• Lighting

  • Awful LED lights everywhere in USA...and upcoming incandescent ban!

If you know how to read you would have read that I never said that, I said:

beyondthelight If anything led light should be banned… but led light can also exist if people want that light.

    The good news is that warm incandescent light is gaining new traction. People are increasingly unhappy with sterile, white/blue LED light. While I don't think the change will be immediate, I do see a large number of Edison bulbs being sold, and virtually all LED's are now switching to "warm" spectrums. Kindle and other light-emitting screen manufacturers are advertising "zero blue light" in their frontlights and even backlights. We'll get there. It turns out that once exposure is wide enough, we find out what the UK already did - that about 5% of the population gets physically ill from even moderate LED exposure, and the number only goes up when the exposure is constant.

      Curiously, Japan does use 4000-5000K. This appears to make sense because they also generally use a larger quantity of light as well.

      This has been studied including for galleries. The fewer light sources/dimmer an environment is, the more warm a light source should be. If there are many light sources and it is bright, then whiter (higher K) is better.

      Gurm The good news is that warm incandescent light is gaining new traction. People are increasingly unhappy with sterile, white/blue LED light.

      Yes, its also our religious right and duty to choose our own light

        The purple is so bad. I've seen a few of those. Not bad as in ohh it hurts us, bad as in it sucks. It's not a pretty shade of royal purple or anything like that.. it just looks wrong.

        Colour of street lighting and how much of it there should be is a contentious issue.

        Cops like white lights, and politicians like whatever is the cheapest. Civilians somewhat prefer amber, and directed down at the ground not their house windows.

        Where I am, the business improvement district committee or whatever they're called, decided to wrap white LED ribbons around the streetlight poles.. but they hooked them up directly to the streetlight power source (AC flicker) and didn't put a diffuser over them (raw led).. so it looks.. cheap and tacky.. my mother was here the other month and I commented on them to her, and she thought they did look tacky. This isn't a Christmas thing. They are there all year and are on even during the daytime.

        I haven't seen ANY outdoor LED lighting that is <4000K/dark sky. The only location I'm aware of in Canada is in Quebec where they're using amber ones because there's an observatory nearby.

          Its interesting how the first EPROMS (erasable programmable memory) chips need 400nm frequency to erase their memory, 400nm frequency is precisely purple light, the same purple of street lamps, because white led light at its core is purple light, this purple color also confuses insects and insect traps use them, while yellow frequency does not do that. I will take yellow incandescent light over purple led light in heartbeat without the slightest doubt, and at all costs with sword in hand…

          Sunspark cheap and tacky.. my mother was here the other month and I commented on them to her, and she thought they did look tacky. This isn't a Christmas thing.

          I agree, led light stole part of the Christmas spirit, nothing can replace the magical colored tiny incandescent bulbs

          Sunspark Cops like white lights, and politicians like whatever is the cheapest. Civilians somewhat prefer amber, and directed down at the ground not their house windows.

          Very good description both figuratively and metaphorically, it illustrates the fact that different light sources have different properties that serve different purposes, and that political decisions about light sources do not necessarily have civilian's best interest in mind, but may also serve the interests of other gods…

          Gurm about 5% of the population gets physically ill from even moderate LED exposure, and the number only goes up when the exposure is constan

          I would say this percentage is much much higher, but sometimes people are ignorant of the fact that led light has unfavorable health consequences and so do not make the association.

                2 months later

                ryans
                I know this is not a great or inexpensive solution, nor does it effectively combat the onslaught of flickering motion on our eyes, but from personal experience, wearing glasses has been my shield of safety while going out and about in the LED wilderness.

                I am not affiliated with them in any way, but Avulux is my #1 brand of choice, the only brand I will use from now on, and I've tried several kinds of glasses over the last ten years. These glasses block 97% of light-wavelengths that have been researched extensively to cause migraines in other people with light sensitivities, including LEDs. They really are effective if you can afford them (over $300, sadly, but good quality products that actually work cost money nowadays).

                I'm also using the anti-glare lens for the first time, since they had a sale on Black Friday for them, and I recommend those as well. But even without that special coating lens, it makes a HUGE difference for me being around LED lighting, along with other problematic lights, like neon or flourescent lights. They go from being completely intolerable to actually manageable for a while.

                I might even have a coupon code still, but it's likely expired by now. Still, I recommend getting some quality glasses that don't just block blue light, but all of the problematic wavelengths that LEDs pulsate out unapologetically. If you are strapped for cash, though, then even getting some effective blue-blocker glasses (key word being effective) can definitely help with the strain. Those and hats and direct avoidance of staring into them…

                As for biohacking indoors, you've got the right idea.

                  moonpie Who do you think is going to effectively and reliably fund all of the peer-reviewed research in the conventional medical industry about the pervasive harm of LED lights when LEDs are absolutely everywhere and are entangled in governmental contracts to be inserted all over cities and infrastructure in America and beyond? Do you really believe this research would even catch on when the LED production companies have a monopoly on the lighting industry? It would take much more than the truth presented as peer reviewed information to make the NHS collapse -- governmental entities are protected by the vested interests of those who care only about power and profit.

                  Furthermore, the problem is complicated. Much of this evidence about the harm of LED lights is also collected and relied upon by anecdotal evidence and case studies, which doesn't invalidate the truth behind them in the slightest. Those who suffer from symptoms caused by LED's and other harsh lighting don't often associate their symptoms with the lighting, either, making it even more nebulous to effectively track. But there is plenty of scientific evidence you can easily Google yourself that demonstrates very clearly that artificial blue light by LED's is absolutely atrocious on the human circadian rhythm and on the human retina/eyeball, including from a litany of medical doctors (those who are not conventionally in the mainstream, moreso). LED's were never designed for our health, ever, period, but for conservation of money and energy. While conserving energy is laudable, the health effects are unacceptable. Health issues have an insidious and often invisible correlation from continual and chronic exposure to LED's and other harsh artificial lights.

                  We don't need all of the scientific peer-reviewed research demonstrating that LED's are harmful to the human anatomy because it's simply factually true whether the research is funded and supported or not. I can empathize that very few may want to take the risk of collecting this data and thrusting it provocatively into the public eye in some clarion call for change without facing the stigma and fear of repercussions.

                  The amount of gaslighting and invalidation that the medical/conventional lighting industry does to convince people that the sickness they're feeling is NOT related to these awfully designed products in total disregard for the human anatomy is incalculable, but strategic, to preserve their profits, power, and the status quo. I'm not sure why you seem to want to implicitly support and perpetuate this harmful narrative on a forum such as LEDstrain by suggesting that only peer reviewed research on the harmful effects of LED lighting is a valid method of establishing its factuality and truth. Not only is this not true, but when corruption, profit, and greed are involved, it is most definitely not relevant, either.

                  moonpie

                        .........

                        Nomorebrightlights LED's were never designed for our health, ever, period, but for conservation of money and energy.

                        Nomorebrightlights The amount of gaslighting and invalidation that the medical/conventional lighting industry does to convince people that the sickness they're feeling is NOT related to these awfully designed products in total disregard for the human anatomy is incalculable, but strategic…

                        Amen, LED light and luminescent light in general such as fluorescent tubes were never designed for our health, but for conservation of money and energy. This fact gives great insight into the nature of LED and luminescent light, their initial impulse and end was never about quality, health, or regard to the Human well being, and so it comes as no surprise that this light is detrimental. But as the saying goes, were every body looses, somebody wins.

                        Light is as important as water and air, it can be considered as an element by itself, having access to clean water and clean air is just as important as having quality light, which in my opinion can only come from incandescent sources.

                            ryans By the way, this thread should be renamed to "Awful LED lights everywhere in USA...but upcoming incandescent comeback!

                            they are now going to be allowed in the USA!!

                              moonpie Have you tossed your macbook into the trash yet? Practice what you preach.

                              In my case, I pretty much did — sold my 14-inch MBP, gave away an old MacBook Air, Apple TV, and Apple Watch 7 to other people who aren't sensitive, I also stopped using iPad entirely and plan to sell mine.

                              I also don't use iPhone indoors at all anymore aside from phone calls, moving other tasks like social media to e-ink. I have maintained this for over one year now. (I'm searching for a more comfortable Android device — haven't found one that's comfortable enough to keep yet, but will likely sell my iPhone after I do.)

                              I only keep two Macs around today: one that I remote connect to in order to use Mac-exclusive apps, and another super old one that has some old Xcode projects on it that I can't easily transfer.

                              (Both of them almost always have the lid closed, and since last year I do not use any MacBook as a laptop anymore — aside from looking at friends' for a few minutes or so which is tolerable for me.)

                              So at least for some members on the forum, we do practice it.

                              Personally, this has worked great for me, last year I was the most productive I've been in so many years. With better screens, I've also realized that I learn/remember new things much easier. Also, consistently, I don't feel tired after programming anymore, which is huge for me

                                dev