Comment from Mollie Dash
AnonymousSupportIndividual
Summary: The commenter argues that the widespread adoption of LEDs is harmful to the environment and public well-being due to their brightness and quality of light. They urge regulatory agencies to examine the quality and quantity of light and consider alternatives to LEDs.
The widespread adoption of LEDs is an unmitigated disaster. They are a very poor replacement for incandescent, fluorescent and halogen, all of which dissipate light gradually, much like the sun. LED's
emit light from a chip which shoots a straight beam with sharp cutoffs, and is as bright from 100 feet away as it is from one foot. LED's don't play nice. They are obnoxious, invasive, unavoidable and dangerous. They are on everything and there are too many of them.
Conveniently rolled out during Covid lockdowns, LEDs have transformed our world into a hostile environment. It is no longer pleasurable to take a nighttime walk, go for a drive, or visit a store. Some people postulate that our environment is over-lit to provide ever-present surveillance cameras with sharp images.
The LED rollout has altered peoples' behavior, creating a frenzy of blindingly bright light. It has become the norm for businesses to leave their lights on all night, inside and out, despite the overlap from street lights. Local Post Offices shine their lights all night long. Residences sport wall packs on the corners of houses, adding to nighttime visual clutter. Claims of safety and environmentalism are used to support these wasteful practices.
It is time that our regulatory agencies do their job and listen to the demands of an informed public. There are alternatives to LEDs. I ask that the FDA and NHSTA examine not only the quality of light we are subjected to, but also the quantity.