I Making LED bulbs safer: Health and LEDs

[Motore]

They have multiple LEDs with different colors and adjust the intensity between them with a micro controller.

 

[Mendrys]

LED bulbs create the different colors/temperatures of light by using varying intensities if 3 separate LED elements inside them, green, red and blue. That is how they can be adjusted to almost any color we can perceive. Some are hard tuned to a specific color, or temperature, for those that are meant to replace conventional bulbs. Others can be adjusted to a wide range colors via Bluetooth for example. Efficient blue LEDs were long sought for a variety of reasons, energy efficient indoor lighting being one of them, and the inventors of efficient blue LEDS received the Nobel prize as it was such a huge benefit.

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2014-1.pdf

I agree that it may be a good idea to limit your exposure to "bluer" light at times, especially at night in the hours before bedtime as it suppresses the release of melatonin that can decrease the quality of your sleep. However, It's probably more beneficial at other times since it also increased your awareness and lowers your reaction times.

 

[renault]

thank you all for your contributions on this post. I have learnt a lot. I started with the thought that all LED lighting was bad except for its low energy usage. I am now not so anti LED although imo the illumination it produces is not pleasing to the eye to say the least - even the so called 'warm' bulbs. I fear that the current state of our worldly thinking cajoles us to accept 'developments' which are inferior in many ways - but have an advantage in one area - like LED bulbs; they use less energy but are poorer than incandescents in other qualities however they are promoted without question - rather like wifi in the home instead of ethernet, mobile phones instead of landlines and electric cars instead of IC cars.
Thanks again

 

[hutchphd]

One other way that LED lights differ from incandescent bulbs is that LED emissions have a very short "time constant" They can be modulated at nearly 100 MHz (I have actually designed circuits to do this for time resolved/phase resolved fluorescence experiments). I believe that rapidly pulsating light could be far more deleterious to our nervous systrem than simply blue light. In fact, for a white LED, and depending upon the power source, the blue light could be modulated while the phosphor response could be slow and hence barely modulated. This might produce untoward effects in some people. This is clearly a personal theory (since I just dreamed it up) and therefore verboten here but I believe I will look into this interesting question.......with thanks to @renault

 

[Drakkith]

I am now not so anti LED although imo the illumination it produces is not pleasing to the eye to say the least - even the so called 'warm' bulbs. I fear that the current state of our worldly thinking cajoles us to accept 'developments' which are inferior in many ways -

That's entirely your opinion. I greatly prefer LED bulbs compared to incandescent. In my opinion almost everything about them is superior for indoor, house lighting. Less power usage, less heat produced, longer lifespan, and superior light quality. The only drawback compared to incandescent bulbs that I can think of are their increased price. But since they last much, much longer and use far less energy that's not really an issue for me.

but have an advantage in one area - like LED bulbs; they use less energy but are poorer than incandescents in other qualities however they are promoted without question - rather like wifi in the home instead of ethernet, mobile phones instead of landlines and electric cars instead of IC cars.

I'm not sure what 'promote without question' is supposed to mean here. With the exception of electric cars, everything you mentioned gained its popularity because the consumer greatly preferred it over the existing products. Wifi untethers you from a physical cable and makes portable devices capable of using the internet possible, while mobile/cell phones had the same effect (and more) compared to landline phones.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The only way people can function is:

1. Trust that mainstream science and medicine is generally correct.
or
2. Distrust mainstream science and medicine, but simply pick and choose what health issue they're going to get scared about and change in their lives since you literally cannot keep up with all the issues that crop up.

I choose to do number one and trust that modern medicine is generally correct and even when they are wrong they will tend to correct themselves over time.

If you add the caveat about using your intelligence and existing knowledge then I'd definitely agree If you distrust mainstream science then you are totally out on your own.. You have to make individual judgements about every new idea that surfaces and the sort of person who distrusts mainstream science has to mistrust everything that's written.

I tend to take your number 2 option, being guided by the 'follow the money' principal and generally what I see around me

Option 2 requires you to question the science that produced the computer you are using at this minute and allowed the James webb telescope project and others. Where would you stop? Anti vaxers and climate denyers can't be trusted either and it is their ilk that are responsible for many of the 'bad things' that are with us today. Science may not be perfect but it can be dodified along the way and it's obviously the least worst path to follow. Following the money is not to judge the Science but justifiably to judge the morals of your fellow humans; you should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. (look it up if you are not familiar with the idiom)

 

[renault]

One other way that LED lights differ from incandescent bulbs is that LED emissions have a very short "time constant" They can be modulated at nearly 100 MHz (I have actually designed circuits to do this for time resolved/phase resolved fluorescence experiments). I believe that rapidly pulsating light could be far more deleterious to our nervous systrem than simply blue light. In fact, for a white LED, and depending upon the power source, the blue light could be modulated while the phosphor response could be slow and hence barely modulated. This might produce untoward effects in some people. This is clearly a personal theory (since I just dreamed it up) and therefore verboten here but I believe I will look into this interesting question.......with thanks to @renault

yes perhaps a little like some commentators have suggested with so called SMART meters. Their reporting data is modulated along the 240V. a.c. mains cables within the property and it is suggested that this can be harmful. Here at home I do not use wifi but I use a so called powerline ethernet where the data is superimposed over the mains supply. I have heard that this can be problematic too. Problems with pulsing or something like that.

 

[renault]

I bought a couple of LED bulbs yesterday, both rated at 4W. One stated to be 470 Lumen / 2,700°K and the other 180 Lumen / 1,800°K. I put one in each of my identical bedside lamps and the difference is enormous.
My first reaction was that the 1,800°K. bulb was so yellow and dim (of course) however within just a few minutes I detested the 'quality' of the 2,700°K. lamp. I cannot say why but I did not want to look in its direction. I read without difficulty my book as usual even though the light was yellow and dim. Not very scientific I know, but an observation all the same.

 

[renault]

If you add the caveat about using your intelligence and existing knowledge then I'd definitely agree If you distrust mainstream science then you are totally out on your own.. You have to make individual judgements about every new idea that surfaces and the sort of person who distrusts mainstream science has to mistrust everything that's written.

Option 2 requires you to question the science that produced the computer you are using at this minute and allowed the James webb telescope project and others. Where would you stop? Anti vaxers and climate denyers can't be trusted either and it is their ilk that are responsible for many of the 'bad things' that are with us today. Science may not be perfect but it can be dodified along the way and it's obviously the least worst path to follow. Following the money is not to judge the Science but justifiably to judge the morals of your fellow humans; you should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. (look it up if you are not familiar with the idiom)

I don't think this thread is the right one to enter a discussion about your comment. I could count myself as both of those although the terms would need very much refining. If you would like to discuss them, please open a thread.

Anti vaxers and climate denyers can't be trusted

 

[Drakkith]

yes perhaps a little like some commentators have suggested with so called SMART meters. Their reporting data is modulated along the 240V. a.c. mains cables within the property and it is suggested that this can be harmful.

That is extremely unlikely, and, I suspect, entirely unsupported by evidence.

I bought a couple of LED bulbs yesterday, both rated at 4W. One stated to be 470 Lumen / 2,700°K and the other 180 Lumen / 1,800°K. I put one in each of my identical bedside lamps and the difference is enormous.
My first reaction was that the 1,800°K. bulb was so yellow and dim (of course) however within just a few minutes I detested the 'quality' of the 2,700°K. lamp. I cannot say why but I did not want to look in its direction. I read without difficulty my book as usual even though the light was yellow and dim. Not very scientific I know, but an observation all the same.

You are free to use whichever lights you prefer.

 

[hutchphd]

I want to strongly associate myself with those who are saying the probability of any of the effects you are bringing up is vanishingly small. One automobile ride without a good seatbelt or a good breath of air in any of a hundred cities or farms is far more likely to cause known problems. Anything is possible and anything new is marginally more likely to contain unknown hazards. It is impossible to prove something is harmless, but so far the doomsayers have been largely overwrought. The outstanding cases of harm have typically not been forseen. (for instance Thalidomide represents a very unlikely and unfortunate series of events) But worrying about everything can also be deleterious so just because some fool youtuber makes a claim causes not a ripple in my worry-meter: What, Me Worry?

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

It is not so much that 'I am worried' but generally I take the precautionary principal and if some researchers suggest that current LED's used in the home may cause problems, then I want to consider it.

Without any peer-reviewed medical journal references, this thread will remain closed. If the OP wants to PM me valid references, this thread may be reopened in the future. Thanks to all who tried to help the OP.