LED = Eye Damage?

[smithman]

In my point of view the REAL DANGER of LED Flashlights come from another thing:
Its the reflection of different kind of surfaces which could cause hard damage to your eyes, because in the normal environment its quite impossible to use a flashlight without touching elements which are reflecting.

I am sure that every flashlight-user get such reflections, at least once a months.

 

[BytorJr]

If any of my flashlights cause eye damage I'd be shocked. My "newest" is an "old" Malkoff M60 drop-in and the Novatac 120P.

Now, seriously, how many of you all have been to the eye doctor where they get the light AND lens out after you with your eyes dilated? THAT is seriously bright.

 

[smithman]

Your doc have a special light with specs he is allowed to use.
Dont compare it to our Cree Q5/R5 stuff..

People have to be very careful, especially flashaholics!
Thats a serious topic, nothing for kidding.

 

[Monocrom]

Well, since the last time I posted in this thread (nearly 3 years ago) my addiction to lights has gone up. My eyes still work.

If someone decides to respond to another post 3 years from now, I'll update you all on the condition of my eyes.

 

[yellow]

the REAL DANGER of LED Flashlights
reflection of different kind of surfaces

come on


Eye damage = high damage in shorter time than blinking reflex
... that is only possible with LASERS
(with them even a reflected beam dangerous, thats correct)

 

[smithman]

I dont think so. Never underestimate the huge power of latest LEDs.
Even 60+ Lm could be enough.

There are too many surfaces which are reflecting in a dangerous way.
For example any kind of metallic and glass-type elements .

For sure, if your in the jungle of brazil you won't notice any kind of reflection,
but under normal circumstances you have such elements in every general-usage environment.
The quantity of the usage could harm your eyes more than one or two times of getting snow-blind by the flashlight.

 

[MikeG1P315]

If reflective surfaces are the issue, then LEDS are no different than all other flashlights, headlights, and the sun. I've been plenty blinded by reflections on chrome bits of cars or windshields by sunlight, headlights, etc.

I suspect staring at any bright source of light for long periods of time is a bad idea… but, um, even damage caused by looking at the sun at high noon WTHOUT sunglasses is usually minor and temporary. (with sunglasses, or durng an eclipse is another story entirely).

 

[Thilo]

Yes and no, fact is that any light what is powerfull can be damage your eye power, that can be also a Xenon light or a normal spot. Let us review a few basic parts of the eye that are important to understand, what a strobe is, and what happens when the eyes get "streamt". The eye has the ability to adjust itself very quickly to a steady light. Therefore, the advantage to blind the attacking person gets lost. It becomes harder for the eye to fix on a target behind the light or to determine the distance to the source. The light can thus be used as a protective "shield"

 

[Monocrom]

. . . The light can thus be used as a protective "shield."

For about one second.

Please, this issue has been done to death on these boards. Unless you're using your flashlight to physically strike an attacker, a light is a p*ss poor choice for self-defense.

 

[Misan]

I think every bright light can damage eye. Not in vain to protect the eyes from the sun we wear sunglasses. Not correctly configured in the car headlights too irritating to the eyes.
Do not do poop and eyes will be all right.

 

[Mr Bigglow]

You can't go around selling the multitudes flashlights that say things like "do not looking directly into beam" without some such eye destruction belief building up. And of course the warning is necessary to preclude some hysteric suing the company because the spots didn't go away. But you might as well say that using hammers damages vision, since you can't buy one of those that doesn't advise donning eye protection before using.

 

[Apollo Cree]

This may be related to the "blue light hazard." The concern is that if you start using the current "white" LED's for room lighting there might be long term eye health problems due to the high amount of blue light in certain wavelength bands.

This is a concern about what happens if you're exposed to blue-rich light for 8 or more hours a day for years. Think of it as being analogous to fading of a carpet where it's exposed to the sun coming through a window. It takes a long time to happen, but it definitely happens.

There is concern about the rate of macular degeneration, cataracts or other "aging" problems with the eye being increased.

It's difficult to test because results take a long time, and the problems it may cause happen at a certain rate even without blue light hazard.

There is some concern that blue light hazard may exist even with common fluorescent lighting.

In my opinion, this is a valid concern, but it's not a "run for your lives" type of thing. Suppose that LED (or compact fluorescent) lighting increases the rate of macular degeneration by 10%, that would be thousands of people losing their vision.

 

[lyyyghtmaster]

Triphosphor fluorescent peaks around 435nm and LED near 450. So which is worse? You'd think 435 for the same CCT since there would have to be more of it to create an overall white. But that is complicated by the presence of a moderate (less dangerous) cyan peak in the triphosphor spectrum, which would mean the deep blue peak wouldn't have to be as strong. Phosphor-converted white LEDs have a hole at this point in the spectrum. Also, with higher-CCT triphosphor fluorescents, there tends to be more broad-spectrum blue in addition to the above peaks, which would again result in less need for a strong 435 peak.


Along these lines I read somewhere recently that supposedly 440nm is at a peak of eye-damage-capability, presumably dropping off above (makes sense) and below (doesn't make sense). Could this actually be true that 440 might be somewhat more dangerous than slightly shorter wavelengths? I would tend to think the danger level increases pretty smoothly as shorter wavelengths are approached, but maybe this is an oversimplification? :shrug:

 

[jk037]

Just don't jam LEDs into your eye sockets and everything will be fine.

 

[hank]

> I read somewhere ... 440 nm ...

Absorbtion peak, perhaps.

Try these: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=440+nm+eye+damage

 

[the.Mtn.Man]

LED = Eye Damage?

A sufficiently bright incandescent light can also lead to eye damage provided you stare at it long enough.

 

[FloggedSynapse]

(...)

Along these lines I read somewhere recently that supposedly 440nm is at a peak of eye-damage-capability, presumably dropping off above (makes sense) and below (doesn't make sense). Could this actually be true that 440 might be somewhat more dangerous than slightly shorter wavelengths? I would tend to think the danger level increases pretty smoothly as shorter wavelengths are approached, but maybe this is an oversimplification? :shrug:

It's possible. Apparently blue/violet light, at least in large amounts, is much more damaging to the retina than green or red light.

Unfortunately the way these high efficiency white LEDs work is by converting a lot of ~450nm radiation (from the LED die) to white light (after passing through the phosphor around the LED). So they all have a lot of blue light in their spectrum, especially compared to more 'classic' light sources. I think it's part of the reason these lights are glarey.

See this topic I started: LEDs & 'Blue Glare' & Eye damage
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/282316

Also these two links of blue light damage:
http://www.sunnexbiotech.com/therapist/main.htm
http://www.sunnexbiotech.com/therapist/blue light and amd.html

According the above link(s) 440nm represents the most damaging wavelength - quickly 'bleaching' retinal cells, leading to many harmful biochemical reactions, release of free radicals, etc..

This is long term and cumulative damage, not instant blindness, being discussed.

Likely under normal use these lights are relatively safe.. but who knows they haven't been in common use long enough to know.

FYI

 

[Apollo Cree]

We need to realize that there's not a "black and white" distinction between blue and ultraviolet light. (or between other light colors for that matter.)

If you're talking about chemical effects of light of a specific wavelength, there's a bit of a sliding scale. 1 watt of red light has the least amount of chemical effects. Green light has a little more effect. Blue is more, UV is more, X-rays are even more. Even within a particular "color," there is a range of "damage levels." Deep ultraviolet is more chemically active than near UV.

Think of it like a video game. Certain weapons have a "1" damage level. Some have a "100" damage level. The 1 damage level weapon will eventually kill you.

White LEDs have a strong peak in the blue region. It's a valid concern whether this has a long term bad effect on the human eye. Light, especially UV, seems to be correlated to cataracts and other long term "age related" eye problems. Even a small percentage increase in eye problems will mean a lot more cases of serious eye problems. Thousands of people could lose their vision prematurely years in the future.

Suppose that 30 years in the future, we find out that converting all our indoor lighting to LED's caused the cataract rate in the US to increase 10%. That's 40,000 cataract cases per year.

I'm not really all that concerned, but blue light hazard is a valid concern. I'm concerned that the risks will not be considered in the government's frenzy to conserve energy at all costs by converting everything to LEDs.

 

[WDG]

I predict this can only end in sweeping draconian legislative nannyism, wherein we will all be forced to turn in our lights for Mag Solitaires and wear protective goggles at all times.

 

[PayBack]

It all comes down to taxes... if you pay enough money to the government, you can even sell things that kill nearly 50% of it's users.