Home Page link

Eco-Grandstanding, Mercury Vapor, and Human Health

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 1 of 2       1 2 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Eco-Grandstanding, Mercury Vapor, and Human Health Michael Bulatovich 04-25-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on April 25, 2007, 10:32 am
In a minor political scandal, a Canadian federal 'environmental plan' speech
was leaked to the press yesterday before it was delivered. In it there is
the intention for Canada to follow Australia in banning incandescent light
bulbs for the sake of energy savings.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/206903

Funnily enough, in the last issue of Professional Lighting Design, the
editorial takes aim at the folly of the Australian move:

http://www.via-verlag.com/1465.0.html?&L=1

(Warning: written in German, then translated into English.....with limited
success.)

More significantly, the same issue of the magazine has a significant article
on the effects of mercury vapor lighting on human physiology which I noticed
because of my other research into this area because of my history with SAD
(treated last winter with Vitamin D with ***total*** success, BTW). From the
article, it turns out that vitamin D is one of the major players in human
photo-endocrinology, and is partly responsible for countering hormonal
stresses induced by some types of artificial light. Here's the abstract of
the article:

http://www.via-verlag.com/1471.0.html?&L=1

I have crudely scanned my copy of the full article and have made it
available online here:

http://www.michaelbulatovich.ca/ArtificialLightingAndHeatlth.pdf

The very visible gesture of banning incandescent light bulbs reminds of some
the other public relations gestures of the last "energy crisis", given the
other ways we now waste energy, like driving SUVs on the best roads in human
history. Rather than being merely foolish, it seems possible that it could
have uncalculated health effects. If we're lucky, as a sanguine Sigmund
Freud once said, "From error to error one discovers the entire truth."

--


MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca


(More info on vitamin D available here: http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/ )






Posted by Edgar on April 25, 2007, 12:31 pm
> In a minor political scandal, a Canadian federal 'environmental plan'
> speech was leaked to the press yesterday before it was delivered. In it
> there is the intention for Canada to follow Australia in banning
> incandescent light bulbs for the sake of energy savings.
>
> http://www.thestar.com/News/article/206903
>
> Funnily enough, in the last issue of Professional Lighting Design, the
> editorial takes aim at the folly of the Australian move:
>
> http://www.via-verlag.com/1465.0.html?&L=1
>
> (Warning: written in German, then translated into English.....with limited
> success.)
>
> More significantly, the same issue of the magazine has a significant
> article on the effects of mercury vapor lighting on human physiology which
> I noticed because of my other research into this area because of my
> history with SAD (treated last winter with Vitamin D with ***total***
> success, BTW). From the article, it turns out that vitamin D is one of the
> major players in human photo-endocrinology, and is partly responsible for
> countering hormonal stresses induced by some types of artificial light.
> Here's the abstract of the article:
>
> http://www.via-verlag.com/1471.0.html?&L=1
>
> I have crudely scanned my copy of the full article and have made it
> available online here:
>
> http://www.michaelbulatovich.ca/ArtificialLightingAndHeatlth.pdf
>
> The very visible gesture of banning incandescent light bulbs reminds of
> some the other public relations gestures of the last "energy crisis",
> given the other ways we now waste energy, like driving SUVs on the best
> roads in human history. Rather than being merely foolish, it seems
> possible that it could have uncalculated health effects. If we're lucky,
> as a sanguine Sigmund Freud once said, "From error to error one discovers
> the entire truth."
>
> --
>
>
> MichaelB
> www.michaelbulatovich.ca
>
>
> (More info on vitamin D available here: http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/ )


Interesting, my stupid web is down (yet I can email and use newsgroups, go
figure) so I'll check the links later. Do incandescent actually deliver
Vitamin D the way the sun does? I never realized but that might explain a
lot about how peoples health are affected by their workplace. Do you guys
remember a little while back there was all this stuff about air quality
inside of offices and how it was affecting health and stress levels. I
wondered if they ever considered this factor in those types of studies.

I for one am all for these new technologies, but with lots of research. I
like the idea of hybrids, but it still bothers me the amount of destruction
that is caused just getting the nickel to make their batteries (among other
components). I never really understood the technology and raw materials
that go into solar panels, another thing I would like to look into.

It's pretty crazy to think that the light bulb was a pretty amazing
invention that changed a lot of lives, and now it is going the way of the
dodo. Life goes on :).

--
Edgar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Posted by Kris Krieger on April 27, 2007, 3:06 pm

[ snip ]
>
> Interesting, my stupid web is down (yet I can email and use
> newsgroups, go figure) so I'll check the links later. Do incandescent
> actually deliver Vitamin D the way the sun does?

As I mentioned in another post, *IIRC*, it is the near-UV that stimulated
the skin to produce Vitamin D. Incandescents are red-shifted, fluorescents
tend to be blue-shifted (i.e., more near-UV).


> I never realized but
> that might explain a lot about how peoples health are affected by
> their workplace.

The problem with unshielded fluorescents is that they are harder on the
eyes. Something to do with the shorter wavelengths - I've forgotten the
details. OTOH, who hangs bare incandescents around? If one wouldn't use
bare incandescents, then it makes little sense to expect that bare
fluorescents are going to be easier on people's eyes. Those plastic sheets
with the little pyramid-shapes all over aren't any good, either. The full-
spectrum and the "warm whites" might be OK, but not the average ones.

But a simple sheet of beige-toned thin paper, even tissue paper, usually
makes an adequate filter that doesn't reduce the light much at all.


> Do you guys remember a little while back there was
> all this stuff about air quality inside of offices and how it was
> affecting health and stress levels. I wondered if they ever
> considered this factor in those types of studies.

The fumes from manufactured materials is a completely different issue from
lighting. The fumes will cause irritation of nmoist/mucous-membrane
tissues regardless of lighting, and bad lighting will cause eyestrain
redgardless of whether fumes are present or absent. Both have been
studied, of course - but that doesn't mean that budgets will put human
comfort at the top of the "important stuff" list. Of course it is stupid,
because miserable employees are inefficient employees, but that realization
takes a modicum of forethought, which is a rare commodity...


> I for one am all for these new technologies, but with lots of
> research. I like the idea of hybrids, but it still bothers me the
> amount of destruction that is caused just getting the nickel to make
> their batteries (among other components). I never really understood
> the technology and raw materials that go into solar panels, another
> thing I would like to look into.
>
> It's pretty crazy to think that the light bulb was a pretty amazing
> invention that changed a lot of lives, and now it is going the way of
> the dodo. Life goes on :).
>

Wrong, it is not going the way of the dodo, it is more liek the Galapagos
Finches - it's unlikely that there are any of th e"pure" ancestral finches
left, because the rigors of the habitats have forced the development of
specialized subspecies.

IOW, not extinction - evolution.

- Kris

Posted by Edgar on April 30, 2007, 2:06 pm
>
> [ snip ]
>>
>> Interesting, my stupid web is down (yet I can email and use
>> newsgroups, go figure) so I'll check the links later. Do incandescent
>> actually deliver Vitamin D the way the sun does?
>
> As I mentioned in another post, *IIRC*, it is the near-UV that stimulated
> the skin to produce Vitamin D. Incandescents are red-shifted,
> fluorescents
> tend to be blue-shifted (i.e., more near-UV).
>
>
>> I never realized but
>> that might explain a lot about how peoples health are affected by
>> their workplace.
>
> The problem with unshielded fluorescents is that they are harder on the
> eyes. Something to do with the shorter wavelengths - I've forgotten the
> details. OTOH, who hangs bare incandescents around? If one wouldn't use
> bare incandescents, then it makes little sense to expect that bare
> fluorescents are going to be easier on people's eyes. Those plastic
> sheets
> with the little pyramid-shapes all over aren't any good, either. The
> full-
> spectrum and the "warm whites" might be OK, but not the average ones.
>
> But a simple sheet of beige-toned thin paper, even tissue paper, usually
> makes an adequate filter that doesn't reduce the light much at all.
>
>
>> Do you guys remember a little while back there was
>> all this stuff about air quality inside of offices and how it was
>> affecting health and stress levels. I wondered if they ever
>> considered this factor in those types of studies.
>
> The fumes from manufactured materials is a completely different issue from
> lighting. The fumes will cause irritation of nmoist/mucous-membrane
> tissues regardless of lighting, and bad lighting will cause eyestrain
> redgardless of whether fumes are present or absent. Both have been
> studied, of course - but that doesn't mean that budgets will put human
> comfort at the top of the "important stuff" list. Of course it is stupid,
> because miserable employees are inefficient employees, but that
> realization
> takes a modicum of forethought, which is a rare commodity...
>
>
>> I for one am all for these new technologies, but with lots of
>> research. I like the idea of hybrids, but it still bothers me the
>> amount of destruction that is caused just getting the nickel to make
>> their batteries (among other components). I never really understood
>> the technology and raw materials that go into solar panels, another
>> thing I would like to look into.
>>
>> It's pretty crazy to think that the light bulb was a pretty amazing
>> invention that changed a lot of lives, and now it is going the way of
>> the dodo. Life goes on :).
>>
>
> Wrong, it is not going the way of the dodo, it is more liek the Galapagos
> Finches - it's unlikely that there are any of th e"pure" ancestral finches
> left, because the rigors of the habitats have forced the development of
> specialized subspecies.
>
> IOW, not extinction - evolution.
>
> - Kris

Yes of course...that's what I meant to say :).

--
Edgar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Posted by Kris Krieger on April 27, 2007, 2:37 pm

> In a minor political scandal, a Canadian federal 'environmental plan'
> speech was leaked to the press yesterday before it was delivered. In
> it there is the intention for Canada to follow Australia in banning
> incandescent light bulbs for the sake of energy savings.
>
> http://www.thestar.com/News/article/206903
>
> Funnily enough, in the last issue of Professional Lighting Design, the
> editorial takes aim at the folly of the Australian move:
>
> http://www.via-verlag.com/1465.0.html?&L=1
>
> (Warning: written in German, then translated into English.....with
> limited success.)
>
> More significantly, the same issue of the magazine has a significant
> article on the effects of mercury vapor lighting on human physiology
> which I noticed because of my other research into this area because of
> my history with SAD (treated last winter with Vitamin D with
> ***total*** success, BTW). From the article, it turns out that vitamin
> D is one of the major players in human photo-endocrinology, and is
> partly responsible for countering hormonal stresses induced by some
> types of artificial light. Here's the abstract of the article:
>
> http://www.via-verlag.com/1471.0.html?&L=1

Since it's not common for peoiple to use bare light bulbs, the use of a
lampshade (translucent and of an appropriate light neutral color, of
course) mitigates fluorescent lighting. Also, many fluorescents are
available in "warm" tones, and there are an increasing number of Full-
Spectrum lights available.

All in all, because of that, incandescents have no advantage that I know
of in terms of light quality. Also, IIRC, it's the near-UV components of
light which stimulate vitamin D production in humans (in the skin IIRC),
and incandescents are red-shifted. All of the SAD light-therapy units
I've researched use fluorescent bulbs, not incandescent.


The problem I see with fluorescents is proper disposal. Here, for
example, I'd hav eto use a gallon of gas (and that is in a relatively
fuel-efficient vehicle...) to get to and from the recycle center - and
that one doesn't even take gglass, so I'd have to go somewhere else to
drop the glass. It's hard enough to get people to rinse their cans and
separate papers from plastics, never mind have them divvy it all up and
then make a 30+ mile round trip to take it all to teh recycling center.
Meaning, that the bulbs, when they do burn out, all end up in landfill.

One of the first peoblems, then, is adequate recycling - IOW, as part of
the regular trash pick-up.



>
> I have crudely scanned my copy of the full article and have made it
> available online here:
>
> http://www.michaelbulatovich.ca/ArtificialLightingAndHeatlth.pdf
>
> The very visible gesture of banning incandescent light bulbs reminds
> of some the other public relations gestures of the last "energy
> crisis", given the other ways we now waste energy, like driving SUVs
> on the best roads in human history. Rather than being merely foolish,
> it seems possible that it could have uncalculated health effects. If
> we're lucky, as a sanguine Sigmund Freud once said, "From error to
> error one discovers the entire truth."

So what? Just because people drive oversized vehicles (because the
current administration trashed mileage standards and allowed reduced
safety standards), that means nobody is supposed to bother making any
other changes/inprovements? I don't understand the logic of that.

Been using CFLs exclusively for many years, BTW.

- Kris


Page 1 of 2       1 2 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Wall design and vapor barriers April 28, 2006, 2:21 pm
WALL DESIGN and vapor barrier April 28, 2006, 3:49 pm
The Earth As a House and The Scale of Human Activity February 2, 2007, 5:36 pm
The Earth As a House and The Scale of Human Activity February 2, 2007, 5:37 pm
"For some unaccountable reason we seem to be determined to vandalise these few remaining sites which retain the kind of human scale and timeless character that so attract people to them." February 6, 2008, 11:00 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap