Well, you know that we've got to Save The Planet™ by switching from bad, bad incandescent lights to clean, green LED lights. So a lot more white LED lamps are being dumped into the hopper. They use less energy, so they're better for the environment - at least, that's what the social engineers tell you.
Ah. But it's what they don't tell you that is so interesting: the standard configuration of white-light LEDs actually produces two narrowcast bands of wavelength; one yellow, the other blue. Most of your body perceives this as white. As it happens, however, some important parts of your body home right in on the blue.
Of course, most people know about the types of photosensitive cells that grow in our eyes - rods do their work in low-light conditions; to them everything is black or white. Cones do the heavy lifting when it comes to color perception, but require stronger intensities to function.
But in 2001, David Berson from Brown University established that the eyes of mammals contain a third type of cell for absorbing light.
"This has been a very exciting discovery in the whole world of chronobiology and vision research," said Jay Neitz, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "We always thought rods and cones were responsible for circadian rhythms and then we find there's a particular cell that [sends signals] to the superchiasmatic nucleus, the brain's central clock important for daily biological rhythms."
The recently discovered type of cell, called intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, are much smaller in number than other light-sensitive cells -- approximately only one of them for every million cones. But they contain a key light-sensitive protein called melanopsin. When light strikes melanopsin, it can trigger the ganglion cells to send signals to the superchiasmatic nucleus, a small brain region that regulates the body's circadian rhythms.
And herein lies the rub: Epidemiological studies have linked circadian disruptions to health problems, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and obesity.
Now, this may turn out to be a minor issue, if in fact an issue at all. But Saving The Planet™ is essentially a political issue; it's mostly about posturing and tossing buzzwords like "sustainability" around (while, of course, developing more tools with which to limit your freedom).
It seems somewhat curious that while governments have developed rigorous standards for ingestibles and medications - the endless and expensive trials before new medications are "approved", the required labeling of every gram of fat and carbohydrate in a box of cereal - they just turn around and cut these things loose on a generally unsuspecting populace, despite the fact that the LEDs may exert significant detrimental effects upon both human and a wider range of animal species.
(Laughed out loud.)
"But, don't you see? This happened in twenty percent of cases. That means, it's likely to happen to you!"
.
Posted by: TMI | October 30, 2011 at 10:14 PM
And then there's the lead and arsenic . . . .
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/uc-researchers-led-lights-contain-lead-arsenic-8634
Posted by: T D | October 31, 2011 at 11:07 AM
I don't see the contradiction. They want to Save the Planet™. Who said anything about people or other life forms?
Posted by: ZZMike | October 31, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Of all the game tags issued by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife each year, the average rate of return (success) is about 7%.
Let's see: LEDs have a dozen or so toxic substances (and the light alone may affect circadian rhythms), fluorescents have mercury, and incandescents have...well, they use too much energy!
Bright choice.
As George Carlin noted: The planet is just fine.
Posted by: Max | October 31, 2011 at 05:37 PM