Red LED’s Dangerous! Really?

Watch out for the Mail-Order-Drug-Degradation!

Bud, Michelob, Coors, Jack Daniels, Annie Green Springs (if in California), Pale Ale and many other are also known to reduce concerns raised by unfathomable assumptions and accusations.

LOL!

Knowing you, it must be some sort of suppository.

We even consider ourselves a biohazard once we are gone.

By putting cemeteries in the city centres in Europe they contaminated good building ground. Its an accumulation of hazardous material that is.

But heh, nobody talks about this really . . .

And the Arsen from cemetries can even leeaks into the drinking watersupply!!

OK "poison in the LEDs" cam from the times when if was really Gallium Arsenide and the by-products created during production could really give environmental issues, when the were just dispersed in the ground to get rid of them... . But today the chips are smaller the waste is less and the materials are not as poison-ess as before.

"If any LEDs break at home, Ogunseitan recommends sweeping them up while wearing gloves and a mask, and disposing of the debris - and even the broom - as hazardous waste."

Yep, that's what he said. Put on a tinfoli hat and read....

And be careful not to breathe the fumes...Give me a break!

Aw, c'mon, that's a priceless funny quote !

That was part of the message. Do a search for "The dark side of LED's" to read the whole nonsense. This is only the tip of the iceberg. If you read carefully, it will become abundantly clear that this psycho finds no light source acceptable.

Not only did he borrow his creditability, from the likes of the two magazines referenced, he has no data, no frame of reference, and if I get his message right, he thinks we should all become hunter/gathers again.

What astounds me is that the Safety and Legal departments are so stupid they believe this freak. I'm not sure I can take any more of this.

Do you mean the link I gave at #5 ?

quote:"What astounds me is that the Safety and Legal departments are so stupid they believe this freak. I'm not sure I can take any more of this."

I don't see how you are astounded by this. I found that over time, the safety departments had fewer and fewer technical people and were most lawyer trying to write safety rules to protect the corporation rather than the worker.

Why not just lobotomize this dude, and put him a dark cell somewhere, and forget about it? Candles cause cancer too, in his book. I suspect oxygen is also a problem, along with the dreaded and very dangerous dihydrogen oxide.

WARNING!!!! Dihydrogen oxide can be oxidized to oxygen, or reduced to hydrogen gas, a known explosive mixture, when combining gas streams over an open fire, as the effluent from electrolysis, so do not smoke around the campfire when electrolyzing dihydrogen oxide! Some believe that dihydrogen oxide is a potential source for LENR, with high levels of heat being emitted.

No need to go that far. Oxygen is hugely toxic, so if we believe this bull it might be better to play safe. The source article may as well warn people about the dangers of breathing, with no more basis than the fact that oxygen can kill.

Safety and Legal Department did they have you remove these LED lights. If so did they also follow thru with any device that would have an LED. Like the computers on their desks. And have them leave their personal cell phones home their full of toxins. What about production machinery. This day and age if there is a electronics board on it it most likely has an LED on it. Heck just inform them they are laid off. That you have to send everyone home because of hazards of LED's.

You are on the right track! Considering that a P-N junction is the fundamental description for a diode (LED's are a part of that family) then by his logic all transistors should have at least 50% more of the nasty stuff. In his mind, all transistors are equally evil and we should all immediately revert to the dark ages.

Sorry about that all you CR4 followers. The Green Earth people have destroyed all hopes and dreams of any future. BTW, it takes 10 acres of land to support every person who lives by hunting and gathering....I think we will have to boil off a whole lot more ocean, and soon!

In West Texas, I think it takes a hell of a lot more than ten acres, unless you can live off locusts and wild honey! by the way, you would have to wear cotton, as the camels here are all females (boxy looking ones) with 20 little camels inside (smokes).

Also, no one has really tried hunting and gathering in West Texas for a long time (since the late nineteenth century), and mostly those folks were nomadic and used to travel for days just to make it between watering holes.

The same people that banned incandescent lights and forced into toxic CFLs?
Whenever something like this crops up, you can usually start by asking yourself who benefits from something like this, and then it's just a matter of following the money.

Philips Lighting created this monster. Since they are the first to introduce LED replacements for fluorescent lamps (just swap the bulbs) they are responsible for killing it.

This is not slander. It is factual and I am not amused.

I only eat these

What about these?

Lol you know these also make nice candles...

nice

GA for Winfield. The materials used in the manufacturing of the PC that this idiot likely wrote his papaer with are far far worse than anything in the little LED that was winking at him, telling him that his coffee pot was still on. If you have ever witness the making of microprocessors, or really just about any electronic component, you know that there are all kind of hazmats that go into the process; gallium, arsenic, arsine, antimony, phosphorous, phosphine, silane, plus the processing chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide, nitric, sulfuric and hydrofluoric acids. And as pointed out, the LEDs they tested we're likely surplus cheap crap that was not RoHS compliant if it had lead in it. Mfrs were supposed to dispose of those, but rather than pay someone to destroy them, a lot of them sold them off as surplus for pennies on the dollar just before the RoHS rules kicked in, so they still float around on the grey market. I agree, it was a yellow journalistic based "research" paper designed to incite controversy, not expand knowledge.

May be he just misheard it from someone talking about Lead (Pb). Probably the guy is taking a nap during a technical symposium on Environmental Protection or something, suddenly woke up at the aroma of coffee served on the event and BOOOM!!! He got his topic for publication. Wallah!!! Brilliant!!!

Thank you Winfield,

I have always respected your insight. But the cat is out of the bag (no offense Del) and the damage is growing at an exponential rate. I saw this happen with fluorescent lamps and this particular nonsense is spiraling out of control. By this logic, everything electronic is evil and bound to poison us. Consequently, by his logic it is back to the dark ages! No car, no electronics, no power, no lifestyle that we know. This kind of ignorance has far reaching consequences and should be met with a bit of high velocity lead poisoning.

Seek immediate medical attention if you notice that your stool is red. It may be a sign of overconsumption.

4 hour erections have not been observed as a side effect of eating red LED's.

Obviously the author was jealous they were not the recipient of the Nobel prize (awarded to Blue LED discovery).

Or they want the LED to be the Asbestos of yesteryear.

WHO should clarify this and harmful effects by other light sources,harmonics etc.

I find this just silly - considering most dentists will still fit amalgum fillings which are around 50% mercury.

The statement that really got me was,

"And the copper found in some LEDs can pose an environmental threat if it accumulates in rivers and lakes where it can poison aquatic life."

Ogunseitan is a little slow on the report by about 5300 years. Seem that it all started back at the beginning of the Bronze age that has lead us to the point of ...... And now we need to stop immediately and remove any and all copper from our environment!

I'm sure they had their tree hugger's 5300 years ago and I'm sure the only environmental thingy they were worried about was getting that predator off their ass by climbing that tree!

Little Hitlers with a piece of paper from some college or other. Possibly able to read and write but incapable of understanding any physics or following a logical argument. A degree in any discipline means nothing if you cant apply it to the context of the immediate problem. Just ask yourself how many college graduates,....... well I leave the rest to your own interpretation. These people give me the proverbial s---s. (some do believe in science) or (some just quote science)

The driving force behind the original article is a Mr Ogunseitan. If you scope his biog, he initially became concerned (rightly so) about pollution in the Nile Deta. Since then, his work is very much about bio-hazards. He has some seemingly imnpressive credentials (from USA institutes).

My own take, and I stress that point, is that his career is based upon ringing alarm bells. He's following something he feels paasionate about, and the fault is with the organizations that fund and publish.

It would be easy to lampoon Orgunseitan ('dispose of the broom' ffs), but it's more disturbing that some of his stuff gets published. He does have some valid views on the world, but an increasing number of journals are publishing trash without checking the facts.

The article we are discussing here is gibberish, but Mr O is far from being the first 'expert' who has continued to publish garbage before being called up on it. The Royal Societ ran (it maybe run) a good series of Christamas lectures. One of the presenters ( I conveniently forget the name) completely lost the plot and became obsessed about free energy from gyroscopes. A highly respected BBC show let a previously much respected guy run his mouth with a load of ****. I blame the publishers for not doiung any peer review or checks. Sign o' the times .

Does this mean that I can't use these LEDs for night fishing?

A study published in 2010 has taken 4 years to surface?

Now that is important!

Whilst sweeping up, we could maybe go the whole hog,

Looks Like prop 65 strikes again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)

What we need is a label to explain Prop 65 labels to the rest of the country:

"WARNING: The State of California contains litigious nitwits known for mandating the placement of warning labels on harmless items and businesses based on junk science, disproven theories, scare-mongering, and general ignorance and incompetence."

Just did a follow-up search on the California Ballot Propositions.

I had thought they were measures put forth by the lawmakers as an 'open question' to the People ("There's been talk about banning Dihydrogen Monoxide in California, We're not sure where to go with this, and everyone has used up their allowance of 'reciprocal vote' tokes (you vote for my bill, I vote for yours). So we're tossing it out to you guys to tell us what you think.") Turns out that Ballot Propositions are put forward by private citizens, gathering signatures on a ballot and then drumming up support, 'campaigning,' if you will.

That explains all the crazy ca-ca that comes out of CA, you've got the propositions put forth by the crazy(1), the ones put forth by the haters(2), and the propositions put forth by the corporate puppets(3).

Notes:

1) Like Prop 65, which 'bans' (requires scary warning labels) anything 'percieved' as dangerous. Prop 65 requires a warning for Silica Dioxide, aka sand. California is like 10% beach sand and 90% desert sand, so California ITSELF is a hazard to Californians.

2) Like Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriages. This was put forth by people who were completely against the idea of a different group being able to find happiness.

3) Like most of the props that make it to the ballot, considering the expense of getting 500,000 signatures and then campaigning all over the state, it's hard to conceive of anyone without 'deep pockets' being successful in that endevor.

Whoever defined marriage as "happiness" was either a fool or a politician.

Or maybe a happily married person.

Well as I have said several time before in this space, 'Scientific American' is neither.

After reading the article, I realized that they actually printed this:

"Ogunseitan adds that while breaking open a single LED and breathing in its fumes wouldn't likely cause cancer"

I think they may need to actually look at an LED, aren't they solid???

Who knows, but I'm going into the broom business. One broom binned for every busted LED. That's like money falling off trees !

You said it. Maybe we could come up with a newly designed LED disposal kit that has a broom with an encapsulating adhesive that activates when it touches the plastic of an LED and seals the toxins in, a Tyvek protective suit, a respirator, long cuff disposable nitrile gloves, and booties. Did I forget anything?

I was already thinking about a copper abatement company but I didn't want to say anything, in fear of letting the Del cat out of the bag Being I'm stuck in California and California is the trend setter (prop 65) it could be lucrative!

Colors and materials[edit]

Conventional LEDs are made from a variety of inorganic semiconductor materials. The following table shows the available colors with wavelength range, voltage drop and material:

Now you've done it! We're all going to die!

It's too dangerous to breath. I'm going to hold my breath from now onnnnnnnnnnnn

"We're all going to die"....well that's abolutely true. The only issue is what get's written down as the cause.

In the absence of any blatent cause, ' he just stopped breathing' sounds like a reasonabe statement for most folks demise. I shall carry several red LED's in my pocket from now on, just so the Coroner can be clear on the matter.

I see the light now!