# Antec Blue LED accent lighting strips - Harmful?



## StormProtocol

bump


----------



## firstolast

Wow i've never heard of this.. Interesting.

While the information in the articles may be technically be true, different people will react differently towards its effects. You may be fine with the blue leds, but your neighbor might not be. Hence why you probably didn't notice it before hearing about it. Yes, harmful is harmful, but to what degree depends on the person and other wide varying factors.

If the long term side effects are really bothering you, then you could always switch to a new lighting theme. I think there are other more life-changing alterations you can make if you're that serious about healthier living like being more active, healthier eating habits, etc. That would have a more dramatic impact than avoiding all blue LEDs..

So if the blue LEDs in your set up aren't bothering your, then you should be fine. I like the blue LEDs in my system


----------



## GanjaSMK

I'm no expert and only skimmed a handful of pages on the net about blue light. In that quick look, with the links you provided, it seems like those links take real blue-light hazard (radiation actually) and apply it to LED's. However, I don't think that is the case. It seems to me that you'd have to have extremely powerful light (on the order of lasers) or focused spectral lighting to generate the kind of radiation from blue light that would cause cancer or harm your retina.

But... I'm no scientist nor expert, just a dude.


----------



## Hukkel

That is crazy, if blue leds would cause cancer they wouldn't be sold in loads of countries. Imagine the amount of lawsuits TT and Antec and whatever company would get.


----------



## Blameless

Probably not going to cause cancer, but probably not good for you.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hukkel*
> 
> That is crazy, if blue leds would cause cancer they wouldn't be sold in loads of countries.


Everything causes cancer.


----------



## Sybr

Well, as a molecular biologist/bio-engineer, I can say the following:

Cancer requires "ionizing radiation", thereby nullifying all claims made by cellphone/wifi/etc. Normal sunlight will cause more cancer then LED's.









However, I can see a possible effect on *hormone levels*, as described in your article. Hormone regulation is a very complex system and not all involved factors are known.
All your lighting may even have a positive effect on your performace: it might prevent you from getting tired during late-night gaming sessions because your sleep cycle is supressed. Just put out the lights while you sleep. Compare it with closing your curtains to prevent sunlight (which also contains a lot of blue light) from waking you up early in the morning.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Probably not going to cause cancer, but probably not good for you.
> Everything causes cancer.


That is indeed true, the best way to prevent cancer is to stop breathing. Oxigen is very toxic.
Seriously, don't worry too much.


----------



## BritishBob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sybr*
> 
> Well, as a molecular biologist/bio-engineer, I can say the following:
> Cancer requires "ionizing radiation", thereby nullifying all claims made by cellphone/wifi/etc. Normal sunlight will cause more cancer then LED's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I can see a possible effect on *hormone levels*, as described in your article. Hormone regulation is a very complex system and not all involved factors are known.
> All your lighting may even have a positive effect on your performace: it might prevent you from getting tired during late-night gaming sessions because your sleep cycle is supressed. Just put out the lights while you sleep. Compare it with closing your curtains to prevent sunlight (which also contains a lot of blue light) from waking you up early in the morning.
> That is indeed true, the best way to prevent cancer is to stop breathing. Oxigen is very toxic.
> Seriously, don't worry too much.


Sounds about right.

I have a blue LED on my bedside light, it kept me awake until it broke... I would say if you want to sleep switch them off, as for cancer if you're gonna get it then you're gonna get it. I have a feeling this is like going for an x-ray, there is a chance and they have to tell you anyway. But it proberbly won't cause cancer.


----------



## NuFon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sybr*
> 
> That is indeed true, the best way to prevent cancer is to stop breathing. Oxigen is very toxic.
> Seriously, don't worry too much.


Didn't you know that 100% of all people that has gotten cancer, has also inhaled oxygen? :O
Btw if the OP got WiFi, that also causes cancer.








Everything with an electric pulse nowadays cause cancer.


----------



## StormProtocol

Thanks for all the replies guys, I knew overclock.net would know best







here's a quick vid i made showing my room with the new lights though the lighting looks quite purple through the camera. *HERE*


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuFon*
> 
> Btw if the OP got WiFi, that also causes cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything with an electric pulse nowadays cause cancer.


I hope you're being sarcastic.


----------



## Defunctronin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> I hope you're being sarcastic.


He may be joking, but hes right. EMF generated by electronic devices like your router or cell phone can cause very serious damage to your genetic structure. I don't keep my cell phone in my pants pocket or shirt pocket because of this type of thing.


----------



## Sybr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defunctronin*
> 
> He may be joking, but hes right. EMF generated by electronic devices like your router or cell phone can cause very serious damage to your genetic structure. I don't keep my cell phone in my pants pocket or shirt pocket because of this type of thing.


Read my previous post. EMF does not have enough energy to damage your DNA structure.


----------



## NuFon

No, what I meant is, that the OP doesn't have to be scared. Because almost everything in the modern society has the potential to cause cancer, even different chemicals they spray on veggies to keep them from getting eaten.
So I would be more afraid of my cellphone than the lights under my keyboard. It's not like plastic covers up radiaton that well either.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defunctronin*
> 
> He may be joking, but hes right. EMF generated by electronic devices like your router or cell phone can cause very serious damage to your genetic structure. I don't keep my cell phone in my pants pocket or shirt pocket because of this type of thing.


No. Absolutely not. Anything with a wavelength longer than UVB has no capacity to break bonds, especially of organic molecules. Stop spreading lies.


----------



## Defunctronin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> No. Absolutely not. Anything with a wavelength longer than UVB has no capacity to break bonds, especially of organic molecules. Stop spreading lies.


It's not a lie. We don't know the extent yet, but scientists from all over the world have identified this as a serious problem. Go read the literature.
Quote:


> On May 21, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a committee of 27 scientists from 14 different countries working on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), also concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a "possible carcinogen" and classified it into the 2B category. *This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead, gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals,* just to name a few.


The WHO isn't spreading lies; This is a serious concern, one important enough to be vetted and studied by scientists all over the word. There is lot's of evidence out there to support the damage of genetic cellular structure from continued exposure to EMF.

http://vimeo.com/17266941#
Commonwealth Club 11-18-10. Panel II - Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor, Columbia University, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics; Researcher in Biolelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report's (Bioinitiative.org) section on Stress Proteins; Editor of the journal Pathophysiology's special issue on Electromagnetic Fields, March 2009; and Past President, Bioelectromagnetics Society.

Yeah, this guy is lying... lol.
And if that isn't enough information to remedy your misconception, watch a panel of Phds tell you how you are wrong.
Stop spreading your *ignorance.*


----------



## BritishBob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defunctronin*
> 
> It's not a lie. We don't know the extent yet, but scientists from all over the world have identified this as a serious problem. Go read the literature.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a committee of 27 scientists from 14 different countries working on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), also concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a "possible carcinogen" and classified it into the 2B category. *This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead, gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals,* just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> The WHO isn't spreading lies; This is a serious concern, one important enough to be vetted and studied by scientists all over the word. There is lot's of evidence out there to support the damage of genetic cellular structure from continued exposure to EMF.
> http://vimeo.com/17266941#
> Commonwealth Club 11-18-10. Panel II - Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor, Columbia University, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics; Researcher in Biolelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report's (Bioinitiative.org) section on Stress Proteins; Editor of the journal Pathophysiology's special issue on Electromagnetic Fields, March 2009; and Past President, Bioelectromagnetics Society.
> Yeah, this guy is lying... lol.
> And if that isn't enough information to remedy your misconception, watch a panel of Phds tell you how you are wrong.
> Stop spreading your *ignorance.*
Click to expand...

ROLF climate change is a lie...

If you have ever actually watched a video of the presentation that started it all then you notice he says there is a complicated relationship between CO2 and Temp changes. In actual fact there is a better and greater link between solar activity and temp changes. Do you see that in the mass media? No, because one government jumped on the bandwagon, so did everyone else. Now everyone is brainwashed into think CO2 causes climate change.

It might attribute, however that are larger factors at work. Just because a 'scientist' says it is, doesn't mean it's true. Look at Einstein theory of relativity.... If Light isn't an absolute, most of the modern world physics is based of a theory that is wrong.

Just because one person contradicts another, doesn't mean they are wrong or ignorant.

Next you are going to say mobile phones can cause a petrol station to ignite....


----------



## Defunctronin

You are poorly informed all the way around. I'm not going to go OT with climate change, although if you think there is a serious debate among the truly scientific community (higher educated, Phds) about global warming, you are sorely mistaken. You also apparently do not know the meaning of the word *ignorant*

Ignorant: Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
It is not an insult, as ignorance is what drives science and the pursuit of knowledge to begin with. Ignorance does not mean I doubt his intelligence, I'm just informing him of what he might be ignorant to. I doubt he's seen all of this information or literature about EMF, so I share that I might enlighten and dispel ignorance.

*"It never ceases to surprise me at the infinite capacity of the human mind to resist the introduction of useful knowledge."
-Thomas Raynesford Lounsbury*


----------



## BritishBob

*head to desk*

To tired to read correctly.

I forget people still use the weird stuff called wireless router. I have been running wires for years.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defunctronin*
> 
> It's not a lie. We don't know the extent yet, but scientists from all over the world have identified this as a serious problem. Go read the literature.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a committee of 27 scientists from 14 different countries working on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), also concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a "possible carcinogen" and classified it into the 2B category. *This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead, gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals,* just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> The WHO isn't spreading lies; This is a serious concern, one important enough to be vetted and studied by scientists all over the word. There is lot's of evidence out there to support the damage of genetic cellular structure from continued exposure to EMF.
> http://vimeo.com/17266941#
> Commonwealth Club 11-18-10. Panel II - Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor, Columbia University, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics; Researcher in Biolelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report's (Bioinitiative.org) section on Stress Proteins; Editor of the journal Pathophysiology's special issue on Electromagnetic Fields, March 2009; and Past President, Bioelectromagnetics Society.
> Yeah, this guy is lying... lol.
> And if that isn't enough information to remedy your misconception, watch a panel of Phds tell you how you are wrong.
> Stop spreading your *ignorance.*
Click to expand...

Martin Blank talked in sweeping generalities. He said early in his talk that he was going to provide a mechanism for DNA damage by non-ionizing radiation, but never did.

I'm 11 months away from my own biology degree. I know the literature. I deal with it on a daily basis. "Electromagnetichealth.org", on the other hand, is a crackpot, nutjob website if I've ever seen it. That site reeks of conspiracy theories on the order of cold fusion, UFOs, and chemtrails.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22534362
Quote:


> In 2007 a task group of scientific experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged the IARC categorization but found that the laboratory studies and other research results did not support the association.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21873036
Quote:


> the study did not confirm the suspicion of increased cancer risks associated with radiation for most cancer types in this village. Misclassification of past exposures could explain the negative finding.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21638213
Quote:


> reveals no or only scant evidence for the assumption that RF EMF exposure poses a hazard to children


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20846133
Quote:


> The balance of epidemiologic evidence indicates that mobile phone use of less than 10 years does not pose any increased risk of brain tumour or acoustic neuroma. For long-term use, data are sparse, and the following conclusions are therefore uncertain and tentative.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21437920
Quote:


> From the results, we suggested that simultaneous exposure to CDMA and WCDMA RF-EMFs did not affect lymphoma development in AKR/J mice.


http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/103/16/1211.long
Quote:


> The results of these epidemiological investigations have been largely consistent and reassuring, with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US National Cancer Institute concluding that there is no conclusive or consistent evidence that nonionizing radiation emitted by cell phones is associated with cancer risk


www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/.../RadioFreqRadRpt032001.pdf

*(This is an excellent review. I watched your videos, so I ask that you read through this.)*
Quote:


> Because of weaknesses, current evidence does not suggest that living near broadcast towers would lead to an increased risk of cancer.


This one actually directly refutes the second video from your second link, as it shows the cancer cluster was an isolated anomaly that only persisted for a 2 year period. Cancer rates returned to expected levels after that. RF output did not change, so clearly there was no causal link.
Quote:


> Overall, despite some provocative findings, due to the lack of consistency among cancer subtypes and the methodological weaknesses of many of the positive studies, the occupational epidemiology literature does not provide support for a link between RFR and cancer.


Quote:


> All of these studies concluded that RFR is not harmful below levels that produce thermal effects.


----------

