blue light hazard alone as an accepted term. Beevil (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.