LED light causes vision damage.... What????

**monochrome** · 09-03-2019, 05:36 PM - **2 Likes**

I knew there was a reason NHTSA should outlaw the blue High Intensity Discharge LED headlamps on those expensive SUV’s. At night it is impossible to look away from them since they are perfectly at the eye height of any oncoming sedan driver, so not only are they quite blinding and thus a safety hazard, they’re damaging to opposing drivers’ eyesight!

ZombieArmy · 09-03-2019, 06:31 PM

Where is their source for this nonsense? The link to "read more" is from "the life hacker" which posts insightful articles such as "Burn Bay Leaves In Your Home For These 3 Amazing Health Benefits".

B o l o g n a.

There are definitely some problems with blue light, especially from street flooding LED lamps because they can affect the circadian rhythm of people and animals in the area but that's not what they're talking about...

**TDvN57** · 09-03-2019, 10:07 PM - **1 Like**

I think I'll stay with OVF ;-)

ChristianRock · 09-04-2019, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

I can’t help wondering if this is going to be the latest in a long line of things that people can start a movement against.

No movement necessary, no... I don't foresee any pitchforks nor torches being gathered over any of this...

But it might influence people in regards to what products they buy. Right or wrong, if there is a perception that something might be easier on your eyesight, perhaps not to the point of damaging your eyes, but just that it might be easier to use for several hours before your eyes getting tired... why not consider it. It's not called a movement, it's called choosing what's best for your needs, and it happens in the marketplace all the time. So don't mock the concept... because you probably consider what's best for your needs as well, whether you're buying cameras or computers or TVs or cars or any other consumer product...

**WPRESTO** · 09-04-2019, 09:51 AM - **1 Like**

Several comments that may repeat what's already been said, perhaps better (I have not read through all of the preceding posts on this thread):

1) there is a grain of truth in the tired old advice: "all things in moderation."
2) last visit to have my eyes checked I was warned about possible visual problems caused by long-term staring at a computer monitor/screen because of the large amount of short wavelength light. As I need OTS magnifiers to see the screen clearly, I purchased a pair that has blue-filtering plastic and keep those right in front of the big monitor (I do spend perhaps 2~3 hours a day staring at it trying to decide whether an image is worth processing, or trying to remember why on earth I pressed the shutter release).
3) BEWARE, it has been conclusively demonstrated by unknown billions of experiments that breathing is ultimately fatal, and so is not breathing, so you cannot win.

Enjoy the day, for we are a long time dead. (eat desert first, don't deny yourself things you enjoy, there are no prizes for self-deprivation - - and another thing - - - -)

**ThorSanchez** · 09-04-2019, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

There's something to be said for taking photos with an OVF, as long as you aren't taking photos of things like welding, or a solar eclipse with protection.

Wouldn't a well-designed EVF be able to reduce the intensity of dangerous light sources like welding, so that you could look straight at it with that EFV and have no negative effects? I think protecting your vision is a legitimate reason to use an EVF over an OVF.

Someone could certainly design an EVF with a mode specifically for viewing eclipses, for example.

**Rondec** · 09-04-2019, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by ThorSanchez

Wouldn't a well-designed EVF be able to reduce the intensity of dangerous light sources like welding, so that you could look straight at it with that EFV and have no negative effects? I think protecting your vision is a legitimate reason to use an EVF over an OVF.

Someone could certainly design an EVF with a mode specifically for viewing eclipses, for example.

Probably best be careful. While the EVF might be OK you can seriously damage you sensor taking images of those sorts of things.

**mikesbike** · 09-04-2019, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

I knew there was a reason NHTSA should outlaw the blue High Intensity Discharge LED headlamps on those expensive SUV’s. At night it is impossible to look away from them since they are perfectly at the eye height of any oncoming sedan driver, so not only are they quite blinding and thus a safety hazard, they’re damaging to opposing drivers’ eyesight!

There is or used to be a regulation governing the angle headlights had to be set as they are cast onto the road ahead. This was specifically to avoid blinding oncoming drivers from seeing what is in front of them. It seems, however, this is being ignored by manufacturers, if their lobbyists have not succeeded in eliminating this regulation altogether, and not enforced. I've been retired now for numerous years, but while still working I had not seen anything regarding violations of this type. But maybe back then it was not yet a problem.

**RobA_Oz** · 09-04-2019, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

No movement necessary, no... I don't foresee any pitchforks nor torches being gathered over any of this...

I thought the same about 5G mobile transmissions until the other day, too, but some people seem to make an identity out of finding things to oppose, especially where it involves a scientific understanding.

I do, nonetheless, take your point about influencing purchase decisions. The two outcomes are, after all, just the bookends to a spectrum of reactions in between.

**beachgardener** · 09-05-2019, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

about 5G mobile transmissions

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

especially where it involves a scientific understanding.

And if people really do look at the science on this, no way they'd ever have 5G, Say No To 5G.

MarkJerling · 09-05-2019, 02:38 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by beachgardener

And if people really do look at the science on this, no way they'd ever have 5G, Say No To 5G.

There are, as yet, no evidence that exposure to mobile phones, whether that be 2,3, 4 or 5G has any detrimental effect on human health. Except if you text and drive. That will kill you.

**beachgardener** · 09-05-2019, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

whether that be 2,3, 4 or 5G

Originally posted by MarkJerling

no evidence

there is for 2, 3, and 4, the point is not enough is known about 5G.

You Tube

MarkJerling · 09-05-2019, 04:49 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by beachgardener

there is for 2, 3, and 4, the point is not enough is known about 5G.

Professor Olle Johansson speaks with STOP 5G Global - 2019 - YouTube

It's basic science and some of the scaremongering going on is ignoring that basic science. 4G networks use frequencies 600 MHz to 6 GHz and 5G uses frequencies in the 28 GHz to (potentially) 300 GHz range. At this point, most 5G networks are using 28 GHz and 39 GHz. Most testing has stayed below 73 GHz and it's unlikely that 300 GHz will become a reality.

Mobile/cell phones, microwave ovens, cordless phones, millimeter waves, airport millimeter scanners, motion detectors, long-distance telecommunications, radar, Wi-Fi all operate between 1 and 300 GHz. Of course, mobile phones are low power devices. 1.5W vs your microwave oven's 1,200W.

28 to 300 GHz is still safely in the microwave frequency range. Beyond that, frequencies move into the infrared light range and from there into the visible light spectrum. Beyond that into UV and from there into the range of frequencies that are not so good for us.

At this point, most of us have been walking around with a mobile phone for 20-25 years and there has been no evidence of any detrimental effect, other than the aforementioned idiots driving while on the phone.

**beachgardener** · 09-06-2019, 03:29 AM

If people want to ignore the risks then so be it, I'll leave it with you.

MarkJerling · 09-06-2019, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by beachgardener

If people want to ignore the risks then so be it, I'll leave it with you.

Well, I'd be the first to listen if there was some evidence of any risk. After all, I do use my mobile phone a lot.
But, several full body MRI and CT scans later, the scans were probably worse for my health than the mobile phone usage.

I suspect 5G will be no different to 4G in that regard.

09-05-2019, 04:49 AM - 2 Likes	#28
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	Originally posted by beachgardener there is for 2, 3, and 4, the point is not enough is known about 5G. Professor Olle Johansson speaks with STOP 5G Global - 2019 - YouTube It's basic science and some of the scaremongering going on is ignoring that basic science. 4G networks use frequencies 600 MHz to 6 GHz and 5G uses frequencies in the 28 GHz to (potentially) 300 GHz range. At this point, most 5G networks are using 28 GHz and 39 GHz. Most testing has stayed below 73 GHz and it's unlikely that 300 GHz will become a reality. Mobile/cell phones, microwave ovens, cordless phones, millimeter waves, airport millimeter scanners, motion detectors, long-distance telecommunications, radar, Wi-Fi all operate between 1 and 300 GHz. Of course, mobile phones are low power devices. 1.5W vs your microwave oven's 1,200W. 28 to 300 GHz is still safely in the microwave frequency range. Beyond that, frequencies move into the infrared light range and from there into the visible light spectrum. Beyond that into UV and from there into the range of frequencies that are not so good for us. At this point, most of us have been walking around with a mobile phone for 20-25 years and there has been no evidence of any detrimental effect, other than the aforementioned idiots driving while on the phone. Last edited by MarkJerling; 09-05-2019 at 04:56 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-1 grip (around LED light) makes a clicking noise when pressed	awscreo	Pentax Full Frame	8	05-18-2017 08:47 AM
ultraviolet light to bring out sun damage ?	LFLee	Photographic Technique	12	09-17-2015 05:06 AM
New Monitor: LED, LCD, or LCD with Back-light?	dmfw	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	11	01-03-2013 05:02 AM
To Hell With VF's: LED Lights Make Augmented Vision a Reality	RioRico	Photographic Industry and Professionals	25	10-21-2011 06:04 AM
LED light screwed under camera	Eric Seavey	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	2	12-12-2010 03:48 PM

09-03-2019, 05:36 PM - 2 Likes	#16
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	I knew there was a reason NHTSA should outlaw the blue High Intensity Discharge LED headlamps on those expensive SUV’s. At night it is impossible to look away from them since they are perfectly at the eye height of any oncoming sedan driver, so not only are they quite blinding and thus a safety hazard, they’re damaging to opposing drivers’ eyesight!

09-03-2019, 06:31 PM	#17
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	Where is their source for this nonsense? The link to "read more" is from "the life hacker" which posts insightful articles such as "Burn Bay Leaves In Your Home For These 3 Amazing Health Benefits". B o l o g n a. There are definitely some problems with blue light, especially from street flooding LED lamps because they can affect the circadian rhythm of people and animals in the area but that's not what they're talking about...

09-03-2019, 10:07 PM - 1 Like	#18
TDvN57 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Berlin Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,149 Original Poster	I think I'll stay with OVF ;-)

09-04-2019, 08:05 AM	#19
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by RobA_Oz I can’t help wondering if this is going to be the latest in a long line of things that people can start a movement against. No movement necessary, no... I don't foresee any pitchforks nor torches being gathered over any of this... But it might influence people in regards to what products they buy. Right or wrong, if there is a perception that something might be easier on your eyesight, perhaps not to the point of damaging your eyes, but just that it might be easier to use for several hours before your eyes getting tired... why not consider it. It's not called a movement, it's called choosing what's best for your needs, and it happens in the marketplace all the time. So don't mock the concept... because you probably consider what's best for your needs as well, whether you're buying cameras or computers or TVs or cars or any other consumer product...

09-04-2019, 09:51 AM - 1 Like	#20
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,105	Several comments that may repeat what's already been said, perhaps better (I have not read through all of the preceding posts on this thread): 1) there is a grain of truth in the tired old advice: "all things in moderation." 2) last visit to have my eyes checked I was warned about possible visual problems caused by long-term staring at a computer monitor/screen because of the large amount of short wavelength light. As I need OTS magnifiers to see the screen clearly, I purchased a pair that has blue-filtering plastic and keep those right in front of the big monitor (I do spend perhaps 2~3 hours a day staring at it trying to decide whether an image is worth processing, or trying to remember why on earth I pressed the shutter release). 3) BEWARE, it has been conclusively demonstrated by unknown billions of experiments that breathing is ultimately fatal, and so is not breathing, so you cannot win. Enjoy the day, for we are a long time dead. (eat desert first, don't deny yourself things you enjoy, there are no prizes for self-deprivation - - and another thing - - - -)

09-04-2019, 11:22 AM	#21
ThorSanchez Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,806	Originally posted by Rondec There's something to be said for taking photos with an OVF, as long as you aren't taking photos of things like welding, or a solar eclipse with protection. Wouldn't a well-designed EVF be able to reduce the intensity of dangerous light sources like welding, so that you could look straight at it with that EFV and have no negative effects? I think protecting your vision is a legitimate reason to use an EVF over an OVF. Someone could certainly design an EVF with a mode specifically for viewing eclipses, for example.

09-04-2019, 11:32 AM	#22
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by ThorSanchez Wouldn't a well-designed EVF be able to reduce the intensity of dangerous light sources like welding, so that you could look straight at it with that EFV and have no negative effects? I think protecting your vision is a legitimate reason to use an EVF over an OVF. Someone could certainly design an EVF with a mode specifically for viewing eclipses, for example. Probably best be careful. While the EVF might be OK you can seriously damage you sensor taking images of those sorts of things.

09-04-2019, 01:45 PM	#23
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	Originally posted by monochrome I knew there was a reason NHTSA should outlaw the blue High Intensity Discharge LED headlamps on those expensive SUV’s. At night it is impossible to look away from them since they are perfectly at the eye height of any oncoming sedan driver, so not only are they quite blinding and thus a safety hazard, they’re damaging to opposing drivers’ eyesight! There is or used to be a regulation governing the angle headlights had to be set as they are cast onto the road ahead. This was specifically to avoid blinding oncoming drivers from seeing what is in front of them. It seems, however, this is being ignored by manufacturers, if their lobbyists have not succeeded in eliminating this regulation altogether, and not enforced. I've been retired now for numerous years, but while still working I had not seen anything regarding violations of this type. But maybe back then it was not yet a problem.

09-04-2019, 02:47 PM	#24
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	Originally posted by ChristianRock No movement necessary, no... I don't foresee any pitchforks nor torches being gathered over any of this... I thought the same about 5G mobile transmissions until the other day, too, but some people seem to make an identity out of finding things to oppose, especially where it involves a scientific understanding. I do, nonetheless, take your point about influencing purchase decisions. The two outcomes are, after all, just the bookends to a spectrum of reactions in between.

09-05-2019, 02:09 AM	#25
beachgardener Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,842	Originally posted by RobA_Oz about 5G mobile transmissions Originally posted by RobA_Oz especially where it involves a scientific understanding. And if people really do look at the science on this, no way they'd ever have 5G, Say No To 5G.

09-05-2019, 02:38 AM - 2 Likes	#26
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	Originally posted by beachgardener And if people really do look at the science on this, no way they'd ever have 5G, Say No To 5G. There are, as yet, no evidence that exposure to mobile phones, whether that be 2,3, 4 or 5G has any detrimental effect on human health. Except if you text and drive. That will kill you.

09-06-2019, 03:29 AM	#29
beachgardener Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,842	If people want to ignore the risks then so be it, I'll leave it with you.

09-06-2019, 10:01 PM	#30
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	Originally posted by beachgardener If people want to ignore the risks then so be it, I'll leave it with you. Well, I'd be the first to listen if there was some evidence of any risk. After all, I do use my mobile phone a lot. But, several full body MRI and CT scans later, the scans were probably worse for my health than the mobile phone usage. I suspect 5G will be no different to 4G in that regard.