Originally Posted by toonj64
Well, guess I'll take up smoking. I'm gonna die anyway right?
And I'm sure I'll die from an IED or car/bike crash way before lung cancer kills me or my dog.
BTW I have lots of pets (Great Dane, horses) and couldn't disagree with you more. Won't get into the debate on this AV forum but it seems to be your philosophy in life, even with electronics... Explains how you destroyed your ears.
Originally Posted by toonj64
Yeah sorry, reponding to Emaych.
Oh, guess I did not recognize myself in your assessment there. My ears are far from destroyed. Goes for my hearing as well. Neither are my retinas burned.
So you have horses, eh? Ever ride one? Christopher Reeve to blame for his accident? Serve him right for taking such a risk? How about driving? -- you drive? People getting in accidents -- that's what they get for doing something so dangerous? I presume you don't drive -- how about teaching your kids to drive?
Seems we are talking about managed risk here -- a continuum, not an all-or-nothing weighing of extremes.
With regard to LCD screens -- someone here chimed in that "literally, a backlight of 20 will burn your retinas -- guaranteed" -- good enough for you? Or would you want to read some 20 or 30 year studies on the subject? Come to think of it, you could really get bogged down in studies -- what if they disagree? They frequently do, you know. Also if you are so paralyzed by reading studies, that is about all you do -- there is a risk right there -- physical inactivity could lead to poor health consequences.
But back to LCDs: let us say you automatically believe whatever anyone writes or says at any point. Resolved: backlight 20 burns retinas. Samsung has risked incalculable international liability through creating a product that, used as intended, delivers irreparable, demonstrable harm. So 20 definitely causes bad damage, how to establish the safe level? Does backlight setting of "1" get you there? But you can still actually make out images at backlight 1, why not safer still with blackout, just listen to your new TV without the image?
I'm guessing you think there is some way of establishing what you find to be an acceptable risk for reward. How about this destroying the ears thing? Rock star risks it, makes millions -- greater wealth than anyone I will ever meet, hearing pretty much shot. Was that worth it? Sounds like a tradeoff, or assessed risk versus reward consideration.
It's a continuum -- some risks seem foolhardy for certain, but on the LCD issue, I conclude it is ridiculous to assume that backlight 20 induces retinal burning -- the author of that claim did not even specify screen size -- would that matter? How about length of viewing time? How about what else any test subject might have looked at in their life? Possible to find humans who will only look at an LCD screen and nothing else all their life? Don't think so.
I also would be willing to bet you have not read more than one or two in-depth books on animal nutrition. And if you read two, I'm sure they disagreed. Now don't feel safe feeding your dog anything? Only what they agreed on? Why just those two books then? Maybe a third would resolve the conflicts?
Sorry, sounds like you are a person who lives in fear of making a misstep, what about the misstep of never risking enough to achieve or experience anything?
I don't know, I think I prefer to live a little, but that is just me -- to each his own.