The shine is coming off LEDs

Last year, I wrote a blog An inconvenient truth? (Or how to Gaslight the Light-Sensitive) about how people were unwilling to listen when I explained to them that LEDs make some people ill. Their logic of their thought process went something like ‘LEDs are low energy and help to save the planet – how could they possibly harm people?

This process, known as cognitive dissonance, happens when two ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other. When a person’s belief (LEDs are a good thing) clashes with new information (LEDs make some people ill), they try to resolve the contradiction to reduce this mental dissonance. They either ignore or downplay information that conflicts with their existing beliefs (known as confirmation bias), or downplay the importance of the health concerns.

Unfortunately, for light-sensitive people, cognitive dissonance is challenging to overcome. It requires a willingness to acknowledge and examine conflicting information objectively. However, there are signs that the belief that LEDs are unconditionally ‘a good thing’ may be about to change.

Recently, in response to a parliamentary question about the impact of the brightness of LED headlights, minister Guy Opperman, answered. “All types of road vehicle headlamps are designed, tested and approved to internationally recognised standards to help prevent undue glare on a broad range of roads and environments. However, the Government is aware of concerns raised by members of the public and we intend to commission independent research shortly.

While there are clear safety, security and economic benefits associated with the use of LED lighting, the scientific evidence base on its adverse effects is less advanced. The government is committed to improving the evidence base to ensure we understand the effects more fully before making further policy interventions”.

The second paragraph of his answer is interesting as this is the first time the UK Government has questioned the use of LED lighting. The minister also didn’t need to say this as his first paragraph represented a satisfactory response. This is important as it is the first time that the government has recognised that LED lighting is not a panacea.

Secondly, in its report ‘Glare on Road Traffic’ European consumer study 2024, A collaboration of 10 European motorist clubs, said

‘This study is not an indictment of new types of vehicle lighting, such as LED lighting; this is widely used and has many advantages. However, its clear disadvantages need to be reduced , for which the current regulations are not adequate. We call for an examination as to whether the current UNECE rules regarding vehicle lighting are suitable for the newest generation of lighting and lights and their functionality. In our opinion, these rules should be adapted, so the new technologies can be used safely way. Several technical solutions can be devised to achieve this.’

Although they first talk about the ‘advantages’ of LEDs’, they also discuss at length the problem with LED headlights. It is as if they were aware of the cognitive dissonance problem and wanted to pre-emptively temper potential criticism.

This also brought to mind the advice of a media advisor friend; he told me the power of the use of repetition to make a piece of information seem reliable. In his case it was the phrase ‘high-spending labour councils’, it was used so often that people thought it was true even though a statistical analysis showed little difference in overall spending, whichever party was in power. (My attempt to use dementor lighting to describe 4000K LEDs has yet to achieve the same degree of success, even though it is considerably more appropriate.)

The phrases ‘energy efficient’ and ‘environmentally friendly’ have been repeated so many times about LED lighting many people believe them to be true. However it is now being recognised that LEDs have many disadvantages, in particular in relation to people health and the environment including:

• The blue light in LED lighting causes disruption circadian rhythms in people and wildlife, which has potentially severe health implications
• Many light sensitive people are unable to leave their homes at night because of LED street lighting
• LED streetlights reduce insect numbers, damage wildlife and create light pollution, they are definitely not environmentally friendly.
• LEDs contain rare earth elements such as yttrium, europium, and terbium, mining for these and other elements causes considerable environmental damage. Mining companies now want to mine the seabed, which risks damaging the oceans beyond repair.
• They cause more light pollution as blue light is scattered more in the atmosphere. recent publications in Remote Sensing reveal an acceleration of light pollution, suggesting that the true increase in radiance in the visible spectrum may be globally as high as 270% and 400% in specific regions.
• Although each individual bulb may only use only a sixth of the amount of electricity an incandescent bulb, people commonly install as many as 12 LEDs to light a room effectively compared to one incandescent or halogen bulbs.

As Winston Churchill once said in another context “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” Let us hope that people are beginning to get over the cognitive dissonance associated with LEDs. When they do it is the beginning of the end for LED lighting.

By Dr John Lincoln
Blogs are written by LightAware supporters in a personal capacity

Next Post: A feast for sore eyes