LEDs.
Are LEDs hazardous to your health?
The LED bulb, one of the signature products of the climate agenda, is coming under scrutiny. Glen Jeffery, a professor of neuroscience at University College London who studies the effects of light on the body, has issued a stark warning: “LED lighting is damaging mitochondria and therefore there is no question you’re damaging systemic health. This is a clear and present public health emergency and we need to take action.”
Hold it! You mean the LED bulbs we were all but forced to buy in the name of climate change might be hurting us? According to Professor Jeffery, yes. He has gone so far as to say LED lighting is a household health hazard on the same level as asbestos.
He isn’t the only one raising questions. One study found that daily exposure to short-wavelength blue light reduced measures of mitochondrial activity by about 50 percent in mice. (“Impact of short wavelength light exposure on body weight, mobility, anxiety like behaviour and cytokine expression,” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-89081-2)
Another study found that exposure to blue-enriched LED lighting altered activity, metabolism and liver function in mice. (“Influence of Daytime LED Light Exposure on Circadian Regulatory Dynamics of Metabolism and Physiology in Mice,” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6807725/)
But not so fast, my friends. Not everyone is convinced. The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks concluded that “there is no evidence of direct adverse health effects from LEDs in normal use by the general healthy population.” And the government would never lie to us, would it? Where is RFK Jr. when we need him?
Recall how we got here. Under President Bush in 2007, Congress mandated tougher energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs, and the Department of Energy began issuing rules to implement them, phasing in LEDs along the way. As of August 2023, most incandescent bulbs were effectively banned. The stated goals were to reduce national energy use, cut carbon emissions and lower electric bills. (“Over 30 years, DOE projects these updated standards will save Americans more than $27 billion on their utility bills.”) In other words, Washington set out to push the entire lighting market toward high-efficiency LEDs and eliminate anything that couldn’t meet the new threshold. All in the name of energy savings.
This seems like an area where President Trump should direct Energy Secretary Chris Wright to review the mandate and assess Professor Jeffery’s research. Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin have already undone much of the Green New Deal agenda and its environmental zealotry. Why not take a closer look at the health risks that may come from LED lighting?
We are not going to invade Cuba — are we?
CBS News ran the headline “U.S. military lays groundwork for potential action around Cuba.” Since “around Cuba” is mostly water, I presume the headline really means “in Cuba.” According to the article, “The U.S. Army Reserve is examining whether it can provide the military’s Southern Command with police forces, medical personnel and other support units within the next four months.”
The president has been steadily escalating the pressure on Cuba. He has called it a “failed nation” and a national security threat, and he has hinted at a “friendly takeover.” The administration has filed charges against the island’s former leader, Raúl Castro, and Trump has said that previous U.S. presidents considered intervening in Cuba for decades but that “it looks like I’ll be the one that does it.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that over the years Cuba has grown used to “buying time and waiting us out.” “They’re not going to be able to wait us out or buy time,” Rubio said. “We’re very serious, we’re very focused.” Meanwhile, the administration has tightened sanctions and restricted oil shipments to the island in an effort to drive regime change.
Trump has repeatedly said the Cuban government is nearing a breaking point under the U.S. embargo, that the island is “seeing the end,” and that the United States could take additional action soon, though he hasn’t said what that action would be. He has also stated plainly that “Cuba is next.” However unlikely, could he actually mean military action against the island? That doesn’t seem to be in the cards while we remain involved in Iran. Trump himself has said that “they can’t move on to Cuba” until they have finished dealing with Iran.
But with this president, who knows?
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel has warned that any U.S. military action against Cuba would lead to a “bloodbath.” But what else would he say? Still, Cuba reportedly has more than 300 military drones, along with plans to strike Guantánamo Bay, U.S. naval vessels, Key West, Miami and other parts of Florida.
