blue light associated with prostate and breast cancer

[pinkpanda3310 (Pinky)]

I would think it’s a combination of factors that link this all together. IMO it’s mostly to do with ones lifestyle. If you’re up late regularly chances are you could be in the presence of bright light which further interrupts the sleep cycle.

Are Women Who Work Night Shifts at a Higher Risk for Developing Breast Cancer?

At the bottom of the first paragraph “Researchers found that night shift work links to breast cancer because it can change a person’s sleep-wake cycle. This has a lot to do with artificial light.”

[hank]

@wle

so how long is the effect supposed to last?

how strong and how blue does it have to be, to remove X minutes of sleep?

wle

AsI recall, it takes only a brief exposure — think incandescent white nightlight bulb — to suppress melatonin production. Then it takes half an hour to an hour for the body to resume produccing melatonin. It’s the melatonin that suppresses breast cancer (which is why night shift workers and people in areas newly supplied with nighttime electricity show an increase)

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&channel=tus&q=melatonin+night+shift+cancer

Blue light has a dark side - Harvard Health

You can buy a spectrometer kit (several variations, varying prices) from PublicLab.
https://store.publiclab.org/collections/bulk/products/lego-spectrometer-kit?variant=8187504787563

EDIT
Here’s the spectrum from one of the claimed low-blue-light 110v bulbs

See blue light associated with prostate and breast cancer - #23 by BurningPlayd0h from DominikM for spectra

I used my kit spectrometer to check the claims of bluelight suppression. A lot of it is hype — f.lux for example changes the apparent color temperature by adding more red, rather than removing blue. The spectrometer shows plenty of blue light still being emitted from the computer screen (whether fluorescent or LED lit).

I swapped amber LEDs into half our home flashlights, for nighttime use, and for room lighting we use amber LED bulbs or “bug light” compact fluorescents for evening light during the short-day half of the year.

Doing that cured our insomnia, which had gotten bad when we replaced all our incandescents with “white” compact fluorescents some years ago.

[BurningPlayd0h]

@DominikM

Maybe I’ll show you some example - from photobiological safety point of view.

The main issue here is a blue light spike at 430-440nm - it’s caused by a phosphor coating quality and phosphor’s mix.

As you can see not only CCT matters, the 4000K cannot be named “safe” or “safer” sorry SKV89 ;).

I think CCT is actually still a huge part of what’s happening there. Even 2700K light from a blackbody source will have far less of the blue end of the spectrum compared to 4000K.

[hank]

@wle

so how long is the effect supposed to last?

how strong and how blue does it have to be, to remove X minutes of sleep?

wle

https://curiosity.com/topics/this-is-how-little-blue-light-it-takes-to-disturb-your-sleep-curiosity/

has several links including this one: https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/newsroom/pdf/2010/CircadianLight_8511.pdf

A pure blue LED light only takes 9 lux to suppress melatonin secretion by 25 percent.

[BlueSwordM]

Yep.
It’s what matters.

4000k is better, 3000k is even better, 2700k is even better than 3000k, and 2000-2200k has almost no blue light.

I’d love to test 1800k LEDs myself.

Could someone use Luminus 3030 Cubes in Virence’s large MCPCB?

[jon_slider]

@DominikM

The main issue here is a blue light spike

The N219b has that large blue spike, yet it is sold as photobiologically safe:

I want to learn more about how to determine the RG0 Blue Light safety requirement.

do High CRI LEDs score better than Low CRI?
does low Color Temperature score better?
etc

[hank]

“Photobiologically safe: exempted from bluelight hazard” sounds like marketing hype to me.
But apparently it’s referring to a European regulation.

LED-based products must meet photobiological safety standards: part 2 (MAGAZINE)

The potentially complex procedure of evaluating LED photobiological safety is now a legal requirement in Europe, but few countries have yet followed the European mandatory-testing lead. LESLIE LYONS discusses the implementation of the IEC62471 standard after an in-depth look at the measurement of radiance and irradiance.

LED-based products must meet photobiological safety standards: part 2 (MAGAZINE)

The potential hazards of exposure to the skin, the front surfaces of the eye (cornea, conjunctiva and lens) and the retina are evaluated through consideration of six specific hazards with respect to exposure limits (ELs) provided for an exposure duration of eight hours, taken as a working day. The standard does not consider the potential effects of long-term exposure, nor of abnormal photosensitivity.

In the case of hazards to the skin and front surfaces of the eye, it is sufficient to take into account the amount of light incident on the surface in question. However, to consider hazards to the retina, one must take account of the imaging properties of the eye. It follows that two distinct measurements are required: irradiance and radiance.

The “blue light hazard”
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&channel=tus&q=“blue+light+hazard”
is damage to the eye, perhaps the claim is this emitter is not strong enough for that problem to arise.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&channel=tus&q=Photobiologically_Safe

A few years ago I corresponded with one of the researchers in the field, who said that at a European scientific conference on the subject they were already seeing industry PR people there to deny any possible problem with the blue-white LEDs their companies were pushing as “so cheap they pay for themselves in saved electricity costs” —- too cheap to meter, basically.

[pinkpanda3310 (Pinky)]

@hank

“Photobiologically safe: exempted from bluelight hazard” sounds like marketing hype to me.

LOLOLOL You’re right. When they use words like ” exempt from bluelight hazard” it sounds more like bureaucratic BS than scientific fact.

[hank]

Phosphor-converted LEDs with low circadian action for outdoor lighting - PubMed

Opt Lett. 2014 Feb 1;39(3):563-6. doi: 10.1364/OL.39.000563.
Phosphor-converted LEDs with low circadian action for outdoor lighting.

[hank]

Light-emitting diodes (LED) for domestic lighting: any risks for the eye? -...

Prog Retin Eye Res. 2011 Jul;30(4):239-57. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2011.04.002. Epub 2011 May 14.
Light-emitting diodes (LED) for domestic lighting: any risks for the eye?
Behar-Cohen F1, Martinsons C, Viénot F, Zissis G, Barlier-Salsi A, Cesarini JP, Enouf O, Garcia M, Picaud S, Attia D.
Author information
Abstract

Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are taking an increasing place in the market of domestic lighting because they produce light with low energy consumption. In the EU, by 2016, no traditional incandescent light sources will be available and LEDs may become the major domestic light sources.

Due to specific spectral and energetic characteristics of white LEDs as compared to other domestic light sources, some concerns have been raised regarding their safety for human health and particularly potential harmful risks for the eye.

To conduct a health risk assessment on systems using LEDs, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), a public body reporting to the French Ministers for ecology, for health and for employment, has organized a task group. This group consisted physicists, lighting and metrology specialists, retinal biologist and ophthalmologist who have worked together for a year.

Part of this work has comprised the evaluation of group risks of different white LEDs commercialized on the French market, according to the standards and found that some of these lights belonged to the group risk 1 or 2. This paper gives a comprehensive analysis of the potential risks of white LEDs, taking into account pre-clinical knowledge as well as epidemiologic studies and reports the French Agency’s recommendations to avoid potential retinal hazards.

[xenotar80]

This is the main reason I want most of my flashlights in 2000K or below. Blue light affects my sleep at night, so keeping my flashlights at 2000K won’t give me any melatonin suppression. All my lights in the house are halogen and i cover up all sources of LEDs with red or black tape. 2000K is a little spooky sometimes though since the color temp looks like a candle flame, so i have a bunch of 2700K flashlights on hand too… just an excuse for more flashlights.

[Lightbringer]

No such thing as a “Lee minus blue” filter or nuttin’?

[1stein]

This light is claimed to be for medical purposes. It says, it contains very little of blue wavelength. I wonder how true is it and what the led sits inside…

(ordered one a few days ago)

[FindThisHumerus]

Doctor here.

Having an association does not mean that it causes cancer. What’s more likely (and again, I’m speculating) is that people exposed to more blue light have habits and lifestyles that make them more likely to get cancer. Considering the prostate is not even exposed to light, I would guess that this is the more likely scenario.

[teacher]

/\ … Now that hypothesis …. makes sense. Thanks FindThisHumerus.

[pinkpanda3310 (Pinky)]

@pinkpanda3310

IMO it’s mostly to do with ones lifestyle

@FindThisHumerus

Doctor here.

Having an association does not mean that it causes cancer. What’s more likely (and again, I’m speculating) is that people exposed to more blue light have habits and lifestyles that make them more likely to get cancer. Considering the prostate is not even exposed to light, I would guess that this is the more likely scenario.

Nice to to get some back up sometimes :innocent:

[Tally-ho]

@Scallywag

My understanding is that blue light specifically is the type of light that impacts the sleep cycle, as opposed to red or green. And for this reason, warmer/cooler CCT lights have different effects. I’ve easily observed this in my own life: one room of my house has 2700K lighting, and I will fall asleep if I try to read a book in that room. The other areas of my home have 4000K to 5000K lighting, and I have no issues reading and staying awake there.

Yes, this is a known effect which is measured and light sources can be ranked by impact on ipRGC (melanopic function).
See below a list of light sources with different CCT, blue %age and their relative melanopic potential :

(Source)

[BurningPlayd0h]

@FindThisHumerus

Doctor here.

Having an association does not mean that it causes cancer. What’s more likely (and again, I’m speculating) is that people exposed to more blue light have habits and lifestyles that make them more likely to get cancer. Considering the prostate is not even exposed to light, I would guess that this is the more likely scenario.

The article spells out very clearly that its reduced melatonin (and possible other changes in hormones due to that) which is directly causally linked to blue light exposure, this then increases risks of hormone-related cancers.

[malkoff_junkie]

thanks , so is 3000k safe?.
considering a 2000k if it comes to all this.

thanks.

@DominikM

Maybe I’ll show you some example - from photobiological safety point of view.

The main issue here is a blue light spike at 430-440nm - it’s caused by a phosphor coating quality and phosphor’s mix.

As you can see not only CCT matters, the 4000K cannot be named “safe” or “safer” sorry SKV89 ;).

[Nev]

WARNING

reading this thread my cause cancer or worse still it may overstimulate your hypochondria.