Comment from John Moody

AnonymousSupportIndividual
Summary: The commenter, who identifies as a former career environmental regulator, supports the Soft Lights Foundation's petition by arguing that current LED lighting standards are harmful to health and the environment. They advocate for a return to softer lighting sources like sodium vapor and halogen, comparing light pollution to air and water pollution.
The cultural shift to blue rich light in our public and private spaces was an act of arrogance and hubris regardless of intentions. The change was exempted from health, safety and environmental review like a "sacred cow" under the climate change agenda torpedoes be damned. I have suffered disabling eye pain all my life from such life starting with florescent and then LED, which is actually dangerous for me given my nervous system. I cannot even be under it or I feel sick and the migraine disorder is triggered. Yet now these lights have become ubiquitous, and left on all day in many cases, presumably in the interests of "saving energy" as if that should be the primary purpose of lighting. It never was and never will be. The primary purpose of lighting is to provide safe, healthy light including consideration of sensitive receptors. The FDA's general lamp rules completely throw this concept to the wind. I don't know what planet you are on but the last time I check humans, plants and animal life evolved under light generated by heat, not quantum jump discharge and the parameters of LED lights back up how different they are compared to healthy lighting. So no I am not going insane, my body is reacting to lighting imposed on us by apparently insane people. Do your homework and due diligence. Consult with those who are actually light sensitive, not those who have been selected by the system to do well under these types of lights. You will get a different and unsettling answer, but one that will likely be better for all of us. As a career environmental regulator, I might add there is really no excuse for light pollution in this day and age, given the regulatory infrastructure already in place for other forms of pollution and polluted media such as air and water. Now we have natural light being polluted by artificial light - same principles as air and water. May I suggest you work with the EPA on this and issue new landmark laws regulating light pollution while you are at it. It has been almost 60 years since the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were made law. We are still in the gross pollution era in terms of light pollution. Think of it like raw sewage being discharged to a stream. That's the light equivalent of LED street lights, headlights and ceiling bank lights in warehouse stores and offices. Houses that in the 1990s had a single soft incandescent light in a shielded or diffused lantern housing now have three or four LED lantern lights each putting out 10 times the light because of your lumens per watt rule, which was obviously adopted to make LEDs the standard. This is all very tiresome and obvious. I ask that you change your ways and discard the 00s model of lighting. It didn't work and now is the time to acknowledge that and move forward. Start be going back to sodium vapor for street lights, halogen for headlights, and scoptic, non-melanoptic soft lighting for public spaces and home exteriors. Thank you for reading this comment.

View on Regulations.gov