Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

["Robert Green" <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

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

> >You may be interested in this (spurred by your supplied links elsewhere)
> >LEDs may be just as bad as CFLs for health damage due to spectral
content.
> >
> >http://www.international-light-association.eu/PDF/
> >Artificial%20Light%20and%20Health%20PLDC07.pdf
>
>   Except this stuff on blaming health problems by melanopsin peaking at
> 460 nm being stimulated by CFL's blue peak (436 nm) is BS.  An equivalent
> amount of daylight has more stimulation of the blue color sensors in the
> eye (peaking at 445 nm), as indicated by daylight appearing more blue.

Some people are doomed to stay inside for most of their lives because of
their sensitivity to UV.  So saying CFL's aren't any more harmful than the
sun is actually confirming they are indeed harmful to those people.

There are any number of biological systems that depend on light.  The
full-spectrum light boxes you wrote about are thought to work via the eye
and brain, simulating summer light in the winter months and (hopefully)
reducing depression that's well known to be more of a problem in the winter
months than in the summer.  Some people believe SAD (Seasonal Affective
Disorder) is due to the overall reduction in daylight hours, others believe
it's the absence of the very bright, white light of summer that does the
trick.  The people I know that use them, swear by them.  A case could be
easily made the benefits are purely placebo effects, but I doubt it.  Since
we share so many genes with so many other animals, it's not hard to believe,
that we, like them, are sensitive to daily and seasonal changes in light.

A brief search through the Merck manual at:

http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec18/ch214/ch214c.html

lists the following drugs as having potential photosensitive effects:

Xanax
Quinolones
Sulfonamides
Tetracyclines
Trimethoprim
Tricyclic antidepressants
Antifungal drugs (taken by mouth)
Antihyperglycemics
Sulfonylureas
Antimalarial drugs
Antipsychotics
Phenothiazines
Diuretics
Lasix
Thiazides
Chemotherapy drugs
Dacarbazine
Fluorouracil
Methotrexate
Vinblastine
Drugs used to treat acne (taken by mouth)
Isotretinoin/ACCUTANE
Heart drugs like Amiodarone  & Quinidine
Skin preparations
Antibacterials (chlorhexidine, hexachlorophene)

Most of us have taken at least one of them;  others, many more. For a long
time, nearly everyone poo-pooed the idea that CRT's were harmful to some
people and caused serious skin ailments.  But anyone who has owned a CRT has
likely noticed that they are often the dustiest item in the room. It turned
out that once the Swedes, notorious for their stringent consumer protection
laws, actually did the research, they found the claims credible.  They
discovered that sitting in front of a CRT with its high voltage components
acting as a attractant, caused people's hands, arms and faces to be showered
with microscope dust particles and those, in turn, clogged skin pores with
all sorts of airborne irritants, resulting in sometimes serious skin
ailments.

I mention this only to point out that there are many things that seem highly
unlikely until someone bothers to design
the proper experiments to prove or disprove a contention.  Another thing to
consider is the manufacturing process.  It's pretty obvious to me, at least,
that Chinese manufacturers vary greatly in their adherence to quality
control principles.  Bearing that in mind, what happens to the UV output of
a fluorescent bulb with a thin, defective or non-existent phosphor coating?
It spikes tremendously.  Why?  Because fluorescent bulbs are designed to
emit short wave UV radiation that strikes the phosphor coating, causing it
fluoresce and converting the UV to visible light waves.  With bad or thin
phosphor, there's less material to impede the UV emissions.  So I'm not at
all surprised that the research varies tremendously.  The items under
investigation do, too.

--
Bobby G.