>>13769979Found the paper :
Vandersee, Staffan et al. “Blue-violet light irradiation dose dependently decreases carotenoids in human skin, which indicates the generation of free radicals.” Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity vol. 2015 (2015): 579675. doi:10.1155/2015/579675
I don't know much about dermatology, tbqh.
The team is from Charité hospital, and published in a journal with an IF of 6, so that's pretty decent.
9 volunteers for a trial is small, but at least it's live human data and not in vitro.
My main concern is :
>Note that this is far above the intensity of illumination present, when using the device for UV-therapy planimetry in the therapeutical setting, which is about 3.7mW/cm2 (dose does not exceed 0.25J/cm2).>The irradiation intensity was 100mW/cm2. This is above natural conditions; the achieved doses, though, are acquirable under natural conditions.Paired with Fig 2, which shows levels being mostly back to normal after 2 hours.
My understanding is that they exposed the skin to a higher dose at shorter time, to replicate real life doses over time.
But the paper does not mention screens, phones or computer, only the blue light used in acne treatment.
So the intensity is already way more than what those treaments use, let alone what your phone or screen emit.
Also, they use (parametric) ANOVA tests for stats, but with that n I'm a bit skeptical that they are in parametric conditions.
Overall, blue screen can probably damage your skin, but the screens that you use probably aren't bright enough to do damage.
And even then, it's unlikely that some lotion that isn't basically sunscreen could effectively help.
