One thing i want to point out is that they described their spectrum as "similar to daylight" but thats just not the case at all.


Portable illumination
Rules:
Related:
One thing i want to point out is that they described their spectrum as "similar to daylight" but thats just not the case at all.


I don’t read a ton of papers but they open with a series of unsubstantiated statements and then proceed to make multiple grammatical errors. I find it distracting enough that it is difficult to take the paper seriously. Alternating rapidly between citing studies in fruit flies, rodents, and humans - which all have different optical sensory responses - is whiplash-inducing.
I’d like like to see some commentary from someone who knows biology better than I do.
Skimmed the first bit and they seem to site most claims in the introduction--they don't cite anything in the abstract but you aren't supposed to, it shouldn't have any information that isn't found in the main text.
Also, my understanding is the light effect isn't to do with optical effects but cellular-level effects absorbed through surface membranes, which should be similar amongst animals.
The language is very odd though and does have either major typos or very very stylized and jargonistic phrasings, which make it hard to read.
