Eye damage from fluorescent light
The mercury content of fluorescent lamps is not their only drawback. Their much praised energy-saving advantages should not keep us from realizing that fluorescent lamps are also likely to be significant contributors to an epidemic of blinding that now affects the first generation of Americans who grew up under those lamps in their classrooms.
The eye disease now known as age-related macular degeneration used to be called senile macular degeneration because people suffered from it only in their old age, typically in their eighties or nineties, and more rarely in their seventies [1]. Over the past two or three decades, however, this degeneration of the central retina began to start earlier and earlier in the lives of the victims, to the point where millions of Americans now lose their central vision to it in their sixties and fifties, and sometimes already in their forties. Meanwhile, age-related
macular degeneration has also become the most common cause of irreversible vision loss throughout the Western world [2].
One of the major factors responsible for macular degeneration appears to be the lifetime accumulation of damage in the retina’s photoreceptors from exposure to harmful light which gradually builds up a layer of debris from destroyed photoreceptors between the remaining ones and so uses up the limited renewal capacity of these [3, 4].
As established by many industrial safety studies, the most harmful light for all mammalian eyes is in the blue to violet range, with wavelengths from 430 to 440 nanometers. Unfortunately, all fluorescent lamps emit a large portion of their total energy in a narrow spike at 435.8 nm, precisely in the most eye-damaging region. Adult humans are somewhat protected from this damage because our lens yellows with age, just as varnish does, and for the same reason of slow oxidation by free radicals created through long-term irradiation with light.
This yellowing filters out much of the blue and violet from about our early twenties on, but these harmful wavelengths can freely penetrate into the still more transparent eyes of children. There they can cause an accelerated buildup of destroyed photoreceptors which diminishes the capacity of these to self-repair. This can ultimately lead to the degeneration of the macula in later years.
It is therefore probably no coincidence that the non-senile people who now experience the much earlier onset of macular degeneration are the first generation who spent much of their youth under fluorescent classroom lamps. The issue has not been studied officially, so there is presently no proven link between this early unprotected exposure to the most damaging light in the visible spectrum and the earlier appearance of the damage generally connected with this type of exposure.
On the other hand, basic logic and elementary prudence suggest to limit this potentially harmful irradiation of your children’s retinae until its long-term safety has been established [5].
However, the current proposals to replace all incandescent lamps with fluorescent ones for their energy savings ignore this potential risk. Despite the best of intentions among those who make these proposals, this insufficiently evaluated technology could therefore bite back, like the once equally touted DDT or chlorofluorocarbons, and cause much more damage down the road than it appears to prevent now.
If the early exposure of children to fluorescent light in classrooms is
a factor in the later observed accelerated degeneration of their maculae, as the circumstantial evidence suggests, then exposing them now also at home to that eye-damaging light is likely to make their vision fail even earlier than that of their parents and grand-parents in the current epidemic of early-onset macular degeneration.
Unfortunately, the medical community is so vested in falsely denying the obvious blinding danger from the overly bright neonatologist-specified fluorescent nursery lamps to the eyes of premature babies [6] that it completely ignores the potential danger from the same lamps to that much larger population of all children. Indeed, none of the experts or agencies charged with assuring the health and safety of our children have issued any public warnings about the potential long-term effects of exposing children to now even more fluorescent light. They are not just asleep at the switch, they don’t even want to admit that it exists.
But if you care about the future visual health of your children, then evaluate the evidence yourself and form your own opinion.
The blue-light hazard can be reduced or maybe even eliminated with yellow filters or coatings on the fluorescent bulbs that block the blue wavelengths, but these protections need to be tested, and people need to be told about this possible solution so that they don’t use the unfiltered and potentially dangerous fluorescent lamps which could irreversibly harm the eyes of their children.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Peter Aleff
[email protected]
[1] David Miller: “Clinical Light Damage to the Eye”, Springer Verlag, New York, 1987, pages 79-125.
[2] Henry Grunwald: “Losing Sight”, The New Yorker, December 9, 1996, pages 62-67.
[3] David Miller: “Clinical Light Damage to the Eye”, Springer Verlag, New York, 1987, see particularly pages 102 ff. in chapter 6 on “Phototoxic Changes in the Retina” by John Weiter, pages 79-125.
[4] Waxler M and Hitchins VM, editors: “Optical Radiation and Visual Health”, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1986, Chapter 6: “Optical Radiation and the Aged Eye” by Marshall J, Greenstein V, Kline D, Owsley C, and Werner JS. See Introduction and page 118 middle to bottom.
[5] For details, see retinopathyofprematurity.org/maculardegeneration01.htm
[6] See my “Baby-blinding retinopathy of prematurity: Fake Science and Bogus Bioethics in Medical Research Frauds against Premature Babies”, Medical Veritas, Volume 4:1, pages 1378- 89, posted at
http://retinopathyofprematurity.org/01summary.htm
Replies
I've been wondering about this myself lately. It wasn't that long ago that florescent lighting went out of style for this very reason, and now it's so readily offered as something green. How does anyone dare call something that destroys eyesight green?
Before Fine Homebuilding publishes any more recommendations for of florescent lighting, I think either they, or the author of such an article, owes us an explanation.
Thank you for doing this research.
-T
Thank you, JourneymanCarpenterT, for your reply. Please don't blame the people who now promote fluorescent lamps as a cure for some of our environmental problems. The eye-damaging properties of this light are little known beyond the specialized ranks of industrial hygienists who establish exposure danger limits for adult industrial workers but may not necessarily know about the separately researched childhood vulnerabilities to this light.
The people recommending these lamps now are simply for the most part unaware of the potential damage, beyond the occasional anecdote of adults getting severe headaches or visual problems from this type of irradiation. That is why I am proposing that people with no ax to grind or turf to defend should examine the strong circumstantial evidence for themselves instead of just trusting some medical agency or institution to watch out for us and warn us of this potential danger.
I do agree with you that authors who write about fluorescent light owe it to their readers and to their own conscience to research all sides of the issue and not to guide us inadvertently like lemmings towards a dangerous precipice which we see only too late. The dark sides of technology, particularly those involving radiation exposure limits, have usually been ignored ever since the discoveries of radium and X-rays, drowned out by the Hosiannahs for the alluring side of the latest two-edged technological fix.
I also hope with you that the fine editors of Fine Homebuilding will stay clear of this stampede towards CFLs and evaluate the evidence against their light objectively for their readers.
(PS.: I will be out of town for a couple of weeks and will be able to post further replies only in early October.)
Now I'll have to wear yellow-lensed glasses along with my tin foil hat! Seriously, maybe tinted lenses on glasses would be helpful (for those who wear glasses).
> The eye-damaging properties of this light are little known beyond the specialized ranks of industrial hygienists who establish exposure danger limits for adult industrial workers but may not necessarily know about the separately researched childhood vulnerabilities to this light. Bullfeathers!! The hazards of UV light are well known. Cataracts are a common problem with farmers and others who spend a lot of time outdoors. The UV hazards of industrial lighting are also well known and well regulated.
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
I searched the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), which goes back to the 1950s, and there are NO articles that mention this alleged connection. Looks like a little pseudo-science going on.
Yeah, I smell something funny here. First time poster, with a strident take on an off-beat topic.
Here's something taken from one of his websites
Medicine Patient-harming frauds in medical research about baby- blinding retinopathy of prematurity, their continued cover- up, and the rot in the medical- governmental system that rigs studies to continue the harming. Find out about crass violations of patients rights committed right to the sounds of much touted US- Presidential apologies for past medical abuses of a similar kind.
*
The e-books in the Medicine section are all free, to help spread the word about the easy prevention of the baby- blinding, and about the scandal of doctors rigging their research to continue that epidemic.
Lots of speculation, but pretty short on empirical facts.
They've always been putting eyemasks on these babies. One of my first jobs out of high school was as an orderly - almost 40 years ago. The babies were covered then. A few years later when I was taking blood from them, we always had to keep the masks in place.
Sounds like someone running with half enuff information.
But OTOH, how difficult would it be to include a UV inhibitor in the lens of the fixtures should this really be a problem?
Anyone got a link to a spectrum chart showing the range of fluorescent color frequencies? It would be a good place to start.
Ed
http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/spectra7.htmAnybody who thinks the medical profession never makes mistakes is foolish.Anybody who thinks the medical profession ever willingly admits mistakes is naive.A google for "light intensity premature infant" does not turn up any research related to blindness. In another search I did turn up a reference to a pediatric reccommendation to subject preemies to 1000 lumens of flourescent light. The only research I found into light intensity and preemies are about circadian rhythms and low birth rate.prematurity.org reccommends shielding preemies from strong light.All flourescents emit a very strong 435nm light. 435 nm light is very dangerous to mammals' retinas.I also found this:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5336248-fulltext.html
Premature babies may be exposed to high light levels, which may arise from a variety of causes such as sunlight, strong and continuous artificial ward light generally, and the use of phototherapy. There has been substantial speculation that the risk of ROP is increased by such exposure to high levels of light.Phototherapy consists of exposing the baby to a high intensity white or short wavelength light for the treatment of neonatal jaundice (hyperbiliruminaemia). It is well known to "patch", i.e. blindfold, babies undergoing such treatment. The treatment lasts for periods in the region of 24 hours; patching may well reduce the chance of ROP developing, and is unlikely to have any harmful effects for that kind of length of time.It has also been suggested that the general light intensity to which premature babies are subjected should be kept low, and an investigation has been carried out in which filters were placed over the incubators of certain premature babies, cutting the light intensity by about 50%. The results indicated that this reduced the incidence and severity of ROP. This investigation has, however, been criticized.Studies have also been performed using animals, and some of the results of these also lend support to the view that high light levels damage the human eye. However, the precise relevance of these studies to ROP is unclear for a variety of reasons.The general practice with premature babies is, therefore, to patch their eyes during phototherapy, but to take no further special measures to reduce the light levels to which they are exposed (though general awareness of the matter may result in a greater readiness to draw the curtains or blinds if there is strong sunshine into the ward, and caution when designing lighting systems for premature baby wards. .I have not found enough information to judge the OPs' thesis. I suspect that he is more correct than wrong.
SamT
A friend's wife has lupus, and prolonged exposure to fluorescent lights makes her ill.
edited to add:
http://www.lupus.org/education/articles/lightsensitivity.html
“Good work costs much more than poor imitation or factory product†– Charles Greene
http://www.bakersfieldremodel.com
Edited 9/16/2007 12:53 pm by Huck
Thanks for the interesting link to the bulb spectrums. It's surprising to me how many of them look so similiar to each other yet throw a different color of light. Here's a link to the visible spectrum: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://groups.csail.mit.edu/graphics/classes/6.837/F01/Lecture02/spectrum.gif&imgrefurl=http://groups.csail.mit.edu/graphics/classes/6.837/F01/Lecture02/Slide22.html&h=413&w=685&sz=27&tbnid=CEkNNKoin98zgM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=139&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvisible%2Bspectrum%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1
435 nm light is very dangerous to mammals' retinas.
Where does this info come from? I see from the above chart that it is part of the visible spectrum, right near our upper limit.
Research on premature babies and light may be useful but the info cited here is nowhere near conclusive in even suggesting that fluorescent light will cause eye damage to children and adults. A premature baby must have a number of partially-formed systems that a full-term baby will have already developed.
The intensity is surely a significant factor in this, and also the reality that when we use artificial lighting we are essentially looking at the light reflected off of objects, i.e. we don't stare at the light source .
Wikipedia seems to have a bunch of article about light, I'll look at some later today.
Edit to add: it just occurred to me, computers and TV are us looking directly at a light source, unlike just about everything else we do as humans (fire, stars. Any others?)
Ed
Edited 9/16/2007 1:25 pm ET by edlee
> All flourescents emit a very strong 435nm light. 435 nm light is very dangerous to mammals' retinas.Doesn't seem to be true of the "Mr Light" lamps, looking at that site you posted. Others have a noticeable spike at 435 nm, but the energy of that spike (area under the curve) is generally negligible compared to overall output.Also note that all the graphs are "normalized" so that the highest spike is in the 3000-4000 range. Some have very little energy outside the spikes, some have a very high "baseline" energy levels below the spikes. The total energy in the light is roughly the area under the curve, and where the baseline energy is high the spikes become relatively less significant.IOW, the presence of the spikes in the graphs tells you virtually nothing re the absolute intensity of a particular spike, especially in "real life" conditions.
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
I always thought that the problem with premies and their eyes was that the incubators have oxygen and oxygen is bad for eyes. I may well be wrong.
Yes, oxygen concentrations over about 30% for extended periods causes some sort of eye problem. This has been known for 40-50 years, but in the early days of incubators a lot of preemies ended up with eye problems before they figured it out.In addition, the billy lights (fluorescent banks used to eliminate jaundice) are bad for the eyes, so they bandage the eyes when using the lights. Don't know how long they've been doing that, but they did it for my son who's now 29.
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
Thank you all for a lively series of posts. I am on my way out of town so I will be brief.
To Danno: No need to wear a the tin-foil hat to protect your eyes from blue light which is so hazardous that the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has established special tables for the intensity of the "blue-light hazard". See my page https://www.lowbluelights.com/index.asp for that table and its sources.
You thought you were kidding about the yellow glasses, but some people recommend them, though for a different reason, as they explain at https://www.lowbluelights.com/index.asp which offers yellow coatings for light bulbs and yellow-lensed glasses to keep blue light out. (I have no connection with that website or its authors.)
To Gary: PubMed is very incomplete, and so is a search limited to their archives. I list on my page http://retinopathyofprematurity.org/Babyblindinglights07.htm a number of clinical studies from major medical journals about light and baby-blinding, so before you accuse anyone of pseudo-science please do your own homework.
To FatRoman: Please note that the statements you cite from one of my websites are all fully documented there. For the context of and facts about those accusations against the medical researchers who rigged the studies described, see http://retinopathyofprematurity.org/01summary.htm . There is no speculation there about the effect of fluorescent light on baby-blinding, just solid facts from the clinical literature.
My speculation about the same light also causing a much slower eye damage in older children is clearly identified in my original post as not yet confirmed by clinical studies and the reason for this is that none have been done about this effect on macular degeneration. My point in proposing this is simply the basic logic of connecting the dots.
To peteshlager: As you confiirm, eye-patching of preemies under bilirubin lights is standard praqctice. Their irradiation from the regular ceiling lights is about up to a third of that strong dosage, and it is administered indiscriminately to every baby in the room as if there were no safety margins to observe for such strong therapeutic agents.
By the way, the problem is not UV radiation but the plainly visible blue-violet light at 435.8 nanometers which emits about 8 to 10 per cent of the lamp's total energy in most fluorescents, regardless what other wavelengths the phosphors in the lamp add to mask this strong blue.
To edlee: You will find a spectrum chart of a typical fluorescent lamp near the bottom of the left column on my page http://retinopathyofprematurity.org/01summary.htm. This one is from Sylvania, but all fluorescents from all makers have mostly those same spikes.
To DanH: If you read my posting you would see that I am not talking about UV which is mostly filtered out by the glass and the often added plastic diffusers. The very fact that you automatically jump to the conclusion the hazard must be from UV illustrates that the eye dangers from visible blue light are not as well known outside specialist circles.
To SamT: Thank you for your healthy scepticism towards the medical miracle workers, and also for having obviously researched the topic before posting. The study which found a correlation between bright light and baby-blinding was indeed criticised in the medical literature, but with a reversal of logic: the study had shown almost 19 chances out of 20 that the link was not random, but the critics complained that this did not completely reach the 5% clinical level of significance for proving therapeutic value, ignoring that these levels are irrelevant for safety investigations. What parent would knowingly leave their baby under lights that have 19 chances in 20 of blinding her?
To edlee: The mechanism for light-caused eye damage in preemies is different from the one I propose for older children. See my original posting which also says clearly that no studies have been performed to test this but that the circumstantial evidence seems enough to suggest prudent avoidance until the safety of those lamps has been studied and not just asserted. Would you stick your hand blindly into a rock crevice just because no one has so far proven that a nasty snake lives there?
To DanH: The relative significance of the spikes on the spectrum graphs depends on over how wide a range the individual data points on the graph are averaged. The sharp radiation spike at 435.8 nanometer is common to all fluorescent lamps, regardless how the curve is smoothed, and it emits typically between 8 and 10 per cent of the lamp's total energy, regardless how this strong color is masked with other wavelengths.
To grpphoto: Very cogent observation. I have not studied the spectra emitted by TV sets or computer monitors but I suspect that they could also be heavy in blue.
To Danno: You are correct that the medical community has long asserted the baby-blinding is caused by excess oxygen, but the one and only trial that asserted in 1955 such a connection was clearly rigged to obtain this result. See http://retinopathyofprematurity.org/01summary.htm for a discussion of the reasons behind this fraud.
To John D1: As I said earlier, the problem is not with UV light but with the visible blue-violet radiation in the range from 430 to 440 nanometers. I am familiar, also from another life, with the special quartz tubes around the lamps used to cure inks and paints with UV, and it was studying the safety aspects of that light to my factory workers which led me to discover also the much less known NIOSH warnings against the visible blue light. Those fluorescent lamps that disguise their color with phosphors inside the glass to look warmer still emit those high spikes. You need yellow coatings or filters outside the lamp to block the blue effectively.
To JourneymanCarpenterT: I agree that FHB has a lot of influence in the building industry, and that is why I posted my concerns here. Having seen as a longtime subscriber that its editors usually do their homework and present the facts without bias or embellishment, I trust that they will also investigate the potential dangers from the push towards CFLs and not just hop on the bandwagon, regardless how desirable and compelling those CFLs may seem at first sight.
I hope these comments clear up some misinterpretations and allow the discussion to proceed rationally, without instinctive but unsubstantiated cries of "bogus".
Respectfully submittedPeter Aleff
I know that blue light does not focus directly on the retina, but I don't know if it focuses in front or behind it. I had to work with flight sim projectors and had great difficulty aligning the blue guns because I could not see the blue sharply enough. I suppose if eyes focus blue in front of the retina there could be a very intense light point there that could be damaging to the eye.
Thank you.As I sit in my brilliantly lit Fluorescent Office, LOLSomething to think about.How bout too many hours at CRTs?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
If CRTs caused cataracts there would be a lot of blind computer programmers by now.
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
If CRTs caused cataracts there would be a lot of blind computer programmers by now.
Could you PLEASE use a little larger font when you type :-)
Time to switch to trifocals.
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
Time to switch to trifocals.
Ahem, maybe quadfocals? 'Course, it still won't help the cataracts. I keep telling the doctor I am too young for cataracts, but he keeps insisting they are there.
Just got my first trifocals, actually, and am having a heck of a time adjusting to them. I think I would have been better off with computer glasses.
And why the heck won't opticians LISTEN to you when you tell them where you want the line? I DON'T CARE where THEY think the line should be - I want it where I want it so I can SEE.
Sigh.
/rant
Edited 9/20/2007 4:03 pm ET by woodturner9
That just causes hairy palms.Rebuilding my home in Cypress, CA
Also a CRX fanatic!
If your hair looks funny, it's because God likes to scratch his nuts. You nut, you.
I said CRTs, not CRXs;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Peter, I'm convinced that televisions and computer monitors are both heavily blue. CRT's and flat panels alike. Just take a walk outside on a dark night and look at the light coming from your neighbors' windows as they watch the TV. Blue light, no matter the program.Bill
That's just because network TV's so depressing.
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
No, it shows how liberal they all are..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
OP is active in other arenas - http://www.recoveredscience.com/ROPTVUSAToday.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=221
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1D81E3CF93AA2575AC0A96F948260
http://www.checdocs.org/dr_riskfactors.htm
LIGHT LEVELSThe amount of ambient light reaching the premature eye may have an effect upon the development of ROP. There are some theoretical reasons to suspect that bright light may induce or worsen ROP. Many NICUs now cover their isolettes or cribs with blankets or have less intense lighting systems in an attempt to reduce the light exposure for their infants. This has been suggested as a possible way to lower the risk for ROP, and is presently the subject of a controlled clinical trial.There has been some controversy recently concerning light as a risk factor for retinopathy. PARADE magazine recently ran a "scare" article about the dangers of fluorescent lights for premature babies' eyes. Much of this controversy has been generated by H. Peter Aleff, the father of a child who is blind because of ROP. His "research" is summarized on a web page entitled Prevent Blindness in Premature Babies The information at this site sounds very scientific because of the numbers of articles from medical and scientific journals that are cited as references. However, many of these articles are misquoted or taken out of context, and very few of the conclusions that he draws are valid. Fluorescent light is certainly not the only or even the primary cause of ROP, since several other unrelated risk factors have been strongly associated with the disease. I also strongly disagree with Mr. Aleff's allegation that NICU nurses and doctors know that lights cause ROP but don't care enough about their patients to protect them. Hopefully, this fanatic and unscientific approach will not detract from the serious research being done in this area.
OTHER POTENTIAL RISK FACTORSMany other possible risk factors for the development of ROP have been postulated, including:
Elevated blood carbon dioxide levels
Anemia
Blood transfusions
Intraventricular hemorrhage
Respiratory distress syndrome
Chronic hypoxia in utero
Multiple spells of apnea or bradycardia
Mechanical ventilation
Seizures
These factors may have a direct effect on the risk of ROP, or they may simply be indicators of smaller, "sicker" infants who are more likely to develop many of the complications of prematurity, including retinopathy. More study will be needed to further delineate the actual independent risk potential for each of these factors.The incidence of ROP appears to be independent of whether the patient is male or female, and there is no difference in the incidence of ROP for the right eye versus the left eye. It also does not appear to matter whether the infant is a product of a single or multiple birth.
We have traditionally thought of ROP as a disorder caused by exposure of premature infants to noxious stimuli encountered after birth. However, we are learning that some of the factors that precipitate ROP are not within our control, and may occur before birth. Chronic hypoxia in utero and intrauterine growth retardation are two prenatal conditions that seem to be related to the development of ROP. Infants have been seen with full blown threshold ROP within a day or two after birth, implying that the retinopathy was already well under way prior to birth. It is suspected that as many as one third of cases of ROP are caused by prenatal rather than postnatal conditions.
Jeff
Edited 7/17/2008 8:26 am ET by Jeff_Clarke
I doubt it. Many pilots breath straight oxygen for 1000s of hours with no vision problems.George Patterson
But they breathe straight oxygen at reduced pressure.
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
At low altitudes, yes. They'll breathe straight oxygen at relatively high pressures at some altitudes (roughly 29,000 on up). Above 40,000', pressurized cockpits are the way to go.Anyway, military pilots have been doing this since about 1916, and for pretty long periods starting in the late 30s.George Patterson
At 30K feet air pressure is about 1/3 of sea level and the partial pressure of oxygen in the air is similarly reduced. Breathing more or less pure oxygen increases the partial pressure to about sea level.Besides, it's not clear that the effect of prolonged pure oxygen at SLP is a problem for adults -- may be just for infants. But it's well known.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/2/394
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
But they breathe straight oxygen at reduced pressure
Breathing mix while flying is probably a small worry. Aviators have been using a half-face mask most of that time anyway, so exposure to eyeballs is relatively low. For those above 55K, usual thing is to issue a full suit, since the partial pressure is too low to pass oxygen through the pleural lining. Not, the full suit rigs can be run using straight air (IIRC) and at around 10 psi.
Nah, anytime a body wants to find a flying-related health "risk," take a dosimeter with you on a commercial a/c . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Friends:
I can't begin to have an opinion on the OP's theory, except to say that it bears investigation. However, as one who has worked in conservation of items of paper and textiles, I can say for sure that fluorescents put out enough UV to fade and damage like sunlight. Careful libraries and museums use special tubes, or after market UV absorbing sleeves.
Joe
Yes, but don't they breath it through masks that only cover their mouths and noses? I think it is the direct exposure of oxygen on the eyeball that causes the trouble (not sure what it does, probably oxidizes the cornea or something).
I also know that ozone generators aren't too good for eyes and lungs. Lots of people tout them as cure-alls and use them to eliminate odors or kill germs, but they should be used with discretion--they also attack rubber and fabric.
While I am glad to be informed that this is a potential concern, I think you are going WAY overboard in DEMANDING that the editors of FHB backup their recommendations without doing the same for this poster and doing more back-up research on your own to be sure you are right.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"While I am glad to be informed that this is a potential concern, I think you are going WAY overboard in DEMANDING that the editors of FHB backup their recommendations without doing the same for this poster and doing more back-up research on your own to be sure you are right."
It was not my intention to demand anything. My words "I think," meant just that; I think. I posted my message in a "hit you over the head manner" to get peoples attention. I will take this opportunity to clarify that I meant no offense to the editors of FHB, and that I hold them in the highest regard.
Whether it's there intention or not, FHB has a lot of influence as to what is accepted as fact in the building industry. My comments regarding FH itself is simply meant to make the editors aware that this is a common issue on peoples minds (whether it be a legitimate one, or a prejudice), and that I think it's something someone who submits such an article should address. I know I would never think of submitting an article for publication without researching anything that could possibly be harmful to my audience. I would also never think of submitting an article for publication without providing information that would overcome any common prejudices to my recommendations.-T
Bogus. Malfunctioning mercury vapor warehouse style lights can cause eye damage (if the outer bulb is broken), but that's well known. The amount of UV required to cause eye damage is pretty well quantified and the amount of UV produced by fluorescent lamps is very well controlled. It's a non-issue.
Interestingly, though, fluorescent lighting is probably helping slightly to reduce the chronic vitamin D deficiency that most Americans suffer from.
This is also the first generation to grow up glued to television sets.
Although ordinary fluorescent bulbs tend to be in the blue range, their ultraviolet component is extremely limited. The tubes are made from ordinary (i.e. the cheapest) soda-lime glass available. This material lets very little UV through their glass. And, the UV that gets through is just barely beyond the blue spectrum.
(You CAN buy UV emitting fluorescents--called UV-A and UV-B among other things. I used them in another lifetime to test the effects of sunlight on polymers. But they are expensive and hard to find, at least at retail levels.)
There was a comment on DEFECTIVE mercury vapor lamps. Usually the defect is in the glass surrounding the lamp (broken). The high intensity of UV from these lamps is well known, and should have no effect upon the arguments about fluorescent lamps.
For those worried, filtered bulbs are already available. The warm colors have different phosphors that decrease the blue color. They are not universally used because they cost more.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH FLUORESCENTS with standard ballasts is flicker. It drives me nuts at times. Electronic ballasts, such as in CFL lights, operate at much higher frequencies, and flicker is virtually eliminated.
I really object to junk science. When that happens, we all lose. In many cases, the only reason for creating a new fear is so that the originator can maneuver themselves into a position of power .... which they will then maintain by creating additional panic, and quashing debate.
The entire case against fluorescent lights seems based upon three items:
1) The discovery of eye problems;
2) The coincident presence of fluorescent lighting alongside those with eye problems; and,
3) The assumption that all fluorescent lights are the same.
All any of that does is suggest that there MIGHT be a connection; much more research is required before a cause/effect can be established.
First of all, just because we discover something today does not mean it wasn't there before discovery. America was here before Columbus found it. As we live longer, and medical science progresses, all manner of 'new' ailments are discovered that were always present ... or would have been, had folks lived as long as they now live.
Secondly, fluorescent light exposure has been virtually universal for decades. I expect you could make a similar connection between the eye problems and, say, McDonalds.'
Finally, the fluorescent lights of today have virtually nothing in common with earlier models. Any conclusions based upon earlier models would probably not apply to current ones.
Admittedly, I haven't researched your musings exhaustively. I'm in the energy conservation industry that routinely touts the use of fluorescent technology as an energy saving strategy.
Your information is very interesting. My reaction (and not knowing a lot of the details), is that a possible missing component to this information is the affect of fluorescent lighting in practical applications and is the UV affected by e.g. light fixture design, lenses, etc. If like the sun, if the direct radiation hits something (e.g. the standard acrylic prismatic lens that is fairly common), then it is 'no longer an issue' ... that is ... it is no longer UV light.
The majority of fluorescent light applications, reasonably designed, tend NOT to expose your eye directly to the lamp ... that is, you typically are not looking directly at the lamp in the normal occupied mode. Offices and classrooms, by and large, your focus is rarely directly at the lamps. Parabolic style 'lenses' or reflectors are designed such that you really don't see the lamp unless you are directly under the fixture and look up. Even open lamp fixtures are often up out of the line of sight. The number of hours of exposure directly to the lamp (and the U-V radiation) is probably fairly small ... although I can think of a few situations where the exposure is longer.
I'm not a U-V expert, so these thoughts may not be entirely correct. It's definately worth the discussions and very interesting.
If it is the intent of your post to call into question the governmental mandating of particular types of technology ... I'll not disagree.
If you're intent on asserting that fluorescent lights will make us all blind, you're wrong. The "science" you rely upon is at least as incomplete as that used by the folks who still oppose the fluoridation -and even chlorination- of water, and insist the moon landing was faked.
The first major problem with the "research" is the difficulty in eliminating multiple possible factors (like TV watching), knowing an individuals' actual exposure, and correlating that exposure to the damage .... and, most importantly, the error in assuming all fluorescent lights are the same.
False logic might lead one to replace their warehouse fluorescents with the yellow 'HPS' lights ... something actually used in many warehouses. If you've ever been in one of those places, though, you'll quickly learn the true meaning of eyestrain. Safer? Not in my book.
Reno is about a mile above seal level; Lake Tahoe even higher. To put it in perspective, we get double the UV of someone on the coast, and those at "The Lake" get triple. Is this light hard on the eyes? You bet! Yet, I fail to see anything like the damage you suggest would be caused by the much lower levels generated by fluorescent lights.
Nor does the studies account for the UV that is blocked by the plastic diffusers on most fixtures. How do I know the diffusers are stopping the UV? Because they get brittle and yellow over time.