T5 being phased out intentionally to blind humanity with led

Smoker's Lounge
112

The GLA (global lighting association) will do anything it can to continue to sell cfl’s. These are much more profitable for lighting companies to sell than LED’s. There’s absolutely 0 scientific backing for claims that LED’s are less safe than CFL’s and obviously, looking at efficiency, LED’s obliterate CFL’s (see my figure below.) LED’s also don’t contain mercury which is extremely harmful to the environment (studies show 75% of CFL’s are not disposed of properly and the mercury from these bulbs ends up in the environment.) It’s pretty clear the folks benefitting from these inane conspiracy theories regarding LEDs are the big lighting companies who make more over the course of time selling CFL’s since they don’t last as long operating at peak efficiency so folks need to buy more of them. Doubly so, energy companies are the second biggest beneficiary since they can sell more power to power these relatively inefficient light sources (compared to LEDs.) The OP talks about being a “sheep” for not buying into the conspiracy theories when in reality they are being lead by GLA and the energy companies who want to continue to force people to pay for a lesser/more inefficient product that is also systematically poisoning the environment. Losing a valued member like @vernal over a complete crock of a clickbait thread with absolutely no backing in reality is a tragedy and a travesty. Really disappointed in what I see here.

***Figure on LED vs CFL efficiency:

Screen Shot 2022-04-27 at 12.00.42 PM
Screen Shot 2022-04-27 at 12.00.42 PM1272×1152 77.2 KB

11 Likes
113

I think OP is not someone posting in good faith, nor good mental health. As @Foreigner said, I get a strong “everyone is a fool but me” that’s only confirmed by further posts made by OP in response to other members. In particular, I want to add that besides the lighting/blindness conspiracy claim this started with, they’ve moved on to 5G and then that Ovid = sheep bit, which is a COVID-19 denial conspiracy:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-see-sheep-surrender/fact-check-covid-19-does-not-mean-see-a-sheep-surrender-idUSKBN2413CF

I propose this thread get locked, since we no longer have a sharkpit section, and I don’t think we can expect meaningful information shared by OG members to be taken seriously or responded to by OP from within a consensus reality. Also, it would seem they are violating the “no politics” rule with both the initial post and its claim of some NWO conspiracy, as well as the others they’ve dragged into a conversation ostensibly about lighting and eye damage.

I’ll also add that I think it’s sad that this thread and the “respect all viewpoints no matter how stupid, harmful, or unfounded” idea led to @vernal deciding to leave. I think he’s sometimes trollish, but I’ve always seen it coming from a place of demanding facts to back assertions. That’s something I find good, because let’s face it- there’s a lot of dumb stoner thought or lack thereof in our community and it serves us not a bit to just go along to get along instead of trying to raise the level of discourse.

7 Likes
114

I think that much better would be to stay on topic and say that OP hasn’t supplied any real facts, and that it is complete nonsense, and then ignore the thread completely.

Instead, some gibberish is created, it gets much more views than it deserves because of prolonged rotation on homepage, it escalates into name-calling, eventually more persons are added to “ignore lists” and the only outcome is that mods can delete the thread.

5 Likes
116

In the interest of fluorescent discussion, I’ll drop this article by the founder of Solacure about why they don’t use T5, only T8 and T12 tube formats. It’s specifically about UV fluoro, but an interesting take from someone who’s been in the fluorescent lighting biz for decades.

https://www.solacure.com/t5.html

8 Likes
117

This guy’s electric bill must be close to zero:

I would run it in pulse mode, 40-45 watts: 15 minutes on, 45 minutes off. And I would be getting 2 to 3 flowering seasons out of each lamp easily.

Very interesting.

3 Likes
119

Believe he’s talking more about supplimentation as really a florescent is good for UV purposes as well it’s a UV lamp in nature

4 Likes
120

Gotcha. Saw the UV part, didn’t realize it was the thrust.

1 Like
121

It is of MY OPINION that the for profit company’s want to blind humanity with LEDs. Because they are EVIL in my opinion. Does not make it a FACT. There is ALOT of money to be made of blind people from home health care to hospital drugs etc. If a company sells individual bulbs to make a profit and then comes up with a product that lasts 50 TIMES LONGER they do not sell as many bulbs and do not make that money. There has to be a reason for them to force LEDs on us Key word is FORCE compliance. That is all they have ever done in every aspect of our lives. 5G connects to LED sorry about that fact. 5G is made to do many things involving humans and computers (Sorry for that fact too). If there was even 1 chance of harming humans eyesight even a single person this technology should not have been used for the human eye, period. It is for plants and other applications. The long term effects are not known and this thread was made to discuss solutions and prepare for the Just in case scenario that LED wil blind us. Sorry alos that Ovid YES it means Sheep in Latin. I hate that the fact checkers got it wrong AGAIN. Fact checkers cannot change the dictionary although they would in a second to censor delete and shut it down with tears and feelings hurt. Threats for not censoring come next. If tears dont work threats usually work.

A simple search
LED Lights In Your House Can Blind Your Eyes Permanently – BBC

ANSES officials have requested people to lower the use of LED lights in your house in a 400 pages long report. LED lights can be found in Mobile phones and TVs as well.

Surprisingly, this report has debunked all the researches that claimed that LED lights in Mobile phones and laptop screens are not bad for eyesight. But the LED bulbs or lights can pose a serious threat to the eyesight and can damage your eyes permanently.

France’s government-run health research said that LED bulbs can permanently damage your retina, and causes insomnia.

Rats have been subjected to tests on LED lighting.
Could LED lighting actually be harmful? While we don’t suggest that you start hauling your LED bars off your fish tank, for rats, at least, it doesn’t bode well, writes Nathan Hill.

The rats subject to chronic exposure were placed in specific cages with same light sources as for acute testing (fluorocompact bulbs, cold cathode fluorescent lamps, or LEDs – cold white, blue and green, again) set to a cyclical exposure of 12 hours on/12 hours off at 500 lux, for a period of 8 days or 28 days respectively. They were then sacrificed, and the eyes subject to the same diagnostic procedures as with acutely exposed rats.

To quote the paper directly: “After 1 week of exposure, retinal damage was different in W albinos and L]ong]E pigmented rats. In W rats, retinal cell loss following 1 week of exposure was observed only in the superior retina of rats exposed to blue-LEDs.

“After 1 month of exposure, all LEDs induced retinal damage in the superior retina, and only blue and green LEDs induced damage also in the inferior retina.”

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Role of short-wavelength blue light in the formation of cataracts and the expression of caspase-1, caspase-11, Gasdermin D in rat lens epithelial cells: insights into a novel pathogenic mechanism of cataracts

Effects of short-wavelength blue light on cataract formation

The lenses of the rats in the control group appeared transparent throughout the 12-week observation period. At 4 weeks after short-wavelength blue LED lamp exposure, all rat lenses in both the control and experimental groups were transparent (Fig. 1). However, after 6 weeks, cataracts had developed in the experimental rats (4/20 eyes), as indicated by equatorial and postcortical vacuoles (grade 2). After 8 weeks of exposure, 25% (5/20 eyes) of the rat eyes displayed grade 2 cataracts, and 25% (5/20 eyes) displayed grade 3 cataracts (Fig. 1). Twelve weeks later, 100% of the rat eyes exposed to blue light exhibited cataracts. Of all the eyes with cataracts, 55% (11/20 eyes) of the rat eyes displayed grade 2 cataracts, 25% (5/20 eyes) displayed grade 3 cataracts, and 20% (4/20 eyes) displayed mature cataracts (grade 4) (Fig. 1)

LEDS belong IN YOUR GROWROOM not for human eyes. Do your own thinking is all I am saying here. Attack me all you want makes ZERO feeing hurt in me. I demand no censoring.

2 Likes
122

You know it’s bad when you have to use retracted articles as your basis for your arguments :laughing:

“The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the presented data. Specifically, the flow cytometry plots in Fig. 3a appear not to be representative of the experimental results based on the full data provided by the authors. In addition, the authors used an unsuitable method (Annexin V/PI flow cytometry assay) to distinguish pyroptosis from apoptosis. Furthermore, the western blotting images presented in Fig. 7 do not appear to match the quantitative data in the bar graph. The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data and the conclusions of this article.”

6 Likes
123

“Surprisingly, this report has debunked all the researches that claimed that LED lights in Mobile phones and laptop screens are not bad for eyesight. But the LED bulbs or lights can pose a serious threat to the eyesight and can damage your eyes permanently.”

make that go away with insults

1 Like
124

I’m on my phone most of the day😅 I use the warm white screen setting though.

2 Likes
125

Insulted? Definitely not by me. I asked him nicely to stop trolling.

7 Likes
126

Saying it’s a fact does not make it so. Link us to the study and direct evidence please. And, what does this have to do with the OP?

4 Likes
127

Protect you and your family’s eyesight. Be aware and be safe that is all this thread was and is about. Awareness of a possible future problem with a MAJOR tool in this hobby/sport of growing and computers. I don’t trust the big companies that does not mean you should not. Tools need to be used properly and yes I still want to grow with leds just dont want to have them everywhere all the time. Too hard on my eyes personally does not mean there is a overarching conspiracy. Look at all sides of every story and think for yourself. I thank the mods for allowing freedom. I know on other forums they even get shut down on things. Censorship is everywhere. Everything is not awesome. I want the best glasses for my grow room and am planning on spending at least 500 on a led rig for summer flowering so dont take me the wrong way completely. Thank you for your responses one and all.

1 Like
128

Ok my bad, at first I thought that the title of the topic is not meant seriously but as a kind of sarcasm… now I see that you really mean it. I don’t really think it is worth discussing this nonsense.

9 Likes
129

Studies have shown that florescent bulbs do the same thing, I already posted a study showing it.

3 Likes
130

Sadly, they kinda are. US dotGov has just recently announced they are mandating LEDs lighting with the wind-down of incandescent and fluorescence bulb production and availability … with an unrealistic time frame.

That doesn’t make for a conspiracy where risks are greater than any other lighting technology. There are always profit motivations and grift with such things.

5 Likes
131

Not trying to be a jerk but just today this was mandated as mandatory IE forced compliance. If you need to do whatever to the thread for whatever reason its your board. My feelings will not be hurt. Thanks Joe.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/climate/biden-incandescent-led-light-bulb.html

1 Like
132

This. Also the sun does it.

3 Likes
133

Thank god they have phased out incandescents.

4 Likes