Look, they sourced their claims (quite literally, they put how they calculate, from which standard). And linking to the correct document is literally how scientific citation works — I replied the page to you above anyway.
If you want to redo the numbers and check if they fit the definition, please feel free to do so, but you will need to put some works in (since the flicker hz -> risk showing in the article is a computed value, you need to find the modulation value and plug it in too)
I understand your fight and your idea, I am just saying that in this specific instance, this is not a fight to be fought. The article is generally correct, and if you want to complain about the writing style or it being an ads, it’s up to you. But this is not the same situation with GMO stuffs
> Look, they sourced their claims (quite literally, they put how they calculate, from which standard).
No, they said that IEEE 1789 also uses Modulation % (which they've renamed Flicker %) to calculate risks. That is pointedly not the same thing as claiming that they used IEEE 1789's formulas.
You're reading their copy generously, but that doesn't usually pay with marketing copy. Articles like this always like to wave in the general direction of official-sounding sources while carefully refraining from actually claiming that they got their numbers from anywhere in particular.
If you want to redo the numbers and check if they fit the definition, please feel free to do so, but you will need to put some works in (since the flicker hz -> risk showing in the article is a computed value, you need to find the modulation value and plug it in too)
I understand your fight and your idea, I am just saying that in this specific instance, this is not a fight to be fought. The article is generally correct, and if you want to complain about the writing style or it being an ads, it’s up to you. But this is not the same situation with GMO stuffs