Why turning off the lights is a waste of your time

[Nusa]

You can’t point to a wall of references.

Sure he can, and he did. A legitimate published academic paper is going to have a wall of references to support their claims. A serious academic student at a school like Berkeley would know that, since citations would be required in their own research papers.

[nth_degree]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/
Which leads on to the full article, here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/pdf/EHP-117-a20.pdf

Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution
Ron Chepesiuk
Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Jan; 117(1): A20–A27. doi: 10.1289/ehp.117-a20
PMCID: PMC2627884

^^ Guys you're killing me here. This isn't a study - it presents no evidence that light is unhealthy and there are no samples and there is no rigor. It's another opinion piece that wildly speculates theories based on the results of other studies which don't even mention light. And anyone with basic common sense will see it fall apart under the most shallow of analysis. Just look at this;

In a study published in
the 17 October 2001 Journal of the National Cancer
Institute, Harvard University epidemiologist Eva S.
Schernhammer and colleagues from Brigham
and Women’s Hospital in
Boston used data from the
1988 Nurses’ Health Study
(NHS), which surveyed 121,701 registered
female nurses on a range of health issues.
Schernhammer and her colleagues found an
association between breast cancer and shift
work that was restricted to women who had
worked 30 or more years on rotating night
shifts (0.5% of the study population).
In another study of the NHS cohort,
Schernhammer and colleagues also found
elevated breast cancer risk associated with
rotating night shift work. Discussing this
finding in the January 2006 issue of Epidemiology,
they wrote that shift work was associated with only a modest increased breast
cancer risk among the women studied. The
researchers further wrote, however, that their
study’s findings “in combination with the
results of earlier work, reduce the likelihood
that this association is due solely to chance.”
Schernhammer and her colleagues have
also used their NHS cohort to investigate
the connection between artificial light, night
work, and colorectal cancer. In the 4 June
2003 issue of the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute, they reported that nurses who worked night shifts at least 3 times
a month for 15 years or more had a 35%
increased risk of colorectal cancer. This is the
first significant evidence so far linking night
work and colorectal cancer, so it’s too early
to draw conclusions about a causal association. “There is even less evidence about colorectal cancer and the larger subject of light
pollution,” explains Stevens. “That does not
mean there is no effect, but rather, there is
not enough evidence to render a verdict at
this time.”
The research on the shift work/cancer
relationship is not conclusive, but it was
enough for the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify shift
work as a probable human carcinogen in
2007. “The IARC didn’t definitely call night
shift work a carcinogen,” Brainard says. “It’s
still too soon to go there, but there is enough
evidence to raise the flag

---- In their own words, they're guessing, that maybe, there's a link between artificial light exposure in shift work that increases the risk of breast and colorectal cancer. Rampant speculation! you can't call that science. You know what maybe 30 years of night shifts in the cold, propped up on cheap black coffee when the only food option is KFC, and the low income that night workers get and all the factors that come from low income living caused those cancers? Night shifts may well be carcinogenic but don't blame the light bulbs. And if you do, back it up with data. And that's very difficult sure, but that doesn't make it Ok to take speculation and present it as fact. Especially when that 'fact' is aimed at affecting policy. Even more so when that new policy benefits you and leaves all the future members of stotfl.org miserable in the dark.

[KaneTW]

The linked article is not a peer reviewed paper. It's a journalistic article by a single author.

Pretty sure the entire piece can be summarized as "some evidence exists that there's a link between light and human health" and everything else is just correlations or hypotheses.

[MK14]

^^ Guys you're killing me here. This isn't a study - it presents no evidence that light is unhealthy and there are no samples and there is no rigor. It's another opinion piece that wildly speculates theories based on the results of other studies which don't even mention light. And anyone with basic common sense will see it fall apart under the most shallow of analysis. Just look at this;

There are problems, comparing medical science things, with engineering things.

Let's say, we wanted to know, how damaging 100,000 hours of LED light, is to LEDs themselves, and humans.

We could take an appropriate number of LEDs (maybe 500 of them), wire them up in a scientific/engineering experiment, and use techniques which speed up the life testing (such as higher temperatures, compared with normal). Then see if the LEDs survive 100,000 hours (equivalent), accelerated life testing. Hence make scientific research papers, largely based on experimental facts.

But with human studies, we are considerably more limited, as to how we can perform such tests. As they are usually NOT permitted to harm the humans, and accelerating the results of those 100,000 hours (more than 10 years!), would also be tricky, on humans.

So, actual 'facts' on humans, can be rather hard to come by. Also, LED lighting, has been a fairly recent occurrence (as regards the bulk of the population). So we haven't had that much time, to perform such studies.

Also, what one considers as the definition of 'harm' to humans, would probably very significantly affect the results of such studies. For example, does 'harm' mean, changes to sleep cycles, quality of life, alteration of usual habits, etc.

[KaneTW]

Some googling found me a literature review at DOI 10.3109/07420528.2015.1073158.

The majority of the data indicates a weak correlation or no impact of light pollution. Strong correlations can be seen with things like exposing people to different colors or temperatures of light, but that's a well-known effect.

You're welcome to analyze it in more detail, but at least for me it doesn't seem like there's anything to worry about at this stage.

E:

Also, what one considers as the definition of 'harm' to humans, would probably very significantly affect the results of such studies. For example, does 'harm' mean, changes to sleep cycles, quality of life, alteration of usual habits, etc.

Exactly. Harm isn't well-defined, and on top of that causation /= correlation so it's extra hard to pinpoint the cause.

Overall, a strong statement such as "There are plenty of evidence of the damage on human health and wild life caused by artificial light. That should be off as long as possible." is not something I can agree on until significant amounts of further research are done. In fact, there's significant evidence of psychological harm with insufficent light during periods of excessive natural darkness, which is treated by exposure to artificial light.

Is there an ideal amount of light per day? Does it vary per person? What kind of light is ideal? etc, etc.

Given the relatively weak correlations I've seen in that literature review, I'm pretty sure you don't need to worry unless you're actively experiencing health effects, in which case see a professional.

[Bud]

^^ Guys you're killing me here. This isn't a study - it presents no evidence that light is unhealthy and there are no samples and there is no rigor.

Having the lights on all the time in a prison cell is a known method of torture, isn't it.

[nth_degree]

Alright let me play devil's advocate. Let's say light is carcinogenic. Are you really suggesting we all live in the dark to avoid cancer? There's exactly nothing we can do about it if it's true. Since you only turn off the light when you leave a room it makes no difference anyway.

What we really need -engineers of eevblog- is a cheap light switch with some edge machine learning and a wifi module that can detect the proximity of users like this; https://www.mic.com/impact/wifi-signals-can-identify-people-through-walls-scientists-say-18816045


Just FYI, as humorous as the idea of STOTFL.org was, I don't want to pay the $12, and it's too hot to keep burning all this energy anyway. I'm not against energy saving really, but there needs to be a less irritating way to go about it.

[Nusa]

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/sunlight

[SiliconWizard]

Looks like people are starting mixing stuff together in a big bowl.

UV light can be carcinogenic. But common LED lighting does not emit any UV light, or only a negligible amount. LED-based UV lights are actually significantly more expensive, and of course dedicated to specific uses. But just have a look at datasheets.

Having light on at night can cause some health troubles - but nothing related to UV light. It just messes with our circadian rythm. But, unfortunately, our modern lives mess with our circadian rythm in many other ways than just the lighting...

[Nusa]

Perhaps he should have been more specific when he said "light", since he was being technical at the time.

[Nisei]

LED bulbs at my home have a very short lifespan, so much so we’ve created an Amazon subscription. On average a bulb lasts 5 months in a recessed socket. I think heat is responsible, and the drivers are dying. I can’t imagine the LEDs can fail so quickly.

Seriously? I bought my apartment 3 years ago and haven't had a single LED bulb die on me yet.

[Siwastaja]

Use lots of artificial light during daytime if you live somewhere with limited amount of natural light during winter.

Minimize amount of light during evening and nighttime, for example starting at 6pm. Especially avoid blue components.

In other words, try to mimic the natural light changes we have been exposed to for millions of years; not too far from the equator.

UV is of no concern in LED lights. With excessive sunlight though, protecting oneself from UV is a good idea.

It's this simple.

[MK14]

Seriously? I bought my apartment 3 years ago and haven't had a single LED bulb die on me yet.

Yes. because if most (I believe someone said here to get 'enclosure' rated LEDs, if necessary) current LED lights, don't get appropriate air-flow, for example enclosed or recessed lamp holders. They seem to suffer from rather short life-spans, presumably (widely believed) to be due to excessive temperatures inside the LED lights.
So, I assume, all your light fixtures, give good air flow (and hence cooling), for the LED lights.
There are other factors, such as LED bulb quality (often related to price/brand), and how often it is used, both on/off cycle rating and LED lamp on hours.

[Vtile]

Alright let me play devil's advocate. Let's say light is carcinogenic. Are you really suggesting we all live in the dark to avoid cancer? There's exactly nothing we can do about it if it's true.

We can start to paint our skin with black or other UV-blocking variety of paint.

I would be more concernef our eyes as many, myself included have empirical experience of eye problems with led illunination (as too concentraded, small and non glaring (eyes seems not to react, even if it is bright) light source where eyes normal light control (iris) seems not to react properly causing temporary blindness in form of exsessive glaring ... compared to other light sources ie. Halogen) .. with led illumination without proper diffusors that is.

[ejeffrey]

What about the amount of power the industry uses compared to the "public civilian sector"  I bet its more than 1000x more power usage,  but I'm only guessing.

If only there was some global information network where you could research this rater than posting guesses. In the US residential, commercial, and industrial use about 1/3 each of electricity production.  https://www.epa.gov/energy/electricity-customers

[nth_degree]

I would be more concernef our eyes as many, myself included have empirical experience of eye problems with led illunination (as too concentraded, small and non glaring (eyes seems not to react, even if it is bright) light source where eyes normal light control (iris) seems not to react properly causing temporary blindness in form of exsessive glaring ... compared to other light sources ie. Halogen) .. with led illumination without proper diffusors that is.

I've heard variations on this theme of "if you overuse it, you lose it". I suppose the logic follows that if you stare into the Sun you'll go blind, and if you hear a loud enough sound you'll burst your eardrums, therefore- Looking at bright lights and hearing loud noises will make you blind and deaf, slowly. Because you're using up an expendable product.

Well it doesn't work like that, your eyes and eardrums are continually being replaced. When those senses finally fail the cause is systemic and genetic. And you're overlooking the fact that most of our 8 billion strong population use these technologies every day. If it blinded people there would be plenty of evidence. Which is not to invalidate your experience as you may well have an issue with your vision, just your assumption as to the cause.

[Kasper]

My irritating AF roommate follows me around the house turning off the lights everywhere I go and I’m living in darkness. I’m all for saving energy (I replaced all the bulbs w LEDs last year) but what he’s doing IMO is a repetitive task for dopamine payoff and virtue signaling.

Please tell me why I’m wrong

My guess is your eyes and alertness are weak and your roommate's are strong.

Does he drink less caffine than you?

Not sure he'd tell you but does he get headaches?

Some people rely on stimulants: caffine, bright lights, etc to keep themselves awake. Other people have too much energy, they prefer dim lights and avoid caffine, either of those gives them headaches.

Regardless, the solution is obvious. Move out.  I think the important question here is why haven't you moved out yet?

[james_s]

I don't like bright lights, unless I'm trying to do some kind of focus work. It makes me feel uncomfortable and overstimulated. I much prefer subdued lighting if I'm relaxing at home. I like to either sit in a pool of light surrounded by shadows, or sit in the shadows between pools of light. I hate feeling like I'm sitting in the middle of a brightly lit stadium.

[Kasper]

I also don't like bright lights and I really don't like people who think that makes me a bad person. Usually they assume I'm lazy, 'what are you trying to sleep in here!?' They say as they turn on the lights.

[not1xor1]

I've heard variations on this theme of "if you overuse it, you lose it". I suppose the logic follows that if you stare into the Sun you'll go blind, and if you hear a loud enough sound you'll burst your eardrums, therefore- Looking at bright lights and hearing loud noises will make you blind and deaf, slowly. Because you're using up an expendable product.

Well it doesn't work like that, your eyes and eardrums are continually being replaced. When those senses finally fail the cause is systemic and genetic. And you're overlooking the fact that most of our 8 billion strong population use these technologies every day. If it blinded people there would be plenty of evidence. Which is not to invalidate your experience as you may well have an issue with your vision, just your assumption as to the cause.

you are overconfident... go and study some biology before writing such bullshit...

[nth_degree]

What specifically is bullshit and why?

[SilverSolder]

What specifically is bullshit and why?

Well, what you say is true, but within reason only!  - e.g. there would be no such thing as repetitive strain injury if the body was perfectly able to cope with being "used".

[not1xor1]

What specifically is bullshit and why?

your eyes and eardrums are continually being replaced. When those senses finally fail the cause is systemic and genetic. And you're overlooking the fact that most of our 8 billion strong population use these technologies every day. If it blinded people there would be plenty of evidence. Which is not to invalidate your experience as you may well have an issue with your vision, just your assumption as to the cause.

Not every kind of cell is replaceable.
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/how_does_loud_noise_cause_hearing_loss.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4763120/
and noise pollution damages go beyond your ears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise

[coppercone2]

heres another thing too if you turn it off at least you check it once in a while if you never check it, it can catch on fire after slowly failing in many different ways

[nth_degree]

The LED bulbs will catch fire if you turn your back? What if intruders think you're away or asleep from the lights being off and break into your home? What if you trip from being unable to see and get hurt?

Perhaps we should hold our breath in case there's some poison in the air? It's best to breathe as little as possible so as to minimize the potential poison. Also, while holding your breath, you should shut your eyes in case the lights are too bright, in case you go blind. And - while holding your breath and shutting your eyes, you need you to hop up and down, in case gravity sucks your internal organs out of your ass. Now, if people stop and stare and point and laugh at you for hopping up and down with your eyes shut while holding your breath, be sure to correct them if they call you an idiot. Tell them that you're a liberal.