LED lights and retinal damage

>>52627396
>http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/22749/led-lighting-damages-eyes-says-spanish-investigator
Yeah and vaccines cause autism says British researcher.
You're all up-to-date I see.

>>52627422
Well, do you have any evidence to refute those claims? or are you just shitposting?

>>52627396

>>Her investigation into eye damage caused by LED was financed by the MAPFRE Foundation, the charitable arm of the Spanish insurance giant MAPFRE.

What is their agenda?

>>52627910
Vampire agenda

>>52627464
Nah, that's not how it works. Your claims, you back them up. One study is statistical noise, not proof.

>>52627396
>artificial light can be damaging to human eyes
>B-but only LEDs!

It all makes sense

>>52627926
Nononono.
If I was sure about the study I wouldn't have come here for answers now would I? You on the other hand appear quite certain that you're right. Thus it stands for reason you must either have some kind of proof against the study or you're just shitposting.

>>52627464
When compared to population inflation (hue) autism didn't increase.

>LED rays
kek
>She also says using good sunglasses with UV filter rays ... will protect the eyes.
and you guys were laughing at dudebros wearing shades inside. they are just trying to protect their eyes from led-rays!

File: 1305722718277.jpg (112KB, 550x733px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 550x733px

>>52628005
>burden of proof is shitposting

Ok kid.

>>52627396
>http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307294/
>Because illuminance levels of LED domestic light sources may induce retinal degeneration in experimental albino rats, the exact risks for the pigmented human retina require further investigation.
>may induce
>albino rats

OP, unless you are an albino rat or an investigator in this study trolling the taxpayer for study grants, I'd say there is little here to be concerned about.

Also,
>shitpost
>j'accuse le shitpost

3/10, up your game.

>>52627464
this is your logic

Right now i am a reptilian alien posting from a thick cloud layer over spokane washington in an invisible aircraft.

What i have no proof?

you don't have evidence to refute what i'm claiming so it is true and you're just shitposting!

I've been staring at some form of a screen for hours every day for the last twenty years, who cares. The upside to this is that since it affects almost everyone on the planet, robotic eyes and shit will be readily available when we're all in our 50s and blind as bats from using technology all day.

>>52627396
staring at any light long enough will damage your eyes

>Energy saving 'green' LEDs only
>funded by an insurance company
>no control group
>one female researcher

this study is bullshit purely from the fact she has no control group

File: ResearchInMedia.png (289KB, 540x1498px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 540x1498px

>>52627396
extrapolate yourself

File: 6R7ztCU.jpg (41KB, 460x308px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 460x308px

>>52627396
>Chronic exposure to high-intensity light (2,000–10,000 lux) has previously been found to result in light-induced retinal injury
>2,000–10,000 lux
Pic related. Researchers might as well have pocketed the grant and said "No shit, Sherlock."
>entire study revolves around the assumption that the diodes you're using have a high blue factor
What is filters? What is colour temperatures?