Hi Robert,
I hope you are still on this forum as I have a follow-up to the above, and would really appreciate your input. Sorry this is a bit long-winded, but I wanted to spell everything out, so that you can provide focused comments. (I know that you are a doctor, but I spell out the terms below for other readers who may not be familiar with the terminology). Thanks in advance for your feedback!
Since my last post, I have updated my prescription (it was screwed up as I suspected). I currently wear my new prescription glasses that have Essilor’s Crizal Prevencia (blue light blocking) lenses. The glasses are right on the prescription, but have noticeable chromatic aberration. When I look at really light objects, there is a yellow border on one edge, and an indigo one on the opposite edge. Sometimes, I also see an indigo border going all the way around around black computer keys. I also have a problem on really bright days when I am around areas that have a lot of snow on the ground and it is really bright out. My optician says that this is «normal» and «happens» with blue blocking lenses. She also says that this is nothing to worry about. My question is twofold:
1) Is there any evidence that this type and amount of chromatic aberration bad for one's vision? It is rather annoying, or at least unusual as I've never had it with any of my previous lenses (same prescription strength), but is there any evidence that it's actually harmful longterm?
2) I have been trying to review the literature on blue blocking light lenses. The kind that Essilor makes reflects a specific range of blue light. The lenses themselves are clear and not yellow as some of the earlier lenses on the market, but you do see a purple light reflection when you hold up the lenses to light.
The only scientific litearture I have been able to find on the harm of blue light is from Essilor itself. The main piece of evidence as far as I can tell, is a study done by Essilor scientists in conjunction with the Paris Vision Institute who cultured pig retinal pigment epithelial cells and exposed them to the specific range of blue light that is emitted from modern LED-carrying technologies (415-455nm). They found that when they exposed cells to wavelengths between 415-455nm there was a higher rate of apoptosis (programmed cell death) compared to untreated control cells. These cells also accumulated A2E, a fluorophore (fluorescent pigment) that accumulates along with lipofuscin, a complex of proteins and lipids that is basically the cells dumping ground for molecules that have outserved their usefulness, but have not been recycled or cleared by the cell.
Now, as far as I can tell this is the ONLY piece of evidence for claiming that blue light in the range of 415-455nm is harmful to the eye and may lead to macular degeneration over time (besides some other older studies that have also used cell experiments that used similar types of cells). This to me seems far from conclusive, and I am just surprised that an ENTIRE industry basically sprung up around this single piece/type of evidence!
Are you aware of any other studies which show that blue light in the 415-455nm range is harmful in the long-term? Perhaps in animal models? What are your thoughts on the matter?