There is something about the LED lighting, even in the newest versions, that just isn't the same. I am really trying to like them, but I just can't. I like that they are Wi-Fi capable, and having many colors and color temperatures, groupable for control, etc. - all very, very cool. But, after using high end Halogen spotlights and GE Reveal incandescent for over ten years, these new LEDs... just don't cut it for me.
Although, after using the new smart LEDs for about a week I think now that I realize if I tune the color, and then set dimness to 1%, I can tolerate it without my skin crawling. lol Of course this isn't useful for much in the way of really lighting anything like a room or work area to a level that is functional for much, except as background lighting while using direct task oriented lighting for what you may be doing in your exact location.
However, all this aside, there is something very basic that bothers me about all the discussions - aside of course from the fact that about 100 times more energy is used to produce a bulb that is now only marginally more efficient than a well-made incandescent, 10 times more expensive to buy, and perhaps also 100 times more toxic to the environment. Once again, someone somewhere got some big money for pushing this legislation through and while it no doubt creates and supports a lot of jobs, etc., it isn't any kind of real solution energy and pollution-wise.
Yet, even given all this (which sadly may actually be true) this is what really bugs me: If a plant requires a CRI 100 bulb - a light source that produces the entire spectrum including those that cannot be seen by the human eye - to grow and thrive healthily, then why would it be any different for humans? Seriously, does the plant need to visually 'see' the ranges of the spectrum that are invisible to us in order for them to be affected by them. NO.
Then, why would we not also benefit from these wavelengths. You cannot normally visually see heat, and yet it affects you. You cannot see flickering of florescent lamps if at high rates, but it affects you. You cannot see sound vibrations, yet it affects you. I would guess that all the wavelengths of any radiation hits your entire body, and there is an affect, whether you can really 'see' the wavelengths or not.
I know immediately when I turn on even the smartest of smart LED lights that it is NOT anywhere close to as rich or complete a light radiating source as a good incandescent. I can feel it in my bones.
You know, many people cannot really tell the difference between an audio file that is a WAV format (Non-Lossy) or MP3. MP3 is more convenient. But, it is also 'Lossy', meaning not the same quality as the sound as it was recorded. It is thinner sounding, and has typically FAR less data, like perhaps 1/100th to 1/1000th of the original amount in a lossless (standard old) WAV PCM format recording. And less fullness and richness to the sound.
I think that what we really have is a similar difference in the incandescent and LED lighting. Less data, in essence - though this is not a scientific description and I cannot provide one. In the case of music, well... some beauty of a song is lost. OR even of a great orchestra performing an astounding symphonic work. Considering it is a one time thing, the recording of a great performance of music, and that we cannot quantify completely the impact and worth of such music on our minds, bodies, and Souls, it would be truly a great loss not be able to have at least a single, real, lossless recording of said work for future generations to experience. But, in the case of our daily lighting needs, the impact could be even more huge, as we - like the plant - may not really be absorbing the wavelengths that, much like the Sun, the CRI 100 incandescent bulbs provide. I mean, there is enrichment of our existence, and then there are the basic needs of that existence. Lighting falls into the second category I think. Although arts like music are probably very close there as well, it is another level of requirement I think. Lighting is a very base need.
But, the real bottom line here is this: Politics and big business don't care. Why? I'll tell you why: Now, in our modern age, as a resource people are cheap. Now, we are by default automatically replaced at a higher rate than we die. So what if we are ultimately not as healthy throughout the course of our lives; we are imminently expendable. At this time in our history as a species thriving on the 3rd planet of Sol system, in a slow orbit roughly half-way from the center of the Milky Way galaxy, 5 new souls are born into this Universe, on Earth every second now, and 2 die. The rate of increase is only going to grow and accelerate now, moving into the future of mankind. As a result ultimately, for the large majority of people, our value per unit will go down, while our expendability continues to rise.
What I am saying is this: I think that being in an environment for a large portion of our lives (50%+ or whenever it is dark...) CRI 100 lighting has huge overall impact on us as living creatures. Those non-visible wavelengths that are absent in this new and far narrower spectrum of lighting (LED) have a huge impact on us, and I believe when they are missing it is immediately noticeable, and furthermore felt, if not 'seen', with possibly even far reaching impact upon us as living beings.
But, we now live in an era of 'quantity & speed' vs. quality. We needed to decrease energy usage, become more energy efficient as a species, and so this new legislation was adopted and we sought a 'new and exciting' technological solution. In the process spending far, far more capital, and using far, far more energy to develop, and even now will use far more energy (you know, that resource we were trying to save and the entire point of all this?) for ongoing production, and creating far, far greater amounts of highly toxic pollution moving forward, while quite possibly placing ourselves in an environment for up to 50% or more of our lives that lacks one of the most basic things we need to be healthy: Healthy lighting.
Am I being stupid? Or am I simply a highly sensitive person physically, able to 'feel' more of what is going on around him. We are energy creatures after all. Who is to say that some people are not simply a little more, or even much more, in touch with the effects of the energies surrounds them?
I have read that the very expensive Smart LED bulbs (now at the end of 2021 AD) are getting to a high enough CRI rating that they can finally produce a full enough range of wavelengths to approximate a good incandescent. We are talking still perhaps CRI 95 (95%), whereas a decent incandescent is 100% still, and that less expensive LEDs may be as low as CRI 60 (60%).
But, the very good LEDs are also extremely expensive. Who has the money to spend $50 per bulb? Or even $25. And no one talks about what those missing wavelengths might be doing FOR us, just like the plants. lol Sure, we are not plants. But we ARE alive. And we are energy, more than anything, in the form of vibration, solidified from our perspective. But, not so solid when you get right down to it scientifically. And there ARE effects when we are deprived of those 'invisible' wavelengths for too much time.
I think someone made a lot of money by heading us off in a new, highly technological direction, in basic lighting. The amount invested, and already earned (by those involved in the movement on the ground floor politically, and in business and science), and generated moving forward is probably incalculable; or, at will be least in the trillions in not too long a span of time. And even if they get the tech to where they can totally duplicate 100% a CRI 100 light source, the impact on the environment alone is enough to negate any point whatsoever, not to mention we will use 100 times more energy to build these stupid lights now moving forward.
I am probably wrong and just being petty, out of a dislike of having my 'skin made to crawl' by these poor excuses for bulbs, and aggravated that I can no longer enjoy something that was really a true marvel of technological advancement, which was the GE Reveal bulbs. Which of course are banned now. Or angry that now I night have to spend up to $50 USD for anything that even comes close to their performance, that doesn't make my skin crawl, or even for anything approaching a decent light bulb now.
But, this is my rant, and I am sticking to it. LOL
Enjoy the future people. We are here now, and it ain't what the brochure showed... not at all.
Interesting... all this, spurred by something as simple as taking away my favorite light bulbs? Well, I hate to see man’s best and most practically brilliant innovations banned, and things really moving backwards while being promoted as progress. And, well... as they say...
Sometimes, it's the little things.
