Posted by Larry Hoover on October 14, 2003, at 8:57:25
In reply to Re: fluorescent lights are evil.. UV radiation bad! » Larry Hoover, posted by Wolf Dreamer on October 14, 2003, at 8:09:48
Before I state my criticisms of the piece you quote, I want to emphasize that just because something is on the 'net, and seems to be referenced, it doesn't make it true.
> http://www.rdcbraille.com/pbpb-c.html
> ROP did not exist prior to the introduction of fluorescent lamps into intensive care nurseries.??? Where's the evidence for that? ROP did not exist before premature babies were prevented from dying. Artificial lighting was developed about the same time we learned to give premature babies oxygen, but we didn't know that too much oxygen would blind premature babies. High oxygen saturation causes ROP, in susceptible babies.
> In fact, ROP began and spread in this country and abroad, together with the introduction and spread of fluorescent lamps into intensive care nurseries.
At the same time the technology of incubators and oxygen therapy was introduced, by chance? What a coincidence.
> The fluorescent lamps in the nurseries emit high-energy blue wavelengths in a laser-like concentration.
That is simply absurd. Blue light is not high-energy. It is higher energy than e.g. red light, but high-energy light is e.g. x-rays. Secondly, lasers are many many times more intense than fluorescent lights. Even red lasers can blind you (stare at a laser pointer, and you'll find out), and they're lower energy than blue wavelengths, anyway. There is no valid comparison between fluorescents and lasers. No way.
> Research shows that much of the nursery lamps' energy is concentrated in precisely the wavelength that is known to cause the most damage to the retina.
No, in fact, it's not. It's concentrated in the visible spectrum, which eyes are quite capable of absorbing safely. UV light is a minor emission of fluorescents.
> The lighting level which the American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends for intensive care nurseries exceeds the occupational safety standards for adults. In fact, a preemie's retinas receive, in less than three hours, more than 11 times the amount of irradiation recognized as the industrial danger limit for adult workers.Where did that come from? Evidence?
> A preemie's retinas are much more vulnerable to damage than an adult's. And to make matters worse, the preemies cannot turn their heads away from the lightYes, they can.
> , they do not yet know how to blink
Yes, they can.
> (that mechanism develops at about six months),
Wrong.
> and their paper-thin eyelids and clear lenses allow virtually all of the blue and ultraviolet light to enter uninhibited so that the babies are, in effect, left staring into the lights.
....which is only significant if all the other risk factors exist, especially oxygen therapy.
> Studies show that damage to the retina from light and damage from ROP look identical under the electron microscope.
So?
> The studies that supposedly prove that fluorescent lighting is safe, in fact, all suffer from the same basic flaw: that babies' eyes were protected only after the first day of their life, after the damage had been done.Does this suggest that all the supposed damage was done in the first day? Bizarre.
The page you linked is not credible science. Please take my word for that.
If you want to look at the sun, you need to filter the light through welder's glass. If you want to look at welding, same thing. You can get "sunburn" from welding. However, you don't need welder's glass to work in fluorescent light. You don't need sunblock to work in fluorescent light. The fact that you can't get a tan from being exposed to fluorescent light even 24 hours a day seven days a week is proof that UV exposure from fluurescent lights is trivial.
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:268264
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20031003/msgs/269260.html