1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Blue blockers

Discussion in 'Beginners Area' started by Aussie Chris, May 15, 2021.

  1. Aussie Chris

    Aussie Chris New Member

    I've been thinking about the concept of blue blockers. For full disclosure's sake, I use blue blockers religiously after sunset, and use a red filter on phone/computer screen (after sunset), and have done for years.

    For the vast majority of people who use blueblockers, glasses are probably the extent of their blue-light-blocking.

    Now, I cast my mind back to an anecdote I may have read here, or listened to on a JK podcast, or even heard somewhere else (I've been researching this stuff for eons):

    Wearing sunglasses in sunlight creates a mismatch between what our brain perceives as light, and what our skin/body is experiencing, not allowing our nervous system to mount a "defence", potentially creating a basis for skin cancer and other maladies.

    Now, wouldn't this happen for blue blockers at night as well (if no other precautions are taken - and lets be honest, if all precautions are taken, there is no need for blue-blockers)?

    I.e. watching TV with the lights on, with blue blockers on. Our brains/eyes perceive a lack of high-energy blue light, but our skin is experiencing something else. Complete mismatch.

    Not saying that this is the case, but just some mental musings I've been thinking: perhaps it's better to "allow" our eyes to perceive the blue light that the rest of our body is experiencing, to at least give it the opportunity to produce the biochemicals and other defensive mechanisms that can allow it to defend against it? Of course, this is in the absence of other blue light mitigation attempts.

    Just my thoughts. Interested to hear others.

    Cheers
    Chris
     
    5G Canary and Sean Waters like this.
  2. Aussie Chris

    Aussie Chris New Member

    I've just been reviewing John Ott's youtube video again, and when he applied a red light filter to animal (chicken) eye cells, the cell membrane would degenerate and burst, releasing the intracellular fluid.

    If this occurs in humans, then the application of red light filters and blueblockers may actually cause more harm than good. In saying that, humans have used fire at night for eons.

    I'm just not sure what to think now with red light and blueblockers.
     
    5G Canary and Sean Waters like this.
  3. Sean Waters

    Sean Waters New Member

    It's a shame you haven't had engagement on this yet, I think it's a very pertinent question. The answer is probably as your intuition suspects. I know myself, and a couple others in my circle, do not wear them as much anymore... I feel they hamper my Dopamine creation, especially in social situations, I cannot wear them around people because they block the sampling of their UV Light.

    They work a treat in certain circumstances, like if you need to travel at night. But, I absolutely do not think constant use is a good idea. Turning off the source, embracing darkness and fire is a better idea.

    As you say, it's a total mismatch isn't it? When I wear them too soon after eating dinner, I find my digestion is poorer and I actually become overtired and restless and burpy/ and irritable. But, I have Gut issues from Blue Light via the eye, so my mileage is different to others.

    I've started using the 40% Day Blockers from Lucia Eyes on my Computer recently - and I have to say, I've noticed a good benefit in terms of protection from these when I'm working. But, it does hamper my dopamine creation and definitely doesn't feel "great". It's like filtering cigarettes.

    To the SKin/ Eye mismatch, when using Computer I actually started wrapping black t-shirts around my face and neck too - because I had skin burns that I could not get rid of. Other people do not have skin issues from Blue light. It's n=1.

    The real truth is, I need to retire from working on a Computer. That's in the works. My goal by end of 2022 is to be down to 1 day per month for Computer and Phone use. I currently have my Phone down to 30-40 mins per week, which has made a tremendous difference. I posted on my journal, that we all need to walk away from tech if we really want a reversal, but that will be n=1, each person's Optimal will vary - each person's Bitcoin moon will vary too.

    I think your question's answer will be n=1 too, dependent on how much Blue light toxicity there is, the fidelity of those tissues in the Eye, how receptive they are. For me, around people and around food is a big no-go for blue blockers (or Red Eye Filters let's say more accurately)- but I never allow blue light to be around me any more so.

    On a different note, I've been paying attention to my use of the EMR-Tek red lights too - there is definitely a place for them, but can also be problematic.
     
    5G Canary and Aussie Chris like this.
  4. Aussie Chris

    Aussie Chris New Member

    I totally agree, Sean. I think this is where it's at. Blueblockers and other "mitigation" attempts will never out-health abstinence. Your analogy of a filtered cigarette is perfect. It's like knowing you have to smoke but putting a filter on it will reduce it somewhat, but overall it's still bad. The problem (question) is in this (blueblocker) case, is the filter doing more harm than good, i.e. is it stopping your body from "realising" the exposure is bad and mounting a defense.

    I've been thinking down the same lines as you recently. How do I reduce screen/emf exposure to the bare minimum. John Ott's youtube video reinforced alot of that for me. At the end he mentioned that exposure to video display terminals, even only for a few minutes, resulted in clumping of the red blood cells. (granted, this is back when they produced Xrays). I've also been reviewing Pollacks EZ water as well, which Thomas Cowan says that EMFs completely disregulate.

    No wonder we are a sick world right now. We need to break free.
     
    Sean Waters and 5G Canary like this.
  5. 5G Canary

    5G Canary Gold

    @Sean Waters... this is who I asked if you had read his stuff.

    Chris... I love how you connected the dots. The body will do what it needs to do in both a good or bad environment. It’s up to us to listen to our bodies and change the environment to optimal especially when we have a lower redox.
     
    Aussie Chris and Sean Waters like this.
  6. 5G Canary

    5G Canary Gold

  7. Sean Waters

    Sean Waters New Member

    I agree mate totally, I've moved down here to Mexico and now on to Costa Rica, and you know i'm doing everything to the book - and I've gotten a hell of a lot better, so maybe another 18 months and I'll be even more able to take "hits" to the Redox... but one thing I notice, is that my days on the Computer vs Days Off are black and white...... even with IRIS, Lucia Eyes, Wired Internet... and today for instance, I do 1 hour on the PC before I leave to go watch the England Italy game at the beach, and the whole journey on my Bike my whole internal system is like Locked Up, Tight and Stressed... Whatever the effect is, definitely comes through the Paraventricular Nucleus (PVN) and keeps us Stressed.

    The book you mentioned on my journal, I will be checking that out. Also, the question on BB's, is it a negative.... hmmm, I really don't think it's a negative overall, but is it making a trade off somewhere? Highly likely...... do I think there's aspects to being online that actually BB's cannot help us with? i.e. the Stress response from this Information overload.... 1000%... I think the way information is formatted on technology is in of itself a detriment to our biology...

    Lately, I've been opting to read Fiction again instead of coming here so much, or to watch UFC on youtube, or to read blogs or whatever. I've started reading DUNE by Frank Herbert (what a fucking book man, please read if you haven't) and in just a week or so my ability to picture things, my imagination, my cognition have all improved massively. We need to go back to the traditional basics man...... Literature, Live Theatre, Dancing, Sports, Farming.... got to get the fuck off these devices.

    Honestly does not surprise me one bit about that EZ being destroyed either, absolutely not.
     
    Alex97232 likes this.
  8. Sean Waters

    Sean Waters New Member

    Thomas Cowan? I'm sorry I didn't look at it... I guess that's the thing though, do we need to read anymore about if it's bad/ good or not? We know... intutively... and all this reading and keeping up with the science, could that addiction to information/ learning have it's own limit too?

    It's like quitting heroin though, because so much of the socialising is done on this device, as is my access to up to date science and information to keep me ahead... without tech, I'd not even be out here.

    First step is acceptance though right? in addiction?
     
  9. 5G Canary

    5G Canary Gold

    No worries... I thought it was an notable coincidence that two people named Chris pointed you in the direction of the same person. Sometimes it’s the unexpected person or book that we never would have listened too or read that completely open our minds to new possibilities. The Universe is always speaking to us, and sometimes through others, if we are listening... totally get it if your intuition is telling you otherwise.

    And idk... I enjoy learning. Isn’t that a part of growing? I print/save things to read all the time off the internet. As a Mom of girls your age I also feel a sense of obligation to try and help them navigate and thrive with this technology. By not reading and learning this stuff both good and bad I never would have understood what we needed to do.

    I do completely agree about the addiction and that is also why I limit my use too. I am probably part of the rare 1% that has never had a Facebook account and that’s not over 80 years old... Lol! My daughter has recently become pretty ill... and I’ve been trying to find information to help her lately. Why does the Canary always have to die for the miners to leave the cave? Sometimes being the canary that did whatever was needed to break out of the cage doesn’t reflect that the threat is real.
     
    Sean Waters likes this.
  10. 5G Canary

    5G Canary Gold

    Sean Waters and Aussie Chris like this.
  11. Aussie Chris

    Aussie Chris New Member

    I do like Thomas Cowan, though he's quite polarising with his terrain vs germ theory. I love a good theory that punches the face of currently accepted paradigms... but most people don't. I'm on the fence with germ vs terrain.

    He's a founding member of the Weston A Price foundation. Though his polarising views can make it hard for a good portion of the population to accept, which makes it hard for them to accept anything he has to say. Which is a pity because the dietary guidelines of the WAPF are quite good in my opinion. I'm in the middle of reading Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Price, which is amazing.

    I've ordered a copy of Tom Cowan's Human Heart, Cosmic Heart which I'm really looking forward to reading. His view that the heart is not solely responsible for pumping blood around the body has huge implications for the current heart disease paradigm. He leans on Pollack's EZ water to explain how blood travels through blood vessels, which is incredibly cool if correct. This also brings implications for disrupters of EZ, including lack of sunlight, grounding and the intro of nnEMFs.
     
    Sean Waters and 5G Canary like this.
  12. 5G Canary

    5G Canary Gold

    That Weston A Price Foundation has a wealth of information and definitely worth visiting their site.

    They actually have a branch in NC. https://chapters.westonaprice.org/westbuncombe/wnc-food-sources/ I do use some of these farms but the issue I find is always the Water. “Foundation does not endorse, certify, or inspect food producers or their facilities, or verify the information they provide. Producers are listed for the convenience of consumers, who should exercise their own judgment as to whether to purchase or consume products from listed producers. The Weston A. Price Foundation provides lists of producers and guidelines for the purpose of supporting consumer rights to ensure the continued supply of real food products for those who choose them.” I wish they actually would certified who they recommend.

    He actually reminds me a lot of Dr. Kruse... they both are brilliant thinkers who refuse to be put in a box. In fact, I’m pretty sure they’ve burned their boxes with nature’s red light....Fire! Their brilliance and thoughts are contagious and can definitely pull you out of the shallow end and straight into the deep. The truth lies deep in that water where the system hope we never go.

    Tom Cowan's Human Heart, Cosmic Heart .... that’s funny- I just ordered that book on the 11th! I haven’t received it yet but I’m looking forward to reading it too!

    “He leans on Pollack's EZ water to explain how blood travels through blood vessels, which is incredibly cool if correct. This also brings implications for disrupters of EZ, including lack of sunlight, grounding and the intro of nnEMFs...”

    I agree and I really enjoyed the interview with the two of them. Pollack seemed to agree with him on most of his observations. At the end of the interview Pollack said.... just sitting next to a router decreases the EZ by 15%... what he didn’t say is what happens if it’s every day or with more devices than just a router.
     
    Sean Waters and Richard Watson like this.
  13. Aussie Chris

    Aussie Chris New Member

    How funny - I ordered mine on the 10th and just received it today. We must be on the same wavelength ☺️
     
    Sean Waters and 5G Canary like this.
  14. TrevorHirschi

    TrevorHirschi New Member


    This is a topic that I am interested more in, going back to the blue blocking glasses. I’ve been going through just about every JK podcast I can find for my daily commutes and I recall him saying when it comes to being surrounded by unbalanced (and therefore toxic) blue light environments, we really should be covered like an Orthodox Jew or Muslim in a niqāb/burqa in addition to wearing blue blocking glasses. As I understand it, and as has been stated here in this thread, the light taken into the eyes and what the skin is being exposed to, can create a mismatch if those wavelengths and light intensities/quantities are different.

    For a living, I teach the machining trade at a technical college in northern Utah, and I’m in a pretty rotten light (and electrical) environment. I’ve started to wear the most orange Z87+ safety glasses at work, as well as wearing a long sleeve shirt and pants while at work. I’ve known about blue blocking glasses for a long time, but have only started to implement them a lot since discovering Jack Kruse. I used to wear shorts and a T shirt at work when it’s warm out and that has been fine, short sleeves are also typically much safer when working around spinning metal components of machines that would try to eat you if you’re tangled up in them.

    But what I’d like to know is, am I really better off with the long sleeves/pants and blue blockers than wearing shorts/short sleeves since I can’t cover parts like the rest of my face, ears, hands, etc.? If it is the entire organ that we call skin that has light receptors, it really needs to be a Muslim niqāb extreme level of skin coverage to block what the skin takes in, right? If that’s the case, then the career changes I’ve been contemplating to mitigate my exposure to blue light toxicity would really be in vain since just about any other job industry I’d change to would really be indoors most of the time too, maybe with the exception of going back to farming like my last several generations of ancestry did.

    Jack talks about how his members are usually so dedicated that they’ll drop life and move south to be near sub-tropic latitude to take control of their health, and while I’d agree with that on my own personal level of dedication, partly because I despise the winter months that I’ve been raised in, I also like a lot about where I live. But if I were to move my little family to NOLA, Texas, or Florida, just to go work in the same type of environment, albeit within a better latitude that benefits me outside of work hours, that seems like a lot of work. Even with a career change and locational change, I’d probably likely end up indoors a lot.

    That’s a lot of random thoughts, but I’d be interested to see what others think and have to say. I wish I could up and move to el Yucatán like Sean seems to have been lucky enough to have done. That’s a little hard to do when you’re married with kids at home, but, not impossible.

    Also, forgive my noobness, but can someone tell me what n=1 means? I’m still learning the Jack Kruse community jargon that is unfamiliar to someone who has more of a mechanical background than healthcare.
     
    Sean Waters and Aussie Chris like this.
  15. Aussie Chris

    Aussie Chris New Member

    Hi Trevor,

    Thanks for your thoughts. We are definitely thinking the same in this regard. I’m not convinced with blue blockers. I mean, they definitely have their place, especially when your lifestyle doesn’t permit abstinence, but abstinence is the way we should be shooting for.

    My own perspective at the moment is this. I have an online consulting business that requires a fair amount of screen time. I try to minimise this as much as possible, as well as mitigate the risks by working outside as much as possible so there is enough natural light reaching my retinas. Not necessarily in direct sunlight - most work is done under cover, but outside. Though I periodically will head out to the sun multiple times a day as work allows.

    At night I try to just simply not use screens. I have found a stash of the old style halogen bulbs which I have in the house. I try to stay away from screens as much as possible….

    BUT

    I do not fear them. If I have visitors, or if I am on holiday (which I was for a week last week with non-mitochondriacs), I focus on the enjoyment of others rather than fear the wrath of the alternative. I find that I am much more mentally grounded if I do what I need to do, when and as much as I can, but don’t stress if I can’t.

    Stress will make it worse (ala Bruce Lipton - read him if you haven’t yet. Biology of Belief).

    “N=X” is simply the number of samples in an experiment. Used in this forum’s context, n=1 means that we are all unique, and we are performing our own biological/biochemical experiments with a sample of…ourselves. It’s often used to say that everyone is different, so your n=1 is different to mine. For example, you might perform well with vegetables, whereas I tend to perform better without them (95% carnivore).
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2021
    Sean Waters likes this.

Share This Page