You would be hard pressed to find anything installed in last 3-5 years over 5k outdoors by a city /municipality. That said your hypothesis wrt seeing better with low CCT is not supported by evidence once you get below say 5500
LED lights damage eyes and disturb sleep, European health authority warns
- Thread starter LeanBurn
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
You would be hard pressed to find anything installed in last 3-5 years over 5k outdoors by a city /municipality. That said your hypothesis wrt seeing better with low CCT is not supported by evidence once you get below say 5500
Out of Cool, Normal, Warm, Warm2 I set all of my TV's to Warm2...
usdiver
Flashlight Enthusiast
I ve thought of that but now out in the country so no need for em. I don't have a tv either but was going to say those are the (cool) lights and the reason they seem too bright is cause they aren't natural to our brain so are more intense to us. If you want a light to use to see depth and color go with warm or hi cri and if you want light for defense purposes then go cool white just not TOO cool
nicelightsman
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- May 22, 2019
- Messages
- 8
I can add some information to the topic.
I work in the industry and part of my job is to look at the latest trends and research into the fotobiological side.
I get the latest information regularly from the most known Czech authority on this topic Mr Hynek Merdricky.
Blue light content in white led's is very harmful to your sleep at night.
Even little exposure to a blue light source makes big impact on the melatonin (sleep hormone) in humans body.
Simple warm white led is not the answer, still too much blue.
The only safe light source at night is PC amber led (1600-1800k), combination of amber and red led's or incandescent.
The's lots of evidence and research in this filed.
A can see the new neutral and cold white led streetlights replaced for pc amber ones in next few years.
Some more enlightened cities already have rules not to use more than 3000k with amber lights only allowed near nature reservation sites.
Modern well designed street fixtures with pc amber look great.
I work in the industry and part of my job is to look at the latest trends and research into the fotobiological side.
I get the latest information regularly from the most known Czech authority on this topic Mr Hynek Merdricky.
Blue light content in white led's is very harmful to your sleep at night.
Even little exposure to a blue light source makes big impact on the melatonin (sleep hormone) in humans body.
Simple warm white led is not the answer, still too much blue.
The only safe light source at night is PC amber led (1600-1800k), combination of amber and red led's or incandescent.
The's lots of evidence and research in this filed.
A can see the new neutral and cold white led streetlights replaced for pc amber ones in next few years.
Some more enlightened cities already have rules not to use more than 3000k with amber lights only allowed near nature reservation sites.
Modern well designed street fixtures with pc amber look great.
alpg88
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,342
pc amber?? i know yellow and pc yellow, but what wavelength is pc amber?
Again nothing to support this hypothesis. You will see more colors accurately with a cooler high CRI source. Warm does not allow differentiation of blue colors.
I am thinking if you worked seriously in this field and with your good command of English you would know it's photobiological, not Foto ...
You won't see PC amber streetlights in any significant usage in cities and municipalities as it results in poor peripheral vision just like old HPS and people prefer the new LED street lights, most of which are 4K when installed new. As you noted lower CCT being used near natural areas but especially where sea creatures use land for spawning. As much or more important is controlling dispersion so little direct light goes toward the sea, etc.
Incandescent has enough blue to suppress melatonin if bright enough especially halogen (which is an incandescent source).
And Merdricky is not a recognized expert in this field but he appears to be a good marketer. He is not saying anything that was not said 10+ years ago. His biodynamic light does not have any special aspects that was not illustrated in outdoor lights with similar goals again 10+years ago.
nicelightsman
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- May 22, 2019
- Messages
- 8
Phospor converted amber. It's a wider spectrum than just a peak.
https://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampXPE2.pdf
page 12.
Its a blue chip with a big load of luminophore.
it has a tiny peak at blue (2-4%) and everything else green and up.
CRI about 60.
2 MeMeMe
Man, don't nitpick at minor spelling mistakes, if your native language is Čeština, its a very easy mistake to do.
Some cities already prefer lower cri, because it has a lesser effect to wildlife, especially bugs.
Yes, radiation characteristic should be well designed too.
Yes, I should say under driven and non-halogen incandescent, well done to pick this up.
Hynek is regarded as expert by everyone i know in this field.
He raises awareness and i have seen many manufacturers of outdoor light fixtures bend under the weight of arguments and admit that there's something wrong with 4000k CRI70 and they should educate the customers better and push at least warm white or PC amber.
Im not here to convince you. Just wanted to share my opinion.
And if i donn't work in the industry, how would i get this many led's ?
https://youtu.be/Q5pw0wZROSI
https://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampXPE2.pdf
page 12.
Its a blue chip with a big load of luminophore.
it has a tiny peak at blue (2-4%) and everything else green and up.
CRI about 60.
2 MeMeMe
Man, don't nitpick at minor spelling mistakes, if your native language is Čeština, its a very easy mistake to do.
Some cities already prefer lower cri, because it has a lesser effect to wildlife, especially bugs.
Yes, radiation characteristic should be well designed too.
Yes, I should say under driven and non-halogen incandescent, well done to pick this up.
Hynek is regarded as expert by everyone i know in this field.
He raises awareness and i have seen many manufacturers of outdoor light fixtures bend under the weight of arguments and admit that there's something wrong with 4000k CRI70 and they should educate the customers better and push at least warm white or PC amber.
Im not here to convince you. Just wanted to share my opinion.
And if i donn't work in the industry, how would i get this many led's ?
https://youtu.be/Q5pw0wZROSI
Phospor converted amber. It's a wider spectrum than just a peak.
https://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampXPE2.pdf
page 12.
Its a blue chip with a big load of luminophore.
it has a tiny peak at blue (2-4%) and everything else green and up.
CRI about 60.
2 MeMeMe
Man, don't nitpick at minor spelling mistakes, if your native language is Čeština, its a very easy mistake to do.
Some cities already prefer lower cri, because it has a lesser effect to wildlife, especially bugs.
Yes, radiation characteristic should be well designed too.
Yes, I should say under driven and non-halogen incandescent, well done to pick this up.
Hynek is regarded as expert by everyone i know in this field.
He raises awareness and i have seen many manufacturers of outdoor light fixtures bend under the weight of arguments and admit that there's something wrong with 4000k CRI70 and they should educate the customers better and push at least warm white or PC amber.
Im not here to convince you. Just wanted to share my opinion.
And if i donn't work in the industry, how would i get this many led's ?
https://youtu.be/Q5pw0wZROSI
I am not nitpicking spelling, I am calling BS.
PC Amber has a CRI of about 40, awful color gamut, and is poor for peripheral vision. Good for highways, poor for city/municipal and parking lots.
Hynek is pretty much a nobody, but a good marketer. He just goes off the real research done by others.
Generally, if someone is out on a street driving, you want them awake and alert, not sleepy. To that end, some blue to enhance mental acuity is not a bad thing at all. PC Amber does not enhance alertness, nor work as well w.r.t. peripheral vision. At highway speeds, focussing on our narrow color vision (2 degrees) is acceptable, but for local roads, enhanced peripheral vision both for driving and for pedestrian avoidance is not something PC amber is going to provide. Even warm white is poor at this (as is incandescent and halogen).
I am calling into question your claim w.r.t. primary responsibility of trends and research into photobiology ... and no, not really an easy mistake as you seem to have a good command of English, and if this was your primary field, well ....
I hope your megalumen is only for very short duration usage. At 3500 - 5000 watts, without serious forced air across across the heatsink, it is going to get pretty hot. That looks like a generic 250-300watt (ish), generic "off-shore" area light casing.
nicelightsman
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- May 22, 2019
- Messages
- 8
In Čeština, photosynthesis is fotosyntéza, everything photo in English is foto in czech (and it sounds exactly the same), and i have to google words sometimes and spellcheck the final text in an app.
But thank you for complimenting my written English. It takes a lot of work though.
I've heard people arguing exactly the same arguments, it keeps the driver awake, the human eye is more sensitive to higher cct, higher CRI makes for better vision... Everything sounds more than plausible from the start.
Until you get experts from all the fields involved (even the pesky bug guy) and put it all on the paper.
Then you get to the answer, we should not be lighting our streets at all.
If we have to, it should be PC amber. It works well enough and does lesser harm to nature or humans sleeping.
You get your dose of blue from your own headlights reflecting of stuff or your dashboard. That's more than enough to keep your melatonin low, if you are reasonably rested.
Yes, megalumen is blinder/strobe fixture.
The most powerful
...
...
...in the world. (probably)
But thank you for complimenting my written English. It takes a lot of work though.
I've heard people arguing exactly the same arguments, it keeps the driver awake, the human eye is more sensitive to higher cct, higher CRI makes for better vision... Everything sounds more than plausible from the start.
Until you get experts from all the fields involved (even the pesky bug guy) and put it all on the paper.
Then you get to the answer, we should not be lighting our streets at all.
If we have to, it should be PC amber. It works well enough and does lesser harm to nature or humans sleeping.
You get your dose of blue from your own headlights reflecting of stuff or your dashboard. That's more than enough to keep your melatonin low, if you are reasonably rested.
Yes, megalumen is blinder/strobe fixture.
The most powerful
...
...
...in the world. (probably)
Humans sleeping do not look at street lights. That is just parroting doomsayers who have an axe to grind. Streetlights have phenomenal ROI due to greatly reduced accidents, pedestrian injuries, and even encouraging economic activity. PC amber is not as good for peripheral vision and pedestrian protection no matter how many times you say it is good enough. Neither is reflected headlights enough to suppress melatonin. It's easy to look at the studies of light level versus melatonin suppression to see that is just not the case.
Higher CRI has pretty much 0 impact on visual performance concerning street lighting or vehicle lighting ... those pesky experts figured that out long ago. Low CRI is perfectly good for high speeds, and low CRI but higher CCT is perfectly good for low speeds.
It is not a matter of whether it is plausible, it's a matter of what is true, and we know what leads to greatest safety. When people are on the road, they need to be awake and alert. Curtains can block 100% of street light for sleeping and better light control helps as well. The only balancing input is danger to animals (and bugs).
Higher CRI has pretty much 0 impact on visual performance concerning street lighting or vehicle lighting ... those pesky experts figured that out long ago. Low CRI is perfectly good for high speeds, and low CRI but higher CCT is perfectly good for low speeds.
It is not a matter of whether it is plausible, it's a matter of what is true, and we know what leads to greatest safety. When people are on the road, they need to be awake and alert. Curtains can block 100% of street light for sleeping and better light control helps as well. The only balancing input is danger to animals (and bugs).
xevious
Flashlight Enthusiast
These days a lot of government "authorities" making such claims are usually not backing it up with a solid scientific basis, and usually there's some ulterior motive (like a company pushing "LED eye safe" lights).
UV light is not good for your eyes, and when you're exposed to it, it doesn't feel right to the eyes. It plays "tricks" on your visual perception, putting strain on muscles. And that's a sign right there that something is amiss.
There's a reason why LED manufacturers have shifted to warmer tints. Most people just don't like cold, bluish light. And it's for a reason -- it creates eye strain. So, LEDs have definitely moved in the right direction.
UV light is not good for your eyes, and when you're exposed to it, it doesn't feel right to the eyes. It plays "tricks" on your visual perception, putting strain on muscles. And that's a sign right there that something is amiss.
There's a reason why LED manufacturers have shifted to warmer tints. Most people just don't like cold, bluish light. And it's for a reason -- it creates eye strain. So, LEDs have definitely moved in the right direction.
I find people make a lot of statements on the web that do not have a solid scientific basis either.
Almost no white LEDs have UV.
Warmer tints do not inherently have less eye-strain. In many cases, they actually have more, especially where high visual acuity is required.
People only prefer warmer tints at lower lighting levels like in a house and even then, there is some cultural aspects to that. Asian cultures tend to prefer cooler tints. Many people prefer cooler tints at high lighting levels, i.e. when you get 500+ lux ... sunlight is not a "warm" tint.
There was actually a test done many years ago that showed that for many scenes people preferred a cooler tint with good color gamut over warmer high CRI.
Yup ... science.
Personally my favorite (outdoor) light is a 500 watt halogen quartz. If they made a LED with the exact same output specs I'd be all over it.
Last edited:
At night, you would be unlikely to tell the diff between a 90 CRI 3000K LED and a halogen, so they pretty much do, you just a whole lot less power
At night, you would be unlikely to tell the diff between a 90 CRI 3000K LED and a halogen, so they pretty much do, you just a whole lot less power
When I say the same specs I am including the output lumens, which is around 8,750- 9,500...
Midnight.Sun
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2015
- Messages
- 143
Can you please elaborate further about the eye natural UV filters (in plural if possible)?
I'm being serious, I had a situation on an occasion last summer, where I was exposed to the sunlight for a lot more time than original planned, the original plan was doing a minor fixing of satellite system for 30 min to 1 hour max from 6:00 to 6:30 AM or maximum 7:00 AM, to fix 1 faulty line with all it's related stuff, so I went there without head cap or sun glasses, but things were not as expected, there were a lot more corrosions and I ended up doing 8 lines (18 junctions in and out of parts) and a lot of makeshifts to replace corroded parts of the cables, and all the rest of related fiddling, it took until 1:30 PM to finish the job (I had my arms burned bright red by that time), but I tried to avoid the sunlight most of the time, and was thinking about that the huge white satellite dish was even further concentrating the reflected sunlight of it, but I was in get down and dirty situation, and also was not fully aware (nor educated) about the hazards, all was in my mined while working was my youth days (and years) of playing in the school yard under the sun and going to the beach and swimming pools without any sunglasses or head caps, and I thought that my eyes should have muscle memory (if that's the correct English expression). But later that night I felt a small headache, then slept normally, and everything seemed normal for about a month, only some tiny (barely noticable) no vision stationary spots started to show up in my eye sight field of view, and that's different from my familiar floaters (which moves in my eyes liquid humorous according to eye movement and gravity), other than that nothing new and accordingly I forgot about all that event. Then at the end of that month when I accidentally shrugged my head to avoid a flying insect (big flying ant) I got immediate headache (similar to the one at the night of the sun exposure day), but with immediate dizziness this time, I went to sleep, and next morning I started to see big area of no vision spot (Grey) when I turn my eyes in certain direction, so I made eye sight exam appointment, and by the time that it took to happen, I was diagnosed with multiple retinal tissue transforming spots and liquidised humorous gel in the left eye that showed the big blind spot (apparently it's several and not only one big spot as I thought) of retinal transforming, I think he meant degeneration spots (he said its retinal tissue thinning when I asked) located at around the macula in the middle FOV and the peripheral section (I guess), which there was not any sign of it present in my previous appointments the year earlier, and I could see the Grey spots (retina tissue cells) that the doctor was talking about while he was lighting the inside of my eyes with his new stronger white light 6500 K (head light this time), while I had not seen them before in the previous check ups when he used to use his older weaker neutral penlight 4500 K, where the cells of my retina looked smooth and healthy, when I was diagnosed totally healthy but with only the floaters issue.
(*I'm guessing here that many of us know how our fovea manage to see the inside peripheral retina cells inside our eyes when the doctor illuminate the inside of the eye with a pen flashlight.)
Mined you, I have Green eyes and very light sensitive all over my life and have allergy, and was living mostly in dark environment (and daily total darkness periods) for the vast recent years of my life before that event, not totally, but mostly (much more than what one may consider normal conditions), so my eyes were not used to sunlight exposure for years, and got myself all of sudden directly into that sunny situation, it was sudden impact on the eyes. Another thing, until now I still have good eyesight (beside those blind spots and floaters) about 9.5/10 in each eye, and don't have cataract (my eyes lenses are clear and haven't yellowed up yet the thing that may help blocking UV rays and protect the retina tissue in people with cataract), my dark adaptation vision is very strong, and from thorough extreme darkness vision testing, I seem to not have lost any of my dark vision in any of the same degenerated cells spots that I lost day sight in them.
Maybe "MeMeMe" or anyone who got some knowledge about eyes sunlight exposure can shade some light (little pun there). Can that one session cause or speed up retinal degeneration? And what do you know about those eye's natural UV filters if they exist?
Last edited:
Why settle for 8-10,000 lumens, how about 30,000-40,000?
http://ce.citizen.co.jp/lighting_le...n/COB_6/CLU058-3618C4_0083P_201710_180423.pdf
But if you only want 10,000:
http://ce.citizen.co.jp/lighting_le...n/COB_6/CLU048-1212C4_0069P_201710_180423.pdf
The web, especially a non medical forum is not where you go for medical advice. What you have described sounds like you have a detached retina, but again, your doctor is far more able to tell you what is going on.
Very bright lights can damage the retina, i.e. looking at direct sunlight, laser light, etc. That does not sound like what you experienced. When you get exposed to that level of light, your glare response kicks in and you turn away before damage is done, though things like lasers can be so intense you don't have time ... and IR lasers may not cause a glare response.
Here is something to read: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/retinal-detachment/symptoms-causes/syc-20351344
