“LED led me astray: the home lighting misadventure that brought me full-circle”

This is a quote. Original blog article can be found here (highlights added).

LED led me astray: the home lighting misadventure that brought me full-circle

By Chris Ziegler on July 1, 2013

If I had known that last weekend was going to be robbed from me by the lighting industry, I probably would’ve just slept through it.

It all started, innocently enough, on Saturday. In the past couple weeks, my home — built in the latter half of the last decade but still lit entirely by old-school incandescent bulbs — had a couple lights burn out, so I trekked to Home Depot in search of replacements. It occurred to me once I got there that I should probably be buying something other than incandescent, given the proliferation of CFL and LED alternatives; they use dramatically less energy, and theoretically, they can last a lot longer. And traditional incandescents are going the way of Google Reader: Wattage restrictions imposed by the federal government means they’re probably going to disappear over time, so you’d better start finding alternatives and making sure the electrical equipment in your home can handle them.

INCANDESCENTS ARE GOING THE WAY OF GOOGLE READER

So, with a healthy fear of Federal Light Police agents storming my home and impounding my stockpile of incandescent bulbs, I selected a Cree 60W equivalent LED bulb for my burned-out bathroom light. It cost about $14 — which was significantly less than I expected, and one reason I’d steered clear of LEDs until now — and is rated for just 9 watts. For the burned-out flood light in my office, I bought two Philips 50W equivalent LEDs (the lamp takes two, and I wouldn’t want to have one incandescent and one LED). These were more expensive at about $30 apiece, but they’re highly engineered pieces of equipment: a center lens contains four LED bulbs, surrounded by a thick, solid encasement with a couple dozen holes for ventilation. Heat, it turns out, is the enemy of the LED — it changes the color of the light and significantly reduces life span — so manufacturers need to do everything they can to make sure the temperature stays down.

I brought the bulbs home and installed them. One thing to keep in mind is that none of these LED bulbs exactly mimic the shape of the incandescent that they’re designed to replace, which led me to nearly break my bathroom fixture as I tried to shoehorn the Cree into place — but with time, patience, and elbow grease, I finally got it in.

Another thing that had scared me away from LEDs is the concern of color temperature, which is something you never really had to worry about with incandescents. Both LEDs and CFLs tend to cast a far cooler (bluer) light than regular bulbs. That’s fine for a store or office, but at home, it feels unnatural. Household items don’t look right when they’re not basking in the soft, orange glow of a tungsten filament — and as anyone who’s used f.lux can attest, it’s harder to relax in cold lighting. I discovered in shopping for the Cree and Philips bulbs that these lights all now have a “Lighting Facts” panel on back, which looks exactly like the ubiquitous Nutrition Facts panel on food products, except for… well, lighting instead of nutrition. It tells you key stats like how much the bulb will cost to operate, how bright it is, and — this is important — the “Light Appearance,” which is its color temperature.

Cree’s 60W equivalent bulb is available both in “Warm White” and “Daylight” color temperatures, listed as 2700K and 5000K, respectively, on their Lighting Facts panels. “Daylight sounds right for a bathroom,” I thought, so I picked it up. For the Philips flood lights, I got Warm White, knowing that I was replacing very yellow bulbs and I didn’t want to change the look.

I don’t know what star Cree is referencing when it calls 5000K “daylight,” but it isn’t the sun in our solar system. The bulb casts an extraordinarily blue light that makes my water closet look more like an operating room. It’s fine for a bathroom, but if I’d put this bulb in a living space, I’d be taking it back. The 2700K flood lights, by contrast, completely delivered — I was shocked to find that the light they produced was almost indistinguishable from the incandescents they replaced. I wasn’t expecting that kind of color from an LED. (If you’re using Philips’ Hue system, this isn’t a concern — but I just want one good shade of white, not a whole rainbow that I’m spending big money for.)

I DON’T KNOW WHAT STAR CREE IS REFERENCING WHEN IT CALLS 5000K ‘DAYLIGHT,’ BUT IT ISN’T THE SUN IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM

I was so impressed, in fact, that I set about looking for any other bulb in my house that I could replace. My top candidates were the four flood lights in a track lighting system over my kitchen, which I use for hours daily and emit a loud buzzing sound when dimmed. Thinking that the buzzing came from the vibration of the filaments in the bulbs, I figured that upgrading to LED would kill two birds with one stone: no more buzzing and significantly lower energy use.

This is where it all started to go downhill.

When I moved into my house in 2009, I replaced all of the switches and dimmers with Leviton’s Z-Wave-compatible Vizia RF+ system, because that’s what you do when you’re a gadget nerd with a new home. I’d always known that this would be a problem as incandescents rode off into the sunset — the system’s dimmers require a minimum of 40 watts to operate, for some reason, and that’s hard to manage when you’re using LED bulbs that sip just a few watts each.

But I tried anyway. I bought four 50W equivalent bulbs from Home Depot’s house brand, EcoSmart. No luck: When I replaced all four bulbs, the indicator light on my in-wall dimmer went blank, which I took to be a bad sign. So I headed back to Home Depot, buying an $18 dimmer — not Z-Wave-compatible, of course — that Leviton advertises as “universal,” meaning it’s designed for incandescents, LEDs, and CFLs alike.

It didn’t work. I found that if I set the dimming brightness to max and turned the switch on and off a few times, I could eventually get the bulbs to light up, but any attempt to turn down the brightness would cause them to extinguish again. It was inconsistent at best, and certainly not reliable enough to actually use.

LED and CFL bulbs have only recently been made in “dimmable” versions. Theoretically, that makes them far more practical — we don’t always want our lights at maximum brightness — but the reality is that dimmable LED technology is still young. They have a far narrower range of brightness than an incandescent bulb, can flicker annoyingly, and occasionally don’t want to turn on. These are the kinds of problems that LED-compatible dimmers are designed to solve, but I was finding that they don’t.

THERE, ABRUPTLY ON SUNDAY EVE, ENDED MY LED LIGHTING EXPERIMENT

Back to Home Depot I went. This time I bought an LED-compatible dimmer from Lutron, only to get an even worse result: I couldn’t get the bulbs to turn on no matter what I did. Finally, I gave up on the dimmer and installed a simple on-off switch. To my bewilderment, the LEDs buzzed even louderthan the incandescents I had replaced. My ceiling quite literally sounded like one of those big transformer boxes you see in yards. Not to say it really mattered — I wasn’t about to permanently install a non-dimmable track lighting system.

And so there, abruptly on Sunday eve, ended my LED lighting experiment. I returned the four bulbs and their destroyed packaging in a plastic bag to Home Depot, which graciously refunded me, no questions asked.

As a technologist, I don’t want to be surrounded by 20th-century lighting technology more than anyone else. But despite new federal laws, an intense marketing push, and the proliferation of affordable bulbs like Cree, this feels like an immature industry that isn’t ready to fill every socket in my home. Next year, perhaps? 

“That 60W-equivalent LED: What you don’t know, and what no one will tell you…”

Source: EDN Network (highlights added)

That 60W-equivalent LED: What you don’t know, and what no one will tell you…

October 30, 2013 by Ed Rodriguez

Most readers are aware of all the recent hoopla regarding 40- and 60-watt LED versions of standard 40- and 60-watt bulbs. Prices have dropped sharply, appearances have become somewhat standardized and dimmable versions are becoming commonplace.  So now most of the media and blogosphere time is spent in infinite speculation about the pros and cons and timing of when we will have such bulbs with built-in Wi-Fi, color tuning, smartphone gadgetry, retail pricing at the $1.50 level, and the pros and cons of the versions at Wal-Mart versus those at Lowe’s and Home Depot.

Perhaps time for a reality check or two… meaningful for the average consumer, who has no little or no clue about CCT, CRI,  or heat sinking as they buy light bulbs to simply put light when and where it’s needed and doesn’t need it to be iTunes compatible.

First some facts:  For decades consumers have come to assume (a reasonably valid assumption) they can buy almost any CFL and screw it into any place they previously had a 40W or 60 W incandescent bulb. Maybe it would not allow dimming…maybe it was slow to warm up… maybe the color consistency was not as expected… and some “mongrel” brands have proven not to last as long as was thought. In most cases, however, CFLs have proven to be a good return on investment, lasting much longer and sharply reducing electricity costs. The hundreds of millions sold globally suggests they provided pretty much what was expected.

It follows then that consumers now have a similar expectation for LED versions, with even longer life and greater electricity savings, dimming, and even better color consistency. What’s not to like as prices keep coming down?

Let’s shift gears a second. Probably 95% of all UL approved recessed down-light fixtures have, for decades, incorporated simple inexpensive “thermal cutouts”. Why ? Because if a consumer installed an incandescent bulb of higher wattage than recommended, “bad things” could happen in the light fixture. Fixture makers learned early on that if there is a socket, many consumers will assume it’s good for any bulb, which is not expressly warned against.

Back to our story:  Turns out that the consumer’s assumption is not valid: that the LED bulb is just another upgrade like the CFL. As noted, folks assumed that anywhere you had the 40W or 60W incandescent, you could screw in the CFL. This is not at all the case for a 40 or 60 watt-equivalent.

Within an LED bulb the internal generation and distribution of heat is such that it “desperately” needs access to cool surrounding air.  The fact that it has that metallic housing is irrelevant in restricted air.

That 60 watt Wal-Mart bulb, when operating base down in open air and not even using a shade, has its internal LED case at 85°C, the absolute upper end of what is considered “safe” for full life expectancy. The same deal is true for competitive bulbs. Put a shade around it… and it’s a little warmer. Put it into any kind of base-up socket and it gets a lot hotter and all life expectancy numbers are off the table. Put it into any kind of porch or post light fixture, and it can fry, with its internal power supply components at the cliff edge of failure. Put the lamp in a ceiling-mounted fully enclosed fixture and set the timer for when failure will occur.

In other words,  totally unlike incandescent and substantially unlike a CFL, reliability and life expectancy go down hill sharply as soon as you install  it anywhere that air is restricted. Guess what? A large percentage of places for LED best value is in those place where access is difficult and air is restricted. LEDs do not target a “table-lamp-only” marketplace.

All A-19 (60 W equivalent) LED manufacturers could solve the problem immediately with a 25 cent fix—a simple “cookbook” thermistor circuit that automatically dims the light to a safe thermal equilibrium level as things are getting too hot—and protects the unknowing consumer against himself. LED luminaire makers have been doing this for some time because they concluded it would be foolhardy not to do it.

We’ve see some mighty big LED bulb recalls in last two years stemming from thermal design carelessness. Before we get too enamored with thoughts of LED lamps that double as party lights or Wi-Fi hot spots, let’s first make sure they meet fundamental expectations as a trustworthy long-life, electricity-saving source of light for basic needs. We’re not there yet because this very real issue is being ignored by every existing supplier, without exception, of 40-, 60-, and 100-watt equivalent A-19 style LED bulbs.

“Dangerous GU10 LED Spot Light is Cheap and Bright but could Kill You”

“Lighting Science issues recall of 554,000 LED bulbs because of fire hazard”

This is a quote. Original article can be found here.

Lighting Science issues recall of 554,000 LED bulbs because of fire hazard

Lighting Science Group, the Florida-based makers of Home Depot’s EcoSmart LED bulbs as well as branded products for other companies, has issued a recall for a reported 554,000 of its LED bulbs. The bulbs are being called back due to their being a possible fire hazard after internal components overheat. This is a voluntary recall that affects bulbs sold under the Sylvania, Definity, EcoSmart, and Westinghouse brand names.

The recall, which is being organized under the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), was posted yesterday, March 19th, takes place after 68 reported product failures. Eight of those failures led to “visible smoke or fire conditions” and while others caused damage to a socket, fixture, or surrounding object. To date no people have been harmed by the faulty lamps.

The affected products include not just LSG’s own products, but ones that the company has made for other brands. These are 120V household bulbs operating at 6W, 8W and 9W within A19, G25, and PAR20 (R20) bulb types. Using the CPSC’s site and the label on an individual lamp it can be determined which products are affected and which are not.

One lamp that seems to be included in the mix is Home Depot’s popular EcoSmart A19. The bulb was one of the first to be available under the $10 mark, and was viewed as both a big win for Home Depot as well as for Lighting Science (though it’s questionable how much money Lighting Science made on the deal). This was never deemed as a particularly high quality bulb, but those judgements were restricted to the quality of its light and its build, never to its safety. EcoSmart bulbs are still available at Home Depot and Lighting Science’s Definity A19 Omni V2 is still available at Amazon so it seems that newer offerings are not affected.

Any product recall is bad news (especially one that causes fires), but this comes at a particularly bad time for Lighting Science. The company has a new CEO, Jeremy Cage, as of January 2013 and I’ve been told it has lost some talent over the past year. Also, the recall comes just days after Cree’s release of its A19 LED bulbs, products that can match Lighting Science’s low prices but — from what I’ve seen — are higher quality lights. Cree’s products are very competitive and will require a reaction from companies like Lighting Science.

“Philips Recalls 99,000 LED Light Bulbs Due to Shock Risk”

This is a quote. Original blog article can be found here.

Philips Recalls 99,000 LED Light Bulbs Due to Shock Risk

by Stephen Lacey | August 20, 2013

I just spent the last two minutes unscrewing two Philips LED bulbs from lamps in my home office. And then I came to my computer to write about it.

Why? Because the bulb has been recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission for posing an electrical shock danger.

“A lead wire in the bulb’s housing can have an improper fitting, which can electrify the entire lamp and pose a shock hazard,” reported the CPSC. (Hat tip to Energy Manager Today for catching the news.)

Reportedly, no one has been hurt yet. But the consumer agency recommended immediately taking out the bulbs and unplugging the fixture.

Don’t have any backups? Bulb owners can contact Philips for some free replacements.

The CPSC is recalling two models, a 12-watt and 12.5-watt Endura LED. Here’s how to know if your bulb is the right one:

“The bulbs are orange in color and have ‘MADE IN CHINA,’ ‘Fabrique in Chine’ followed by a slanted ‘S,’ and the model number 9290001829 printed on the gray plastic band on the neck of the bulbs. The date codes, 2L for the Endura bulbs and 2K or 2L for the Ambient bulbs, are printed on the metal screw base.”

The Endura was Philips’ answer to the 60-watt incandescent bulb, and was proudly displayed at the 2011 Lightfair International as part of a suite of new LED products.

Wondering what to do with a bulb would probably last another couple of years (if it weren’t potentially dangerous)? Don’t try to sell it off to an unsuspecting friend, warned the CPSC.

“Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.”

Not that the resale market would be massive — LEDs still only represent 12 percent of worldwide lighting sales. But global penetration is expected to increase to 25 percent by 2014, and possibly hit 80 percent by 2020.

Philips, a world leader in light sales, is pushing aggressively into the LED market. But it is nudging up against competition from tech competitors like LG and Samsung, cheaper Chinese suppliers and up-and-comers like Cree.

“Watchdog safety alert on LED light”

Source: www.connexionfrance.com/ via: lowenergylampsinfo.wordpress.com/

Watchdog safety alert on LED light

October 26, 2010

PARENTS have been warned to keep young children away from areas lit by new-style light-emitting diode (LED) lights and to avoid toys that use the lamps.

Public health watchdog Anses has just completed first tests on the lights, which are starting to be increasingly used in many different applications, and says it found that some were not suitable for public use.

LED bulbs can last for 25 years and give out an intense blue-white light. They give the same illumination as a traditional incandescent lamp, but use only a tenth of the energy. They are starting to replace traditional lamps and a report in the Daily Mail said London’s Dorchester Hotel had cut its £150,000 lighting bill by a third since switching to LED lighting.

Now they are used as car running lights, billboards, kitchens and on TVs.

Anses tested nine types of LED lights against the IEC 62471 standards and rated three in the second-highest risk band.

It says the intense blue-white light is a “toxic stress” on the retina, with a severe dazzling risk. Youngsters are particularly sensitive to this risk as their eyes are still developing and the lens is not capable of filtering out the light wavelengths.

Anses that the intensity of LED lights should be reduced and public use restricted to lamps that give off the same intensity as traditional ones. High-intensity LED lamps should be for professional use only.

Read the entire ANSES report (in French) or summary (in English)

ANSES = The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety

“LED lighting causes headaches in Dutch workers”

Posted and translated by lowenergylampsinfo.wordpress.com

LED lighting causes headaches in Dutch workers

November 6, 2009 by healthrisks

The 350 as environmentally friendly promoted LED lights installed in the Dutch town hall of Hoogeveen appear to cause headaches in the employees.

Town Hall of Hoogeveen

The lamps also produce vibrations on computer screens. “If your hand moves along a lamp, a stroboscope effect occurs in the office. Sometimes it seems like a disco in here” said town spokesman Hans Vonk.

Just this week the Dutch Environment Minister Cramer started a public campaign to persuade citizens to use energy saving lamps or LEDs. However, installation expert Nico Koreman warned for the risk of strain on the existing electricity network. The cause lies in certain electronics for the new lighting, which can manipulate power frequencies. “With very unpleasant effects such as by burning and melting equipment and flickering lights”, warns Koreman. “The frequencies are so high that you can’t detect them using standard measuring equipment.”

One solution is to avoid cheap electronics from the Far East, says Koreman. “And do not buy the cheapest light bulbs, but stuff from regular brands.” The town of Hoogeveen will replace all the lights with a newer generation of LED lamps, which have already been tried in three rooms. “These new lights do not seem to cause health problems,” said Vonk.

Original article in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf:

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/5195982/__Hoofdpijn_van_led-verlichting__.html

“Viva Las Vegas: LEDs and the energy efficiency paradox”

Source: Low-tech Magazine (only LED parts of the article quoted, highlights added)

Viva Las Vegas: LEDs and the energy efficiency paradox

October 14, 2008

Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs)

The drawbacks of CFLs are slowly gaining recognition even amongst critics of the incandescent light bulb. More and more, compact fluorescent lamps are considered to be an interim technology, awaiting the arrival of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLEDs).

Strikingly, exactly the same thing is happening with biofuels, where advocates eventually accepted the unforeseen disadvantages but point to a next generation of technology which offers all the benefits without the drawbacks.

LEDs do not contain mercury and they are even more energy-efficient than CFLs, while boasting even longer life expectancies. However, also this technology still has to fulfil its promises.

LEDs have become a mature and clearly advantageous technology when it comes to coloured lighting – red, green, yellow. This makes them a very good choice for traffic lights, for instance. White light – the light that we need most to light up our homes and streets – is another story.

White LEDs are considerably less energy efficient, have lower life expectancies and can become very hot. High powered white LEDs are equipped with a fan to cool them down – introducing extra energy consumption, noise and breaking possibilities. Also, there is evidence that high power white LEDs can damage health. And last but not least: white light from a LED looks very much like the light of a welder: more blue than white, and everything but cosy.

Viva Las Vegas

At the moment, LED technology is no competition for the incandescent light bulb. However, it can be considered a worthy improvement of another technology: neon lights. And that’s the problem. Whether or not white LEDs will finally arrive, the success of coloured LEDs is a fact. New applications are appearing every day, and even though some of them are definitely useful, they all introduce lighting in places and situations where there was no lighting before.

Pasting many thousands of LEDs on a large building, with the sole purpose of decoration, seems to be the new hot thing in architecture. Dozens of examples (including the pictures on this page) can be found here, here, here, here and here.

The people behind these projects almost always emphasize the energy efficiency of the lighting technology used, but of course no energy is saved here, on the contrary.

The LED lights attached to facades (sometimes more than 200,000 of them) are not substituting incandescent light bulbs, they substitute a non-lit façade.

So what counts is the extra energy consumption introduced by these LED-curtains, not the energy savings compared to wrapping a building in incandescent lights or neon – which nobody would do, except in Las Vegas.

Solar panels

Gigantic billboards are another emerging application of LEDs. Bejing has two of them. Greenpix measures 2,200 square meters, another screen in the same city – placed not vertically but horizontally as a roof over a street – measures 7,500 m². In Dubai, a 33 story LED-display is planned, visible to a distance up to 1.5 kilometres, to be attached to a skyscraper.

Greenpix is powered by solar panels, and therefore it is marketed as “a radical example of sustainable technology”. Of course, it is not. It takes energy to manufacture solar panels. Introducing renewable energy lowers energy consumption only if it substitutes existing energy production.

Translucent concrete and luminous pavement

Two other recent inventions that should raise concern: translucent concrete and luminous pavement. In the near future, we will leave the light on in every room of our house, not for ourselves, but for the passer-by on the street and for the neighbours. LED-walls can display moving images, controlled by a computer. Every wall, every building, every bridge and every paving-stone could become a medium for communication.

LEDs could revolutionise interior design and the list of products that can be “augmented” by LEDs seems infinite. Some examples: taps and showerheads that change the colour of the water according to temperature, colour changing book shelves, illuminated clothing and accessories, slippers, safety clothing, garden lights, garden benches, speed bumps and crossings.

Some of these applications are worthwhile. Most notably, LEDs promise to make traffic safer. And many people will be thrilled by the emerging design possibilities. But this technology will NOT lower energy consumption, on the contrary. There will be much more lighting everywhere, and because this lighting is more efficient, the best that can happen is that energy consumption will not rise.

In fact, that’s exactly what the shopkeeper’s association in Madrid answered last December, when Spanish newspaper El País asked why there was such a striking increase of Christmas lights compared to the year before: “LEDs consume much less energy, so we can use much more lights without consuming more energy”.

The energy efficiency paradox

It is a common misconception that energy efficiency always leads to energy savings. This might be true in some cases, but not in most. Computers, televisions and car engines are good examples. All these technologies have become much more efficient during the last decades, but their energy consumption has been constant or on the rise.

Even the arrival of a radically new energy efficient technology – comparable to the change from Edison bulbs to LEDs – is no guarantee. LCD and plasma television technology is in itself considerably more energy efficient than the conventional cathode-ray tube. There was a potential for a reduction in energy consumption, but instead it was decided to use the technology to make larger televisions without raising power consumption (too much).

There are so many examples of the energy efficiency paradox that it is hard to believe that this mechanism (already described in 1865 by Stanley Jevons and further developed by Daniel Khazzoom and Len Brookes in the 1970s) is still so controversial. Maybe LEDs will finally convince us, because they promise to become one of the most powerful examples to date.

The paradox is very hard to prove for compact fluorescent lamps, because they did not bring about new applications. It could be that people are tempted to install more lights and leave them on for longer periods, because they know they consume less – but that’s very hard to prove, and not so likely either. With LEDs, however, the situation is vastly different. Your desk lamp might use less energy in 10 years time, but the technology that made it happen will also light the exterior of all buildings and infrastructure in your city. 

More instruments needed

LEDs illustrate the danger of a purely technological approach to energy conservation. A technology that was originally designed to save energy, gives way to all kinds of new applications that might eventually raise energy consumption considerably. The evolution of technology is unpredictable, and therefore technology should never be the only solution to a problem.

Outlawing incandescent light bulbs – which several countries plan to do – is no solution either. The guy burning one light bulb in his little room (and maybe using the excess heat of his bulb as heating in winter) damages the environment a whole lot less than the guy on the other side of the street who decorates his mansion and garden like a casino with LEDs.

There is a lot of room to lower energy consumption without switching to new technology. Something is awfully wrong with our approach to energy conservation.

All this does not mean that energy efficiency is a bad thing. It brings economical gains and many other advantages: faster cars, more powerful and smaller computers, larger televisions. For many of us, these are all very important achievements. Energy efficiency also offers the possibility for a reduction in energy consumption, but this does not happen automatically.

More is needed to translate energy efficiency into energy reduction. A carbon tax or higher energy prices, for instance. Together with these instruments, energy efficiency can be a very powerful tool. Without them, energy efficiency works against us when it comes to saving energy.

© Kris De Decker (edited by Vincent Grosjean)

“New research shows CFLs and LED light bulbs have higher toxicity and resource depletion than incandescent bulbs”

Via www.electronicstakeback.com/

New research shows CFLs and LED light bulbs have higher toxicity and resource depletion than incandescent bulbs

by Barbara Kyle | January 16th, 2013

Both compact fluorescents and LED lightbulbs qualify as hazardous waste under California and EPA protocols

New research from scientists in California and South Korea, published yesterday in Environmental Science and Technology, shows that while compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) and LEDs have better energy efficiency than incandescent bulbs, they compare unfavorably when you look at their potential toxicity (at the end-of-life phase) and resource depletion.

First, let’s be clear that the study focused on the kinds of CFL and LED light bulbs  you can screw into a lamp used for ambient lighting, not the LEDs used to light flat screen TVs or monitors (more on that later). Also, the study did not consider toxicity in the extraction or manufacturing phase – but just on the end-of-life phase, assuming they were trashed, not recycled (since sadly, most people do put used bulbs in the trash).

Because the bulbs have very different expected lifetimes, they “normalized” their data on resource depletion and toxicity potential by using data for fifty incandescents, five CFLs, and one LED bulb. Even after normalizing their calculations, the team found that CFLs have from three to 26 times higher resource depletion and toxicity potential than incandescents and LED bulbs have two to three times higher potential.

Metals

Both CFLs and LEDs have higher levels of metals than incandescents have, except for Tungsten (in the filaments) and nickel:

• CFLs and LEDs require more metal-containing components that supply power to light the bulbs
• CFLs and LED require one or more circuit boards (adding antimony, copper, lead, iron)
• CFLs and LEDs use copper in the coils and zinc as protective coatings to stainless steel
• CFLs contain mercury, phosphorous, and yttrium
• LED bulbs include a heat sink to dissipate the heat (adding aluminum)
• LED chips include antimony and gallium
• LEDs use barium and chromium in stainless steel, and phosphorous, silver and gold elsewhere

With so many metals used, including some critical metals, we need to see more recycling and less trashing of all these bulbs.

CFLs and LED bulbs flunk hazardous waste test

All three bulbs were tested to see if they should be classified as hazardous waste, under the protocols established by Federal EPA (the TCLP test)  and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (the TTLC methodology).  The CFLs and LED bulbs were both determined to be hazardous waste, but the incandescent bulbs were not. Both the CFLs and LED bulbs far exceeded the federal TCLP levels for lead and the California TTLC level for copper. The CFLs also far exceeded the California levels for zinc. While the CFLs measured just below the California level for mercury, the authors state that the methods used for sampling did not capture the mercury that could have vaporized when the CFL bulb was broken. (This may mean that the primary concern could be the exposure to whomever breaks, or cleans up a broken CFL bulb, even more than what happens in the trash.)

Toxicity

The study evaluated the hazard based toxicity potential (on a per bulb basis), using two different methodologies. Both showed the CFLs and LEDs have higher hazard potential than incandescents because of copper, aluminum and zinc.  CFLs and LEDs also had higher scores for human and eco-toxicity potentials. “The CFLs exhibit at least 2.5 and 1.3 times higher human- and eco-toxicity potentials than the LEDs, respectively, and the CFLs and LEDs exhibit at least 2 orders of magnitude higher potentials than the incandescent bulb,” according to the report.

What about LEDs in flat panel TVs and monitors?

The next logical question is what this kind of evaluation would find if focused on the LED components that light TVs and monitors. The University of California researchers have evaluated individual pin type LEDs, like those used as indicator lights in electronics. But given that some of the impacts from the LED bulbs studied here come from the ancillary components needed not just to light one LED, but to light the bulb, we would be very curious to see studies that look at the full array LED backlights or edge lights in TVs to determine, in particular, whether they should be classified as hazardous waste or not.

“LED products billed as eco-friendly contain toxic metals, study finds”

Source: LED products billed as eco-friendly contain toxic metals, study finds

LED products billed as eco-friendly contain toxic metals, study finds

UC researchers tested holiday bulbs, traffic lights and car beams

Irvine, Calif., February 10, 2011

Those light-emitting diodes marketed as safe, environmentally preferable alternatives to traditional lightbulbs actually contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially hazardous substances, according to newly published research.

“LEDs are touted as the next generation of lighting. But as we try to find better products that do not deplete energy resources or contribute to global warming, we have to be vigilant about the toxicity hazards of those marketed as replacements,” said Oladele Ogunseitan, chair of UC Irvine’s Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention.

He and fellow scientists at UCI and UC Davis crunched, leached and measured the tiny, multicolored lightbulbs sold in Christmas strands; red, yellow and green traffic lights; and automobile headlights and brake lights. Their findings? Low-intensity red lights contained up to eight times the amount of lead allowed under California law, but in general, high-intensity, brighter bulbs had more contaminants than lower ones. White bulbs copntianed the least lead, but had high levels of nickel.

“We find the low-intensity red LEDs exhibit significant cancer and noncancer potentials due to the high content of arsenic and lead,” the team wrote in the January 2011 issue of Environmental Science & Technology, referring to the holiday lights. Results from the larger lighting products will be published later, but according to Ogunseitan, “it’s more of the same.”

Lead, arsenic and many additional metals discovered in the bulbs or their related parts have been linked in hundreds of studies to different cancers, neurological damage, kidney disease, hypertension, skin rashes and other illnesses. The copper used in some LEDs also poses an ecological threat to fish, rivers and lakes.

Ogunseitan said that breaking a single light and breathing fumes would not automatically cause cancer, but could be a tipping point on top of chronic exposure to another carcinogen. And – noting that lead tastes sweet – he warned that small children could be harmed if they mistake the bright lights for candy.

Risks are present in all parts of the lights and at every stage during production, use and disposal, the study found. Consumers, manufacturers and first responders to accident scenes ought to be aware of this, Ogunseitan said. When bulbs break at home, residents should sweep them up with a special broom while wearing gloves and a mask, he advised. Crews dispatched to clean up car crashes or broken traffic fixtures should don protective gear and handle the material as hazardous waste. Currently, LEDs are not classified as toxic and are disposed of in regular landfills. Ogunseitan has forwarded the study results to California and federal health regulators.

He cites LEDs as a perfect example of the need to mandate product replacement testing. The diodes are widely hailed as safer than compact fluorescent bulbs, which contain dangerous mercury. But, he said, they weren’t properly tested for potential environmental health impacts before being marketed as the preferred alternative to inefficient incandescent bulbs, now being phased out under California law. A long-planned state regulation originally set to take effect Jan. 1 would have required advance testing of such replacement products. But it was opposed by industry groups, a less stringent version was substituted, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger placed the law on hold days before he left office.

“I’m frustrated, but the work continues,” said Ogunseitan, a member of the state Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Green Ribbon Science Panel. He said makers of LEDs and other items could easily reduce chemical concentrations or redesign them with truly safer materials. “Every day we don’t have a law that says you cannot replace an unsafe product with another unsafe product, we’re putting people’s lives at risk,” he said. “And it’s a preventable risk.”

“Banned LED bulbs”

Another earlier safety warning about LEDs from the Swedish National Electrical Safety Board (posted and translated by Greenwashing Lamps).

Banned LED bulbs

Dec 14, 2011

With the new energy conservation requirements, incandescent bulbs be phased out, increasing interest in alternative lighting. The National Electrical Safety Board has recently given a variety of LED lamps sales ban.

The most common reason is electrical grid disturbances, but they also interfere with radio frequencies. The lamps which the Safety Board has looked at are the incandescent bulb replacement LED bulbs. They are based on modern LED technology and all the lamps tested contain a small power pack, situated in the lamp socket.

List of products which have so far received sales ban: Lamp 1, Lamp 2, Lamp 3, Lamp 4, Lamp 5, Lamp 6, Lamp 7. [3 more but links required login]

Result of market supervision

More than half of the LED lights purchased through the market and tested have received sales bans. This is a remarkably high figure, which may be because most of the lights checked had built-in dimming, i.e. that they are dimmable.

Dimmable LED lamps contain control electronics that often require specific measures to achieve acceptable properties to make electrical devices work together, known as electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). This is sometimes overlooked by the lamp manufacturers. 

It is important to you as a manufacturer or importer to ensure that the LEDs have been tested properly with EMC.

How does the disturbance manifest?

LEDs produce disturbances in the distribution system which, among other things, can cause radio interference. Radio interference caused by the conducted noise radiating from the connected wires. This is because the lines, e.g. to the luminaire, act as transmitting antennas for conducted interference. The disturbance may affect other electrical products in the local area, even those that are not connected to an outlet. It can also affect communication such as wireless broadband and telephony.

What rules apply for manufacturers?

The Electrical Safety Authority on electromagnetic compatibility (ELSÄK-FS 2007:1) has to be followed. Regulations based on the EMC Directive (2004/108/EC EMCD).

Cooperation within the EU about LED lights

There is currently a campaign in the EU where LED lighting examined. The aim is to investigate if the new LED lights on the market comply with applicable EMC requirements.

A few months later, EU authorities found similar problems:

Disruptive LEDs are examined in the EU

Feb 10, 2012

The National Electrical Safety Board has in 2011 looked into LED lights, half of which got sales bans. The reason for the bans is that the lights did not meet the applicable requirements for electromagnetic compatibility (EMC).

The lights disrupted other electrical products. Only one in five LED lamps passed the test without comment.

European survey

In parallel with the National Electrical Safety Board’s market surveillance of LED lights, the EU carried out an investigation. The EU surveillance is not strictly comparable to the Safety Boards’s market surveillance, but shows similar shortcomings. The results also show that manufacturers who use LED technology are very poor at complying with the Directive.

– The reason for this is that LED technology is so new and there have appeared many new manufacturers in the market that are simply not aware of the directive, said Ulf Johansson at the Safety Board.

Clearer rules

One of several measures aimed at improving the situation is that the European Commission gives the European Committee for Standardisation mandate to supplement and clarify standards in the field. The aim is to help traders in the market to more easily use the current rules.

Continued control

The National Electrical Safety Board will, in line with other market surveillance authorities in the EU, check the LEDs in 2012 as well. It also plans to follow up on last year’s surveillance with a campaign aimed at improving information about the LED lights.

Original sources:

Förbjudna LED-lampor

Störande lampor granskas i EU

Final Report on the 4th Cross-Border EMC Market Surveillance Campaign – 2011 LED Lighting Products

“LED tubes can be dangerous”

Earlier safety warnings about LEDs from the Swedish National Electrical Safety Board (posted and translated by Greenwashing Lamps).

LED tubes can be dangerous

May 20, 2010

To save energy, many industries, municipalities and other large consumers of traditional fluorescent lamps are switching to LED lamps. Tests show that LED tubes can compromise the security of the person replacing the lamp.

The new LED tubes are supplied with 230 V voltage to the luminaire lamp holder for the lamp ends. The risk is getting an electric shock when the lamp is replaced because it is easy to touch the shiny connectors at one end of the tube, while the other end is attached to the light fixture.

Can be mounted in standard fluorescent fixtures

The National Electrical Safety Board has been tested a number of LED tubes in the Swedish market. All products can be installed in conventional fluorescent fixtures. The results of the tests show such serious faults that the agency has decided to withdraw the products from end users. Importers are required to advertise alerts to reach all end users.

– The current LED tubes are sold primarily via the Internet and can be found both among consumers as that of bulk consumers, says Martin Gustafsson at the Safety Board. Those who have purchased the product should contact the place of purchase for warranty.

Safety Board has no data on how many of those LED lamps on the market, but there may be a thousand.

The corresponding study in Finland

The Finnish equivalent of the National Electrical Safety Board, Safety Tukes, has been tested a number of led tube. Test results have shown that the tested products did not comply with safety regulations, and there was a risk of electric shock when replacing the tubes. According Tukes there are in Finland several thousand LED tubes that can be dangerous. The Safety Board has contacted the LED tube suppliers in Sweden who have received the Finnish counterpart sales ban in Finland and asked them to take voluntary measures in accordance with the measures Tukes has demanded. The LED tubes tested by the Swedish Safety board have not been tested in Finland.

Original source:

LED-lysrör kan vara farliga