"Bluelight" (High K rated "daylight" LED or Flourescent) not good for mitochondr

****Interesting? Please read full post, I answered my own question******

Dave Asprey on mitochondria and light environment:

fitfluential.com/2016/12/circadian-wellness-health-how-to-biohack-your-mitochondria-via-light-nutrition-and-lifestyle-choices-with-dave-asprey-part-1/

This light color part is about 1/2 to 3/4 into the 25 min talk above. DS says only use incandescent (they will be obsolete per US energy use law), or halogen, or red florescent. I'm thinking his talk here is a little dated, as he does not mention Kelvin rating. Kelvin range options for LED's were rare a few years ago. Watt or watt similarity has nothing to do with color warmth-heat spectrum, thus no effect on sleep.

Those florescent and LED bulbs in your house with a mid or high kelvin rating (daylight or cool color), and the bright blue car lights in your eyes are bad for your sleep. And if it says "daylight", is that the same as full spectrum? Successful marketing fools everyone with word games. At this point, the higher the Kelvin rating 3500- 5500, the closer it is so sunlight/daylight and might not be good to use at night. The lower Kelvin ratings 2500-3500 used at night will still allow your body to make melatonin.

**All this led me to wonder about these seasonal SAD light boxes - I cant find what specific bulbs they use, I e-mailed one place to find out (waiting).**

People living south of a line from LA to Atlanta, (anywhere closer to the equator) prob have enough light even in winter, its less hours but more direct in the sky than up north. Up north in Dec, Nov, Jan, winter, if the sun is out, its way low on the horizon, very far away. Alaskans, your screwed, no sun one month?!

More on the color spectrum (but its old site here): [url]http://www.sean-crist.com/personal/pages/sad/[url]

Post Edited (astroman) : 12/27/2016 9:19:05 AM (GMT-7)

The more I look into this, the more CONTRADICTING it is.

The industry is wrong, or Dave Asprey did not explain it very clear...........or is wrong himself.

SAD light industry say bluelight is not bad, Asprey says it is bad.

What I'm starting to thing is bluelight is OK in the morning, but bad at night. If your subject to bluelight at night , at home ect, melatonine will be lowered and less sleep for you.

But no blue light in the AM will create melatonine manufacturing = sleepy in the daytime

?????????????????????????

I worked in a "cube farm" once (and hated it). Several people had filters over the florescent light fixtures above them, I never asked what/why.

Post Edited (astroman) : 12/26/2016 3:08:23 PM (GMT-7)

If someone wanted to use SAD lights in the AM, who has time for that before work? Like I'm going to sit in front of a light for 1-2 hours eating a long leasurly breakfast before work. NO TIME.

A better solution: The ear canal will reflect blue light into the brain. They do this now at 12 min intravels with bluelight earbuds. Can do this while driving to work! Cool!:

/www.humancharger.com/how-it-works/ $219

Trouble sleeping? Your tech stuff should have bluelight filters on it useing these at night, tablets, phone, PC ect....TV?

Post Edited (astroman) : 12/26/2016 4:03:29 PM (GMT-7)

I didn't know that! 8 until 11 is only 3 hours. I figured with as much hard work as they had to do during the day, they would sleep right through. Most got up before dawn anyway.

My problem with the bright lights is they just hurt!

I also have to limit sun exposure because I tend to get what I call "sun sickness". I always thought that was due to ozone gaps in our atmosphere.

I read your link! Honestly I do believe many of us still have that earlier pattern in us. Even though my sleep ours are a bit skewed, I often sleep in two stages, the second of which is much deeper, and when I dream, so that's in agreement that our rem sleep generally occurs shortly before waking in the morning.

Although that also varies, especially with folks that work shift work.


Interesting about the sex thing in between. You would think that maybe our population explosion would have slowed down since the end of the 18th century. I guess that's mathematically impossible though.