A Study Shows LED May Damage Human Eyes

slebans

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
457
Location
Moncton, NB Canada
http://www.ledinside.com/news/2013/5/led_damage_human_eyes_20130517


SNIP
Researchers said this is caused by the high levels of radiation in the 'blue band' , and is likely to become a global epidemic in the medium term given that computer, mobiles and TV screens, and even traffic and street lights, have been gradually replaced with LED. Experts are calling for the lights to have built-in filters to cut out the blue glare.
 

arek98

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
424
Location
New Jersey, USA
BS, CFL has more blue than cool white LED, warm LED in 3000K range (common for bulbs and atchitectural lighting) has even less blue.
You can damage an eye with any light if it is strong enough. Blue causes problems with sleeping because it messes with melatonin production but again other light sources have blue band too.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
This study makes absolutely no sense. LED backlight computer screens already inherently filter out any blue spikes in order to arrive at the proper ratio of RGB to display colors. Even white won't suffer from the problem of excess blue because 6500K white is a certain ratio of red, green, and blue. As for general lighting, the trend is towards 5000K or less for most types of general lighting. Here the blue spike in LEDs is far less pronounced than it is at higher CCTs. Finally, as arek98 pointed out, CFL already has more blue than LED. Moreover, it has it at shorter wavelengths, along with UV spikes. Same with linear tubes. If people haven't suffered eye problems from fluorescent, it won't be an issue with LEDs. I'm really can't take any article seriously where the lead researcher says stuff like "LED lights are made up of rainbow longitude waves, and it is the blue part which causes the problem." What the heck is a rainbow longitude wave?
 

IMSabbel

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
921
The fact that they use "LED rays" immediatly invalidates this story as bullshit (especially if coupled with no publication available).

And the claim would be SO fuzzy that anything would fullfill it. "Prolonged and continuous exposure" alright.
 

JohnR66

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
1,052
Location
SW Ohio
"LED lights are made up of rainbow longitude waves":whistle:

Whatever they're smoking. I don't want any.
 

SemiMan

Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
3,899
The researcher who published this is respected, and also very political AND has seems to have business relationships with companies that sell yellow filtered glasses and has some patents in this area.

Not use the study was actually done on humans but was tied into some other research that technically did not use LEDs but used a fluorescent source with shorter wavelengths (but not UV).

I could find no published paper and certainly nothing peer reviewed on direct human studies.

Semiman
 

Norm

Retired Administrator
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
9,512
Location
Australia
Oh no, I've been looking at the Aussie Blue Sky for sixty years :)

I'll just add I always wear UV protection, in the way of UV filtered spectacles.

Norm
 
Last edited:

slebans

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
457
Location
Moncton, NB Canada

AnAppleSnail

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
4,200
Location
South Hill, VA
In vitro studies are silly without power levels published. There are several non sequitors in the most verbose articles: " Humans are meant to see with light, not look at it. Consumers (citation needed) are demanding yellow filters to reduce this dangerous radiation in our light." I'd love to see the power levels. In vitro lets you go to arbitrary power levels (1W/cm sq for 6 hours in a sterilization paper I read recently).
 

SemiMan

Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
3,899
Damn, this paper seems to only be available in a pay per view format. The paper is dated Oct 2012 so perhaps there is a more recent article that is responsible for this mess.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2012.01237.x/full

It is shown that LED radiations decrease 75-99% cellular viability, and increase 66-89% cellular apoptosis. They also increase ROS production and DNA damage. Fluorescence intensity of apoptosis was 3.7% in nonirradiated cells and 88.8%, 86.1%, 83.9% and 65.5% in cells exposed to white, blue, green or red light, respectively.

.... draw your own conclusions but it seems even red does damage and green a lot which pretty much tells me ANY light does damage.


This paper is 8 months old so I am not sure it is the actual study w.r.t. all the recent news reports.

Semiman
 

arek98

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
424
Location
New Jersey, USA
Wow, if she is respected then IMO she has an exceptional skills in feeding BS into people with power/money to fund BS researches. Good for her but we don't need to read that.
Staring 12h into any light (or into anything) would damage you eyes or brain, actually I think you would have to have a brain damaged already to do that :p
Also it seems she is testing blue, green, and red LEDs. This is not how white LED works. Look for color spectrum graph for white LED. Total BS.
 
Last edited:

slebans

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
457
Location
Moncton, NB Canada
I'd love to see the power levels. In vitro lets you go to arbitrary power levels (1W/cm sq for 6 hours in a sterilization paper I read recently).

Agreed. That's why I was trying to find the published paper. I want to know if she used radiant flux levels higher than we would be exposed to under direct sunlight.
 

SemiMan

Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
3,899
Agreed. That's why I was trying to find the published paper. I want to know if she used radiant flux levels higher than we would be exposed to under direct sunlight.

They are in the link I posted.

Semiman
 

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped

slebans

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
457
Location
Moncton, NB Canada
They are in the link I posted.
Semiman


Thanks! I don't know how I missed that.
I still want the original published document as the link you posted is missing a lot of the details of the experiment. Two critical factors that greatly influence the level of damage cause by light are oxygen levels and temperature of the culture medium.
Finally, in vitro does not duplicate the actual environment that the retinal cells are exposed to.

Here is too much info on this subject but the first 25% is easy to read:
http://www.photobiology.info/Rozanowska.html
 
Top