Lung cancer went from being a rarity to a global epidemic when smoking was popularised in the late 19th century, but it wasn't until the 1930's that it was linked to smoking, and only then after years of scientific studies and experiments. So I guess that was 50 years of 'no evidence' until it was scientifically proven.

Re bolded: There has already been some statistical evidence published linking dry-eye syndrome in kids to excessive smartphone use (but interestingly not computer screens or tv)

Science of the 19th century or early 1900s isn't what it's today. They also probably died too soon to really see the results of smoking, life expectancy was much shorter back then.

Also, the affects of smoking are pretty obvious. Especially those smoking multiple packs a day.

Bolded: lol, if they died too soon to see the results of smoking, there wouldn't have been the explosion of lung cancer cases to make the link with.

The effects of smoking are pretty obvious to us today only because we've been made aware of the scientific proof. It wasn't obvious to people living in the early 20th century because longer term effects are more difficult to see. In fact they were being told that smoking was okay. Smokers of Camel cigarettes were advised that a cigarette between each course of a meal 'aided digestion'. Doctors even smoked in front of their patients.

So, just because we've seen no immediate adverse effects yet on young kids who have been playing the 3DS with the 3D slider up, doesn't mean there won't be any long term impact. Optometrists and eye doctors have warned there could be risks to the development of vision in younger children, and until there is scientific proof either way, it's common sense to acknowledge that warning. That's not BS, that's sensible caution.

Nintendo will most likely - and quite rightly - continue to warn against young children using the 3D feature unless there's scientific proof that 3D simulation does no harm to young kids' visual development.

That's fair, a lot of people were having health issues already. But with people living longer, smoking loner, the affects are more evident. And again, science of that time was a lot different than now. They do a better job at figuring out what's killing/damaging people these days.

Virtually everything has a warning now. Not because they're a real danger but to avoid getting sued. If Nintendo was genuinely concenred 3D was destroying eyes the 3DS wouldn't exist.

Science of the early 20th century was indeed different from science nowadays, but the processes of testing and experimenting to arrive at conclusions hasn't changed, and nor has the length of time it takes, in general terms. And they don't always do a better job at figuring out what's killing/damaging people these days - as the debunked and fraudulent 1998 paper claiming a link between the MMR vaccine and autism has shown.

@ bolded - Indeed - and if Sony were genuinely concerned about photosensitive epilepsy, perhaps the PS4 wouldn't exist, instead of letting people buy one and have it display the same bloody warning every time it boots up.

All these warnings are a sad symptom of the culture of lawsuits we live in, I agree, but they are there because there because of risks the consumers need to be aware of, and therefore shouldn't be ignored.

I read a lot as a kid, up to hours a day, and now I'm nearsighted. I could have used some VR to let my eyes focus in the distance instead of always focusing at arm's length. I had my first glasses when I was 6, got worse over time. No doctor ever told me to read less. Watching TV was considered bad though, even though you sit much further away.

Too much 3D could make your eyes lazy as you train your eyes to always focus in the distance. The focal point doesn't chance for objects in front of you, which can cause discomfort if you're not used to it. Whether that has long lasting effects, no clue. Some doctors say 3D helps with stimulating a lazy eye to see 3D.

Too much of something is usually bad for you. To be on the safe side, just say not recommended for any time.

Right, now you're getting into studies pushing BS. The articficial sweetener companies are dealing with that even though some of them have been around for a long time.

The epilepsy thing is different, that's a genuine problem even if it affects a small number of the population. The warnings are to protect them from getting sued and games are likely designed to not trigger that. Games certainly had more flickering in the 90s.

These warnings sometimes just get people concerened about things with no evidence of being real.

I think that through all this it is the bolded statement where you and I differ.

Take a look at this: https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/downloads/SPR_healthsafety_eng.pdf

I think we both agree that the warnings are there to protect the company against lawsuit. I think we also both agree that the warnings are there because of risks the consumers need to be aware of.

But they are also there to allow consumers to take their own decisions on how to protect themselves.

Some of the warnings there are based on known and tested fact (battery leakages, wireless interfering with pacemakers, photosensitive epilepsy etc). I presume this is what you mean by 'evidence of being real'.

Others are based on expert advice only; predictions that are yet to have confirmed links reported (e.g. kids' vision under the age of 6). I presume this is what you mean by 'no evidence of being real'.

Going back to the examples in our discussion, most people who smoked in the early 20th century were blissfully unaware of the link to lung cancer because to them, there was 'no evidence of being real'. When the scientific studies linking the two were published, the whole world changed its attitude to smoking, and now there are warnings everywhere.

So, if a game or console carries a caution that so far has 'no evidence of being real', I still want to know about it. Like the debunked MMR/autism example, it may well be proved unfounded in time. But equally, like the smoking/lung cancer example, future scientific research may change that warning about damaging young kids developing vision from having 'no evidence of being real' to being scarily real. That's why I want to be informed so I can make my own decision in the meantime.

Long story short - yes, there's some BS scaremongering out there, but theoretical risk should be treated as seriously as proven risk. I do believe all risks should be communicated to consumers, whatever their type.