Researching research

I have a lot more work to do before I can fully understand why this research differs so greatly from what I’ve been told previously.

I was taken aback when I saw the headline on the University of California, Irvine’s press release “LED products billed as eco-friendly contain toxic metals, study finds.” I had believed that LEDs were environmentally safe, and it wasn’t a belief I’d come to without some research. Most, if not all, of the LED products I’ve written about have been RoHS compatible, meaning they complied with European restrictions on the use of hazardous substances such as lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls, and polybrominated diphenyl ether.

Further, I’d spoken to a number of technologists involved in the design and manufacture of LEDs, and asked them point-blank if there were any material-safety issue with respect to LED lighting. The topic had come up because compact-fluorescent bulbs are known to contain mercury, and so must be disposed of in special ways to be sure they don’t contaminate the environment.

Once my shock wore off, I was able to read deeper into the announcement to find that the study’s “LED products,” referred to as “alternatives to traditional lightbulbs,” were Christmas tree lights, traffic lights, and automobile headlights and brake lights, not the white SSL bulbs that are coming to markets as replacements for eco-hostile incandescent lighting in general-purpose illumination.

The release went on to say that low-intensity red LEDs in particular contained “a high content of arsenic and lead.” Some red LEDs are made with GaAlAs and GaAs; could that be the source of the arsenic? As to the lead, I’d like to know what kind of solder was used in the fabrication of these lights. I suspect that, for other-colored LEDs, the offending substances for example, white LEDs were said to contain high amounts of nickel were not in the actual light-emitting diodes themselves, but in the other parts of the light product.

The announcement occurred just before deadline, and so I have a lot more work to do before I can fully understand why this research differs so greatly from what I’ve been told previously. I’ll have to find out who manufactured the specific LED products, how old or new the products were, what standards they were built to meet, what quantities of the materials were found, and more.

But I am seeing this information already move into the mainstream media, in a very superficial way, and I’m concerned about its potential impact on solid-state lighting’s future. Will the general public take the time to fully investigate and understand the study, or will they mentally paint all LEDs products with a skull and crossbones?

Now more than ever, it is the responsibility of both scientists and journalists to accurately present information, and to do so in such a way as to avoid creating false impressions in the minds of their audience. After all, while it may be tempting to sensationalize, is it really ever in the public’s best interest to do so?

Richard Comerford