Light Emitting Didoes (LEDs) originally produced so little light that engineers added a magnifying bubble over the LED to make it easer to see. Today, LEDs are far more powerful than human biology can tolerate. The lighting industry has adopted an “LEDs everywhere” strategy, but LEDs are are not fit for purpose in every case. LEDs are a directed-beam light that can be useful for displays or indicator lights, but LEDs are not fit for the purpose of illuminating large volumes of space.
The Illuminating Engineering Society is an industry-sponsored group that promotes artificial light. The IES RP-8-18 Roadway Lighting book is the de facto standard for the industry. The IES incorrectly states that LEDs are “point sources” and ignores the fact that LEDs have terrible uniformity.
Quote from IES RP-81-8: “6.5.2.2 Optical System.” With LEDs, manufacturers are much better able to control the light distribution and as a result offer a very broad choice in optical systems. LED luminaires employ a number of small point sources of light. This allows for far greater optical efficiency than can be achieved with traditional high intensity discharge sources, which utility large lamps. The small light sources enable excellent beam control with a high level of light beam efficiency.”
Lighting sources such as the sun, a candle, incandescent and gas-discharge are all essentially spherical emitters. An infinitely small sphere becomes a mathematical point. However, a flat-source light such as LED creates a Lambertian shape which is not a mathematical point.[1] By incorrectly claiming that LEDs are point sources, the IES has, purposely or not, provided justification to the utility and lighting companies to continue using the same standards, protocols, testing devices, and health research that was used for uniform luminance emitters.
In fact, since LEDs are flat sources and produce a Lambertian shape, the entire industry must be updated. Standards such as IES RP-8-18 cannot be applied to LEDs. The photometric software that the engineers use must be updated to include chip level peak luminance and the angle-dependent spectral power distribution of non-uniform luminance emitters. The government needs to set safety standards for peak luminance, peak radiance, and flicker.
Despite the industry claims, LEDs do not save energy. The reason we know this is because LEDs are a directed-beam light, whereas incandescent and High-Pressure Sodium emit light uniformly. The two types of light cannot be compared in terms of energy use, as they are not like-for-like. The thing that can be said about high luminance LED light is that it is toxic, it is dangerous, and it is discriminatory.
Each of the following claims about LED streetlights is false:
- LEDs save energy.
- LEDs protect the environment.
- LEDs comply with existing standards such as IES RP-8-18.
- LEDs do not discriminate.
- LEDs reduce light pollution.
- LEDs are safe.
The city must demand documentation and proof from the utility company which will then require the utility company to address the issues of concern and will help protect the city from liability lawsuits.
- Provide the chip level peak luminance and peak radiance of the light.
- Provide proof that the LED lamp does not produce sub-sensory flicker or chip level flutter.
- IES RP-8-18 is only for uniform luminance emitters. What standards would the utility company be using that are specifically written for non-uniform, directed-beam lighting?
- LEDs are documented to be causing epileptic seizures, migraines, psychological trauma, and eye damage.[2] Why would a city install LEDs when they are causing these harms?
- Research shows that LEDs are increasing light pollution.[3] Why would the city install LEDs that increase light pollution over HPS?
- Research shows that LEDs kill more insects than HPS.[4] Why switch to LED?
- How can the utility claim that LEDs save energy when LEDs are a directed-beam light and HPS is uniform luminance? The two types of light are not like-for-like.
- LEDs have been documented to prevent people with light-sensitivity disabilities from accessing public services. How can the city install a discriminatory light?
- Artificial Light at Night has been shown to greatly increase the risk of prostate, thyroid and breast cancer, mood disorders and premature births.[5] Why should the city install artificial light that causes such harm?
Utility companies are already aware of these issues and are now attempting to require the cities and villages to assume liability and purchase insurance for streetlights. The city should reject this effort by the utility company and instead require that the utility company provide proof that their own insurance will cover claims of discrimination and personal injury from LED lights.
There are still many ways to reduce energy use and light pollution. The following are all valuable steps that do not require a conversion to toxic LED lighting.
- Develop a plan to protect the natural night resource and restore the natural starlight.
- Remove streetlights, as they are typically unnecessary.
- Reduce the wattage of HPS streetlights from 100 watts to 50 watts. This is a 50% energy savings with no loss of safety.
- Shield all lights.
- Install bollards instead of tall street poles to keep the light close to the ground and reduce maintenance costs.
- Lower luminous flux to reduce eye exhaustion and risk of discrimination.
- Eliminate distracting, discriminatory, and dangerous blinking and flashing lights.
[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8879542
[2] http://www.softlights.org/stories/
[3] https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/16/3311/htm