LED lights "as dangerous as cigarettes"

[TPA]

Experts warn of health risks from LED lights across the Gulf Coast

Experts warn of health risks from LED lights across the Gulf Coast.

www.gulfcoastnewsnow.com

If you believe this, LED lights are "as dangerous as cigarettes" and will cause "breast cancer as well as prostate cancer"

While I love some good incandescent lighting, we went many decades with carbon arc, fluorescent, mercury vapour, metal halide outdoor lighting. If anything, the past few decades have had some of the warmest colour temp outdoor lighting ever.

 

[PaladinNO]

Site unavailable to me, but an excerpt from the Youtube video:
"Health experts caution that blue light from LED streetlights may suppress melatonin production, potentially increasing risks of cancer and other health issues."

Is this another attempt at US hysteria? Because I am getting really tired of it. Are they really directly comparing excessive Blue light exposure, and potential sleep deprivation, with cancer?

That Blue light upsets the melatonin balance in the body before trying to sleep has been known for a LONG time. That bad sleep over time leads to stress and other issue isn't new either. But Blue light and cancer!? Now that's just outright stupid.

If someone in the US is so worried about the public health, how about issuing glasses with yellow glasses to everyone at risk.
Reading "news" like this is comparable to signs saying "the world is ending!" - and I feel dumber just thinking about it. >-<

 

[TPA]

AI-reworded version (to avoid copyright issues) of the original article:

Health experts along Florida's Gulf Coast are sounding the alarm about the LED streetlights increasingly common in cities like Naples and Cape Coral. The concern centers on blue light: LEDs emit far more of it than the old orange-tinted sodium bulbs they're replacing, and researchers say the health consequences could be serious.


Dr. Mario Motta, who helped shape the American Medical Association's light pollution guidelines, put it starkly — the risk from blue light exposure may be comparable to smoking. The mechanism involves melatonin, a hormone produced by the brain's pineal gland. Blue light at night suppresses melatonin production, and that matters because sleep is when the body does its repair work. During sleep, the immune system dispatches B and T cells into the bloodstream to hunt down abnormal cells. Disrupt that process, and you reduce the body's ability to catch problems early.


Breast cancer surgeon Dr. Natalia Spinelli added that research links blue-heavy LED exposure specifically to higher rates of breast and prostate cancer. Beyond cancer risk, she noted that chronic blue light exposure can drive up cortisol (the stress hormone tied to obesity and fight-or-flight responses) and promote systemic inflammation — both signs that the body's regulatory systems are being thrown off balance.


The color temperature of LEDs matters a lot here. At Cape Coral's Jaycee Park, some bulbs run at 2,700 Kelvin, which experts consider borderline acceptable. Others in the same park hit 3,000 Kelvin, producing about 21% blue light — a level Dr. Motta considers too high for a densely populated residential area. His general rule: the lower the blue content, the better for human health.


For anyone worried about exposure at home, experts suggest room-darkening shades to keep outdoor light out, removing nightlights entirely, and eliminating any blue light sources from the bedroom — yes, including the standby light on your cable box. According to Dr. Motta, even minimal blue light at night is enough to partially suppress immune function, and even a small reduction in immune surveillance meaningfully raises the odds of cancer going undetected.

 

[PaladinNO]

Thanks for rewritten article.

This is still a non-issue. We have already known about the health risks of Blue light for over a decade, so there is no excuse calling anything a "cancer-risk" now, not when every streep lamp could have been replaced or retrofitted with a LED-solution in the ~2000K range long ago.

But this reminds me - I still haven't tried my 3M 3700-series Yellow eye protectors on a late-night walk. Not many street lamps where I live, but there are a few. I bought those goggles to use while nightdriving to be less fatigued, but the sharp angles constantly distracted my sidevision, making my brain think any shadow was something moving (like a moose). Still haven't tried them while only walking in the dark.

Also, all the street lamps in the nearest town was some years ago upgraded to LED of a typical 5000K fashion. Less than 2 years later they were all replaced or had work done to them again, as so many were complaining about the glare from them. Now they have some Amber light in them - and driving through the area in the winter evenings, it feels SO much better now!

 

[lampeDépêche]

"According to Dr. Motta, even minimal blue light at night is enough to partially suppress immune function, and even a small reduction in immune surveillance meaningfully raises the odds of cancer going undetected."

"Even minimal"! "Even small"!
Sigh...this is the kind of threat-escalation that turns commonsense into nonsense.
Sometimes, a lot of something is bad. It does not follow that a little of it is bad, and it certainly does not follow that tiny amounts of it are a cause for hysteria. (Take the case of salt, sodium chloride. If you eat over 2 kilos of it in a day, it will adversely affect your health! But if you eat a few grams a day, your health will be better than if you eat zero.)
I agree about the room-darkening shades -- I am all in favor of "black-out" curtains, i.e. curtains that reduce the ambient light to near-zero in your sleeping area. I know that I sleep better in a darkened room, myself.
But to go from there to saying that streetlights are a public health hazard is just silly.

 

[PaladinNO]

Sigh...this is the kind of threat-escalation that turns commonsense into nonsense.
Sometimes, a lot of something is bad. It does not follow that a little of it is bad, and it certainly does not follow that tiny amounts of it are a cause for hysteria. (Take the case of salt, sodium chloride. If you eat over 2 kilos of it in a day, it will adversely affect your health! But if you eat a few grams a day, your health will be better than if you eat zero.)

That is so true.
Even drinking too much water, the most basic of need, is dangerous if done in excess. Everything is dangerous in excess (except maybe fresh air, I don't know - some would surely argue about that too).

Only good thing that may come of this is a "Blue light paranoia", where we may see less Blue light required by law in LEDs. No, I'm not holding my breath for that - I don't even care. But I do vastly prefer varm coloured light to cool light. I will take 3000K in a flashlight over 5000K any day.

And both governments and manufacturers KNOW Yellowy light is better than Blue, so why they haven't taken steps to sort this out before "news" articles like is even a thing is down to one thing: money. Poor quality lighting is cheaper to make than good lighting. And 5000K gives the perception of "better" or "more" lighting compared to a warmer CCT.

Frankly, I am in favour of as little street illumination as possible. Put them up at corners and turn-offs, sure, but not need to have them along long straights. Last I checked, my car came with lights on it. And a flashlight - or "portable illumination" - has been available since the early 1900's.

I am beginning to see more and more why people miss the incandescent lights.

 

[dc38]

You know, treating a bare LED die as a scratch and sniff is indeed detrimental to one's health.

 

[newts]

They could be right about LED lights and ciggies. People get burned by cigs all the time and I had a light on my belt turn on and burn a hole in my shirt.

 

[iacchus]

"Even small amounts of blue light, such as that from a cable box, can be harmful"

guffaw

 

[raggie33]

Most dangerous thing to are health is are selfs

 

[elzilcho]

Worth noting that Dr. Motta is a retired cardiologist and extremely active amateur astronomer who had an asteroid named after him "for work on light pollution and research collaboration." Source Nobody hates bright streetlights more than someone trying to see stuff in the night sky.

I hope the statement "as dangerous as cigarettes" came from the reporter misinterpreting something Dr. Motta said rather than an actual quote, because it doesn't look like the research supports that. The story didn't link to any studies so that tells you something. Circadian rhythm disruption leads to all sorts of bad health outcomes but comparing it to smoking, and ignoring all the other non-lighting things that can mess with sleep patterns, seems a bit much.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

Worth noting that Dr. Motta is a retired cardiologist and extremely active amateur astronomer who had an asteroid named after him "for work on light pollution and research collaboration." Source Nobody hates bright streetlights more than someone trying to see stuff in the night sky.

I hope the statement "as dangerous as cigarettes" came from the reporter misinterpreting something Dr. Motta said rather than an actual quote, because it doesn't look like the research supports that. The story didn't link to any studies so that tells you something. Circadian rhythm disruption leads to all sorts of bad health outcomes but comparing it to smoking, and ignoring all the other non-lighting things that can mess with sleep patterns, seems a bit much.

That statement about blue light being "as dangerous as cigarettes" reeks of TV sweeps week, when reporters cook up their best versions of "you won't believe how harmful (fill in the blank) is. Film at 11.

 

[jtr1962]

Only good thing that may come of this is a "Blue light paranoia", where we may see less Blue light required by law in LEDs. No, I'm not holding my breath for that - I don't even care. But I do vastly prefer varm coloured light to cool light. I will take 3000K in a flashlight over 5000K any day.

And both governments and manufacturers KNOW Yellowy light is better than Blue, so why they haven't taken steps to sort this out before "news" articles like is even a thing is down to one thing: money. Poor quality lighting is cheaper to make than good lighting. And 5000K gives the perception of "better" or "more" lighting compared to a warmer CCT.

For street lighting the sweet spot is maybe 4500K to 5000K. Any lower and peripheral vision/depth perception starts to suffer. Any higher and there's more glare without any benefits of higher peripheral vision or greater depth perception. Let's not forget that the purpose of street lighting is to let road users see potential hazards. Neutral CCTs tend to do that the best.

The concerns about blue light from street lighting are frankly hysterical. Street lighting is very low intensity compared to indoor lighting or devices like phones or TVs. Indeed you probably get more blue light exposure from your phone in 2 minutes than you would standing under a 5000K streetlight all night.

That said I do have a problem with low CRI being considered acceptable for streetlighting. If we're worried about blue spikes, 5000K, 95CRI lighting has a lower blue spike than 2700K, 70 CRI lighting. And it's far superior for actually seeing things. I also think aesthetically it's much nicer, being much closer to sunlight than so-called warm white lighting.

Frankly, I am in favour of as little street illumination as possible. Put them up at corners and turn-offs, sure, but not need to have them along long straights. Last I checked, my car came with lights on it. And a flashlight - or "portable illumination" - has been available since the early 1900's.

Pedestrians and cyclists need to see also. They generally don't have very bright lighting. Even compared to car headlights street lighting generally puts more light on the road. If energy were no object I think we should light roads to at least 100 lux. Good LED streetlighting would put most of the light on the road, not coming in people's windows.

I am beginning to see more and more why people miss the incandescent lights.

I don't. I say good riddance. I never could stand incandescent. Far too yellow, far too much color distortion compared to the sunlight we evolved to see best under. But if person really loves incandescent CRI 95 LEDs in low CCTs come close.

This blue light hysteria especially annoys me for one reason. I was so happy when NYC started installing LED streetlights. I never could stand those HPS monstrosities. I can't say how many times I ran right into a pothole because of the poor contrast and depth perception from those lights. We started out using ~4500K LEDs which was great. Then people complained and they wasted money replacing them with I think 3000K on mostly residential blocks. Not much better than HPS. They cast an ugly orange pallor on the neighborhood. I feel like suing the city because this change adversely affects safety. Streetlights are to see. They're task lighting. I'd rather have no lighting than ugly lighting.

 

[jtr1962]

Worth noting that Dr. Motta is a retired cardiologist and extremely active amateur astronomer who had an asteroid named after him "for work on light pollution and research collaboration." Source Nobody hates bright streetlights more than someone trying to see stuff in the night sky.

I hope the statement "as dangerous as cigarettes" came from the reporter misinterpreting something Dr. Motta said rather than an actual quote, because it doesn't look like the research supports that. The story didn't link to any studies so that tells you something. Circadian rhythm disruption leads to all sorts of bad health outcomes but comparing it to smoking, and ignoring all the other non-lighting things that can mess with sleep patterns, seems a bit much.

Yes about circadian rhythm disruption but you know the primary cause of it? It's not lighting. It's typical school and work schedules which force people out of bed at hours when their body tells them they should be sleeping. Nobody except an extreme morning person is going to want to be up at 7AM. Unfortunately the early birds seem to have gotten the say on work schedules.

Moving the clocks ahead for DST is another big circadian rhythm disruption. It compounds the problems just described. If we're concerned about circadian rhythm disruption then don't start work or school until at least 10 AM. For teenagers/young adults who tend to move to later schedules make that no earlier than 11AM.

 

[PaladinNO]

For street lighting the sweet spot is maybe 4500K to 5000K. Any lower and peripheral vision/depth perception starts to suffer. Any higher and there's more glare without any benefits of higher peripheral vision or greater depth perception. Let's not forget that the purpose of street lighting is to let road users see potential hazards. Neutral CCTs tend to do that the best.

I don't disagree with any of that, but to be blunt, I don't want the street lamps to be equivalent of daylight in the dark. Whether it's driving or walking. Yellowy light is so much easier on the eyes for prolonged durations when being in otherwise darkness. And living in an area with a long winters and lots of snow, and having tried everything from 6500K to 1800K lighting while both driving and walking, trust me, lower CCTs are better over longer durations (admittedly, I am biased, because I am all over that 1800K goodness in flashlights).

Reduced peripheral vision / depth perception are all things that comes naturally in darkness. I don't see why street lamps should take that away completely. And driving / running / cycling so fast that becomes an issue in the dark...well, I wouldn't want to be close to such a person who really should wait until daylight. And there are very good bike lights available now, for those so inclined (I really do expect pedestrians who wants to have the sun with them while walking in the dark to have already purchased the appropriate flashlight ).

But street lamps that so bright they are comparable to sunlight, that would create so much spill I would call it an annoyance if I were living in the vicinity.

I'm not trying to argue, just trying to make my points - and I really do see your points. And we definitely agree on the bad CRI in typical street lamps. Having become a CRI snob, I can't stand anything below CRI 80 now. And the CRI 70 typical of a street lamp is just plain ugly, no matter the CCT. If the street lamps were ~4000K (and hCRI). and not bright enough to be a distraction (which they often are while driving), I would be fine with it.

Personally, I don't need street lamps (or the sun for that matter) while driving. I have the equivalent of 65.000 raw Lumen (on paper) in auxiliary lights on my car. And almost all of them are fitted with Amber filters.

 

[TPA]

I don't. I say good riddance. I never could stand incandescent. Far too yellow, far too much color distortion compared to the sunlight we evolved to see best under. But if person really loves incandescent CRI 95 LEDs in low CCTs come close.

The current condo I'm at is a time warp. I bought it in 2006 and basically stopped doing anything to it in 2010, basically abandoned it in 2015. All of the lighting was incadescent/halogen/xenon when I revived the place late last year. Much of the fixed lighting is still halogen/xenon, usually 12vDC PAR36 bulbs. A mix of floods of various angles and spots. There are some MR16 bulbs around the place too.

And.. it's wonderfully cozy. It's a noticeable change entering here compared to the rest of the modern world. No flicker, no excess blue, great CRI. Dimming is proper, full-range, and the colour temperature drops as you dim, making it an even cozier place to be. Yes, I know Philips used to make some bulbs which could do this, but it appears they've stopped making them.

Yes about circadian rhythm disruption but you know the primary cause of it? It's not lighting. It's typical school and work schedules which force people out of bed at hours when their body tells them they should be sleeping. Nobody except an extreme morning person is going to want to be up at 7AM. Unfortunately the early birds seem to have gotten the say on work schedules.

Moving the clocks ahead for DST is another big circadian rhythm disruption. It compounds the problems just described. If we're concerned about circadian rhythm disruption then don't start work or school until at least 10 AM. For teenagers/young adults who tend to move to later schedules make that no earlier than 11AM.

I'm a night owl, for emotional/historical reasons. I can't fall asleep until everyone else in the house has been asleep for awhile. Even with that, I'll fully admit that getting up early is best for productivity in modern society. In high school/college (dual enrollment) I worked 4:30a-9a, then 3p-10p. The amount of work I was able to do in such a short period of time was incredible. As a teenager, I would have hated school starting later as it would have prevented me from working, and I learned FAR more at work than I ever did in school. I even had teachers give me passes for the entire semester when they saw what I was working on. Then again, I skipped my classes most of the time anyway, so maybe it wouldn't have been a big deal.

These days I'm doing the polyphasic sleep thing to maximise productivity. I sleep from 9p-12a, and again 4a-9a. If there's a circadian rhythm, my body never learned it.

I do agree that this DST stuff is garbage. 20 states of both political persuasions have voted to get rid of DST. The sooner the better.

 

[jtr1962]

I don't disagree with any of that, but to be blunt, I don't want the street lamps to be equivalent of daylight in the dark. Whether it's driving or walking. Yellowy light is so much easier on the eyes for prolonged durations when being in otherwise darkness. And living in an area with a long winters and lots of snow, and having tried everything from 6500K to 1800K lighting while both driving and walking, trust me, lower CCTs are better over longer durations (admittedly, I am biased, because I am all over that 1800K goodness in flashlights).

I'm speaking solely from the perspective of streetlighting as a type of task lighting. Of course where seeing isn't as important you can choose any CCT which suits your preferences. On another note, higher CCTs have higher apparent brightness at the same number of lumens. This was readily seen when cities switched from mercury vapor to HPS in the early 1970s. The lumen output of HPS was about the same for roughly half the power. Cities were happy to save on electricity. Unfortunately there were widespread complaints about how dim the new lighting was. And also the fact it rendered colors poorly, even compared to the not so great MV lamps.

Anyway, I'm of the camp that if we use ~4500K for streetlight and also use high CRI (which further increases apparent brightness for any given lux level) then we can in fact light streets less brightly without impacting safety. And the lower the light output, the more easily it is to prevent light trespass into people's home, which is another common compliant about some streetlights.

Reduced peripheral vision / depth perception are all things that comes naturally in darkness. I don't see why street lamps should take that away completely. And driving / running / cycling so fast that becomes an issue in the dark...well, I wouldn't want to be close to such a person who really should wait until daylight. And there are very good bike lights available now, for those so inclined (I really do expect pedestrians who wants to have the sun with them while walking in the dark to have already purchased the appropriate flashlight ).

I'll say here the environment is key. In an urban environment heavy with pedestrians and cyclists you need enough light, and of the proper CCT, so as to not sacrifice peripheral vision and depth perception. Drivers (and cyclists) need to be able to see pedestrians in their peripheral vision in order to react in time, even at moderate urban driving speeds like 20 to 40 mph. In suburban and rural areas you can get by with far lower light levels. Indeed in rural areas you often don't need streetlighting at all.

Even at moderate cycling speeds like 20 mph I often missed potholes with the old HPS lamps. That's how bad they were. Also until maybe the last 10 to 15 years affordable bike lights weren't bright enough to light the road ahead all that well. Now you can put the equivalent of a car headlight on your bike while still having a reasonable sized battery. 2000 lumens only requires perhaps 10 to 15 watts with today's LEDs. And today's batteries can put out that level of power for hours while still being light enough to use on a bike.

But street lamps that so bright they are comparable to sunlight, that would create so much spill I would call it an annoyance if I were living in the vicinity.

This type of lighting is mostly appropriate on major commercial arterials in cities. I'm not suggesting we light residential side blocks this brightly. When lots of people are out shopping or walking after dark getting the environment lit very brightly helps with both safety and business.

I'm not trying to argue, just trying to make my points - and I really do see your points. And we definitely agree on the bad CRI in typical street lamps. Having become a CRI snob, I can't stand anything below CRI 80 now. And the CRI 70 typical of a street lamp is just plain ugly, no matter the CCT. If the street lamps were ~4000K (and hCRI). and not bright enough to be a distraction (which they often are while driving), I would be fine with it.

Totally agree. And yes I'm fine with 4000K high CRI streetlights which are just bright enough to do the job. Also, another complaint of mine about ALL streetlights is indeed the glare they send to drivers. Road users should just be able to see the lit street, not the light sources themselves. We need better cutoffs. We also need to space lights more closely. Ideally we would use a light bar running the length of the street. This can be a fraction of the intensity of widely spaced streetlights and will light the street to the same lux level.

Personally, I don't need street lamps (or the sun for that matter) while driving. I have the equivalent of 65.000 raw Lumen (on paper) in auxiliary lights on my car. And almost all of them are fitted with Amber filters.

I'm glad this works for you. I find I can't see well at all with anything less than about 4000K. I'm also going at the prospect of 65,000 lumens on a vehicle. Who needs street lamps when your vehicle has more than double the output of most of them in a focused beam?

 

[Chauncey Gardener]

That statement about blue light being "as dangerous as cigarettes" reeks of TV sweeps week, when reporters cook up their best versions of "you won't believe how harmful (fill in the blank) is. Film at 11.

6:00 pm news: The food that you're probably eating right now that could kill you. Story at 11:00 pm

 

[dc38]

That statement about blue light being "as dangerous as cigarettes" reeks of TV sweeps week, when reporters cook up their best versions of "you won't believe how harmful (fill in the blank) is. Film at 11.

Inhaling the magic smoke from overpoofed LED should be considered more dangerous and carcinogenic than cig smoke...

 

[PaladinNO]

I'm glad this works for you. I find I can't see well at all with anything less than about 4000K. I'm also going at the prospect of 65,000 lumens on a vehicle. Who needs street lamps when your vehicle has more than double the output of most of them in a focused beam?

In snow, you want as low CCT as possible. I LOVE my 519A 1800K flashlights for my late-night walks in the snow. I've spoken about this earlier, but the 6000K glare and reflections you get in snow is absolutely horrible. And ice is even worse.

As far as the 65K Lumen goes, I have a LOT of loss with the Amber filters. But it's worth it, because I am still outshining even most trucks. Effectively, I have 4 pods (Rigid D-XL Pro Driving) in a wide cone for ~150 meters of 180º flood lights. I drive a lot on narrow, twisty gravel roads, with lots of animals (anything from moose to mice), so I want light shining also in the ditches and well into the trees on both sides for personal comfort and safety. And with a recently upgraded LED-bar (Lazer Triple-R 24 Elite Gen 2) on the roof for a fairly wide ~500 meters of effective light throw forward.

On an open area, I'd say I get at least 20 seconds of response time from seeing any source for caution in those 180° in front of me. Doesn't sound like much, but when it's otherwise so dark you can barely see the front of your car from the driver's seat, and the factory lights gives me, say, half that time and only for forward obstacles, I'll gladly take that expense again.

But come to think of it, with regard to this topic, with so much 5000K / 6000K lighting by default, I must be practically driving around in a cancer gun!
Oh noez, what horror! My car is giving people cancer every time I drive around with auxiliaries!

Fun fact though: some of the street lamps on my commute has light sensors (others have timers) for when to turn off or on, depending on the sun.
...When I have come close to such street lamps, I am shining so much light on them, they have turned themselves off. ^^