Health, the big forget about construction and renovation especially durable

[izentrop]

Hello,
Just by looking at the curves from the spectrograph we can see a big difference in irregularity. The most regular is halogen, incandescent improved, but the compact fluorescent lamp is worse, with a peak at 435 nm and one at 490 nm, while leds it is 450 nm, ditto for led lighting screens.

On the other hand, the glasses manufacturers offer filtering glasses (new juicy market). If he had a real efficiency, he could apply it directly to the glass of bulbs ??

I give the link of the file of "digital"

Bulb measurements at 2 700 K
We absolutely wanted to check the amount of light in home lighting that is more 2 700 K than 6 500 K. Again, appearances are misleading. We observe that the quantity of blue light between 415 and 465 nm is significantly greater with halogen than with LEDs and compact fluorescent. Indeed, the values ​​harvested are surprising: if the leds diffuse 7,3% and 6,4% of blue light, the fluocompact it, emits 7,9%. This is played, of course, in a handkerchief, but it is interesting to specify it. Finally, the halogen gets better, with 3,4% blue light sent proportionally over the entire spectrum.

Contradictory, it would have been necessary to compare with equivalent lighting in lumens.
I checked: led 8.5 W = 806 lm fluo 12 W = 741 lm, halogen 28 w 290 lm

[BaudouinLabrique]

On the other hand, the glasses manufacturers offer filtering glasses (new juicy market). If he had a real efficiency, he could apply it directly to the glass of bulbs ??

On the one hand, thank you for relaying this study.
Still, everyone can realize that watching the LED headlights that cross us is painful for the eyes, as well as for example, it is very tiring for them (or even triggering migraines) to use his tablet a while. Among other evidence that the eye does not like at all this LED light (°) and that it causes a stress that prolonged and frequent (like any stress of this nature) will inevitably cause somatization and ultimately diseases, that you Want it or not! Hello the next health scandal (in a few years), given the number of people greatly increased who will have to consult the ophthalmologists and then the surgeons to (try to) repair the macula etc ....
Sir Bernard Shaw said very pertinently:
« Smart people adapt to nature, imb ... seek to adapt nature ...
That's why what is called progress is the work of the imb ... »

On the other hand, the glasses in question (I have one that I do not use and for good reason: see after): apparently you have never seen because they are very orange tint; As a result, all colors are distorted and it is very unpleasant to wear so. Imagine that such modified bulbs that would diffuse an orange light (only possible place, some bars, if you see what I mean )

[izentrop]

they are very orange in color; As a result, all colors are distorted and it is very unpleasant to wear so. Imagine that such modified bulbs that would diffuse an orange light (only possible place, some bars, if you see what I mean )

You have to know what you want and the filter should be calculated to reduce the 450 nm for example. I suppose that will be solved in the future, at the cost of a loss of yield probably, but not necessarily with a denaturation of the colors.

Philips have released the Hue https://www.philips.fr/c-p/871829124175 ... nectee-hue A gadget for the most fortunate.
Otherwise, you buy RGB bulbs and you must be able to do pretty much the same thing.

Among other evidence that the eye does not like at all this LED light (°) and that it causes a stress that prolonged and frequent (like any stress of this nature) will inevitably cause somatization and ultimately diseases, that you Want it or not!

As an argument of authority, the same symptoms would probably be observed with another type of lighting of the same luminous power.

[BaudouinLabrique]

] Among other proofs that the eye does not like at all this LED light (°) and that it causes a prolonged and frequent stress (like any stress of this nature) will inevitably cause somatisations and ultimately diseases, that you want it or not!

As an argument of authority, the same symptoms would probably be observed with another type of lighting of the same luminous power.

This is not an argument of authority because everyone can realize it :
1 ° I gathered testimonials from several people who regularly read under traditional lighting and who have switched to a tablet
2 ° on the road we automatically compare cars with non-LED headlights to cars with LED headlights.

NB This isempirical observations and have nothing to do with an argument of authority!

[izentrop]

In the middle of the 90 years, many people, some in the police force, claimed that Satanists kidnapped and abused children on a large scale. The anecdotes involved vivid descriptions of the horrific sexual abuse, and even the murder of an innocent child. The anecdotes were rather convincing, especially when they were broadcast in programs broadcast on national television with popular presenters such as Geraldo Rivera.

In the early 90 years, a study spanning 4 years revealed that the allegations of ritualized and satanic sexual abuse were unfounded. The researchers investigated more than 12.000 charges and interviewed more than 11.000 psychiatrists, social service employees and police departments. The researchers could not find any unequivocal proof for a single case of satanic ritual. https://associationslibres.wordpress.co ... moignages/

In other words: personal experiences, if they are not framed by a strict scientific protocol have no value of evidence.

[BaudouinLabrique]

[In other words: personal experiences, if they are not framed by a scientific protocol, have no evidentiary value.

You develop a point of view (hackneyed) SCIENTIST and that I would accept:

See " Scientism is a belief that consists of putting back on science the main attributes of religion. »
Indeed, a scientist (or even a zetetician) takes for real, as admissible, only what has been strictly scientifically proven, which is obviously a dogmatic posture and thus remembers what is the foundation of religion.

Here is reflections of the late Professor Paul Feyerabend (Philosophy of Science, University of Berkeley):
"Science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is willing to admit. This is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by humans, but not necessarily the best (...) "
" Science is the newest, most aggressive and most dogmatic of religious institutions."

NB 1 "science is a "believer" and not a "knowledge" ""
"This apparently provocative assertion is one of the conclusions, pronounced by a man of science. "" His conclusions must therefore always be put into perspective. And if there are several logics, then “the truth” can no longer be “unique”. It is a kind of invitation to modesty that is thus offered to scientists. To scientists, but also to all those, individuals, institutions, various collectives (foremost among them journalists ...), who claim to communicate a "knowledge" or a "thought" "" (Source)

NB 2."We often define empiricism by opposing it to rationalism or idealism, but we must qualify, because the opposition is not simply between supporters of reason and supporters of experience, since empiricists do not deny not that reason can play a role in the process of knowledge . "(] Wikipedia)
and therefore don't think that I refuse science even though "Science proves only in the present moment, which may be false in the future. "(Isabelle Burnier)

NB3. Finally, thank you for reading the following and which has the merit of inciting the fervent believers in the all-powerful Science (in its rationalist and materialist part): "[I]Why Most Findings of Published Scientific Research Are False[/ i] "(on Plos medicine")

Do not speak to me (yet) of authority arguments, because the above is based on objective observations!

[izentrop]

The problem in the case of health is not knowing how to differentiate between normal use and excessive use. The pathology appears when
the dose becomes poison. It's simple as a principle, but you and Janic do not seem to understand it.

For alcohol for example, the dangerous dose is quickly reached and yet some make an immoderate use.

Even if we find it more pleasant to put the light of its screen thoroughly, 1 / 4 of hour it goes ... 5 hours, hello the damage, especially if one looks closely (the inverse squares law, you know )

[BaudouinLabrique]

The problem in the case of health is not knowing how to differentiate between normal use and excessive use. The pathology appears when the dose becomes poison. It's simple as a principle, but you and Janic do not seem to understand it.
For alcohol for example, the dangerous dose is quickly reached and yet some make an immoderate use.
Even if we find it more pleasant to put the light of its screen thoroughly, 1 / 4 of hour it goes ... 5 hours, hello the damage, especially if one looks closely (the inverse squares law, you know )

This is not entirely accurate: a repeated but not necessarily intensive use weakens organs and organic functions, which will then cause diseases, at least make them emerge much faster!

[izentrop]

This is not entirely accurate: a repeated but not necessarily intensive use weakens organs and organic functions, which will then cause diseases, at least make them emerge much faster!

For example ?

[BaudouinLabrique]

This is not entirely accurate: a repeated but not necessarily intensive use weakens organs and organic functions, which will then cause diseases, at least make them emerge much faster!

For example ?

You would not ask the question if you had read the link about Professor Henri Laborit and especially if you had viewed the film!
What's the point of disconnecting?