Agreed. This is terrible journalism - no differentiation between e-reader and what is essentially a reading application on a standard backlit tablet. It even goes on to say that non-backlit screens (i.e. Kindle e-readers) are fine and the same as a book.

The new Kindles (Paperwhite, Voyage) are backlit. If that trend spreads to other e-readers it won't just be a tablet problem. I guess this is a good argument to keep the old style Kindles around.

The Paperwhite and Voyage are front-lit, not backlit. They should be fine.

This article on what I assume was the same study http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/e-readers-and-tablets... mentions specifically "iPads, Kindle Fires, and Nook Colors", and also says "A Kindle without a backlight, as you'd expect, only reflected about as much light as a book and had its peak omission in relatively red wavelengths."

Paperwhites are not backlit.

"Paperwhite guides light toward the surface of the display with its built-in front light—unlike back-lit tablets that shine in your eyes—so you can read comfortably without eyestrain."

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Paperwhite-Ereader/dp/B00AWH595...

Illustration: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/26/technology/lig...

Interesting, thanks for the info. The article specifically calls out 'original Kindles' as being ok which led me to believe the Paperwhite could be an issue - however that might have been referencing the Fire.

Except that you can vary the amount of backlight on a paperwhite. Surely that makes a difference?

Complete first half of the article is misleading :( Only when they describe the actual experiment you get the real information:

> They spent five days reading from a paperback and five days from an iPad.