I don't understand why you're being so hard-headed on this. I have no idea if LEDs pose a hazard, and nobody has any idea if they're truly a viable alternative to standard incandescent lighting. I'll never be able to provide you with a satisfactory response, because you're not open to reason or logic. Even though diodes and LEDs have been used for decades in a variety of applications, their usage profile has been significantly different than broadbased illumination. Nothing else needs to be said... That's it. Again, I'm somehow expected to identify the potential risks of LEDs used in mass application as lighting sources before these devices have even been adopted. How much more unreasonable could you be?
LED bulbs aren't manufactured in a drastically different way to produce light. The chemicals that you find in standard LEDs are found in LED bulbs. And as far as the mass application as lighting sources, they're already being used for that purpose. They are the source of lighting for virtually every electronic device with a backlit screen.
Sure, a light bulb emits more light, but without any sort of indication that the light is dangerous, or that the manner in which the light is created is dangerous, then I don't know why you were advocating that more research be done on LED bulbs before they're mass manufactured to produce light.
My main point was that it makes no sense to state that these LED bulbs
might be dangerous, yet at the same time not even remotely consider that LEDs in monitors and screens which are made to emit light also
might be dangerous.
Either they both are, or neither of them are; you can't scrutinize one just because it's being used in a new, slightly different application when, in actuality, both of them contain the same types of materials and operate in the same general manner.
It's fun to play devil's advocate from time-to-time to rattle cages, but you make a habit of it. If you were to ask me, I'd say that you're the one following others around flexing your e-superiority over everyone, like were a bunch of ignorant hicks. In fact, you're typically the one responding to our posts taking an obstinate position of disagreement or defiance. I don't mind the alternative view or the banter at all, but your know-everything attitude is beyond annoying.
I follow people around? You're the one who responded to my post in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" thread, and then continued to respond. You're the one who responded to my post in the LED thread, and then proceeded to steer the discussion toward some theory that LED bulbs
might be dangerous. I try to have a discussion with people in a religious forum, and nobody with which I'm talking seems to have a problem, except for GH, who comes in after not having been involved in the ongoing discussion for days and decides to randomly berate me for being a know it all just as he did in this thread.
And then, of course, there's the hypocrisy element of it all. You and others want to preach to me about how I should keep my mouth shut unless I've experienced something, yet you want to argue that allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military would decrease efficiency when
former military officers who commanded openly homosexual members tell you that it didn't decrease efficiency? You complain about the fact that I quote articles, surveys, studies, experts, and other sources when speaking about something with which I have no personal experience, yet
you refer to legal analysts who made comments on the legal aspects of the Casey Anthony trial?
Pffft. Cry me a river. If you're not going to play by your own rules, then don't expect anyone else to.
127 Replies
17026 Views