News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:LEDs may cause retinal toxicity at occupational domestic ... by schoen on Thursday January 05, 2017 @04:22PM (#13331522)
> If LEDs are really a vision risk to the modern office worker, they're significantly less so than the same risk of agricultural or other outdoor workers.

Those outdoor workers probably ought to be wearing UV-blocking sunglasses regularly to avoid increasing their chance of cataracts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract#Radiation

My optometrist was quite emphatic about this because she said the damage is thought to be cumulative, so if you're going to have a lifelong outdoor career or avocation, the difference could be significant.

Re:LEDs may cause retinal toxicity at occupational domestic ... by ajross on Thursday January 05, 2017 @05:08PM (#13331885)
Oh, agreed. I'm just saying that the "LED risk" being discussed is at worst of an order already seen by large existing workforces. So we office workers are at worst at a risk comparable to our farmer relatives. We should investigate and take what precautions are reasonable, but broadly: we can deal.
Re:LEDs may cause retinal toxicity at occupational domestic ... by schoen on Thursday January 05, 2017 @05:14PM (#13331936)
That makes sense; thanks for clarifying.

I do think the theory elsewhere in this thread about the different spectral distribution could be significant. This is why apparently non-UV blocking sunglasses can make UV damage worse: the pupils open wider when visible light is blocked and so let even more UV in. If you just skew the spectrum of some light source toward the UV without increasing the overall luminous intensity, presumably it could cause some health risks in a similar way.

Re:LEDs may cause retinal toxicity at occupational domestic ... by Brakenshire on Friday January 06, 2017 @05:39AM (#13335339)
Most decent household LEDs don't have significantly different spectra. Certainly nothing like what you see with CFL.