dabateman Posted June 14, 2022 Share Posted June 14, 2022 Reed got me interested in looking at these studies. This study looked at a larger near age matched population of 19 years olds +/- 1.3 years: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199940 Males can see 315nm better than females. Pigmentation of the eye didn't matter. The 315nm light was mostly reported as looking a desaturated violet-blue. People whom wear glasses were less sensitive to detecting 315nm, they were not wearing glasses during the study. That last one I find interesting, as I have noticed that after doing lots of deep UV photography, I find myself more uv visual. As in now I can look at something and almost see the UV pattern off the object. As a learned behavior. Link to comment
colinbm Posted June 14, 2022 Share Posted June 14, 2022 Interesting Dave. I hope you don't set a trend of people looking at reflected, deep UV Link to comment
dabateman Posted June 14, 2022 Author Share Posted June 14, 2022 If the studies are done, than others don't need to repeat it. This study may have been submitted to the FDA, its validity is unknown to me currently, but it might be what Reed was thinking about: https://www.chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/08020000/user_upload/makula/transmittance.pdf Looking at the loss of 315nm transmission of the removed human lens and spectrometrically measured. Link to comment
colinbm Posted June 14, 2022 Share Posted June 14, 2022 I suppose this test is with an excised lens & in a lab with a spectroscope & not what we see with our own rods & cones ? Link to comment
dabateman Posted June 14, 2022 Author Share Posted June 14, 2022 50 minutes ago, colinbm said: I suppose this test is with an excised lens & in a lab with a spectroscope & not what we see with our own rods & cones ? Actually I can't find this study through official channels. So take it with a giant grain of salt. It may have been submitted to the FDA, you can submit anything to the FDA. Like the length of grandma's socks. But might not be relevant. I have revised my text above as I don't know if these spectra can be trusted. Link to comment
JCDowdy Posted June 14, 2022 Share Posted June 14, 2022 I can assure you the source of the FDA submission is credible. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Brainard+GC&cauthor_id=8023464&size=200 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now