SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
More than one-third of 15-year-old children in the UK could be classified as 'extreme internet users', or those who are online for more than six hours daily outside of school.
A report from UK think-tank Education Policy Institute (EPI) states that children in the UK have a higher rate of extreme usage (37.8 percent of all UK 15 year olds) than other countries. Only Chile reported more.
The think-tank examined the relation between social media use (including online time) and mental illness:
While twelve percent of children who spend no time on social networking websites on a normal school day have symptoms of mental ill health, that figure rises to 27 percent for those who are on the sites for three or more hours a day.
Here's a hint: if one third of your kids think a certain way, it's a personality trait not a mental illness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @03:33AM (3 children)
Studies I heard about suggest too much light while sleeping (1) and not enough while awake (2) affect the eye development. "Distance" seems to be a factor (and "famous" in the past, even the main "culprit" until recently) but light intensity ones are the new discoveries and seem to explain a lot better the problems when all are taken into acount.
http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120 [nature.com] talks about the low vs bright light. Sun is great, or artificial 10000 lux for experiment; check any lightbulb, you probably need 5-10 or more LED/tube (and way more if incandescent) to reach that, even if one looks bright to you by night.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115762/ [nih.gov] (stupid) night lights.
1: turn off those damn night lamps!
2: Sun is good, artificial lamps are, most of the time, not enough... because people don't understand lux & lumen, and eyes "adapt" so all looks "fine".
Soooo... no, being shortsighted is not normal for humans, but a fuck up of modern civilization. And one that could be avoided without leaving other advantages of civilization. What is more, LEDs and tubes are way better than incandescent, 100-200W is strong light now and before it was just a "face warmer" (required 500-1000W would be "oven").
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 06 2017, @04:21AM (2 children)
LED lighting may actually be pretty bad [mercola.com] and their spectrum is for sure fucked up [mercola.com].
(tip: Use esc with that site..)
So while LED and fluorescent are fine to put light in areas you only use intermittently. They might be bad news for any areas used during prolonged periods, like reading books. Heating an object until it emits visible light just like the true original light source have serious benefits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @04:57AM (1 child)
LEDs are digital and incandescents are analog? The importance of finding an infrared sauna that doesn't emit "dangerous non-native EMFs"? Is this some sort of joke?
You can't seriously expect us to heed such quackery.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 06 2017, @07:27AM
I didn't read that report. But the main point is that white-LED and definitely fluorescent lighting has a very fragmented spectrum that looks alright for human eyes. That is probably a bad idea to be exposed to for a long duration as the main light source.