"An incandescent bulb achieves its temperature by emitting light over a smooth curve, with the balance tilted toward yellow and red. A CFL, and to a lesser extent an LED, mimics incandescents using a different mixture of light, with spikes and troughs of power strategically positioned across the spectrum to create a correlatedâ"or averagedâ"color temperature." https://www.popularmechanics.c...
From a purely technical standpoint, resource neutrality is undesirable. The market solution to Net Neutrality is to have more ISP competition. Honestly, I would go back to slow and reliable DSL if AT&T didn't keep raising the price. Someone other provider should be able to come in and offer old school DSL for $20/month. Cable isn't as reliable, but it's faster and cheaper. And, I think they just got around to laying fiber for my neighborhood, but it's probably a single provider.
Nope, my claim is that light is neither novel or unnatural and that there is research and empirical evidence available to build from.
I have also previously in the thread claimed that with a minimal amount of research you should be sceptical about Kruse.
That's called genetic fallacy. Whether Kruse's narrative is correct is less important than the question that is raised of the long term health effects of artificial lighting, particularly in the blue spectrum.
Posting links to other peoples research has not changed my mind about any of my previous claims, in fact it seems to validate at least one of them.
I'm not interested in changing your mind. But, other people may be interested or have raised similar doubts themselves.
The way that that light cycle affects your brain is to use vitamin A inside your eyes to communicate to your brain that it is daytime when the blue light is on, and then it is nighttime when the blue light is gone. https://t.co/yg7kjNsDum
You think I have a misplaced sense of loyalty to... what, blue light? The companies that manufacture devices that emit it?
Or do you think the concept that the burden of proof lies upon the one who accuses someone else of not being innocent constitutes Stockholm syndrome?
No, you're right! Fox News causes cancer. They should prove me wrong if I'm not right.
You're an idiot.
Idiotic is not knowing Appeal to Nature Fallacy applies in the domain of ethics not in the risk domain. How do you know that the artificial light spectrum is safe?
Backing down to a claim of the novelty and unnaturalness of "light", as if there was no research or empirical evidence to build from is not really a convincing proposition.
"The burden of proof of safety are on those introducing the novelty."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
The burden of proof is is on Jack Kruse who is making these claims. If he'd proven his claim then there would be a burden on the manufacturer to prove their product is safe.
"When unsure, defaulting to Nature may be the safer bet."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
Nature is a set of random outcomes. Being natural confers no tendency to be better, safer, or to have better outcomes. Also, humans are natural and the electrical properties exploited to produce LED lighting is also natural.
Good grief... Appeal to Nature fallacy applies in the domain of ethics, not in the domain of risk.
The most natural light would be sunlight, which burns you and damages your DNA, causing aging and cancer.
Burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim. If "LED are deadly" then we should see that in health outcomes n countries starting when LED bulbs became popular there. If we don't see that, then you are likely a fool.
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence... the extraordinary claim is that artificial blue light is not harmful... prove it, because we have evolved without it.
A minimal amount of research should make you highly suspicious of any claims made by dr jack https://jackkruse.com/store/
The burden of proof of safety are on those introducing the novelty. When unsure, defaulting to Nature may be the safer bet. Kruse's narrative does not need to be correct for people to take precaution. http://fooledbyrandomness.com/...
I certainly advocate for each person to figure out how to use less energy. But, also, in this context, artificial blue light from LEDs may have adverse long term health effects. Their safety has not been proven.
PlanetVision has myopia. The net result is there is no energy savings and we are causing massive circadian sickness because of the new additional man made blue light. LED are deadly because of the biology of the retina. The reality is due to melanopsin, neuropsin, Vit A biology https://t.co/g7VAGuzUhv
PlanetVision has myopia. The net result is there is no energy savings and we are causing massive circadian sickness because of the new additional man made blue light. LED are deadly because of the biology of the retina. The reality is due to melanopsin, neuropsin, Vit A biology https://t.co/g7VAGuzUhv
Your HVAC is the big energy consumer in your house.
PlanetVision has myopia. The net result is there is no energy savings and we are causing massive circadian sickness because of the new additional man made blue light. LED are deadly because of the biology of the retina. The reality is due to melanopsin, neuropsin, Vit A biology https://t.co/g7VAGuzUhv
Hey so over on fb im bombarded with "Turn off your lights for an hour" for "Earth Hour."
lights on for an hour is not the problem. We have to rebuild a world which works normally at a lower-energy level, rather than do these little time-wasting games.
We can always try consuming less... try reducing trash to the same amount over 2 weeks rather than 1 week... reduce energy consumption below the average usage...
I sort of laugh at the savings of $30 when I look at my electric bill being $38. I could lower that by using less electricity, a single monitor instead of two. Certainly using my own solar system I could save up to $38. I live in Portland, OR, so it's pretty mild year round. In a green certified building I don't use A/C in the Summer, a window fan is enough, and occasionally need to open the window in the Winter as it gets too warm. We've been here for two winters and have never turned on the heater.
Good thing California doesn't use annual agriculture then....the alfalfa grows all year round.
"...reservoirs, designed to store water during exceptionally wet years, were considered all but useless... never built... 2016 & 2017 California received record snow & rainfall... windfall of millions of acre-ft of runoff was mostly let out to sea." http://bit.ly/2HnjQTR
Mark Shepard on Restoration Agriculture - "Annual agriculture is all about living through our concepts... our idea we've imposed on reality & when reality doesn't behave according to our idea, what do we do? We input... we can never input enough to make our false concept correct." http://bit.ly/1GnbtAA
Slashdot Mirror
"An incandescent bulb achieves its temperature by emitting light over a smooth curve, with the balance tilted toward yellow and red. A CFL, and to a lesser extent an LED, mimics incandescents using a different mixture of light, with spikes and troughs of power strategically positioned across the spectrum to create a correlatedâ"or averagedâ"color temperature." https://www.popularmechanics.c...
For night time use, look for bulbs that have reduced blue. For daytime, look for bulbs that mimic the color spectrum of the Sun.
From a purely technical standpoint, resource neutrality is undesirable. The market solution to Net Neutrality is to have more ISP competition. Honestly, I would go back to slow and reliable DSL if AT&T didn't keep raising the price. Someone other provider should be able to come in and offer old school DSL for $20/month. Cable isn't as reliable, but it's faster and cheaper. And, I think they just got around to laying fiber for my neighborhood, but it's probably a single provider.
Nope, my claim is that light is neither novel or unnatural and that there is research and empirical evidence available to build from. I have also previously in the thread claimed that with a minimal amount of research you should be sceptical about Kruse.
That's called genetic fallacy. Whether Kruse's narrative is correct is less important than the question that is raised of the long term health effects of artificial lighting, particularly in the blue spectrum.
Posting links to other peoples research has not changed my mind about any of my previous claims, in fact it seems to validate at least one of them.
I'm not interested in changing your mind. But, other people may be interested or have raised similar doubts themselves.
You think I have a misplaced sense of loyalty to... what, blue light? The companies that manufacture devices that emit it? Or do you think the concept that the burden of proof lies upon the one who accuses someone else of not being innocent constitutes Stockholm syndrome? No, you're right! Fox News causes cancer. They should prove me wrong if I'm not right. You're an idiot.
Not sure what Fox News has to do with this... but I guess you're easily confused... maybe caused by blue light toxicity? Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negativelyaffects sleep, circadian timing, andnext-morning alertness
Idiotic is not knowing Appeal to Nature Fallacy applies in the domain of ethics not in the risk domain. How do you know that the artificial light spectrum is safe?
Backing down to a claim of the novelty and unnaturalness of "light", as if there was no research or empirical evidence to build from is not really a convincing proposition.
The frequency spectrum of light is unimportant? That's quite a claim to have to prove. Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negativelyaffects sleep, circadian timing, andnext-morning alertness
Ah, yes. You're right. The burden of proof isn't on the accuser. Wait... dumbshit.
Stockholm syndrome, much?
"The burden of proof of safety are on those introducing the novelty."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
The burden of proof is is on Jack Kruse who is making these claims. If he'd proven his claim then there would be a burden on the manufacturer to prove their product is safe.
The manufacturer is implicitly claiming that artificial blue light is safe... Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negativelyaffects sleep, circadian timing, andnext-morning alertness
"When unsure, defaulting to Nature may be the safer bet."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
Nature is a set of random outcomes. Being natural confers no tendency to be better, safer, or to have better outcomes. Also, humans are natural and the electrical properties exploited to produce LED lighting is also natural.
Good grief... Appeal to Nature fallacy applies in the domain of ethics, not in the domain of risk.
The most natural light would be sunlight, which burns you and damages your DNA, causing aging and cancer.
Which part of your statement is the observation and which part is your false concept? You can google vitamin D & cancer.
Burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim. If "LED are deadly" then we should see that in health outcomes n countries starting when LED bulbs became popular there. If we don't see that, then you are likely a fool.
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence... the extraordinary claim is that artificial blue light is not harmful... prove it, because we have evolved without it.
A minimal amount of research should make you highly suspicious of any claims made by dr jack https://jackkruse.com/store/
The burden of proof of safety are on those introducing the novelty. When unsure, defaulting to Nature may be the safer bet. Kruse's narrative does not need to be correct for people to take precaution. http://fooledbyrandomness.com/...
Set your thermostat up by 3-5 degrees in the summer and down 3-5 degrees in the winter, and I bet you save more than $15/month.
"All the problems to be found in an orchard are caused by our concept of an orchard." Observation vs Concept http://bit.ly/1lM3PFS
"historic, widespread flooding" through May,
Which part of that statement is the concept and which part is the observation? Observation vs Concept http://bit.ly/1lM3PFS
We can always try consuming less... try reducing trash to the same amount over 2 weeks rather than 1 week... reduce energy consumption below the average usage...
Better start rebuilding our soil...
I sort of laugh at the savings of $30 when I look at my electric bill being $38. I could lower that by using less electricity, a single monitor instead of two. Certainly using my own solar system I could save up to $38. I live in Portland, OR, so it's pretty mild year round. In a green certified building I don't use A/C in the Summer, a window fan is enough, and occasionally need to open the window in the Winter as it gets too warm. We've been here for two winters and have never turned on the heater.
Compressed Earth Blocks: Why and How, Here and There... Warm in winter, cool in summer... https://youtu.be/IuQB3x4ZNeA?t...
Good thing California doesn't use annual agriculture then....the alfalfa grows all year round.
"...reservoirs, designed to store water during exceptionally wet years, were considered all but useless... never built... 2016 & 2017 California received record snow & rainfall... windfall of millions of acre-ft of runoff was mostly let out to sea." http://bit.ly/2HnjQTR
is to use less energy... Nicole Foss on renewables @AutomaticEarth http://bit.ly/2rzS5Pq
Mark Shepard on Restoration Agriculture - "Annual agriculture is all about living through our concepts... our idea we've imposed on reality & when reality doesn't behave according to our idea, what do we do? We input... we can never input enough to make our false concept correct." http://bit.ly/1GnbtAA