Fluorescent lighting and its contribution to: Cancer, depression and learning disabilities

By: Aurore Adamkiewicz ND 

     It’s official, Canada is now in the process of phasing out incandescent lighting and switching over to compact fluorescent lighting in favor of the Kyoto Protocol.  The United States is presently considering following in Canada’s footsteps.  Sounds like just the promising “Green” change that environmentalists were looking for.  Indeed, many are rejoicing over these compact glass gadgets that have been hailed as money/energy earth savers.  Why is the fact that CFL’s are filled with mercury, emit microwaves, are labeled a biohazard, and let off a strong and dangerous electromagnetic field being virtually ignored or downplayed in almost every article touting its “benefits”?  With these serious health implications to consider, it is worth it for us as a society to take a deeper look at the CFL phenomena and what its potential impact will be on the human race. Let us not forget what the impact that nuclear energy has already left on our entire world.  This was also once esteemed as a monetary and environmental breakthrough by many of the same people who are pushing the fluorescent lighting agenda today.

     I would first like to explain why this subject interests me so and why I am taking this potential risk to our health so seriously.  I am a naturopath doctor that practices sound and color therapy.  Color therapy, also known as chromatherapy, is the practice of applying color to certain parts of the body using a light bulb and colored filters to balance, rejuvenate, and heal the human body and organs. 

While this sounds like a simple and cost effective therapy (and it is), let me assure you that color and sound therapy is a science based on the effect of sound waves and frequencies and their effects on the human body.  In order for a chromatherapist to effectively treat the human body they have to rely on the most perfect light source to deliver the color.  Obviously, the most perfect source would be the sun itself, (yes, the sun, you know that big bright ball in the sky that has accumulated so many enemies these days?).  You maybe thinking about now that I am going to tell you that I use a full spectrum light, LED’s, or a halogen…think again.

     Non-frosted, clear, incandescent bulbs, hands down, have the best and closest spectrum to natural sunlight.  Does that surprise you?  This is probably because you have been lied to for so long about the benefits of “full-spectrum” lighting.  A full-spectrum light or “Ott-light” is a bulb that has had the color yellow completely removed from its spectrum (Dinshah, 2005).  Taking out the yellow makes everything appear more clear and crisp, however, the fact that the color blue is completely missing is creates a potential imbalance to the human body. A regular non frosted incandescent bulb has a larger amount of yellow than natural sunlight; however it has a complete spectrum and is not missing any colors. Even with my rejection of the Ott light and the full spectrum light, do not think that I disregard the work of John Ott the founder of full spectrum lighting.  To the contrary, Dr. Ott’s research on the dangers of fluorescent lighting on the human body and environment is a powerful voice of dissent among the hypnotized masses.  His pioneering research 25 years ago on the biological effects of light sources on the human body is as relevant today as ever. 

     We no longer need to rely solely on Ott’s work for information about the dangers of Fluorescent lighting.  Robert Brennan from the New York Megaphone recently wrote an article calling for the removal of fluorescent lighting from public work places, schools and businesses.  Brennan states that fluorescent lighting causes mental and physical illness and poses risks to people who live and work under the lights all day long (Brennan, 2007).  Citing revolutionary research from such highly regarded scientists and researchers as Dr. Richard Stevens an epidemiologist from the University of Connecticut medical center and Laurence Martel Ph.D president of the National Academy of integrated learning, Brennan makes an irrefutable case against the “environmentally un-friendly” fluorescent lighting.  Fluorescent lighting has been linked to problematic modern day illnesses plaguing our society today, such as: depression, leukemia, melanoma, anxiety, tooth decay, sleep disorders, headaches, SAD, and aggressive behavior.  New studies have now proven that people who worked outdoors in the sun all day had the lowest amounts of skin cancer while office workers who worked under fluorescent lights all day had the highest (Cousens, 2000). 
Protecting Our Children from the Fluorescent Fall Out

     While shopping at Home Depot several weeks ago, I noticed a man knock down a stand of at least 15 fluorescent lights.  The crash was so loud it startled me and when I turned around to see what fell I immediately sought out my children to keep them away from the biohazard “spill”.   I witnessed in the midst of the chaos several employees running over to pick up parts of the glass with bare hands, I also saw another employee merely “sweeping” it up into a dustpan.  Customers, oblivious to the mercury and carcinogenic danger, simply stepped over and onto the debris.

     I already knew about the perils of the fluorescent clean up protocol, having just read about the plight of a woman from Prospect, Maine named Brandy Bridges who had a fluorescent bulb break in her child’s bedroom.  Ms. Bridges contacted Home Depot, the store who sold her the bulb, and the store warned her not to simply vacuum up the broken bulb but to call poison control.  What ensued in the following months was a dangerous fiascal which falls short of a home based reality show called “Biohazard Survivors”.  She was instructed to completely seal off her child’s bedroom after the room tested above safe levels for mercury and hire a company that cleans up mercury spills for no less than $2,000!  She also found out that her home insurance would not pay for such a service (Farah, 2007).  This leads me to ask a personal question to fellow American’s everywhere.  How many people do you know return burnt out CFL’s to the store for disposal?  How many people do you know have cleaned up fluorescent bulbs with their bare hands and a vacuum cleaner, completely oblivious to the dangers?

     At the Home Depot store I was shocked by what I had witnessed.  Furthermore, I imagined children running over to that same area and touching and playing on the ground where the spill occurred.  I went to two different managers and received a different answer from each one.  The first, manager told me that there was no danger as the dangerous chemicals simply “evaporate” into the air upon breaking.  The second manager explained the protocol that Home Depot takes such as; using HAZMAT, OSHA, and EPA guidelines when cleaning up.  This involves;  reporting the spill, wearing special gloves and disposing them with the broken CFL’s, spraying a special solution, and sealing off the area from customers until the clean-up was over.  He seemed disappointed by his employees disregard for biohazard protocol but was not immediately alarmed either.  This led me to write a certified letter to Francis Blake the CEO of Home Depot, which I hope will make an impact but I have recently learned by reading his bio on the Home Depot webpage that he used to be apart of the environmental protection agency.   I now believe because of the marriage between CFL’s, special interest, and government agencies, that it is up to the American populace to educate themselves and protect their families from this potential environmental catastrophe.    

     The fact that Germany has already restricted the use of fluorescent lighting in public places and has banned fluorescent lights in hospitals shows us that this issue is too great to be shrugged off and ignored (Brennan).  We should follow Germany’s path instead of Canada’s in regards to lighting and start as a country looking at more relevant and pressing issues that are beckoning for our attention.  Clean water and the effects of fluoride, pesticides and insecticides on our health and water table is something that is spiraling out of control and needs to be taken seriously.  While climate change has been apart of life on earth for millions of years, the utter and complete destruction of our environment through man made chemicals has not.  Let us work together to keep our environmental priorities and not get caught up in special interest hype.  If you want to go “green” and still stay healthy then use LEDs and not fluorescents.
References:
Dinshah, Darius, (2005). Let there be light.

       Malaga: Dinshah Health Society
Brennan, Robert, (2007). Cited, Fluorescent light ain’t right.

       The New York Megaphone: New York City.

        Reprinted: James DeMeo’s OBRL Bulletin

Cousens, Gabriel, (2000). Conscious eating.

     Berkley: North Atlantic Books. * See additional research below
(Arch Environmental Health, 1990;45:261-267)

A US Navy study found that the most malignant melanoma was found not in people who worked in the sun, but with people who worked indoors under artificial light.
(Lancet, 8/7/82, 290-293)

A study published in The Lancet found that it was not sunlight that caused melanoma but rather fluorescent light that caused more than twice the melanoma risk. 
Farah, Joseph, (2007). Cited, Consumers in dark over new bulbs.

     www.worldnetdaily.com

http://tinyurl.com/6ytjts