The push for LED lights appears to be more than just a quest for energy efficiency… it’s a troubling revelation that points to a deeper scheme. As highlighted in an interview with Dr. Jack Kruse, a neurosurgeon, the growing dependence on artificial blue light could have dire consequences for health and society. Kruse claims that this form of light, which is now standard due to federal mandates, could be rewiring our biology and behavior, creating a generation ill-equipped for meaningful relationships and civic engagement.
The legislation behind this shift began with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which mandated the phase-out of incandescent bulbs for energy-efficient alternatives, namely LEDs. Initially presented as a sustainable move, the emphasis on LED lighting has intensified over the years, particularly under recent administrations. Officially, the government and the Department of Energy tout the benefits of LEDs, claiming they use up to 80% less energy. However, as Kruse points out, this initiative overlooks a disturbing truth: exposure to high levels of blue light may wreak havoc on human health.
Research from reputable institutions like Harvard Medical School supports these concerns, linking blue light exposure to disrupted sleep patterns, increased risks of obesity, diabetes, and various mood disorders. The government’s continued promotion of such lighting seems to sidestep these significant health warnings, prioritizing corporate interests and environmental optics over public welfare.
During the interview, Kruse elaborated on the social implications of blue light exposure. He argues that the hormonal disruptions caused by artificial lighting are creating a generation of young people who are disengaged from traditional social structures. This phenomenon is exemplified by the rise of the “incel” movement, particularly among young men with extreme political ideologies. Kruse suggests that the hormonal changes linked to blue light exposure may contribute to this detachment, which he describes as a societal problem fraught with consequences.
“What if I was to tell you that sexual identity, gender, and sexual choice is also on a spectrum?” Kruse asked when exploring how blue light impacts non-visual photoreceptors and hormonal pathways. His claim that this lighting shifts our epigenetics, particularly through methylation, raises alarm bells regarding the broader impacts of modern living on human reproduction and relationships.
Kruse’s assertions extend to the dramatic shifts in societal values and engagement. He warns that the technology we consume, heavily infused with blue-light emissions, could be curbing our ability to act collectively, asserting that individuals who are in committed relationships maintain a perspective on performance that is vital for social cohesion. This disruption of family structures, he argues, plays directly into a broader agenda that favors population control and diminishes resistance.
In an incendiary claim, he connects media representations to these dynamics, suggesting that an industry saturated with blue-lit screens fosters a culture of distraction over substance. He argues that this constant exposure disrupts metabolism, keeping audiences agitated and less likely to engage with crucial issues. “What does blue light do to blood glucose and insulin? Raises both of them. You don’t have to eat a cheesecake,” Kruse stated, emphasizing the physiological responses triggered by visual stimuli in our media landscape.
Kruse also touched upon the softer adaptations witnessed in industries like the NFL, noting that shifts towards socially progressive campaigns appear to reflect the impacts of hormonal shifts induced by blue light. He expressed disappointment over political figures and media personalities who emphasize drama over substantive conversations, suggesting figures like Candace Owens fall short by not addressing deeper societal issues such as the impact of abortion on specific demographics.
As a countermeasure, Kruse’s stance is straightforward: minimize exposure to artificial lighting and revert to natural solutions. He advocates for the reintroduction of incandescent bulbs and techniques such as blue-blocking glasses and red-light therapy. He entreats journalists to investigate the roots of the LED mandate, positioning it as a crucial step in reinstating family dynamics and individual health.
The questions arising from this discussion deserve attention: Why is there a governmental push towards lighting that may disrupt our biological systems? Who stands to gain from a fatigued and divided population? The answers to these queries challenge the integrity of the narratives surrounding energy efficiency and public health.
Whether or not one accepts Kruse’s theories, his points invite scrutiny on the policies we accept and the long-term effects they may have on American society. The notion that something as seemingly benign as lighting could wield such an influence highlights an urgent need for critical examination of our everyday choices.
"*" indicates required fields
