The reason that fluorescent and LED lights are so energy-efficient is that they emit no infrared light. That's a problem for the body, because although we don't perceive IR with our eyes, it has important physiological effects, for example in improving mitochondrial function. I think on some level we can perceive the lack of IR. Cold light exists in nature too, for example bioluminescence and other "ghostly" lights. There is indeed something ghostly about them, and therefore about fluorescent and LED too. They are in a sense "virtual lights." An appearance without the full reality. In the same vein, AI might be called "virtual intelligence" (https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/virtual-intelligence).
Of course, making lighting cheaper and more efficient doesn't reduce overall energy consumption. It is a perfect example of Jevon's Paradox. When it is cheaper, we just use more of it.
The physiological impact of incandescent bulb IR is practically negligible, unless you build a wall of them.
The purpose of a light bulb is to emit visible light; a well engineered LED bulb is as much a “virtual” light as an EV is a “virtual” car. To insist on an incandescent bulb is like insisting on an ICE car because the BEV cars aren’t wasteful enough!
There’s nothing “of course” about “making lighting cheaper and more efficient” not reducing overall energy consumption. Use your brain man! It might warm you up ;)
Look up Jevon's Paradox. It is a real thing, and lighting is actually a classic example that economists use to illustrate it.
I don't dispute that fluorescent and LED lighting achieves the design purpose of illumination. However, the distribution of wavelengths is different from any natural light source, both in the visible spectrum and adjacent to it. The light outside the visible spectrum has important physiological functions, particularly in the near infrared. Red and near IR is absorbed by certain mitochondrial enzymes, ultimately improving the functioning of the electron transport chain. There are several mechanisms for this action. For example, incoming photons can release NO that was bound to enzymes (e.g. CCO). The copper and iron centers in the mitochrondrial enzymes absorb these wavelengths. Because IR (and to some extent red) penetrates pretty far into the body compared to the visible spectrum, its photons enter tissues that are otherwise always in the dark.
Fluorescent and LED light sources emit almost no infrared radiation, and tend toward the blue wavelengths in the visible spectrum. Perhaps I was taking excessive poetic license in calling them "virtual" light; my point is that they offer an appearance but not the full reality. That's pretty close too the meaning of virtual.
I originally went down this rabbit-hole because for me, the physiological effectst of fluorescent and LED light are by no means trivial. They make me dizzy, nauseous, fuzzy, extremely uncomfortable when I'm exposed to them for too long (minutes in the case of a brightly backlit LED screen; hours in the case of fluorescent.) Bluelight blocking glasses mitigate the effect substantially (75% or so).
If you are actually interested in learning about this topic, rather than disparaging me for "not using my brain," here are a few articles from the peer-reviewed scientific literature that might persuade you that concerns about the health effects of lfuorescent and L'ED light are legitimate:
Ferraresi C et al. Low-level laser (light) therapy increases mitochondrial membrane potential and ATP synthesis in C2C12 myotubes with a peak response at 3–6 h. Photochem Photobiol. 2015;91(2):411–416.
Wang Y et al. Red (660 nm) or near-infrared (810 nm) photobiomodulation stimulates, while blue (415 nm), green (540 nm) light inhibits, proliferation in human adipose-derived stem cells. Sci Rep. 2017;7:7781.
Sommer AP et al. Mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase is not the primary acceptor for near-infrared light—it is mitochondrial bound water. Lasers Med Sci. 2019.
Begum R et al. Near-infrared light increases ATP, extends lifespan and reduces inflammation in aged Drosophila and mice retina. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2015.
My point about ‘Jevons’ is that making lighting cheaper and more efficient does not *necessarily* create a rebound effect. Lighting can “saturate” an area and it becomes counterproductive to add more of it. For example 60w of LED lighting in your bedroom is fairly extreme. If you remove a 60w incandescent bulb in you’ll probably replace it with a 12w LED. Your “of course” is out of place.
Lightbulbs simply don’t produce the correct doses of IR to have a therapeutic effect on our mitochondria. In this sense it doesn’t matter what kind of light bulbs we use. Lightbulbs are not therapeutic devices.
You say “natural light source” which is weird, do you mean “the sun”, lava, fireflies etc? I’m going to assume that you mean the sun. The light from the sun is mediated by the atmosphere, so if we’re looking for a light bulb that mimics its output we need to specify the time of day in order to make the “virtual” comparison.
“Not using my brain” are your words. I simply exhorted you to use it, and would continue to ask to do so. This is how we improve our thinking, and yours needs improving.
Yeah, we are living in the after effects of a perfect storm. In the late 1800’s the internal combustion engine was developed, the framework of the global wide capitalist system was built, the technology of electricity generation and transmission, followed by the discovery of oceans of oil in Texas, the Middle East and other places and Henry Ford making the automobile affordable for most Americans and away we went into what was supposed to be an earthly paradise.
yes, and our earthly paradise isn't so paradisaical except for those who have vast enough amounts of wealth to shield them from the infernal wastes expanding out from "Eden."
There's no evidence that blue light from screens causes cancer. Long term sleep disruption may be associated with an elevated cancer risk although that's not yet certain. Energy use per capita in the US remains much higher than other G7 nations, largely due to inefficiencies such as less passive heating/cooling for buildings, car dependency, outdated distribution grids etc
Noon sunlight (from the great mutator) would provide quantities of “blue light” several orders of magnitude greater than a computer screen or mobile phone.
This dovetails with a 2-part article I wrote back in the spring about AI (https://andrewthescribbler.substack.com/p/the-alchemy-of-artificial-intelligence). Not only is more energy needed, but so are the physical elements the machines are composed of. Data centers account for 1% of global copper demand and this is expected to jump to 7% in the next 25 years. Ironically, this is being used by the actual AI's we invented centuries ago (corporations) to fulfill their profit directive.
Also, human eyes are most sensitive the yellow-green wavelengths. As a photographer, the Golden Hour is one of my favorite times in the day.
I bought this 40€ digital under-the-counter light that had all these color settings and I could never remember how it worked. Then I bought some 8€ under-the-counter lights after noting that they made "warm" light. After I had them a month, my wife told me that if you push the switch one way you get blue, the other way gives you yellow. "Push the switch one way you get blue, the other way gives you yellow." I think Confucius said that. Maybe Abraham Lincoln.
The reason that fluorescent and LED lights are so energy-efficient is that they emit no infrared light. That's a problem for the body, because although we don't perceive IR with our eyes, it has important physiological effects, for example in improving mitochondrial function. I think on some level we can perceive the lack of IR. Cold light exists in nature too, for example bioluminescence and other "ghostly" lights. There is indeed something ghostly about them, and therefore about fluorescent and LED too. They are in a sense "virtual lights." An appearance without the full reality. In the same vein, AI might be called "virtual intelligence" (https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/virtual-intelligence).
Of course, making lighting cheaper and more efficient doesn't reduce overall energy consumption. It is a perfect example of Jevon's Paradox. When it is cheaper, we just use more of it.
"I cut my hamburger in half. Half the fat, half the calories. I can eat twice as much!"
Oh thanks for pointing me to that essay! I'd missed it when it came out.
The physiological impact of incandescent bulb IR is practically negligible, unless you build a wall of them.
The purpose of a light bulb is to emit visible light; a well engineered LED bulb is as much a “virtual” light as an EV is a “virtual” car. To insist on an incandescent bulb is like insisting on an ICE car because the BEV cars aren’t wasteful enough!
There’s nothing “of course” about “making lighting cheaper and more efficient” not reducing overall energy consumption. Use your brain man! It might warm you up ;)
Look up Jevon's Paradox. It is a real thing, and lighting is actually a classic example that economists use to illustrate it.
I don't dispute that fluorescent and LED lighting achieves the design purpose of illumination. However, the distribution of wavelengths is different from any natural light source, both in the visible spectrum and adjacent to it. The light outside the visible spectrum has important physiological functions, particularly in the near infrared. Red and near IR is absorbed by certain mitochondrial enzymes, ultimately improving the functioning of the electron transport chain. There are several mechanisms for this action. For example, incoming photons can release NO that was bound to enzymes (e.g. CCO). The copper and iron centers in the mitochrondrial enzymes absorb these wavelengths. Because IR (and to some extent red) penetrates pretty far into the body compared to the visible spectrum, its photons enter tissues that are otherwise always in the dark.
Fluorescent and LED light sources emit almost no infrared radiation, and tend toward the blue wavelengths in the visible spectrum. Perhaps I was taking excessive poetic license in calling them "virtual" light; my point is that they offer an appearance but not the full reality. That's pretty close too the meaning of virtual.
I originally went down this rabbit-hole because for me, the physiological effectst of fluorescent and LED light are by no means trivial. They make me dizzy, nauseous, fuzzy, extremely uncomfortable when I'm exposed to them for too long (minutes in the case of a brightly backlit LED screen; hours in the case of fluorescent.) Bluelight blocking glasses mitigate the effect substantially (75% or so).
If you are actually interested in learning about this topic, rather than disparaging me for "not using my brain," here are a few articles from the peer-reviewed scientific literature that might persuade you that concerns about the health effects of lfuorescent and L'ED light are legitimate:
Ferraresi C et al. Low-level laser (light) therapy increases mitochondrial membrane potential and ATP synthesis in C2C12 myotubes with a peak response at 3–6 h. Photochem Photobiol. 2015;91(2):411–416.
Wang Y et al. Red (660 nm) or near-infrared (810 nm) photobiomodulation stimulates, while blue (415 nm), green (540 nm) light inhibits, proliferation in human adipose-derived stem cells. Sci Rep. 2017;7:7781.
Sommer AP et al. Mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase is not the primary acceptor for near-infrared light—it is mitochondrial bound water. Lasers Med Sci. 2019.
Begum R et al. Near-infrared light increases ATP, extends lifespan and reduces inflammation in aged Drosophila and mice retina. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2015.
My point about ‘Jevons’ is that making lighting cheaper and more efficient does not *necessarily* create a rebound effect. Lighting can “saturate” an area and it becomes counterproductive to add more of it. For example 60w of LED lighting in your bedroom is fairly extreme. If you remove a 60w incandescent bulb in you’ll probably replace it with a 12w LED. Your “of course” is out of place.
Lightbulbs simply don’t produce the correct doses of IR to have a therapeutic effect on our mitochondria. In this sense it doesn’t matter what kind of light bulbs we use. Lightbulbs are not therapeutic devices.
You say “natural light source” which is weird, do you mean “the sun”, lava, fireflies etc? I’m going to assume that you mean the sun. The light from the sun is mediated by the atmosphere, so if we’re looking for a light bulb that mimics its output we need to specify the time of day in order to make the “virtual” comparison.
“Not using my brain” are your words. I simply exhorted you to use it, and would continue to ask to do so. This is how we improve our thinking, and yours needs improving.
See for example: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/ssl-lmc2020_apr24.pdf#page58
Yeah, we are living in the after effects of a perfect storm. In the late 1800’s the internal combustion engine was developed, the framework of the global wide capitalist system was built, the technology of electricity generation and transmission, followed by the discovery of oceans of oil in Texas, the Middle East and other places and Henry Ford making the automobile affordable for most Americans and away we went into what was supposed to be an earthly paradise.
yes, and our earthly paradise isn't so paradisaical except for those who have vast enough amounts of wealth to shield them from the infernal wastes expanding out from "Eden."
There's no evidence that blue light from screens causes cancer. Long term sleep disruption may be associated with an elevated cancer risk although that's not yet certain. Energy use per capita in the US remains much higher than other G7 nations, largely due to inefficiencies such as less passive heating/cooling for buildings, car dependency, outdated distribution grids etc
Noon sunlight (from the great mutator) would provide quantities of “blue light” several orders of magnitude greater than a computer screen or mobile phone.
This dovetails with a 2-part article I wrote back in the spring about AI (https://andrewthescribbler.substack.com/p/the-alchemy-of-artificial-intelligence). Not only is more energy needed, but so are the physical elements the machines are composed of. Data centers account for 1% of global copper demand and this is expected to jump to 7% in the next 25 years. Ironically, this is being used by the actual AI's we invented centuries ago (corporations) to fulfill their profit directive.
Also, human eyes are most sensitive the yellow-green wavelengths. As a photographer, the Golden Hour is one of my favorite times in the day.
Ah thanks for pointing out your article! I'll read it today. :)
I bought this 40€ digital under-the-counter light that had all these color settings and I could never remember how it worked. Then I bought some 8€ under-the-counter lights after noting that they made "warm" light. After I had them a month, my wife told me that if you push the switch one way you get blue, the other way gives you yellow. "Push the switch one way you get blue, the other way gives you yellow." I think Confucius said that. Maybe Abraham Lincoln.