Chronic blue light leads to accelerated aging in Drosophila | Hacker News Reader

Chronic blue light leads to accelerated aging in Drosophila

frontiersin.org

48 pointsdonutshop13 comments

Open articleView on HN

(in flies)

Does this finding really translate to anything relevant for the human genome? I'm getting that vaporware sense..

"Blue light is bad for your sleep"

"Nah, turns out it doesn't matter, actually"

"No, now we're certain it's really bad, actually!"

...

Use something like flux and you'll immediately see an improvement in ability to sleep after sitting in front of a computer.

Personally I can't sleep at all if I'm looking at blue light. I didn't need a study to tell me to justify the change.

Precisely the kind of trendy claims I'm talking about.

Not denying your reality, whether it's placebo effect or real, who cares. As long as you get a benefit, that's all that matters.

Blue light seems to have no effect on me one way or the other, personally.

The placebo effect works for psychosomatic conditions.

I used it for a month but didn't notice anything except that my beautiful laptop screen turning ugly for a part of the day.

I've been using flux/redshift for a decade but I'm honestly not sure if I've noticed a difference in sleep quality on the occasional days when I've had it turned off.

I have a few friends with high prescriptions and they report flux like tools at the least seem to reduce strain on their eyes and rehear eyes aren’t as tired at the end of the day.

Of course this might exist for some folks more than others similar to how ergonomic keyboards can appear help some more than others, while others aren’t affected by it at all.

This is literally the type of confirmation bias people use to justify taking supplements that have no plausible mechanism of working. Congratulations.

Flux does help.

For those that are really sensitive; nothing beats fl-41 Glasses. Used to have a massive migraine hit in 10 minutes exposure to fluorescent light. Axon cover rx would push that to about 4 hours.

Amazing stuff.

I agree but can also see how such a finding may be difficult to demonstrate

> Experimental adult males were maintained in constant darkness (DD) or constant blue light (BL) with a peak emission of 460 nm produced by the MarsAqua Dimmable 165W LED Light with a photon flux density of 20–30 μmol/m2/sec (irradiance of ∼0.4 mW/cm2) measured at the level of horizontally placed narrow vials (Genesee Scientific), each containing 25 flies as previously described (Nash et al., 2019).

0.4 mW/cm^2 is 4 W/m^2.

If I understand the unit correctly, this is equivalent to sitting 50 cm away from a light source emitting ~12 Watt of blue light (50 cm radius results in a sphere of 3.14 square meters, 12 W / 3 m^2 = 4 W/m^2). Assuming a 40% efficiency, that would be a LED lamp rated at 20 W, and emitting only blue light.

>We compared metabolomic profiles in flies kept for 10 or 14 days in constant BL or constant darkness

The results cannot be separated from flies simply exposed to any sort of light.

Further to that, the flies used have no eyes which should be considered before attempting to apply these results to humans.

This makes me think that even though Michael Mann is only 79 years old, he probably has the telomeres of a centenarian.

https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdf/10.3366/film.2015.0003

Reply on news.ycombinator.com