# Blue Light Hazard from LED lightning?



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Pays to be careful but in this case I might tend to not worry. UV and other invisible radiation is the norm for sunshine! Sunshine can also cause permanent damage but we can live with it? Just don't lay down in your tank for much more than an hour at a time! 

Certain labels like those on silicone caulking just have to be ignored. I know of nobody who uses caulking that doesn't get it on their fingers or skin.

Consider that cell phones also emit invisible radiation like microwaves which we know can cook ones brain if we expose it long enough.


----------



## PondLily (Dec 20, 2014)

But read this post:

http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/292228-blue-light-hazard-from-rb-leds/

some serious stuff is being discussed like retinal damage, macular degeneration after long-term exposure, and tons of other stuff. Aquariums are meant to look at, and my idea was rimless open top one. Now I am about to give it all up. I do not need additional hazard that can affect my eyes, they have enough to deal with as is.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

If one were to get concerned about all the hazards discussed on forums there would be nothing left to do but hide under the bed. You ARE aware that forums are among the most unreliable places to find accurate information, I assume. If there is not a post or two about any hazard possible, it is purely an oversight to be corrected soon! 

But then do what you like with the light as you are in control!


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

PlantedRich said:


> If one were to get concerned about all the hazards discussed on forums there would be nothing left to do but hide under the bed. You ARE aware that forums are among the most unreliable places to find accurate information, I assume. If there is not a post or two about any hazard possible, it is purely an oversight to be corrected soon!
> 
> But then do what you like with the light as you are in control!





> There may be medical studies yet to be conducted that will demonstrate a blue light hazard for solid-state lighting in typical interior lighting applications. However, the absence of such evidence to date is highly persuasive: _there is no scientific reason to be concerned about blue-rich lighting in typical interior environments_.


http://agi32.com/blog/tag/blue-light-hazard/

A lucid and fairly in depth report of the reports.. 


> In their 1978 paper, the authors replaced the laser beam with a 2,500-watt xenon lamp and a 6 nm bandwidth interference filter at 441 nm with associated optics to focus the beam onto a 1-mm diameter region of the monkey’s retina for up to 1,000 seconds. (Kids, don’t try this science experiment at home …)


----------



## PondLily (Dec 20, 2014)

ok, why when this lamp (a fairly small one) gives Risk Group 1 warning?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

PondLily said:


> ok, why when this lamp (a fairly small one) gives Risk Group 1 warning?


first, I can't find Nano type-P... Nano type -r is everywhere
secondly most LED's have VERY little IR or UV emissions..except for UV or IR LED's specifically.


http://www.thorlabs.com/images/TabImages/LED4D_AllLED_Spectra.gif



> Unless you’re lighting your home, office, or factory with tanning-bed lamps, the main concern with certain lighting types—including CFLs and high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps—is that they emit enough UV to damage artwork and fabrics over time. High quality LEDs—thanks to their low UV emissions—are now the lighting type of choice for museums striving to protect treasured artifacts and maintain their original colors and patina. In commercial and residential applications, LEDs save carpets, window coverings, and painted surfaces from the degrading effects of UV radiation.


http://www.leapfroglighting.com/lighting_and_uv_radiation/
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/3/aafeature

your warning sounds like a leftover from a metal halid or quartz halogen lamp than any normal LED.


----------



## PondLily (Dec 20, 2014)

Here, exactly like this: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=405041

Do not confuse UV, IR radiation and blue light. All three are harmful, but blue light emitted by high intensity LED that is used commonly for planted tanks can damage retina (irreversibly) and can lead to macular degeneration in a long term. That is why I freaked out when I saw Risk Group 1 warning on that lamp.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

PondLily said:


> Here, exactly like this: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=405041
> 
> Do not confuse UV, IR radiation and blue light. All three are harmful, but blue light emitted by high intensity LED that is used commonly for planted tanks can damage retina (irreversibly) and can lead to macular degeneration in a long term. That is why I freaked out when I saw Risk Group 1 warning on that lamp.




And from what I posted above.. as soon as they put blue lasers in fish tank lights.. i'll worry


> Based on these measurements, lamps are then classified according to the “Risk Group” (RG) to which they belong. RG0 (exempt from risk) and *RG1 (minor risk)* do not pose any hazards during normal circumstances. RG2 (medium risk) lamps also do not normally pose any hazards, due to our aversion responses to very bright light sources or due to the fact that we would experience thermal discomfort. RG3 (high risk) include only lamps where a short-term exposure poses a hazard.


http://copublications.greenfacts.org/en/artificial-light/l-3/7-health-risks.htm



> There is *no evidence* that artificial light from lamps belonging to RG0 or RG1 would cause any acute damage to the human eye


.


> Studies dedicated to investigating whether retinal lesions can be induced by artificial light during normal lighting conditions are not available.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Why the warning is there is something we can only guess but the truth is that there are so many things putting out various levels of different frequencies of light (uv, microwaves and a whole list) that we are constantly moving through that putting a warning on things is often just for legal reasons. We are probably doing far more damage to our eyes by looking at the computer than 100 years of having LEDs on the tank. 
A certain portion of sunlight is in the blue range and we do that all the time. Just not a real problem to worry about.


----------



## PondLily (Dec 20, 2014)

> Histological results showed that the photoreceptor layer is significantly reduced in
> thickness after 4 weeks of LED exposure 2h every day or LED illuminated environment.


Source: http://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/life0901/072_8366life0901_477_482.pdf



> long-term,
> chronic exposure to short wavelength
> light is a strong contributing factor to senile-macular degeneration


Source: http://www.tenndental.org/doctda/51questions.pdf

Aquarium LED is even more powerful than typical LED used in houses, and I do not even talk about black light which is a sever health hazard. I feel we need to discuss this a lot, after all it is our eyes.

Bump:


PlantedRich said:


> A certain portion of sunlight is in the blue range and we do that all the time. Just not a real problem to worry about.


Actually no. Our eyes are more damaged by high intensity artificial LED because compared to sunlight it emphasizes blue light.



> Eyes have protective mechanisms
> against wavelengths under 400 nm
> and bright light with strong green
> wavelengths, but eyes are virtually
> ...


Source: http://www.tenndental.org/doctda/51questions.pdf


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

PondLily said:


> Source: http://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/life0901/072_8366life0901_477_482.pdf





> *It must be noted that the light illuminations*
> *used in thepresent study as an experimental tool were not fully *
> *similar to normal condition that which would *
> *impinge upon the retina.*


Source: http://www.tenndental.org/doctda/51questions.pdf


PondLily said:


> Aquarium LED is even more powerful than typical LED used in houses, and I do not even talk about black light which is a sever health hazard. I feel we need to discuss this a lot, after all it is our eyes.
> 
> Bump:
> 
> ...


Ask yourself 
Why would emphasis be different than gross quantity? (lets ignore melatonin/photoperiodic responses for a minute)
Typical "blue light" exposure on a day outdoors would be significantly higher than any aquarium light, by orders of magnatude. unless there is some "healing effect" or masking by other bandwidths.. it makes little sense. Especially since "white" LED's also have similar properties..









As to Dental lighting..that entire enviriment is quite removed from an aquarium enviroment..


----------



## PondLily (Dec 20, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> Source: http://www.tenndental.org/doctda/51questions.pdf
> 
> 
> Typical "blue light" exposure on a day outdoors would be significantly higher than any aquarium light, by orders of magnatude.


See, the problem is that LED, especially aquarium LED, overemphasizes blue light. LED are not sunlight and it is a problem:



> but eyes are virtually
> defenseless against blue-light (400 nm to
> 500 nm) if the blue-light is not mixed with
> green light or is stronger than green light


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

PondLily said:


> See, the problem is that LED, especially aquarium LED, overemphasizes blue light. LED are not sunlight and it is a problem:


LEd's have a strong proportion of green..


> but eyes are virtually
> defenseless against blue-light (400 nm to
> 500 nm) if the blue-light is not mixed with
> green light or is stronger than green light












you can get or build LEd's for low K...and more green..As I said, we don't use blue lasers in a typical freshwater tank light..... nor even one predominantly blue..



> Annex 3: Blue light radiation data of light sources
> When evaluating the risk of blue light hazard posed by LED (and other) light sources, two fundamentally different cases need to be considered:
> 
> Case A: Looking at an illuminated scene
> ...


https://greenwashinglamps.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/blue-light-hazard/

for your own POM and the above statement.. Just stick w/ warm white LED's









http://www.light-measurement.com/phototherapy/


----------



## PondLily (Dec 20, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> LEd's have a strong proportion of green..


Really? The one I bought evidently does not have it. Nor does this light that was just recommended to someone in another thread. In fact this light is predominantly blue and OP is truly risking it, big time, yet no one told him about the dangers. 



> channel 1; *48 450nm royal blue*. Channel 2; 22 4500K neutral whites, *10 480nm blues*,​ 4 660nm reds, and *12 410-420nm violets*. Channel 3; *3 480nm blue moonlights*, for a total of 99 3 watt LEDs.


So where is green? Where is balance like we would get in a sunlight??

Source: https://www.reefbreeders.com/shop/photon-32/




> 4.2 Conclusions on ultraviolet radiation (UV)
> LED based light sources do not emit any UV radiation (unless specifically designed for that particular purpose). Therefore, they are not harmful to people with a specific sensitivity for certain UV radiation and can bring relief to certain groups of patients. In this respect, LED based light sources provide advantages over traditional incandescent, halogen and Compact Fluorescent lamps. For more details see Annex 2.
> 
> 4.3 Conclusions on infrared radiation (IR)
> In contrast to most other light sources, e.g. halogen and incandescent lamps, LEDs hardly emit IR light (unless specifically designed to emit a certain type of IR). For available types of indoor light sources the IR radiation is not powerful enough to pose any risks to human.


But these are not aquarium lights being discussed there! Tell me why my lowly nano lamp comes with warning for both UV and IR and blue light (even though it is not stated clearly about the blue light)? This nano fixture is supposed to be not that powerful, now what about other more powerful lights?


----------

