This makes me think of Bulletproof Executive's self-improvement blog. He was always talking about mitochondria and hacking cells with certain light wave-lengths and lasers. I thought it was very far-fetched at the time... but maybe he was onto something.<p>Related links: <a href="https://www.bulletproof.com/sleep/sleep-hacks/light-hacking-for-better-energy-mood-and-performance/" rel="nofollow">https://www.bulletproof.com/sleep/sleep-hacks/light-hacking-...</a><p>He talks about the red light idea there and the crazy laser idea I'm remembering I think was "low-level light therapy." Appears to be based on science: <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355185/pdf/nihms-646190.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355185/pdf/nih...</a>
Questions:<p>(a) Does this study sound plausible?<p>(b) Would staring at the correct red color on a monitor work? Or would that not work since monitor colors are generated by mixing R, G, and B pixels and therefore not a pure wavelength?<p>(c) Would it be reasonable methodology to test one eye to see if it improves over the other eye?
This seems dubious. What in world would be the mechanism?<p>On the other hand, I don't see the harm in doing this and it seems easy to replicate. Hopefully others will quickly try to replicate it, and if they do, try to figure out why.
I have Phillips Hue and turn them 100% red at night as we're going to bed, sometimes for a few hours, no idea if it's helping my eyesight though. Been doing it for a few years.
If this is real it's a huge deal.<p>But unless they did a pre study release this is P hacked to death.<p>24 people, then narrowed to only over 40, 20% difference in some frequencies.<p>If science worked we'd immediately re-test this. The cost savings per year could be enormous if it's true.
I wonder if our eyes need campfires when we are older, just like they need bright sunlight when children in order to properly develop and function. (Myopia is caused by insufficient bright light as a child.)<p>Campfires have a LOT of deep red light.
There are whole companies dedicated to selling this, Google red light therapy and you'll find a few. Novothor is the gold standard for athletes at $100k/pop. I myself jerry-rigged my own comparable unit and bath in it everyday- I haven't noticed eyesight benefits but I'm convinced I feel healthier and stronger as a result.
I have my doubts about results of study with only 24 participants aged 28-72 years where they say SOME people over 40 have seen improvements, why don't tell how many of these SOME people were over 40? We will end up with what, 5-10 people who saw some improvement? That's anecdotic evidence.
Similar software with different usage models can be extremely useful and support mentoring and staff development.<p>I’ve been using tools like manictime and more recently the open source activitywatch to help junior staff learn how to manage their own activities.<p>I also use a paper based system similar to the emergent time tracker[3] for the same purpose.<p>The key difference in approach is these are tools are for the individual to use to record their own activities, either to later record in other tools like JIRA or simply to remember and review their work.<p>Time tracking and activity logging is really important for some businesses, but having a sensible approach from senior management is critical to avoid them becoming self defeating. When I ask my colleagues to log their time I set and expection that useful accuracy of more than 60% is unachievable.<p>Whenever a senior manager suggests that developers need to log more time in JIRA I tell them they are focused on the wrong data points and will end up with every developer logging a flat 8 hours a day - probably with an automated script. Maybe useful for billing but nothing else.<p><a href="https://www.manictime.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.manictime.com/</a><p><a href="https://github.com/ActivityWatch/activitywatch" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/ActivityWatch/activitywatch</a><p>[3] <a href="https://davidseah.com/node/the-emergent-task-timer/" rel="nofollow">https://davidseah.com/node/the-emergent-task-timer/</a>
A quick google search shows that 670nm lights are quite commonly made and easy to obtain, amazon has a plethora of them (although 660nm is considerably more common).
Do you stare deeply at a red light OR do you stare at a light that is the color deep red? If traffic lights count, I should be able to see through walls by now!
Finally I found a medical reason to get myself an IBM 3290 terminal.<p><a href="https://scontent-dub4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/49342347_1160564850772588_8668337665210318848_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=12DB8kQzOgMAX_UOs15&_nc_ht=scontent-dub4-1.xx&oh=e300c82a32814de9b31e9514490cf8be&oe=5F1F4AD6" rel="nofollow">https://scontent-dub4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/49342347_11605...</a>
How about wearing laser goggles that block out, for instance, 200..550nm and 800..1000nm? Wouldn't that be like looking into a deep red light source?
What's the wavelength of the red you see when facing the sun with your eyes closed? I remember seeing some claim a few years ago (can't find it right now) that doing that every day would improve eyesight.
"Our devices cost about £12 to make, so the technology is highly accessible to members of the public."<p>Can anybody tell me where to find a reasonably precise 670nm torch at that price point?
My eyesight has been getting worse since I was addicted to reading Agatha Christine at age 14-16. After 14 years the decline has not stopped, this is definitely worth a shot.
Mechanism is by reducing the blue light hazard right? This is the same thing as why red light is used is the astronomy community to preserve night vision.
I'm not sure why the comments here seem so dismissive. The mechanism that eyes need red light for regenerative processes is known for a long time I think. I remember a friend working in optics telling me about that a decade ago. Eyes are adapted for sunlight, which is more than plausible.<p>It's just not popular because it implies that screen use is bad and those unpopular scientific topics are often pushed under the rug.