Conspiracy Theories Forum - Cultivate Elevate on LED bulbs

Cultivate Elevate on LED bulbs

This was a fun one to debunk. He has NO clue what he's talking about so it was easy.

LED bulbs are fine, the problem is people buy ultra-cheap LED bulbs which mostly just output blue light. I don't understand why people cheap out on bulbs. Would you buy an incandescent light that only lasts a week (instead of the usual month)?

LEDs don't cause cataracts. I tried Googling to see what's out there about it, and the first result is a site specifically debunking you, and it seems like you're turning "extreme levels of blue light caused cataracts" to "the amount of blue light emitted by LEDs causes cataracts", which is simply illogical. By that SAME logic, you could say "never eat bananas because you're exposed to radiation and radiation causes cancer". It's all about doses.

LEDs don't cause people to go crazy at the grocery store, at least, that's such an impossible to prove claim that it's completely outside the realm of science and only a mind with ulterior motives would come up with it.

The incandescent bulb you mention, if you did ANY research at all, you'd see that it's a 60-watt bulb dimmed down to 4 watts to INTENTIONALLY make it last a lot longer. It's completely useless. Like your videos.

An LED is not a "street light". You need to back up that definition, or nobody should take it seriously. Like really, you just say things without thinking about them.

An LED is a microchip funded by IBM and Monsanto? You know what else IBM funded? The microchip you used to upload this video. Oooooh spooky! A microchip! I'll bet you suffered irreparable bodily harm by using that "microchip" inside your computer to upload this video. No? You're completely healthy? But it was funded by IBM! I'm sure Monsanto has also funded microchip research at one point. How can you use a device funded by such EVIL corporations! Did you also know, your computer monitor is FULL of LEDs?? You must have like, a billion cataracts by now!

LEDs don't cause memory loss. At least, for most people, I can't speak for YOU.

Incandescent bulbs emit such a small amount of heat that your idea that they're using the switch to LEDs to prove that the "climate is changing" is ridiculous. The idea that incandescent or sodium vapor lamps in streetlights had any measurable effect on the surrounding environment's temperature is simply false. You just made that up, with no research done?

The book you bring up, Light, Radiation and you is super old and predates LED bulbs. It's about florescent bulbs, which are very different from LED bulbs. They emit a much colder, flickering light. You could extrapolate that to LED bulbs, but again, you're just making stuff up without research. YOU GOTTA DO RESEARCH you can't just rely on "almost good enough" research. That's not how science works. There are a million variables and you need to do new research to back up your claims, not use something from before LEDs bulbs were invented.

Also, you probably don't know enough about science to understand this, but holding a florescent bulb near someone would induce an electromagnetic field in them, due to the light's high power and high frequency. LEDs have a high frequency but low power. They're not emitting the same level of electromagnetic fields. So if someone became weaker near a florescent bulb, that's an interesting data point but that doctor didn't do enough research. It's incomplete. He didn't account for the effect of electromagnetic fields.

You say the sun is healing, but you're apparently not able to handle the advanced idea of "two things being right at the same time". Yes, sunlight is good for you. It boosts vitamin D production, and can reverse myopia to some degree. You know what ELSE is true? Sunlight is bad for you! It causes melanoma. Did I just blow your mind or what? The sun is both GOOD and BAD for you. How do we content with such a dilemma? Maybe we could rate the GOODNESS and BADNESS on a scale and COMPARE THEM and decide WHICH IS GREATER??? NOOO that's too SENSIBLE for this youtuber!

"The ether" doesn't exist. People who can't understand science love concepts that there's an "invisible undetectable force" that "makes all of my ideas true somehow". But too bad, science doesn't work that way. If "the ether" existed, you could find evidence of it using simple instruments. But people who can't understand science solve this dilemma by saying "oh, you need specialized equipment to detect it" (which conveniently only people in on the conspiracy have access to).

See, people who can't understand science are so clueless about science, they don't realize that science isn't a magical thing you can only do inside of an approved "science lab", and if something is "debunked" it can never be replicated elsewhere. Science is free for all. Want to see a cell? Buy a microscope. Want to observe magnetism? Buy a magnet. It's not that hard. But to people who can't understand science, this is way too hard for them to even consider.

HIGHLIGHTED POST:
Wed, Feb 12, 2025 4:24 AM UTC Post # 1
Neminem Joined: Dec 2024 Age: 35 Gold: 5	Cultivate Elevate on LED bulbs This was a fun one to debunk. He has NO clue what he's talking about so it was easy. LED bulbs are fine, the problem is people buy ultra-cheap LED bulbs which mostly just output blue light. I don't understand why people cheap out on bulbs. Would you buy an incandescent light that only lasts a week (instead of the usual month)? LEDs don't cause cataracts. I tried Googling to see what's out there about it, and the first result is a site specifically debunking you, and it seems like you're turning "extreme levels of blue light caused cataracts" to "the amount of blue light emitted by LEDs causes cataracts", which is simply illogical. By that SAME logic, you could say "never eat bananas because you're exposed to radiation and radiation causes cancer". It's all about doses. LEDs don't cause people to go crazy at the grocery store, at least, that's such an impossible to prove claim that it's completely outside the realm of science and only a mind with ulterior motives would come up with it. The incandescent bulb you mention, if you did ANY research at all, you'd see that it's a 60-watt bulb dimmed down to 4 watts to INTENTIONALLY make it last a lot longer. It's completely useless. Like your videos. An LED is not a "street light". You need to back up that definition, or nobody should take it seriously. Like really, you just say things without thinking about them. An LED is a microchip funded by IBM and Monsanto? You know what else IBM funded? The microchip you used to upload this video. Oooooh spooky! A microchip! I'll bet you suffered irreparable bodily harm by using that "microchip" inside your computer to upload this video. No? You're completely healthy? But it was funded by IBM! I'm sure Monsanto has also funded microchip research at one point. How can you use a device funded by such EVIL corporations! Did you also know, your computer monitor is FULL of LEDs?? You must have like, a billion cataracts by now! LEDs don't cause memory loss. At least, for most people, I can't speak for YOU. Incandescent bulbs emit such a small amount of heat that your idea that they're using the switch to LEDs to prove that the "climate is changing" is ridiculous. The idea that incandescent or sodium vapor lamps in streetlights had any measurable effect on the surrounding environment's temperature is simply false. You just made that up, with no research done? The book you bring up, Light, Radiation and you is super old and predates LED bulbs. It's about florescent bulbs, which are very different from LED bulbs. They emit a much colder, flickering light. You could extrapolate that to LED bulbs, but again, you're just making stuff up without research. YOU GOTTA DO RESEARCH you can't just rely on "almost good enough" research. That's not how science works. There are a million variables and you need to do new research to back up your claims, not use something from before LEDs bulbs were invented. Also, you probably don't know enough about science to understand this, but holding a florescent bulb near someone would induce an electromagnetic field in them, due to the light's high power and high frequency. LEDs have a high frequency but low power. They're not emitting the same level of electromagnetic fields. So if someone became weaker near a florescent bulb, that's an interesting data point but that doctor didn't do enough research. It's incomplete. He didn't account for the effect of electromagnetic fields. You say the sun is healing, but you're apparently not able to handle the advanced idea of "two things being right at the same time". Yes, sunlight is good for you. It boosts vitamin D production, and can reverse myopia to some degree. You know what ELSE is true? Sunlight is bad for you! It causes melanoma. Did I just blow your mind or what? The sun is both GOOD and BAD for you. How do we content with such a dilemma? Maybe we could rate the GOODNESS and BADNESS on a scale and COMPARE THEM and decide WHICH IS GREATER??? NOOO that's too SENSIBLE for this youtuber! "The ether" doesn't exist. People who can't understand science love concepts that there's an "invisible undetectable force" that "makes all of my ideas true somehow". But too bad, science doesn't work that way. If "the ether" existed, you could find evidence of it using simple instruments. But people who can't understand science solve this dilemma by saying "oh, you need specialized equipment to detect it" (which conveniently only people in on the conspiracy have access to). See, people who can't understand science are so clueless about science, they don't realize that science isn't a magical thing you can only do inside of an approved "science lab", and if something is "debunked" it can never be replicated elsewhere. Science is free for all. Want to see a cell? Buy a microscope. Want to observe magnetism? Buy a magnet. It's not that hard. But to people who can't understand science, this is way too hard for them to even consider.