Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)]

In article <y_gYm.29280$_b5.8410@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Josepi wrote:
>It does become hard to differentiate sales promotion at the cost of other
>product bashing from honest testing and reporting, whatever that is...LOL
>
>I believe it was that same report that brought in LED lighting as a similiar
>problem as fluorescent spectrums.

  The BS one snipped out here by any chance?

>I wouldn't have believed that lighting spectrum balance was so important
>but as I age I find myself very affected by lighting, particularly SADS
>type responses due to lack of sunlight.

  Phototherapy for SADS tends to consist of:

1.  Quantity first and foremost - this needs a lot of light.

2.  Secondarily, many sources indicate favorability of 460 nm area blue
spectral content - which most white LEDs have a lot of and where most
fluorescents run on the low side.

 - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)

>"Don Klipstein" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:slrnhj2nr6.gq4.don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Your newsreader adds only one quotation symbol per line, even for lines
having more than one level of quotation.  This is unusual in Usenet.

>In article <uK7Ym.5537$2A7.695@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Josepi wrote:
>  The whole document appears to me to be a fluorescent-bashing BS set of
>half-truths.
>
>  In fact, most health claims related to 460 nm from advocates of
>full-spectrum lamps are that non-full-spectrum fluorescents do not produce
>enough in the 460 nm area (which most white LEDs do produce a lot of).
>
>  As it turns out, CFLs do not produce a lot of ultraviolet, in fact
>much less than is present in an equivalent amount of daylight that has
>passed through a glass window.  CFLs produce more UV than incandescents
>do, but still little.
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)

 - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)