ANSES: LEDs and the risks associated with their use

Hi-tech electronic and computer equipment and Internet. Better use of electricity, help with the work and specifications, equipment selection. Presentations fixtures and plans. Waves and electromagnetic pollution.
User avatar
zorglub
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 501
Registration: 24/11/09, 10:12

ANSES: LEDs and the risks associated with their use




by zorglub » 28/10/10, 10:46

ANSES (National Agency for Food Safety, Environment and Labor) has carried out the first expertise on the dangers of these lights, which are increasingly used because of their low power consumption and their very long service life. superior to other systems.

“In a few months, the number of LED bulbs accessible in supermarkets has multiplied dramatically,” said Dominique Gombert, director of risk assessment at ANSES, to AFP.

To obtain white light, a blue diode, corresponding to radiation of short wavelengths close to ultra-violet, is coupled to a yellow phosphor. It is "the simplest and cheapest technology", therefore used "in 90% of cases", according to Mr. Gombert.

Diode lights present risks to the eyes

However, this blue light is particularly dangerous for the retina, which is more sensitive to violet-blue light, since the various pigments present in its cells can induce a reaction causing oxidative stress injury.
This photochemical risk "generally results from low intensity repeated exposures over long periods", without filter, according to the agency.

Children "are particularly sensitive to this risk, insofar as their lens remains developing and cannot ensure its effective role of filter of light", says ANSES.
This blue light also has "aggravating" effects on a pathology common with age, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and in people sensitive to light due to skin disorders or drug treatments. Chronic alcoholism is also a risk.

Another problem: the luminance of the LEDs, or quantity of light emitted per unit area, high due to the punctual nature of the emitting area. "These new lighting can lead to + light intensities + up to 1000 times higher than conventional lighting, thus generating a risk of dazzling", according to the agency.

The agency has evaluated the risks nine types of diodes available on the market, according to the existing standard for other lighting. On a scale from 0 to 3 (high risk), it found that a majority were risk-free or low risk, but that three diodes presented a risk of 2 level (moderate risk), with a maximum duration of exposure of at most a few tens of seconds.

In the years to come, "more and more LEDs will appear in risk group 2," the agency said.
Some professions are particularly at risk, such as lighting designers, extras and stage show technicians, surgeons or dentists (and their patients) and phototherapy professionals.

For now, ANSES recommends "to avoid sources of light (...) rich in blue color in places frequented by children", such as maternities, nurseries, or schools, or in objects that they use. Also watch out for car headlights!
For the general public, who can not differentiate at-risk LEDs from others, ANSES is asking manufacturers to rapidly label and market only low-intensity, safe LEDs.


Article published in several daily newspapers
0 x
every morning you look naked in a large ice after 3 minutes you will see that your home and your worst picture ......
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 28/10/10, 11:02

1) What is the source of the article?

2) What to remember from the article is this I think:

it found that a majority were risk-free or low risk, but that three diodes presented a risk of 2 level (moderate risk), with a maximum duration of exposure of at most a few tens of seconds.

In the years to come, "more and more LEDs will appear in risk group 2," the agency said.
Some professions are particularly at risk, such as lighting designers, extras and stage show technicians, surgeons or dentists (and their patients) and phototherapy professionals.


3) All manufacturers indicate that you should not look directly into the LEDs, especially the white LEDs (which are always a little bluish).

I think that the risk with so-called "warm color" mood LEDs which are very similar to halogen bulbs is greatly limited if not zero, the article speaks well of white led bulbs. But who lights up with white light LEDs? Few people...

Now this news will probably be picked up by a couple of fanatics of incandescent lighting (most are simply stingy people who do not want to put 10 20 € in a light bulb and who understand not that over the lifetime this is much more interesting as incandescent lighting).

Exactly like the fisaco about the electromagnetic waves being called dangerous on the compact fluorescent bulbs ... I'm still waiting for a study about fluorescent neons / tubes that have been used since 100 years and which are exactly the same principle as the compact fluorescents. ..

The difference is that the leds info comes from an official agency and not from an association whose methods look like a pseudo sect ...

But like people, who have become poorly educated (and do not know how to make a serious analysis of things ... the journalists 1er we just saw with theincrease in CSPE), well amalgam lighting led = danger will spread ... especially on the net.

Tell us how you got the info :) I would not be surprised if it was via an email ...


And I'm afraid that this news is doing a lot of harm to a LED market that is just reaching maturity at the level of quality / price allowing it to actually compete with compact fluorescent and halogen. See the topic on SMD: https://www.econologie.com/forums/test-essai ... 10087.html

Is it a mere coincidence that there is 2 years at the time of the progressive ban of incandescence, well I would not answer ... : Mrgreen:

4) I will look if there is an official report published on it.
0 x
aerialcastor
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 865
Registration: 10/05/09, 16:39
x 21




by aerialcastor » 28/10/10, 11:07

At first glance :
Another trick to disempower the people and impose regulations to the con.
I feel that I will have to go through an accredited professional to change a light bulb.

I too am suspicious

I didn't dig too much because it already swells me. But if EDF were one of the experts, I wouldn't even be surprised. And yes, divide by 10 the energy consumption for lighting that may not please them too much. The famous "energy is our future let's save the" is more like "energy is our livelihood, let's make it use"

The report in question here
With other expertise here at the bottom of the page
The "report" (a report without a number, without a link, is it still a report) only speaks of the LEDs with blue component, which anyway have a very unpleasant lighting (a bit like some neon lights) and have a catastrophic color rendering, so no one uses them.
0 x
Save a tree, eat a beaver.
It is no use to succeed in life, what it takes is to miss his death.
User avatar
zorglub
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 501
Registration: 24/11/09, 10:12




by zorglub » 28/10/10, 11:11

Personally, what interacts me is to know the real risks before equipping me, because my wife has problems with AMD and had two operations
it is obvious that critics can use the ignorance of buyers to divert them from the market. but in my case I have to find out
0 x
every morning you look naked in a large ice after 3 minutes you will see that your home and your worst picture ......
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 28/10/10, 11:13

Rah you just doubled me, I was going to edit my subject to post the link : Mrgreen:

(It's on the Afsset, well known while ANSES was an agency I did not know)

Here's what to remember from this link: http://www.afsset.fr/index.php?pageid=2248&parentid=523

The risks identified as the most worrying, both by the gravity of the associated hazards, and by the probability of occurrence in the context of widespread use of LEDs, are related to the photochemical effects of blue light and the glare. They result:

spectral imbalance of LEDs (high proportion of blue light in white LEDs);

very high luminance5 of LEDs (high surface densities of luminous intensity emitted by these sources of very small size).

Risk associated with blue light:

The risk of photochemical effect is associated with blue light and its level depends on the cumulative dose of blue light to which the person has been exposed. It usually results from low intense exposures repeated over long periods. The level of evidence associated with this risk is important.

Populations that are particularly sensitive to risk or particularly exposed to blue light have been identified, such as children, people with certain eye diseases or even certain populations of professionals subjected to intensive lighting.

There is currently little human exposure data for lighting, whether using LEDs or other types of light sources. The working group was thus able to present quantified risk assessments only in the case of exposure to blue light, according to the principles developed by the NF EN 62471 standard. This standard relating to the photobiological safety of lamps proposes a classification in risk groups related to the maximum permissible exposure time of the eye to light.

The 6 luminance measurements made show that some LEDs accessible for purchase by the general public and potentially used for home lighting, for signaling and marking applications, belong to risk groups that are higher than those of traditional lighting.
Furthermore, it appears that the NF EN 62 471 standard is not entirely suitable for lighting using LEDs (non-adapted exposure limit values, ambiguous measurement protocols, certain sensitive populations are not taken into account). :

Risk of glare:

In indoor lighting, it is recognized that a luminance greater than 10 000 cd / m2 7 is visually troublesome, irrespective of the position of the luminaire in the field of view. Especially due to the punctuality of their emission surface, LEDs can have 1 000 luminance times higher. The level of direct radiation of this type of source can thus greatly exceed the level of visual discomfort, much more than with the so-called "traditional" lighting (halogens, low energy lamps).
Regarding the risks associated with glare, there are normative8 references for visual ergonomics and safety. In LED lighting systems available on the market, LEDs are often directly visible so as not to reduce the level of illumination produced. This could lead to non-compliance with these normative requirements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For ANSES, it is necessary to restrict the placing on the "general public" market of LED lighting systems in order to allow only LEDs that do not pose more risks related to blue light than traditional lighting. In addition, ANSES recommends adapting the NF EN 62 471 standard for the photobiological safety of lamps to the specificities of LEDs and to take into account sensitive populations and people at particular risk (certain populations of workers: lighting installers, trades the show, etc.).

ANSES also recommends that standards for comfort and visual ergonomics be respected in workplaces and homes. In this sense, ANSES recommends reducing the luminance of LEDs, in particular by means of optical devices or adapted luminaires, to limit the risk of glare.

In order to better inform the consumer, ANSES also recommends that the informative labeling of lighting systems clearly presents information concerning the quality of the light and the level of photobiological safety according to the NF EN 62 471 standard.


Summary of the situation in .pdf: https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... Cz8S7O.pdf
0 x
User avatar
zorglub
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 501
Registration: 24/11/09, 10:12

ice




by zorglub » 28/10/10, 11:23

Tell us how you got the info that would not surprise me if it was via an email


sources:
the world, the figaro
but nothing received by mail

that's what we find on google about led
0 x
every morning you look naked in a large ice after 3 minutes you will see that your home and your worst picture ......
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 28/10/10, 11:28

zorglub wrote:Personally, what interacts me is to know the real risks before equipping me, because my wife has problems with AMD and had two operations
it is obvious that critics can use the ignorance of buyers to divert them from the market. but in my case I have to find out


You're absolutely right, in this case I think the answers to your questions are in the .pdf question / answer: https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... Cz8S7O.pdf

I think it is useful to copy / paste here to "kill the poison in the bud" and moreover it confirms, see passage in red what I just said above: with "warm color" LED bulbs ... there is no or very little risk.

But rare are the people who want cold white to enlighten (pale blue white color) ...

LED - Practical questions

1. Where do the risks come from?


Most diodes currently on the market for lighting purposes are characterized by a high proportion of blue in the white light emitted. They can also have a
very strong light intensity. The main risks identified by the Agency concern the eye: toxic effect of blue light and risk of dazzling.

2. What exactly are the risks for me? for my children?

Repeated long-term, short-range exposure of the high-intensity blue LED light beam increases the risk of cataracts and macular lesions (central area of ​​the retina). Children are more sensitive to this risk as their lens is developing and
can not fully fulfill its role as a protective filter for the retina.

3. Are there any specific risks for people with eye conditions?

People with deficiencies in the macular pigment are naturally less well protected against aggression of the eye associated with blue light. People who do not possess a crystalline lens or possess an artificial lens are also less well protected against blue light, the lens acting as a protective filter for light.

4. Is my light-emitting diode (LED) television dangerous?

LED TVs use indirect lighting technology (LED backlighting), with very low luminances (a hundred candela / m²), so they are not concerned by the risks put forward in the opinion of the Anses.

5. Which of the tested products are precisely dangerous?

Various tests have been carried out to evaluate the risks of these new lights with regard to the European standard for photobiological safety. The aim has been to locate LEDs in relation to other types of lamps.

Twenty products have been tested: LEDs or bare LED assemblies with separate characterization blue LEDs, cold white LEDs, neutral white LEDs and warm white LEDs. LED lamps integrated in luminaires were also evaluated.

From these tests, it is generally preferable to favor warm-white LED lighting systems with low "light intensity" and to avoid LED lighting systems where a direct vision of the emitted beam is possible. to prevent glare. Finally if you already have LED lighting, indirect lighting is preferred.

6. How are we already exposed to LEDs (backlighting of screens, LED TV)

Today, LEDs are already widely used in many lighting applications, markings, but also for TV-type screens. The products we have identified as problematic are LEDs or LED assemblies used for lighting, these are products with a high proportion of blue light and strong
luminance.

7. I bought a bulb / fixture with LEDs? What precautions must I take to protect myself?

If you already have lighting devices that use LEDs, use indirect lighting. To avoid any risk, especially in the presence of children, it is preferable to favor warm white LED lighting systems with low "light intensity" and to avoid LED lighting systems where a direct vision of the beam emitted is possible, to prevent glare.

8. Incandescent bulbs are forbidden, LEDs are dangerous, what's left for me?

LEDs are a promising, promising technology that has yet to mature for use as a lighting device. From the point of view of regulation and
standardization, adjustments still need to be made in particular to adapt to the specificities of these products. However some lighting using LEDs (warm white LED low luminance)
do not pose a risk and can be used for home lighting. The consumer can also use fluorescent bulbs (Neon tube type, low energy lamp).

Find the complete file on www.anses.fr


I like the question 8) to put in relation with the so-called danger of the waves of the fluos ... : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 28/10/10, 11:41

aerialcastor wrote:The "report" (a report without a number, without a link, is it still a report) only speaks of the LEDs with blue component, which anyway have a very unpleasant lighting (a bit like some neon lights) and have a catastrophic color rendering, so no one uses them.


If there is everything here: http://www.afssa.fr/PMEC00H701.htm footer.

The National Agency for Food Safety, Environment and Labor (ANSES) (1) publishes today an expert report on the health effects of lighting systems using LEDs; such work had never been done. Thanks to their low power consumption and their high efficiency, LED lighting has a high energy performance and finds its place in energy saving policies. Their market is growing. However, risks associated with the use of certain LED lamps, which can lead to health effects for the general population and professionals, have been identified.


Pffff it is on the site afssa now ... Afsset, Anses, Afssa ... pfff long live the French administrative simplicity (I reassure you there is worse: Belgium!)

Here are the official reports:

- Opinion and report "Health effects of lighting systems using light-emitting diodes (LEDs)" (310 pages anyway ... good appetite)
- The press kit (more digestible)

Well I think we have everything in hand to analyze seriously this problem ... : Cheesy:
0 x
aerialcastor
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 865
Registration: 10/05/09, 16:39
x 21




by aerialcastor » 28/10/10, 11:47

Christophe wrote:
aerialcastor wrote:The "report" (a report without a number, without a link, is it still a report) only speaks of the LEDs with blue component, which anyway have a very unpleasant lighting (a bit like some neon lights) and have a catastrophic color rendering, so no one uses them.



Yes I saw. At first I thought the review of the recommendations, 12 pages for a study was short.
But there 282pages it is especially that I miss motivation : Mrgreen:
0 x
Save a tree, eat a beaver.

It is no use to succeed in life, what it takes is to miss his death.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 28/10/10, 11:50

Not better... : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:

Well, you wanted numbers ... did you : Cheesy:

What matters is the conclusions and I think the questions / answers are very clear above.

The scientist will be able to look at the report and the different curves if he wishes. I will still see what models and types of bulbs they tested precisely ...
0 x

Back to "Electricity, electronics and computers: Hi-tech, Internet, DIY, lighting, materials, and new"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 181 guests