Featured
Research
Featured
ResearchThe following articles were written by Dr. John N. Ott, and appeared in the International Journal of Biosocial Research, Special Subject Issue Volume 7, 1985. They provide an interesting window on the early discoveries and development of full spectrum lighting.
PLAIN COMMON SENSE VS. SCIENTIFIC THEORETICAL IRRATIONALITYThe trend in today's modern architecture is, to say the least, confusing. Does it really make any difference what kind of artificial lighting is used? More and more buildings are now either constructed with all outer walls made entirely of glass or no windows at all. Many school districts are walling up existing windows to conserve heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. This then means total dependence on artificial sources for light.
While glass itself stops most of the ultraviolet rays in sunlight, various types of coatings are available that are guaranteed to shut out virtually all the ultraviolet and also infrared parts of the full natural sunlight spectrum. This is because infrared produces excessive heat and because of all the talk about ultraviolet light causing skin cancer, cataracts, and being generally hazardous to one's health.
New eyeglasses are also now available to give absolute protection against the so-called harmful ultraviolet in natural outdoor sunlight or even any trace amount that may penetrate through ordinary glass windows or that may be emitted from artificial indoor electric light sources. Different tints or deeper colors are being used in both windows and eyeglasses, including contact lenses. Unfortunately, economics and the energy crunch have been the primary concern in trying to find the answer to these questions.
Some progress is being made, but what may actually turn out to be the most important question about windows and artificial light sources is the human health factor resulting from the wavelength characteristics of the materials used in making these products. To date, unfortunately, this approach to the subject of "healthy" windows and lights has been virtually ignored.One school of thought still held by many researchers is that light only affects the growth of plants and has no effect whatsoever on animals or humans. For example, the General Electric Company is certainly one of the major manufacturers in the world of light bulbs and synthetic glazing materials for windows. Their lighting research headquarters, located in Nela Park, Ohio, is regarded by lighting designers, architects, and engineers as one of the most authoritative, reliable, and up-to-date sources of information that there is on this subject. In one of the recent GE publications (received January, 1985), entitled Lighting Application Bulletin, it is stated:
To the best of our knowledge, the color of light does not affect the health and well-being of people. Most such claims are based on anecdotal observations, improperly controlled studies or on nonscientific conclusions. The radiant power from an electric light source is no different from the power from the sun. It differs only in the relative amounts of power at each wavelength. People may be happier in a room lighted with a warm color than with a cool color, or vice versa...
On the other hand, another school of thought believes that while too much ultraviolet, or in fact too much of anything including even pure oxygen or water, is definitely harmful, normal amounts of these forms of energy found in nature may be essential to the healthy growth and development of both plants and animals. In addition to all the new products designed to protect people from the so-called harmful effects of any trace amount of ultraviolet, come others that are designed to let through the natural ultraviolet in sunlight and add the normal amount of ultraviolet that is lacking in artificial light sources.
Whom is the average lay person to believe, and how can anybody make a decision in the face of this very controversial dilemma? It may be helpful to analyze the reasons and logic given by both sides of the argument in support of their directly opposing positions. Glaring headlines may influence people to jump to conclusions without reading all the details and small print in long scientific papers. For example, an article appeared in the March, 1982 issue of the American Journal of Ophthalmology entitled "Action Spectrum for Retinal Injury from Near-Ultraviolet Radiation in the Aphakic Monkey" by William T. Ham, Jr., Ph.D.; Harold A. Mueller; John J. Ruffolo, Jr., Ph.D.; Dupont Guerry, III, M.D.; and R. Kennon Guerry, M.D.
The article explains that all animals were first tranquilized with an intramuscular injection. The pupils were dilated wide open and an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital was used for deep anesthesia. Hypothermia was prevented by enveloping the animal in a thermal blanket controlled electronically by a rectal thermometer. A special device was used to keep the eyelids open and frequent applications of physiological saline prevented drying of the cornea. The entire radiation beam f rom a 2,500 watt xcnon lamp, equipped with quartz optics, was used. Xenon lamps are extremely intense sources of light containing high levels of ultraviolet radiation. Exposure times ranged up to 1,000 seconds, which is a little more than 16 minutes. The results produced irreparable damage to rod and cone photoreceptors.
Using the full beam of such an intense light source directly into the eye of an anesthetized animal with the eyelid secured open and the pupil fully dilated presents a totally abnormal and unrealistic condition and might be compared to somebody thrusting his hand directly into the fire of a furnace for a little more than 16 minutes and then jumping to the conclusion that we must live at absolute zero temperature if this procedure produced any blisters or burns on his fingers.
When it was found that giving a little extra oxygen to premature babies in their incubators in order to give them a better start in life caused blindness, brain tissue damage, deafness and other abnormalities, the practice of giving extra oxygen was discontinued. Fortunately, no one jumped to the conclusion that this proved oxygen is hazardous to one's health and that henceforth everyone must learn to live without any oxygen. This, of course, sounds utterly ridiculous, but nevertheless this is exactly what is being done with regard to ultraviolet light. There is no doubt that too much ultraviolet can be harmful, but in so completely protecting ourselves from any trace amounts of it we are creating a deficiency in a very important life-supporting energy.
Another example is that giving rats 300 times the normal amount of cyclamate may cause bladder cancer. However, similarly increasing the normal dosage of aspirin would amount to taking 600 tablets every 4 hours, and (to my knowledge) this has not as yet been officially tested, but quite obviously would prove to be hazardous to one's health.
Such obvious inconsistencies of present-day orthodox scientifically controlled medical research methods are hard to understand or explain, but the author of this book had a professional background in banking, based more on a common-sense or practical approach to such problems, and lacked the necessary training in understanding this kind of scientific theoretical irrationalness.
Now we will go to the other side of the story in support of healthy windows and artificial lights, and the importance of the full spectrum of natural sunlight and especially the normal amount of ultraviolet rays. It is a simple basic law of physics that all chemicals and minerals have what is known as a maximum wavelength absorption. Some medications are known to react to ultraviolet light and may cause severe side effects if the person taking them goes out into the sunlight. This is because they have a wavelength absorption in the ultraviolet. Accordingly, when prescribing these drugs for people working indoors in offices all day, it is common practice for doctors to advise their patients to stay out of the direct sunlight. It is then necessary to prescribe much higher doses of these drugs, especially for people working in offices up north during the winter time, in order to obtain normal responses when they are at best exposed to only a minimal amount of ultraviolet or even the possibility of absolutely no ultraviolet at all.
Recently, a friend of mine, who was quite elderly and hard of hearing, came down to Florida and did go out for a walk in the bright sunlight. He was taking several medications that apparently had a wavelength absorption in the ultraviolet, as he became dizzy, blacked out, and had to be taken to the hospital. Instead of telling him to stay out of the sunlight, his new doctor cut the dose of his medication way down and told him to go out and get some sunlight, but be careful not to get sunburned. This new approach to the old problem of the photo-toxic effects of certain drugs to sunlight worked very well on my friend, and I believe it was at least partially responsible for starting an interesting experiment with chickens.
"Money in the Bank" is a new, quite practical method of measuring research results being used in the poultry industry and is also of special interest to anyone with a background in banking. It seems to speak louder than all the papers published in the scientific literature. In days gone by, when chickens were kept outdoors, a laying hen was profitably productive for five years. Now, under the new "improved" indoor mechanized methods in poorly lighted windowless buildings, the hens only last for 13 months and then must be replaced at a cost of $125,000 per standard 50,000-bird house. However, when the latest type of radiation-shielded, full spectrum fixtures (now known as the “Ott-Lite”) was installed, the hens remained at peak production for 3 years. They were still going strong when there was an unusually severe outbreak of avian flu, and all the chickens in an area encompassing large parts of several eastern states were eradicated by the federal government.
Unfortunately, the chickens under the experimental lights were right in the heart of the avian flu area, and, even though they were showing unbelievable resistance to the flu, no exceptions to the general order of eradication were permitted, and this experiment had to be started over again.
However, in addition to the lighting extending the laying period of the hens from 13 months to 3 years and to their still going strong when the avian flu epidemic hit, data showed that, on an annual basis, the birds ate $19,700 less feed per 50,000 bird house; laid 8.5% more eggs, or $39,800 more in total sales; cracked 2% fewer eggs, saving $20,000; while laying larger eggs worth an additional $7,800. Add to this that the birds did not have to be debeaked, because there was no cannibalism, saving another $4,000 in labor, thereby making a grand total of $91,300 more profit to the farmer (in addition to the $125,000 savings in replacement costs). Another advantage with potentially far reaching implications is that the eggs produced under the radiation shielded, full spectrum fluorescent fixtures contained 22% less cholesterol.
There is one further comment I would like to add here. Recently, a person who underwent cataract surgery about six months prior to our meeting advised me that he had ultraviolet-transmitting plastic lenses implanted in both eyes. Prior to his surgery, his cholesterol level had been on the high side of normal, but now it is very much on the low side. He has not changed his diet or done anything else that he can think of that might have caused this significant drop in his cholesterol. I am well aware that this is only one isolated case, but nevertheless an interesting one, especially in view of the result of adding a little ultraviolet light in the chicken house. This individual advised me that he did wear sunglasses in the bright sunlight, but that he spent considerable time on a shaded screened porch without them.
Blue light is currently being used quite commonly in hospitals across the country and around the world to treat the jaundice problem known as hyperbilirubinernia in premature babies. Westinghouse Electric Corp. is now manufacturing a special blue light for this purpose. The bilirubin serum in the blood interacts with the particular wavelengths that we see as blue. This interaction breaks down the bilirubin serum so that it can be excreted. It is now known that the wavelength absorption of cholesterol is in the ultraviolet, and if chickens, or maybe even people, do not get any ultraviolet, then the cholesterol level builds up just like the bilirubin serum does.
GOCIO SCHOOL STUDY
The money in the bank speaks for itself, but the results or "anecdotal observations, improperly controlled studies or nonscientific conclusions", if you prefer to call them that, do tie in with a somewhat similar study done by the Environmental Health and Light Research Institute (EHLRI) with school children in Sarasota, Florida during the first five months of the 1973 school year and published in Academic Therapy. (Vol. 10(l), 1973).
Full-spectrum, radiation-shielded, fluorescent light fixtures were installed in two windowless classrooms, and in two other identical windowless classrooms standard cool white fluorescent fixtures were used as controls. The results showed that several extremely hyperactive children with confirmed learning disabilities calmed down completely and rapidly overcame their learning and reading problems while in the full-spectrum lighted environment (Plates I through 5). The overall average academic achievement level showed significant improvement, and a simultaneous study by the Sarasota County Dental Society showed that the children in the two rooms with the radiation-shielded, full-spectrum lighting, simulating natural outdoor daylight, developed only one-third the number of cavities in their teeth compared to the children under the standard cool white fluorescent lighting.
In1976 three representatives of the General Electric Company visited the school and made a detailed study of the two different lighting conditions. Soon thereafter, the Environmental Health and Light Research Institute (EHLRI) received a letter from the editor of the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, enclosing a copy of a paper entitled "Fluorescent Lighting: A P urportcd Source of Hyperactive Behavior," submitted by K. Daniel O'Leary and Alan Rosenbaum of the State University of New York, Stony Brook, and Philip C. Hughes of General Electric.
The editor of the Journal was so amazed at the methods used by the O'Leary-GE group to claim duplication of the EHLRI that he offered to let EHLRI submit a rebuttal, which he would forward to Dr. O'Leary and GE for their further comments. He also offered to submit their rebuttal to EHLRI for any additional comments. This was done, and all three papers were then published in the Vol. 6, No. 3, 1978 issue of the Journal. This was certainly very thoughtful of the editor and a very courteous and fair way to handle an interesting and unusual situation.
The definition of the word "purported" used in the title of the Stony Brook-GE paper is "to express or claim, often falsely." The Stony Brook-GE article states that "the results of this study fail to support the contention that full-spectrum lighting with controls for purported x-rays and low frequency electro-magnetic radiation results in a less hyperactive behavior than standard cool white fluorescent lighting." The O'Leary-GE article mentions their method of radiation shielding, which was not the same as that used in the Sarasota study; it mentions using seven children in one classroom with windows and with the shades pulled down to within 6" of the bottom of the window. This, of course, would let in considerable outdoor daylight right at the eye level of the children sitting at their desks. However, even though the outdoor light was filtered through glass, it would have a strong overriding effect on the interior artificial lighting.
A major concern about the different methods used in the two studies was that in the O'Leary-GE study the two types of lighting were changed back and forth every week in the one classroom with the same seven children, whereas the Sarasota study used a total of four windowless classrooms with the different types of lighting in two rooms each, continuously, with the same children (a total of 98 children) for five months. Even though the GE study ran for two months, it is difficult to understand how the accumulated effect of either type of lighting could be ascertained when the lighting conditions on the same children were switched back and forth every school week, which meant that no child remained under the same light for more than five days at a time. This seems to be another example of the difficulty of understanding modern scientific theoretical irrationalness, as previously mentioned.
EARLIER STUDIES WITH LABORATORY ANIMALS
Going back still further, the studies that led to the Sarasota school children project were done during the 1950s and 1960s and involved keeping laboratory animals under different colored fluorescent lights and natural outdoor daylight filtered through different types of glazing materials, with other laboratory animals kept under natural unfiltered daylight. A number of doctors at different medical institutions had learned of the experimental work with light that was being done at the Environmental Health and Light Research Institute (formerly Time Lapse Research Foundation) and offered their assistance. Carefully designed and controlled studies were undertaken at a number of top-ranking medical schools and research hospitals, including Bellevue Medical Center in New York City; The Ben May Laboratory for Cancer Research at the University of Chicago; Sherman Hospital, Elgin, Illinois; the Cancer Research Division of Evanston Hospital in Evanston, Illinois; and the Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia. All the results consistently showed that the laboratory animals under natural unfiltered daylight, or the closest to it (Plate 6), were much healthier and lived up to more than twice as long as those kept under pink fluorescent light (Plates 8 and 9) which consistently produced the poorest replts (Plate 7). A number of different kinds of animals were used including mice, rats, some hamsters, and rabbits.
At the Cancer Research Department of Bellevue Medical Center in New York City, a group of 15 humans was studied. However, when the word got around that 14 of the 15 were responding unbelievably well to the natural outdoor light, Dr. Jane Wright, who was head of the Cancer Research Department at Bellevue, advised that so much pressure was brought against her for using human beings in such a study that she could no longer continue it, and, most unfortunately, it had to be abruptly terminated. It was later discovered that the one person who did not respond had not fully understood the instructions and had stopped wearing deep colored sunglasses continuously, even indoors, but did wear regular glasses that would still block any ultraviolet light from entering the eyes. The instructions given to the 15 human "guinea pigs" did not include taking any drugs or modern chemotherapy, no radiation treatment or anything else, but only recommended avoiding artificial light and especially fluorescent or other types of gaseous discharge light bulbs or tubes, such as mercury vapor or high intensity discharge lamps. Sodium vapor was not yet in use at that time.
In addition to recommending that the 15 patients should not wear any sunglasses, tinted contact lenses, or any glasses that were not "full spectrum," letting the ultraviolet through, the instructions did recommend spending as much time as possible on an open screened porch or under the shade of a tree outside and building up gradually to sunbathing for one hour, thirty minutes on each side, in the full direct sunlight. No suntan lotion was to be used, but care should be taken about not getting sunburned.
The abrupt termination of the Bellevue study was disturbing to other doctors who had become interested in studying the effect of light on laboratory animals. Six of them agreed to collaborate in a combined study to be undertaken at the EHLRI, and all individually assistcd in preparing and signing a small grant application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to finance the study.
The six doctors included: Robert Alexander, M.D., Chief Pathologist, Presbyterian St. Lukes Hospital, Chicago; Samuel Lee Gabby, M.D., senior member of the staff and member of the research committee, Sherman Hospital, Elgin, Illinois; Elliot B. Hague, Ophthalmologist and chairman of the New York Academy of Sciences Conference on "Photo-Neuro-Endocrine Effects in Circadian Systems with Particular Reference to the Eye" (1964); Irving H. Leopold, M.D., Ophthalmologist, director of Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia; Frank J. Orland, D.D.S., director of the Walter G. Zoller Memorial Dental Clinic of the University of Chicago, the clinic that had previously experimentally shown a relationship between the amount of tooth decay and the type of light environment in laboratory animals (mentioned in Annals of Dentistry, Vol. 27, No. 1); and Edward F. Scanlon, M.D., director of the Tumor Research Committee of Evanston Hospital.
Dr. James Shannon, director of the Public Health Service of the NIH, was also interested in this project and personally offered some guidelines in preparing the grant application. Dr. Roscoe Spencer, who had recently retired as medical director of the United States Public Health Service where he had been in charge of cancer research, wrote a strong letter of recommendation to the new director of the National Cancer Institute(NCI), urging that favorable consideration be given to this particular grant application.
Approximately one month later, a letter was received by the EHLRI from the NCI, stating that "Our reviewers carefully examined your proposal to investigate biological responses to specific action spectra. They observed that no details of the experimental design are given; current literature on photobiology is casually mentioned and pilot experiments are referred to but not adequately described. Finally, this vague proposal gives no evidence of a basis in scientific fact or method." They further commented that "It is not known that the applicant has any specific background which would permit him to analyze physiological phenomena in a meaningful way, and that the six persons named as collaborators have impressive titles and affiliation, but nothing is offered in support of their competence to participate in the project."
Dr. Edward F. Scanlon, one of the six doctors previously mentioned, was a trustee of the EHLRI and also head of the Cancer Research Department of the Evanston Hospital. He also served as president of the American Cancer Society for the year 1981.
At about the same time that the grant application was being submitted to the NIH, Dr. Scanlon and his associates were doing quite an extensive study at the Evanston Hospital Cancer Research Laboratory in testing various anti-cancer drugs on their laboratory animals. Dr. Scanlon asked if the EHLRI would take some of the animals and keep them under different types of light, including the special area where they could be exposed to unfiltered natural daylight. This was done, and again the results showed a very significant difference in favor of the unfiltered natural daylight.With the unanimous approval of the entire research committee of the hospital, Dr. Scanlon wrote a report together with a request for a small research grant and forwarded it to the American Cancer Society. In due course, a reply was received quite severely criticizing Dr. Scanlon's application and ending with the following statement: "While there is every likelihood that exposure to different kinds of light will affect certain physiological response in the animals, they (sic) will only confuse the issue.
"Support of this proposal and project as presented is not justified on scientific grounds."
A Miami, Florida newspaper reporter called the NCI and asked why an application was so completely turned down when it had been signed by six such outstanding doctors at six leading cancer research institutions in the country, plus a personal letter from the recently retired medical director and head of Cancer Research at The United States Public Health Service so strongly recommending it. The reply was simply that nothing so unscientific goes on at the NCI.Shortly after both the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society grant applications had been turned down, former representative Paul Rogers of Florida arranged for this author, as Director of the EHLRI, to make a full presentation of all the results of the light studies pertaining to cancer research that had been done at the EHLRI, including the joint studies with the six doctors. This was done in the main auditorium at the NO headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland (1972), and approximately 75 to 100 of the top ranking research personnel attended.
The result was a complete blank until several years later when a letter was received from Colin F. Chignell, Ph.D., Chief, Laboratory of Environmental Biophysics, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, stating that he had attended this seminar and was very interested in what I had said about the effects of light on tumor development. He further explained that he had recently been transferred from the NCI in Bethesda to head up the Laboratory of Environmental Biophysics at the newly established National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences located in Research Triangle Park. He invited me to come there and make the same presentation to his entire staff, which I was very happy to do. Dr. Chignell soon invited me back again to assist in obtaining exactly the same lights and to set up the experiment exactly the same way it had been done at the EHLRI.
In due course, another letter was received from Dr. Chignell informing me that the final results of this study were in and that they showed decreases in cancerous cell proliferation and inhibition of tumor development in those laboratory animals placed under the radiation-shielded, full-spectrum lights, as compared to either the regular cool white or the "pink" (warm white) fluorescent lights.
Dr. Chignell's paper was published in the British Journal of Photochemistry and Pholobiology, Vol. 34, pp. 617-621, 1981. Another important paper was presented at the Fifth International Congress of Radiation Research, held at the University of Washington in Seattle, July 14-20, 1974. Abstract number A-10-3 is a paper entitled "Illumination and X-Ray Effects on Tumorigenesis in Rodents," by Drs. Kiki B. Hellman and C. David Lytle of the Bureau of Radiological Health, a division of the Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland.
Female weaning Osborne-Mendel rats were inoculated with an average of 5-10 x 105 cultured tumor cells; this resulted in 80-100 percent incidence of tumors by seven days after injection. This model was used to investigate the effects of light illumination or X-irradiation on tumor initiation and progression. The inoculated rats were exposed to a 12-hour cycle of overhead illumination from fluorescent lights that were filtered to provide broad wavelength bands of either red or blue light. Blue light illumination resulted in decreased tumor incidence that was not seen for either the control or red light illumination.
RECENT STUDIES OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
A provocative study appeared in the August 7, 1982 medical journal, The Lancet. Conducted by researchers at the Department of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, England, and the University of Sydney's Melanoma Clinic, Sydney Hospital, Sydney, Australia, an investigation was made into the incidence of skin cancers among Australians. Challenged was the theory that sunlight exposure was directly related to the incidence of malignant melanomas. Surprisingly, the researchers found that there was a much higher correlation between the incidence of malignant melanomas in the office workers than those occupationally and regularly exposed to sunlight! Understandably, the report provoked considerable consternation. Such findings break with long-standing traditional assumptions, such as that there is no threshold of safety, not even at the lowest levels, to ultraviolet light.
This initial report led to two separate studies at the New York University School of Medicine. The first study, in the University's Department of Environmental Medicine, supported by a grant from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), confirmed the report of the University of London and the University of Sydney. In a case-controlled epidemiological study of malignant melanoma, exposure to fluorescent light was associated with a relative risk to melanoma compared to those unexposed to such lighting. The NIOSH study was careful to control for age, gender, sun exposure to work and during recreation, ability to tan, tendency to sunburn, average lifetime latitude of residence, other malignancies, freckling, solar keratosis, weight, height, eye, hair, and skin color, and exposure to fluorescent lighting. Regression analysis of all these variables did not find any challenge to the Australian study. The second study in the University's Department of Dermatology found similar support to the Department of Environmental Medicine's report.
However, these findings have still left many confused. In a letter to the editor of The Lancet, Rigel and colleagues have dismissed the higher rate of malignant melanoma as possibly being due to the ultraviolet A (UVA, 320-400 nm) emitted by a standard fluorescent tube. They argued that the "UVA emitted from the fluorescent tubes was about 1/3000 of that of the autumn sun in New York." They further calculated that the total UVA exposure from fluorescent lights over an average working year of 2000 hours would only be equal to about 40 minutes of direct sun exposure. Rigel and colleagues therefore contended that the factor that put the indoor office workers at risk was not their fluorescent lighting exposure, but rather "their weekends and holidays at the beach, which gave them intense sun exposure to normally covered body sites." Yet this very possibility was considered in the New York University Medical School's study and was found without merit.
Even today all ultraviolet light exposure by humans is seen as a risk. For example, all the fluorescent tubes in the research laboratories, administrative offices, and all other areas of the Bureau of Radiological Health, Division of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are covered with a special ultraviolet filtering plastic sleeve. In addition, there is still the added protection from the standard ultraviolet absorbing plastic diffusers in every fluorescent fixture. In essence, these measures assure those working underneath that no trace amount of ultraviolet is emitted.
Yet the key point that is so often missed in these discussions is that there are two types of radiation that require shielding. This is far more important than the minute amount of ultraviolet being emitted from a standard fluorescent light. The new patented OttLitcs M fixture compensates for this by including these shields, while providing the desirable balanced spectra normally found in daylight.
For those interested in reading the above studies, here are the citations:
Beral, V., Evans, S., Shore, H., and Milton, G. Malignant melanoma and exposure to fluorescent light at work. Lancet, ii:290-292, 1982.Pasternak, B. S., Dubin, N., and Moscson, M. Malignant melanoma and exposure to fluorescent light at work. Lancet, i:704, 1983.
Rigel, D.S., Friedman, R.J., Levenstein, M., and Greenwald, D.I. Malignant melanoma and exposure to fluorescent lighting at work. Lancet, 004, 1983.
A similar recent complete break from another long-standing traditional assumption that ultraviolet light is the principal cause of cataracts appeared in the Corning Dispensing Information, No. 5, November 1984, which states:
Does solar UV cause cataracts? No! There are some individuals who believe sunlight may be a causal factor in the development of senile cataracts. Epidemiology, the science which attempts to relate cause for a biologic effect, does not bear this out. The results of Corning's study indicate there is no scientific evidence of association between sunlight and cataracts. In a recent letter, the Surgeon General of the United States expressed a similar opinion.
An example of the danger involved in classifying gross variations in data obtained merely as an exception is evident in an article entitled "Pterygium Among Veterans" (Archives of Ophthalmology, August 1963).
A high incidence of pterygium, an abnormal growth on the eye that impairs vision, was found in a group of veterans who had been stationed in the desert area of the southwestern part of the United States. It was first suggested that the dust and blowing sand in this area may have been a contributing factor. However, an equally high incidence of pterygiurn was found in servicemen returning from the high-rainfall areas of the South Pacific. It was concluded that the only factor common to both these areas was the high-intensity sunlight and ultraviolet light. The article then mentioned a major exception to these findings, a group of Cree Indians in northern Manitoba, Canada, who were found to have an unusually high rate of pterygium. However, at this latitude these Indians would definitely not be subjected to the high-intensity ultraviolet in tropical sunlight.
Accordingly, I personally investigated this situation and found this group of Cree Indians had been issued specially designed sunglasses, of the wrap-around kind, and trimmed with leather to prevent even the slightest bit of ultraviolet sunlight from reaching the eyes. These special sunglasses had been issued in connection with an earlier experiment designed to study problems of glare, etc. from the snow and ice. When the study was completed, these people were allowed to keep their sunglasses. Shortly thereafter, in checking a limited number of individuals who had developed pterygiurn while on military duty in the tropics, I found that all had constantly worn prescription sunglasses.
The article did not state whether any consideration was given to the wearing of sunglasses, which is almost universally done in the tropical areas; however, in view of the findings regarding the Cree Indians and the servicemen returning from the tropics who did wear sunglasses and developed pterygium, it would appear that the conclusions drawn--that the ultraviolet in sunlight is a causative factor of pterygium--cannot be justified.
The July, 1971 issue of Annals of Ophthalmology carried an editorial, "Light: A Double-Edged Sword," which noted the work of Drs. Noell and Albrecht at the Neurosensory Laboratory of the State University of New York at Buffalo. Quoting from the April 2, 1971 issue of Science, it states:
Exposure to normal light may result in deterioration of the visual cells and degenerative changes in the underlying pigmented epithelium... in from 7 to 10 days' exposure to continuous light of 110 lux intensity from ordinary light bulbs.
The June, 1974 issue of Investigative Ophthalmology contained an article entitled "Ncar-Ultraviolet Light Effects on the Lenses and Retinas of Mice," by Drs. Seymour Zigman and Thurma Vaughan, Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology) and Animal Medicine, The University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry:
Exposure of albino mice to ncar-ultraviolet (black) light for 12 hours a day over a period of 90 weeks led to pathologic changes in the lens and retina... Opacities were observed from 50 weeks on. In the retina, outer segment thinning was first noted after 10 weeks....
In the August, 1970 issue of the Journal of Pediatrics (77(2): 221-227), appears an article entitled "Retinal Changes Produced by Phototherapy." The authors are Thomas R. C. Sisson,M.D.; Stanley C. Glauser, M.D., Ph.D.; and Elinor M. Glauser, M.D., from the Departments of Pediatrics, Pharmacology, and Ophthalmology, Temple University School of Medicine, and Howe Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Harvard University Medical School, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. The study was supported in part by three separate grants from the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
In order to determine if retinal damage occurs during phototherapy of the newborn infant, twelve newborn piglet litter mates were continuously exposed for 72 hours to a bank of 10 high intensity blue 20-watt fluorescent lights at a distance of 46 cm (18 inches). The light intensity at this distance was 300 foot candles. A Plexiglas shield .5 inch think was used to filter all wavelengths below 390 mm, that is, all or any ultraviolet that might be emitted from the blue fluorescent tubes.
The right eye of each piglet was dilated daily with atropine, 0.5%, and the left eye was covered with a patch so that 99.5% or better of the light was blocked. Histological observation revealed retinal damage in all the right eyes dilated with atropine and exposed to intense blue light. One piglet lost its eye patch for a period of less than twelve hours during the second day of the experiment and was later found to be clinically blind in both eyes. Except for the piglet that lost its eye patch, no retinal damage was reported in the protected left eyes of the other five experimental piglets. The control piglets were kept in the usual low level illumination of the animal colony and with a diurnal rhythm of 8 hours of light and 16 hours of darkness. Histological observations revealed well developed retinas in all the control animals.
However, a study of the complete article reveals additional data. The authors indicate that if a green filter is used over a light source of 1500 lux, severe retinal damage results in 40 hours. At the end of the article, it is stated that the information now available on the indicated harmful effects of ordinary visible light is already being put to use therapeutically in cases of hereditary retinitis pigmentosa. By completely excluding light with an opaque flush-fitting scleral contact lens in one eye (in order to preserve one retina), it is hoped to double the patient's visual lifetime. However, before starting any such "protective" therapy, I suggest reading the paper by Chow, K.L., Riesen, A.H., and Newell, R.W., "Degeneration of Retinal Ganglion Cells in Infant Chimpanzees Reared in Darkness," in the Journal of Comparative Neurology (107:27-42, 1957).
The above articles indicate how common the practice is in orthodox ophthalmological scientific research to use high intensities
of light for long periods of time on laboratory animals with their eyelids secured open and their pupils fully dilated in order to show damaging results.
The following sequence of pictures shows how important all the wavelengths in full-spectrum light are in both the process of photosynthesis in plants and metabolism, or the process of biological combustion, in animals.When both filters are removed so that the cells again receive the full spectrum of light, and especially the normal amount of ultraviolet wavelengths, then all the chloroplasts resume their normal streaming pattern to both ends of each cell. These pictures clearly show that different chloroplasts have different wavelength absorption bands and that the full light spectrum is essential in order to produce a complete process of photosynthesis.
The process of photosynthesis is very complicated, and all the finer details as to just how it works are not yet fully understood, but in general it is described as being a process of the conversion of light energy into chemical energy. It therefore seems obvious that if the characteristics of the source of energy are altered, the end results or the chemistry of the cell will also be altered.The seasonal changes in the length of daylight and darkness are known to control many biological responses in both plants and animals. The different biological responses of plants and animals to changes in both the wavelength characteristics or color of light and the seasonal variations in the length of daylight and darkness is what my three previous books* are mostly all about, so it would be impractical to try to include everything at this time.
*My Ivory Cellar, Chicago: Twentieth Century Press, 1958.
Health and Light, Old Greenwich, Connecticut: The Devin-Adair Company, 1982; paperback edition with updating chapter, New York: Pockct Books, 1976.Light, Radiation and You, Old Greenwich, Connecticut, The Devin-Adair Company, 1982; paperback edition with updating chapter, Old Greenwich, Connecticut: The Devin-Adair Company, 1985.
However, I will briefly mention one of the more unusual problems I encountered in trying to make certain flowers dance to the faster beat of Dixieland music instead of the slower rhythm of a Strauss waltz. Trying to speed up the normal day and night responses of the flowers to artificially controlled two-hour periods of light and darkness just would not work. I also discovered that some of the nighttime or dark period responses of the plants were not just to the absence of daylight but actually a positive response to some kind of natural nighttime radiation which the human eye does not see.
Such nonsense as making Tiger Lilies dance to the Dixieland rhythm of "Tiger Rag" and Primroses to a Strauss waltz may not be the most scientific approach to the subject of the periodicity of the solar light-dark circadian cycle on biological reactions, but, together with the chloroplast pictures (Plates 10 - 12), they did lead to a more controlled research project involving the human eye. This project was started in 1961 working with the research people from the Wills Eye Hospital and Research Institute located in Philadelphia.
At that time, it had become generally known to opthalmologists that some of the new tranquilizer drugs that were being introduced on the market were causing various side effects in a layer of cells located right behind the rods and cones of the retina. These cells are known as pigment epithelial cells, but very little was known as to what their function was in the eye. However, the opthalmologists were quite certain they had nothing to do with vision.
I was asked to do a time-lapse microscopic study of the effects of adding some of the different drugs used in the tranquilizers into the growth media for the pigment epithelial cells while the time-lapse pictures were being taken. It was hoped to learn more about just what was causing the abnormal side effects of the tranquilizers.
To take these pictures, I used a new type of phase-contrast microscope that showed up the details of the cell structure without having to stain them with various dyes, as was a customary procedure with the ordinary standard type of microscope. The dye used to stain the cells to increase the contrast of the pictures would also kill the cells, so the new type phase-contrast microscope that would produce the added contrast to the picture in order to better see the inner structure of the cells without killing them was a tremendous advantage in studying the effects of the drugs on the pigment epithelial cells while they continued to grow and react.
The mechanics of this phase contrast microscope are such that you get the greatest contrast and sharpest image through it by using what is called a monochromatic light, or more simply described as a light of a single color. To obtain this, a set of different colored filters is supplied with the microscope so that, with a little experimenting, the right one can easily be selected that gives the greatest contrast with any particular subject being photographed.
To the amazement of everyone interested in this project, the resulting pictures showed very clearly that the color of the filter used in the light source of the microscope in many cases produced a greater abnormal result or side effect in the pigment epithelial cells
PLATE 13 Without any ultraviolet light, the pigment granules in the cell
become sluggish and clump together. The process of mitosis stops and the cell tissue just seems to show signs of accelerated degeneration.
PLATE 14 Again, just like the chloroplasts in the cells of Elodca grass, when the ultraviolet filter is removed and the cells receive the f ull-spectrurn light, the clumping of the pigment granules breaks up and the cells resume the normal process of mitosis.
PLATE 15 - Too much ultraviolet will cause the cell to literally burst like too m u ch air pressure will cause a bicycle or automobile tire to blow out. But that does not mean air is basically hazardous to all tires and that you would get more mileage by running on them flat.
than the drugs being tested (Plate 13). These pictures also further indicated the need for full-spectrum light containing all of the visible wavelengths, plus the normal proportionate amount of ultraviolet (Plate 14).
Clumping of the red blood cells in the vascular system has long been considered a major problem by many scientists. Such clumping blocks the flow of blood to the very small capillaries where oxygen and nutritive material in the blood pass into the body tissues, and carbon dioxide and waste matter are absorbed into the bloodstream (Plates 16 and 17).
The sole Function of the larger arteries and veins is to transport the blood to the capillaries. Lack of the normal blood supply is thought to be a major contributing cause of many degenerative diseases associated with old age, including senility and Alzheimer's disease. Various medications to thin the blood and diet are the usual remedies.
More recently, however, some doctors are recognizing the electric potential and magnetic polarity in living cells that goes back to the Yin-Yang theory of ancient China, and they are trying to break any such electrical attraction between cells with medication to control their pH.
Another comparatively new field of study involves the effects of negative and positive ions and their effects on human health and general well being: physical, psychological and emotional. A quick glance into any encyclopedia will show that the subject of ions and ionization is very complicated, but, in general, too high a level of positive ions in the air causes a person to feel depressed, fatigued, irritable, and generally upset. More negative ions produce the opposite effect and make a person feel invigorated, enlivened, and happier. However, from my own personal experience in working with negative ion generators, I firmly believe that too high a ratio of negative ions is not good, either.
A number of different models of negative ion generators are now readily available on the market for use in homes, offices, work or recreational areas. They are also recommended for clearing the air of smoke and other pollutants. They do this by giving off negatively charged ions that attach themselves to the particles of pollutants in the air and give them an overall negative charge. These particles are then attracted to a positively charged grid in the negative ion generator device, where they accumulate to the extent that they must be periodically cleaned away.
Now, in order to tie several threads of thought together, if you think of the particles of pollutants being attracted to the grid in the ion generator as clumping together, as this is what they are really doing, then this might explain the general problem of clumping with regard to the chloroplasts, pigment granules, and red blood cells.
Albright advises that recent studies done at the Environmental Systems, Inc. with a new highly sophisticated ion counter manufactured in Germany have indicated that the ion count from such electronic devices as TV sets, video display terminals, and unshielded fluorescent tubes is extremely high on the positive side, around 900-1000 positive, and virtually no negative.
Ultraviolet light is one of the best producers of negative ions, and Albright further advises that where the radiation-shielded, full-spectrum (with a little added ultraviolet) Ott-Lite have been installed, the ion balance equals out at about 450 positive and 450 negative, which is considered ideal. People who had been working with VDTs in the areas where the new lighting has been installed and who had been complaining about all the health problems: eye strain, headache, fatigue, as well as more serious things associated particularly with VDTs, now say all their problems seem to have vanished into thin air. Preliminary figures do show definite substantial increases in work production and less absenteeism. Sounds too good to be true, but time will tell.
In addition to the usual blood chemistry tests done in the past, some doctors are now examining the blood's physical appearance using dark field microscopy (Livcell Analysis). Dr. James H. Martin of Sarasota is utilizing this technique, and we have been working together to produce the results as shown in Plates 16 and 17.It all does seem to tie in with the results of the light studies on the pumpkin plants, tropical fish, chinchillas, the fifteen people at Bellevue Medical Center, all the studies with laboratory animals, the Sarasota school children, chickens, and now, also, turkeys, hogs, and dairy cattle.
The normal, slight lowering of the body temperature during the dark nighttime period and the rise during the daytime are also very important in stimulating the process of mitosis. For further information on the importance of variations in temperature on the growth of both plants and animals, see Chapters Five and Six in My Ivory Cellar.
In addition to the malignant melanoma articles published in The Lancet, there have been other articles in various journals specif ically relating mutagenicity and malignant transformation in tissue culture studies to fluorescent light. The following titles are listed as examples:"Mutagenicity and Toxicity of Visible Fluorescent Light to Cultured Mammalian Cells," Matthews 0. Bradley (National Cancer Institute) 3rid Nancy A. Sharkey, Nature, Vol. 266, 21 April 1977, pp. 274-726.
"Fluorescent Light Induces Malignant Transformation in Mouse Embryo Cell Cultures," Ann R. Kennedy (Harvard School of Public Health), Science, Vol. 207, 14 March 1980, pp. 1209-1211,
"Genetic Damage in Eschcrichia coli K12 AB2480 by Broad-Spectrum Near Ultraviolet Radiation," Robert B. Webb (Argonne National Laboratory) Science, Vol. 215, 19 February 1982, pp. 991-993.
"Toxicity and Mutagenicity of Radiation from Fluorescent Lamps and a Sunlamp in L5178Y Mouse Lymphoma Cells," Elizabeth D. Jacobson (Bureau of Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration), Mutation Research, 51 (1979), 61-75.
These articles list numerous other references to similar results obtained by other researchers using fluorescent lights. As a pretty general rule, all of the abnormal biological responses attributed to fluorescent lights are blamed on that "theoretical" trace amount of ultraviolet light that seems to be more or less assumed to come from all fluorescent tubes.
All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or by any means, without written permission from the author.
HOME
INDEX
Copyright 1999 by Patrick Thrush
