Readers Not Concerned About LED Street Lights, But Should Be

In the Sunday Poll a few days ago nearly three-quarters of readers weren’t concerned about health warnings from new LED street lights, here are the results:

Q: St. Louis is replacing old street lights with LED units. How concerned are you about possible negative health effects of unseen blue light from some LEDs?

• Very concerned 3 [8.33%]
• Concerned 3 [8.33%]
• Somewhat concerned 4 [11.11%]
• Neutral 1 [2.78%]
• Somewhat unconcerned 1 [2.78%]
• Unconcerned 15 [41.67%]
• Very unconcerned 9 [25%]
• Unsure/No Answer 0 [0%]

The new lights were tested in 2010.

I’m among the minority that is concerned. We were slow to begin adopting LEDs, which may be a good thing if we learned from cities that made the switch years ago. I’m not so sure we have learned anything from others.

The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency “put a lot of push into them,” said Michael Siminovitch, director of the California Lighting Technology Center at the University of California at Davis. “I call it a rush.”

Siminovitch said the light from early-generation LEDs “really negatively impacts people’s physiological well-being.”

Lighting is measured by color temperature, which is expressed in “kelvin,” or “K.” The original LED streetlights had temperatures of at least 4000K, which produces a bright white light with a high content of unseen blue light.

Now, LEDs are available with lower kelvin ratings and roughly the same energy efficiency as those with higher ratings. They don’t emit as much potentially harmful blue light, and they produce a softer, amber hue.

White, blue, amber? Kelvin? Okay, it gets technical from this point but I hope I’ve made it understandable to everyone:

Lighting is measured by color temperature, which is expressed in “kelvin,” or “K.” The original LED streetlights had temperatures of at least 4000K, which produces a bright white light with a high content of unseen blue light.

Now, LEDs are available with lower kelvin ratings and roughly the same energy efficiency as those with higher ratings. They don’t emit as much potentially harmful blue light, and they produce a softer, amber hue.

When 4000K and 5000K LEDs were installed, they drew mixed responses. Police and traffic-safety officials and many motorists liked them because they created a bright light that sharply illuminated the ground they covered.

But in many places, including New York City and Seattle, residents complained that the bright white light was harsh, even lurid. People described them as invasive, cold and unflattering. (Washington Post)

To help put this in context, lighting manufacturer Westinghouse explains:

What is color temperature?

• Color temperature is a way to describe the light appearance provided by a light bulb (lamp). It is measured in degrees of Kelvin (K) on a scale from 1,000 to 10,000.
• Typically, commercial and residential lighting application Kelvin temperatures fall somewhere on a scale from 2000K to 6500K.
• A light bulb’s (lamp’s) color temperature lets us know what the look and feel of the light produced will be.
• The color temperature of a light bulb (lamp) is assigned using the basis of correlated color temperature (CCT).
  For example, if you heat up a metal object, the object appears to glow. Depending on the Kelvin temperature that the metal object is being heated at, the glow will be various colors, such as orange, yellow or blue. The color temperature of light bulbs (lamps) is meant to replicate the Kelvin temperature of the metal object.

What color temperature is right for me?
Understanding Kelvin temperature (K) makes it easier to choose lighting that gives you the look and feel you want.

• At the lower end of the scale, from 2000K to 3000K, the light produced is called “warm white” and ranges from orange to yellow-white in appearance.
• Color temperatures between 3100K and 4500K are referred to as “cool white” or “bright white.” Light bulbs (lamps) within this range will emit a more neutral white light and may even have a slightly blue tint.
• Above 4500K brings us into the “daylight” color temperature of light. Light bulbs (lamps) with color temperatures of 4500K and above will give off a blue-white light that mimics daylight.

Apparently the first generation of LED street lights were 4,000-5,000k, basically simulating the color temperature of daylight. Better options do exist now:

More recently engineered LED lighting is now available at 3000K or lower. At 3000K, the human eye still perceives the light as “white,” but it is slightly warmer in tone, and has about 21% of its emission in the blue-appearing part of the spectrum. This emission is still very blue for the nighttime environment, but is a significant improvement over the 4000K lighting because it reduces discomfort and disability glare. Because of different coatings, the energy efficiency of 3000K lighting is only 3% less than 4000K, but the light is more pleasing to humans and has less of an impact on wildlife. (AMA Report PDF download)

Even East-West Gateway Council of Governments addressed the issue via Great Streets St. Louis:

Lamps also have two important color characteristics: the color of the emitted light (measured in degrees Kelvin/color temperature) and the accuracy of colors as seen under the light (measured as a Color Rendering Index – CRI). 

High-pressure sodium measures at about 2200K (peach-colored orange), a household incandescent lamp rates 2700K (considered the most desirable color range), and a bright white metal halide lamp used in stadium lighting might be 4000K.

My concern is in our rush to make streets brighter we’ll ignore warnings about color temperature and install lighting with negative consequences. In the future nobody can claim “unforeseen circumstances” because this issues has been raised for years now. Better options exist.

Who knows, we might be installing the lower Kelvin LED lights. I intend to inquire.

— Steve Patterson

Know Your Ballot: Propositions & Amendments

Absentee voting for the November 8th general election began in Missouri last Tuesday, but since I’m still researching items on the lower part of the ballot I haven’t voted absentee yet. I decided to start at the bottom and work my way up, so this post is my initial research on ballot issues. Most are statewide, but even the first applies to St. Charles County, St. Louis County, and the City of St. Louis:

Proposition S — senior services

Voters in 3 counties will vote on identical measures.

A November ballot measure seeks to create senior citizen service funds in St. Charles County, St. Louis County and St. Louis that together would raise about $18 million a year in property taxes to help people stay in their homes longer.

More than 50, mainly small, Missouri counties already have created similar programs to help provide transportation, food, health care and other services. If the new measures pass, they would be the largest of their kind in the state.

Proposition S would levy a 5-cent property tax on every $100 of assessed value, which boils down to $9.50 a year on a home worth $100,000. Local boards would decide which needs are a priority for residents who are at least 60 years old.  (Post-Dispatch) 

I’ll probably vote yes on this. It is often better for seniors to be able to stay in their homes as they age — it’s also cheaper on taxpayers.  This is a good investment, assuming the local boards are well-managed. This is on the ballot because of Seniors Count St. Louis.

Proposition A/Constitutional Amendment 3 — cigarette/tobacco taxes

Regular readers know I’m a non-smoker who supports prohibition of smoking in public. I’ve also pointed out how low Missouri’s cigarette taxes are compared to neighboring states. So, you might think I’d be happy to see two ballot issues that raise taxes on cigarettes/tobacco. Wrong.

The campaigns behind both of the competing tobacco tax increase measures on the ballot were largely funded by tobacco companies. Large tobacco companies, in general, backed Amendment 3, the 60 Cent Cigarette Tax Increase Initiative, while some smaller companies and wholesalers supported Proposition A, the smaller tax increase.

Reynold’s American Inc. gave over $2 million to Raise Your Hand for Kids, which is supporting Amendment 3, the 60 Cent Cigarette Tax Increase Initiative. The drafters of Amendment 3 included a 67-cent-per-pack fee on wholesale tobacco sellers, raising the total state tax for smaller companies to $1.27 per pack. This added tax for small companies was designed to close an alleged loophole that allowed small companies to evade making payments to 46 states mandated by a multi-state court settlement to help offset Medicaid costs. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster had been pressuring the Missouri General Assembly to end this loophole and demand lost payments from small companies totalling $50 million annually.

Smaller companies such as Cheyenne International, LPC Inc., and Xcaliber International donated toward the Proposition A, the 23 Cent Cigarette Tax Increase Initiative, largely to oppose the Amendment 3. Chuck Hatfield, lawyer for Cheyenne, said that the Amendment 3 was “about Big Tobacco wanting to tax their competitors. That’s what this has always been about.” (BallotPedia)

Given this information, I’ll be voting no on both.

Constitutional Amendment 6 — Voter ID

Voter ID laws in other states have been controversial and ruled unconstitutional, but that didn’t stop the Republican-controlled legislature from overriding the veto to place this on the ballot. Their intent is very clear — discouraging/preventing African-Americams from voting. Period. What about the 78th House Dist race?  A voter ID wouldn’t have made a difference, the St. Louis Board of Elections had created a secondary process for absentee ballots that was abused.

In January a Missouri State Senator argued in favor of such a law:

Kraus said Missouri needs a voter I.D. law because there have been more than 16 cases of “some type of voter fraud” in Missouri. That number isn’t wrong, but it doesn’t support Kraus’ assertion that photo identification would solve the problem — or that there is a problem of people impersonating voters.
Kraus’ statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context. We rate his claim Half True. (PolitiFact Missouri)

I’ll be voting no.

Constitutional Amendment 4 — banning new sales/use tax on services

More states are looking to tax services, so some in Missouri are trying to stop it from happening here:

Could Missouri tax haircuts, veterinary services, pedicures and yoga classes? Missouri voters will have their say this November at their polling place with Amendment 4.

The “Taxpayer Protection Amendment” was certified for the ballot this month. If approved by voters it would ban a sales tax on services.

The amendment would prevent the state from taxing such services as car repairs, tattoos and lawn care. 

Currently, consumers don’t pay taxes on those services. Inconvenienced travelers pay a sales tax on a new tire but not on the service of replacing a flat.

But despite Missouri’s current lack of a sales tax on services, Amendment 4’s supporters – primarily the Missouri Association of Realtors, which circulated the initiative petition – see trouble on the horizon. (Missouri Times)

Taxing service transactions could be a headache for those providers, but this might also help budgets in areas heavy on service but low on retail. Hmm…

Retired financier Rex Sinquefield is a potential adversary, especially because he’s advocated for replacing Missouri’s income tax with an expanded sales tax. An e-mail to one of Sinquefield advisors wasn’t returned about whether he’d actively oppose Amendment 4. (St. Louis Public Radio)

This might force sales taxes to go up even more — an unintended consequence. I’m not sure yet how I’ll vote on this issue.

Constitutional Amendment 2 — campaign limits

Big money flowing into politics is something I generally favor trying to limit/stop:

The measure would cap donations to candidates at $2,600 per election and to political parties at $25,000. It also would impose other campaign finance restrictions aimed at preventing political committees from obscuring the source of their money.

In November 1994, 74 percent of Missouri voters approved a ballot measure limiting contributions to state candidates. The Republican-led General Assembly repealed contribution limits in 2008, which at the time stood at $1,350 for statewide candidates, $675 for Senate candidates and $325 for House candidates. (Kansas City Star)

Even though the person behind this is anti-abortion, I’ll likely vote yes.

Constitutional Amendment 1 — renew tax for soil/water conservation

This measure has been renewed in the past:

Amendment 1, upon voter approval, would renew the existing sales and use tax of 0.1 percent for 10 years. The revenue from the tax goes toward conservation efforts, and the measure was designed to “continue to generate approximately $90 million annually for soil and water conservation and operation of the state park system.”

Constitutional Amendment 1 was automatically referred to the 2016 ballot. This measure originated with a 1984 constitutional amendment. Due to the wording of this original amendment and subsequent iterations, the measure must be reapproved by voters. It is automatically referred to the ballot every 10 years. Previous versions of this amendment were approved in 1988, 1996, and 2006. If Amendment 1 is not approved in 2016, it will not be referred to future ballots. (BallotPedia)

I’ll vote yes to continue this tax.

Next week I’ll post on judges up for retention.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Are You Concerned About Possible Health Risks Associated With Some LED Street Lights?

I’ve posted about LED street lights before, but have never asked a poll question about them.

Some cities say the health concerns are not convincing enough to override the benefits of the first-generation bright LED lights that they installed in the past three to eight years. New York is one of them, although it has responded to resident complaints by replacing the high-intensity, white LED bulbs with a lower-
intensity bulb that the AMA considers safe. 

Scott Thomsen, a spokesman for Seattle City Lights, which is responsible for the city’s exterior illumination, dismissed the health concerns about bright-white LED lights, noting that they emit less of the problematic blue wavelengths than most computers and televisions. (Washington Post)

So here’s today’s poll:

The poll is open for 12 hours, until 8pm tonight.

— Steve Patterson