Sciencemadness Discussion Board - LED Dangers - Unbelievable Paranoia!

LED Dangers - Unbelievable Paranoia!

Xenoid - 11-2-2011 at 12:15

WTF

... Is this for real, have Californian "scientists" got nothing better to do.

LED Products Billed as Eco-Friendly Contain Toxic Metals, Study Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210124136.ht...

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 contained 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."
(Bold is my addition)

Oladele Ogunseitan sounds like he is a total nutter!

condennnsa - 11-2-2011 at 12:30

This really cracked me up, xenoid

" mistake the bright lights for candy " HAHAHA

I guess this guy just tries to get some 'research' money with this stuff... most of of these 'health' concerning articles are about that. And it works wonders on the general public.

[Edited on 11-2-2011 by condennnsa]

Xenoid - 11-2-2011 at 12:42

Here he is;

"I'm frustrated, but the bullshit continues," said Ogunseitan, a member of the state Department of Toxic Substances Control's Green Ribbon Science Panel.

hissingnoise - 11-2-2011 at 13:01

Quote: Originally posted by Xenoid

WTF

... Is this for real, have Californian "scientists" got nothing better to do.

With LEDs on the cusp of becoming ubiquitous do you think that the hazardous substances they contain should be of no concern whatever?

garage chemist - 11-2-2011 at 13:38

At least they don't poison the air you breathe if you break a LED lamp, if you even manage to do that. You'd have to crush the LED up into a fine powder and eat it to have any chance of being poisoned.
It would be a shame if LED development and application would suffer because of these eco-lunatics.

Speaking of the elements contained in LEDs, someone once told me that he had once acquired a large chunk (several 100g) of gallium arsenide on ebay and asked me how to separate it into the elements, or at least pure compounds of the elements.
I was not able to come up with a good, simple solution. Any ideas?

madscientist - 11-2-2011 at 13:47

Children mistaking light bulbs for candy is a stretch. Also seems silly to don a moonsuit before sweeping up broken LEDs. But leaching of metals into groundwater is a very real concern. Do you want lead and arsenic in your food and water?

Xenoid - 11-2-2011 at 13:54

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

With LEDs on the cusp of becoming ubiquitous do you think that the hazardous substances they contain should be of no concern whatever?

It is difficult to envisage LEDs ever becoming an environmental problem. My main concern is with the pseudo-science this man is promulgating, it is very entrenched in the environmental/toxic hazard "industry".

... noting that lead tastes sweet ... and this is from a so-called scientist. Lead doesn't taste sweet, it tastes metallic, like, ... well lead. Lead acetate (so called Sugar of Lead) tastes sweet, apparently.

Hang on! There is no lead in LEDs other than in the solder of associated wiring, and this is common to any electrical/electronic device. This is now being replaced with tin/antimony - oh! no! tin and antimony are also toxic!

People using a "special" broom to sweep up a broken LED, come on, REALLY! Have you ever broken a LED, they are almost indestructible.

I could go on, but this sort of "research" is just so silly. Looking for a problem where none exists, at the expense of the Californian taxpayer!

[Edited on 11-2-2011 by Xenoid]

metalresearcher - 11-2-2011 at 14:29

What a banana jounalism !

Of course, the used elements are an environmental hazard but, as said earlier, LEDs do not spread these tocic materials when broken. It is all encapsulated in plastic, unlike CFLs. And the 'special broom' story or 'the sweet taste of lead' is absolutely nonsense.
But more everyday products are a hazard in our throwaway society, like smartphones which have an economical lifetime of at most 2 years, the huuuuge pile of batteries to power all gadgets, the huuuuuuge pile of used CRTs contain very large amounts of Pb, and at least to mention all plastic packaging. Just buy an SD card and sometimes you get a 10x20cm sealed blister packaging around it which requires sturdy cutting tools to open.
And the air we breathe in the cities clogged up with jammed so-called 'green' automobiles .... Electric cars powered by the same batteries containing toxic elements and mostly being recharged by ... yes CO2 belching coal and oil power plants.

Then the hazard of the LEDs is very minimal comared to this.

metalresearcher - 11-2-2011 at 14:37

Quote: Originally posted by Xenoid

Have you ever broken a LED, they are almost indestructible.

Unless:

http://www.youtube.com/RODALCO2007#p/search/8/nxWQQJHmFP0

[Edited on 2011-2-11 by metalresearcher]

psychokinetic - 11-2-2011 at 15:15

I was going to make the "People shouldn't be eating them" quip, but then I see that PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY EATING THEM.

I want to go to a smarter planet, please.

DougTheMapper - 11-2-2011 at 15:51

What a bunch of goons.

Ever used lead fishing sinkers? Copper plumbing in your house? Copper-jacketed lead bullets? Arsenic-based pressure-treated wood? And they make such a fuss over tiny little lights... I about laughed out loud in class at that one. Furthermore, any fluorescent lamp contains thousands of times more mercury than any LED would... and they're infinitely easier to accidentally smash. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever even broken an LED before.

"I'm frustrated, but the bullshit continues," said Ogunseitan.

Pretty much sums up my opinion too.

Vogelzang - 11-2-2011 at 17:29

A lot of paranoid wackjob environmentalists have been trying to destroy California for a long time. The wackjobs want to do this to the entire country. http://peakoil.com/forums/ is dominated by wackjobs. If you like internet bullying, you might enjoy this forum. Some of them flip out so badly its incredible. And I thought Taliban Online was bad.

[Edited on 12-2-2011 by Vogelzang]

Regolith - 12-2-2011 at 01:50

When California falls into the sea the entire north american continent will collectively utter "thank god". Most (lets be honest here, all) of these lights are made in China. We should all be glad there not created with freaking uranium. I mean intentionally, there ALL contaminated with uranium... if your lucky.

metalresearcher - 12-2-2011 at 06:18

Quote: Originally posted by Regolith

When California falls into the sea the entire north american continent will collectively utter "thank god".

When North America (and possible W-Europe) falls into the ocean the rest of the world says 'thank God' for a steep decrease of CO2 and other noxious gas exhaust .....

quicksilver - 12-2-2011 at 08:40

I have lived in rural environments most of my life and I have learned - LEARNED to despise this wack-job, shit-for-brains idiots who KNOW fucking nothing but what they heard someone (whom they happen to believe has the "answer") blather on about. Or should I have said "herd"?

RoHS compliance? What the fuck is that? Laws enacted for the benefit of the environment regarding heavy metals and the electronics industry...(? what...?) Canada, the US, the UK are all bending over literally so that China and India can dump mega tons of shit and filth into the world's oceans and air and what's the response? WE are suppose to play with a fucking LED or watch our "carbon"???? GOD IN HEAVEN....... GIVE ME the STRENGTH to deal with the futility of this bullshit!

In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences debated the source for the greatest source of "carbon emissions" & found vulcanism to be the largest single source. CFL contain Hg and we are being forced to buy up CFLs from China instead of incandescent bulbs. We are making a major polluter the wealthiest country on earth. Plants need what to grow????? Oxygen? NO.......CO2 and UV. We have bought into some of the most stupid, short-sighted, mindless crap generated from where??? - fucking Hollywood actors spouting pseudo-science and half truths. NOW we should dump all the RoHS compliance and do what's in the best interest of the major polluters in the world.
Why? Because some fuck fresh from a drug rehab has pleaded with daytime TV watching jerks that the impact of their living room has a greater impact than a floating island of garbage produced by another pro-generator of entertainment ("Bollywood") enlightenment.

Someone once said that the lack of individual competence in arithmetic and conceptual mathematics will have a serious effect on cause and effect thinking as it steers the mind away from logical thinking.
I think we are now seeing the truth in those predictions. Fucking morons will be the people in charge when we all grow older and older. And these same fucking morons will be the decision making genre' when we need vital change the most.

[Edited on 12-2-2011 by quicksilver]

unionised - 12-2-2011 at 09:06

"RoHS compliance? What the fuck is that?"

Thank you for demonstrating the care with which you have researched this matter.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1463/contents/made

"Canada, the US, the UK are all bending over literally "
I'd literally like to see evidence of that being literally true.

quicksilver - 12-2-2011 at 09:11

That is called sarcasm.

_______

QUOTE:
"Canada, the US, the UK are all bending over literally "
I'd literally like to see evidence of that being literally true.

_______

Actually I apologize as I realize that wasn't clear.

The compliance (RoHS) is in place for nations as per the above; but not the polluters.

[Edited on 12-2-2011 by quicksilver]

Vogelzang - 12-2-2011 at 15:47

Quote: Originally posted by metalresearcher

Quote: Originally posted by Regolith

When California falls into the sea the entire north american continent will collectively utter "thank god".

When North America (and possible W-Europe) falls into the ocean the rest of the world says 'thank God' for a steep decrease of CO2 and other noxious gas exhaust .....

What you believe is the direct opposite of what is true, a result of propaganda and brainwashing, obviously. See the link and attached file. This apparently is suppressed by the gangsters trying to force cap and trade on us.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/Climate/Scien...

Attachment: SciMag-442.pdf (349kB)
This file has been downloaded 891 times

[Edited on 13-2-2011 by Vogelzang]

Vogelzang - 12-2-2011 at 15:59

More files.

Attachment: 386.html (46kB)
This file has been downloaded 627 times

Attachment: 504a.html (47kB)
This file has been downloaded 605 times

[Edited on 13-2-2011 by Vogelzang]

vulture - 12-2-2011 at 16:09

Vogelzang, your behavior is starting to look like If_6_was_9's from some time ago, that is posting blanket statements, tying (often tenuous) links to that and hijacking the thread in the process.

You may or may not be right, that is not the issue here, but please don't become a propaganda loudspeaker.

Regolith - 13-2-2011 at 01:56

Quote:

When North America (and possible W-Europe) falls into the ocean the rest of the world says 'thank God' for a steep decrease of CO2 and other noxious gas exhaust .....

Uhh let me see, china has already become the top #1 producer of your hated and feared CO2 the world over. The US is de-industrializing while china has a new coal plant online every other week. They built a hydroelectric damn that retains so much water and is so LARGE it's slightly changed the axial spin of the EARTH.

Look into how many species of animals were just screwed and had to die for said damn. Americans (of which I'm not, for clarity sake) are trying there Damnedest!! to save endangered species.

China has bears in cages in markets and harvests the secretions of there glands through tubes in there flesh...

Data from the UN's own studies, which BTW thanks UN for that great job in egypt. We should have some giant body of people that unites the nations of the world and prevents atrocities from happening. Israel has had a dozen mandates against it in the same timeframe Egypt has had NONE.
China's CO2 output tracked last in 2007 was 6,538,367,000 metric tons
United States output last tracked in 2007 was 5,838,381,000 metric tons

Here's a better stat, lets track growth of CO2 emissions to find out who the real bad guys are here (this is assuming that CO2 is a bad gas and will kill us all which my own research, not beliefs, Research! shows is incorrect, the pesky forests all the greenies loved years ago that are now regrowing in north america NEED that CO2)

All DATA IN THOUSAND OF METRIC TONS
United states year after year growth
1999 5,556,587.0
2000 5,742,526.0
2001 5,630,110.0 << Down from previous
2002 5,695,562.0
2002 5,689,629.0 << Down again
2004 5,799,254.0
2005 5,842,558.0
2006 5,759,214.0 <<<<< LOOOK IT EVEN WENT DOWN AGAIN!!
2006 5,838,381.0

Looks pretty stable actually... If the UN's own data would continue you would find there a couple more years when they made LESS, but that data conflicts with the biased world view of this man made climate change nonsense. It's my belief this data is being scrubbed. Someone please find the current data to 2010 reguarding Both countries.

China's year after year growth
1999 3,318,045.0
2000 3,405,096.0
2001 3,487,365.0
2002 3,694,040.0
2003 4,346,796.0
2004 5,094,739.0
2005 5,614,071.0
2006 6,113,278.0
2007 6,538,367.0 <<<< This is exponential growth from less than 10 years

Yeah the Chinese took the trophy years ago. You get away from my table and come back when you tell the Chinese to slow down until then you can goto heck. There is a REASON California is asking for a bailout for the whole state. Everyone there, all of them, are idiots (apologies if your the rare exception) and had/have no concept of the real world. If they did all that green power etc they talk about would have lifted them OFF the grid instead they buy Enormous quantities of energy from other countries to get around there own self destructive imposed laws.

China isn't going to stop. So, what? we all crawl back into caves and live our 30 year lifespans while there chinese do whatever they want ?

Further

Quote:

steep decrease of CO2 and other noxious gas exhaust .....

50% At BEST is all your going to see if every Man Woman and Child DIED right now in the entire united states... More likely the chinese are now so far ahead its more like 25%.
This is what I love about you treehuggers your world view is not only myopic but you simply disbelieve any data not within that view.

metalresearcher - 13-2-2011 at 04:54

But why is China increasing its CO output so fast ?

Right because of that 70% of Chinese products are for the US and W-Europe. These are indeed de-industralizing and promoring 'we are cleaner' but the large increase of pollution from CN is mainly because of our gadgets, car parts,

Quote:

China isn't going to stop. So, what? we all crawl back into caves and live our 30 year lifespans while there chinese do whatever they want ?

As long as we buy all these crap like every 1-2 years a new iPhone (or to stay within the topic: every year new Xmas lights strands) the Chinese make them. Only a small eprcentage of the CN industry serves the domestic and non US / EU market.

www.lowtechmagazine.com

[Edited on 2011-2-13 by metalresearcher]

unionised - 13-2-2011 at 06:21

Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver

That is called sarcasm.

_______

QUOTE:
"Canada, the US, the UK are all bending over literally "
I'd literally like to see evidence of that being literally true.

_______

Actually I apologize as I realize that wasn't clear.

The compliance (RoHS) is in place for nations as per the above; but not the polluters.

[Edited on 12-2-2011 by quicksilver]

Since RoHS stops me buying electronic gear full of lead, I don't see how it can encourage (for example) the Chinese to use lots of lead.
I realise that their systems suck badly in terms of environmental impact and I agree that we shouldn't be exporting our "dirty work" to them just because they are not in a position to decline it.

Regolith - 13-2-2011 at 06:39

You didn't respond to the point you simply changed it (like every treehugger I know when faced with facts).

China has 1.331 Billion people 20% of the worlds population... and rising.

You don't think that they will just start to use those lights themselves when were all gone? Of course they will. Plus you seem to make the point that if we didn't ask them to make more they wouldn't... again this is without basis. Their population is expanding the american population is shrinking. China is going to be the new center of the world.

Quote:

Right because of that 70% of Chinese products are for the US and W-Europe. These are indeed de-industralizing and promoring 'we are cleaner' but the large increase of pollution from CN is mainly because of our gadgets, car parts,

Where do you get that number from it's bang on 70% (nice round big sounding number) huh ? Here's some real numbers
From http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-02/11/content_746712...

Quote:

The total included US$27.93 billion in trade between China and the European Union, down 18.7 percent; 22.25 billion dollars in trade between China and the United States, down 15.2 percent; and US$14.5 in trade between China and Japan, down 28 percent.

Again its not the americans at the front of the line. Yet the americans get all the lashings.. makes sense. (again I'm not american but the constant ripping on them gets old FAST)

Stop lumping the US and The EU together, neither country thinks of themselves as part of the other and noone No One thinks of themselves as french..

Sorry, you don't get it both ways. Much like global warming crap if it's warmer it's global warming if it's COLDER it's global warming. NO it's one way you double talking fool. It's not our fault BOTH if were making the stuff ourselves OR if china is making it. If america wasn't here at all it would be the russians. The simple truth is they have made an economy SELLING goods.

China is where they are because their gov mandates cheap products to MAKE THEM MORE MONEY. Thats why things here went out of buisness THEY made them cheaper and put people out of buisness here.

You use a hippie magazine as your proof ? Surely it's unbiased and has both sides of the story shown... You live in Cali don't you ? How's my power keeping your lights on ? Every payday I thank you for making it just a little bigger with your policies.

At first I though to just tell you off and to get out but then I looked at the URL and realized YOU are the madness in sciencemadness. Your exactly where you should be, but there are men of science here and raw data doesn't back you up.

unionised - 13-2-2011 at 07:07

"You didn't respond to the point you simply changed it "

" Much like global warming crap if it's warmer it's global warming if it's COLDER it's global warming. NO it's one way you double talking fool."

Just for a start, LEDs are not responsible for global warming.
Whether or not the Chinese population is growing and// or industrialising, the US and EU (independently, but nevertheless both of them) are continuing to produce a lot of CO2
If some of that is indirect production (i.e. we get the Chinese to do it then ship the stuff to us) isn't really the point.
It's the Western world's consumer demands that use a lot of the Earth's resources.
Pointing out that, at the moment, trade is down is just a reminder of the recession. Not really news.

And, while we are about it, actually it can happen both ways. A rise in global temperatures will reduce the size of the Arctic ice sheet. That will reduce the energy delivered to drive the gulf stream and that will make some places (notably Western Europe) cooler.
So hotter can mean cooler, provided that you look at the details.
"China is where they are because their gov mandates cheap products to MAKE THEM MORE MONEY. Thats why things here went out of buisness THEY made them cheaper and put people out of buisness here."

Perhaps the US govt should mandate the same thing.

"You live in Cali don't you ? "
Not unless the UK has recently been annexed.

hissingnoise - 13-2-2011 at 07:24

Quote: Originally posted by Regolith

They built a hydroelectric damn that retains so much water and is so LARGE it's slightly changed the axial spin of the EARTH.

That's just pure, unadulterated drivel . . .

quicksilver - 13-2-2011 at 07:24

QUOTE:
"Since RoHS stops me buying electronic gear full of lead, I don't see how it can encourage (for example) the Chinese to use lots of lead.
I realise that their systems suck badly in terms of environmental impact and I agree that we shouldn't be exporting our "dirty work" to them just because they are not in a position to decline it."
_____

OK no ranting....

I understand where you're coming from. Let me digress for a moment.
I was looking at a diode for a project and the one mfg according to RoHS standards is 10 USD, however I have (at this moment) one from China that sells for 3 dollars that is non-compliant. - The goods mfg IN China utilize THEIR materials. Therefore we would need to enact MORE legislation to prevent those from being sold outside of their country & we would have to have a uniform inspection methodology to do so.
This would NOT [however] stop there manufacture for a local market and a continuation of the materials in circulation. At this moment, MANY goods from China (just as an example) have enormous amounts of toxins used in their construction & are being sold outside their country because only SOME markets DEMAND compliance with such standards.

India (as another example) has made a literal island of garbage from ocean & water-borne dumping. Additionally there are enormous "re-cycling" of electronic goods within that country that produce wast of a magnitude that is stupefying due to the precious metals used within, etc.

My point is that nations that do comply with standards for addressing environmental issues are doing so in a market wherein other (not in compliance) achieve a continuum of profit thus making us less viable AS A MARKET & eventually will out-pace us economically to the detriment of both the environment but our potential as an influence of change.
Third party manufacturing such as those made in Brazil or Mexico do not HAVE to maintain RoHS standards & certainly don't pay 3x the amount for an electronic component; this a reality albeit a sad one. It exists in so many areas aside from electronics that [in addition to] trade limitations, etc are the reason why both the N. American and British have LOST their manufacturing thrust, become service-oriented economies and are headed for more of the same.

It is NOT that environmental issues have been a cause of economic down-fall; it is that not all are playing on a level field!
This problem had it's roots in both NAFTA & GATT (which very few people actually read) and BOTH political parties voted for such treaties. There is obviously enough responsibility to go around and it's not one "side" that made this phenomenon occur. in fact it's really NOT a political issue; although some would like to get some mileage out of it - it's a complex economic one. Whether one believes in carbon emissions as a global threat which is "man-made" or not is actually not the point IF the largest, most populous nations on Earth are not going to address the issues pertaining to the environment.
The end result is that those nations that abide by such conventions will eventually suffer economically to the extent that they will simply be milked for what profit existed and the polluters will move to new markets (perhaps their own, as they grow economically).

[Edited on 13-2-2011 by quicksilver]

Regolith - 13-2-2011 at 07:49

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

Quote: Originally posted by Regolith

They built a hydroelectric damn that retains so much water and is so LARGE it's slightly changed the axial spin of the EARTH.

That's just pure, unadulterated drivel . . .

I wish it was. To be clear were talking 0.06 microseconds a shift in the north pole by 2cm.

Quote:

although most shifts are too small to be measured (but they can be calculated)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-reall...

[Edited on 13-2-2011 by Regolith]

Regolith - 13-2-2011 at 07:52

Quote: Originally posted by unionised

"You didn't respond to the point you simply changed it "

" Much like global warming crap if it's warmer it's global warming if it's COLDER it's global warming. NO it's one way you double talking fool."

Just for a start, LEDs are not responsible for global warming.
Whether or not the Chinese population is growing and// or industrialising, the US and EU (independently, but nevertheless both of them) are continuing to produce a lot of CO2
If some of that is indirect production (i.e. we get the Chinese to do it then ship the stuff to us) isn't really the point.
It's the Western world's consumer demands that use a lot of the Earth's resources.
Pointing out that, at the moment, trade is down is just a reminder of the recession. Not really news.

And, while we are about it, actually it can happen both ways. A rise in global temperatures will reduce the size of the Arctic ice sheet. That will reduce the energy delivered to drive the gulf stream and that will make some places (notably Western Europe) cooler.
So hotter can mean cooler, provided that you look at the details.
"China is where they are because their gov mandates cheap products to MAKE THEM MORE MONEY. Thats why things here went out of buisness THEY made them cheaper and put people out of buisness here."

Perhaps the US govt should mandate the same thing.

"You live in Cali don't you ? "
Not unless the UK has recently been annexed.

Unionised I was talking to metal reasearcher. You stepped into the line of fire. Heh you weren't the target. I CAN read your in the UK it says right under your name. No question needed. Damn after reading your post and then mine. No, without doubt I wasn't after you Unionised. Apologies if it seemed that way your post hadn't showed up as I was compiling my own.

[Edited on 13-2-2011 by Regolith]

madscientist - 13-2-2011 at 11:46

Attention: anyone who wants to argue about atmospheric sciences should take it elsewhere.

hissingnoise - 13-2-2011 at 13:03

Regolith, just for clarity, the earth's rotation is not affected by any dam, whatever its size, capacity or volume of water . . .

Regolith - 13-2-2011 at 22:34

Copy that mods.
Changing the topic to angular momentum.

Hissingnoise, for clarity sake please provide your scientific reasoning behind why NASA says (it's not just nasa it's math) that 42 billion tons raised 175 meters above the ocean surface WILL affect the angular momentum of the earth.

To be fair were talking the mass of the earth Approx. 5,973,700,000,000,000,000 (I may have shifted a 0 there, it's a big number) Or just under 6 Sextillion metric tons. It's like hanging a grain of sand on a large lead filled beach ball. Still it will create a calculable shift in the spin of that object.

So are you saying that no matter what the mass it has 0 (Zero) effect on the spin of the earth ? There is no object large enough to make a calculable shift in angular momentum? Or is your statement thus, that 2 cm of north pole shift is so minuscule as to be said as not affected?

LanthanumK - 9-6-2011 at 04:41

Back to the topic: I think As-containing LEDs are unnecessary for most applications. A look into the available semiconductors for LEDs on Wikipedia shows that arsenic is only needed for infrared LEDs. On the safety of LEDs containing even arsenic: I tried extracting the semiconductor from an IR LED but it is so strongly sealed in the plastic that even a broken LED will not release anything. Of course, Pb solder can be skipped and replaced with metals that do not accumulate in the human body, like Sn and Sb. Otherwise, LEDs contain relatively harmless substances like Ga, Zn, In, Al, and P. Cu wire contaminating streams is paranoia.

quicksilver - 9-6-2011 at 05:35

Quote: Originally posted by unionised

Since RoHS stops me buying electronic gear full of lead, I don't see how it can encourage (for example) the Chinese to use lots of lead.

Within your particular situation there may be less direct impact but not all production arenas have to be compliant (within Western countries). Therefore the demand for non-compliant parts may exist simply due to [lack of] contract over sight or for the need of that part. Many contracts (especially non-governmental ones) are not as rigidly written and non-complaint parts sneak in, etc. When the difference can be 200% cost or more for a single small part; that's a very attractive alternative.

We know that the reality is that these parts ARE being mfg so they ARE being utilized (NON-RoHS) in some form. If that were not the case we wouldn't even have a distinction of one from the other.

Twospoons - 9-6-2011 at 14:40

In my job we have to deal with this on a daily basis - and not just RoHS either. We also have HF (Halogen Free) and REACH link compliance to worry about. REACH is awful - each customer seems to have their own list of banned substances, and it changes almost on a daily basis. Compliance declarations aren't enough either - we've had to have product analysed by a lab to prove compliance.

Picking parts for a product has become a regulatory nightmare.
(I jealously guard my precious roll of lovely tin/lead solder ...)

FYI I consider myself to be 'light green' on environmental issues : I care, but i'm not about to throw science out the window and turn environmentalism into a religion or personal crusade.

[Edited on 9-6-2011 by Twospoons]

AndersHoveland - 9-6-2011 at 14:43

LED lights are much safer than all those fluorescent lights our governments are trying to push on us. It would be a more effective use of envirormentalists effort to replace fluorescent tubes (and compact spiral fixtures) with LED lighting, rather than trying to replace incandescent bulbs with fluorescent lights, which is what they are trying to do now.

asilentbob - 10-6-2011 at 20:43

LEDs are more efficient when they are kept cool, the opposite of incandescent, halogen, fluorescent, sulfur, etc... As well they use DC instead of AC and generally need constant current drivers. The exception being using resistors to drive LEDs... but this doesn't work so well on higher power LEDs and kinda negates part of the efficiency benefit of the LEDs in the first place.

Our infrastructure of screw in AC socket fixtures is not in the best interests of what LEDs need. As well most of the currently available LED replacements are crappy in terms of light output, heat sinking and ventilation. They often die fast. Even if they look like they have an impressive heat sink.

Solution? Don't buy the pre-made screw in socket LED replacement bulbs. Make your own rail and other fixtures where you can be sure that heat sinking and airflow is adequate as well as keeping you in control of the light output, tint, mounting location, circuit capabilities, cost, etc...

EDIT: The above refers to the problems of using them in AC houses. They are perfect for DC electrical systems like in cars, flashlights, laptops, etc...

[Edited on 6/11/2011 by asilentbob]

Toxcicity of LEDs

Solomon - 11-12-2013 at 19:55

I am concerned as I often burn out LEDs and did not find out until recently about how toxic they are and their ability to cause cancer and neurological damage. I think the pakaging should completeley seal in the toxic substance in the LED, and I hope all I was smelling was the epoxy and not arsenic, lead, and phosphorus compounds! Should I be concerned? I have been driving myself crazy for the past few days over the terrible thought of brain damage that may have occured.

[Edited on 12-12-2013 by Solomon]

elementcollector1 - 11-12-2013 at 21:59

You're just smelling the burnt epoxy. There is only a very small quantity of any given light-emitting compound in a LED (think mg, if not ug), toxic or not. So, in short, you're probably fine.
Although epoxy might not be so friendly either...
Try to use some more resistors. What's your power supply?

bfesser - 12-12-2013 at 06:16

Why are you burning out so many LEDs? Be sure that you're using appropriately rated current limiting resistors in series with them, and try to avoid large reverse voltages across the junction. It's too late to worry about "brain damage that may have occurred."

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_circuit" target="_blank">LED circuit</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" />
<a href="https://www.sparkfun.com/tutorials/219" target="_blank">LED Current Limiting Resistors</a> <img src="../scipics/_ext.png" /> (SparkFun)
<a href="http://www.evilmadscientist.com/2012/resistors-for-leds/" target="_blank">Basics: Picking Resistors for LEDs</a> <img src="../scipics/_ext.png" /> (Evil Mad Scientist)

If you have an iOS device, you could try <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/circuit-playground/id492487671" target="_blank">Adafruit's Circuit Playground</a> <img src="../scipics/_ext.png" />. It has an LED circuit calculator that comes in handy when you're feeling particularly brain damaged.

I Like Dots - 12-12-2013 at 06:54

When I was a kid I loved to pop all the extra LED's my father had around.
I think you will be fine!

Xenoid - 12-12-2013 at 11:56

Perhaps you should check out this post!

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=15492

Well, at least the part before it degenerated into a "global warming" rant.

bfesser - 12-12-2013 at 13:32

Heh, I was just considering merging this one into that topic earlier this morning. Might as well just do it, now.

IrC - 12-12-2013 at 19:36

Been a couple years since I read that starting post about the California study on LED's. Was hoping never to see it again. I don't remember if I read that old factoid about Ca. here or somewhere else but right now it comes to mind most strongly. California is like breakfast cereal. Take away the fruits and nuts and all you have left are the flakes. One of them wrote the report in that study about how dangerous LED's are to the planet. The state is on it's way to financial ruin and they piss away money on studies like that. Idiots.