Artificial Lighting: Responsible for numerous ills?

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=416

"...before the incandescent bulb began to proliferate in the early twentieth century, human sleep schedules were largely governed by the Earth's day and night cycle. But once humans possessed the technology to ward off an appreciable chunk of nighttime, we soon extended our usable waking hours by an average of 13%. Some researchers believe that this modern convenience, credited with bringing the human race in from the dark, may also be responsible for numerous ills...."

(Article found via www.digg.com)

Flashaholic: "Doc, it hurts."
Doctor: "Where?"
Flashaholic: *pointing to pants pocket* "Here."
Doctor: "The wallet again? What have you been doing?"
Flashaholic: "Uhhh....." *guilty look* "I bought another light"
Doctor: "How much was it?"
Flashaholic: "It's another $500 custom light from one of the special runs with a serial number and engraving and a ..............."
Doctor: "No wonder your wallet hurts! Take two aspirins and DON'T call me again tomorrow! And don't buy any more!"


... but some ailments are incurable.

I've long subscribed to the theory that we're about to run into "the wall" as far as pushing human organic capability is concerned. Heck I think some companies/businesses have pole-vaulted over that wall. I have a 39 year old friend who looks like he's pushing 50 (mostly, I think, from job related stress) while his twin brother who works on a horse farm looks his age.

Whenever I hear a statement like "this machine will allow one person to do the work of three" I always flinch a little.

Ooo, life was so much better back in the dark ages before "insert some modern thing here"



I dont think so.

back before the light bulb people were NOT perfect and healthy and happy all the time. They had the same ills that we have now plus all the ones we dont have now anymore. No matter how miserable you are now, if you had been born 100 years prior to your birth date you'd be more miserable and sick

repeat after me, there was no golden age when things were better than they are now. People have always been miserable and sick and hungry and cold and tired. Now days we are decidedly less so on all those counts. The golden age is in the future, not in the past. Lets work in that direction.

Interesting that these researchers didn't consider that man has been using artificial lighting for literally millenia. Granted, the light bulb made it easier and cheaper, but nevertheless people didn't always go to sleep at sunset. This is one of those cases where there are too many confounding variables to draw any valid conclusions. Sure, people are indeed sleeping less, but this also has to do with the many distractions modern society presents. Years ago when you came home from work there was little to do except maybe read the paper. Most people couldn't afford hobbies, and most hobbies weren't terribly engaging compared to nowadays anyway. And there was no TV. End result was you probably ate dinner, read the paper, and then fell asleep.

If being deprived of darkness is unhealthy then I should be dead by now. When I'm not sleeping during the day I usually sleep with at least one 28 watt CFL on, and often the ceiling light with 4 32 watt T8 tubes. Since 9/11 I just haven't been able to sleep in the dark any more, and this looks like it's going to be a life long thing. Truth is I always had trouble falling asleep in a dark room anyway since I'm a night person. My circadian rhythm tells me to sleep when there's light, as strange as that sounds.

I don't think the assertion is true. You have to always include all the variables when looking at things like this.

Take two simple facts;

A) As we get older, we require less sleep each night. It's not uncommon to hear a 70 yaer old guy saying he sleeps only 4 or 5 hours a night.

B) The advances in medical care mean we live longer.


A + B = less sleep for the average person.


I don't know why people think that broadcast entertainment is the only kind. Before TV became popular people had parties, read to each other, gave musical recitals, played musical instruments. They played games, canned food, sewed and just plain talked.

Hobbies were very common. It does not require riches to collect things nor to build them. Before the industrial revolution many folks made most of their own belongings. Firelight is bright enough to see what you are doing. Honest Abe even did his homework by the light of his fireplace (or so the legend says).

On the other hand, being dead tired at the end of a long day's work does tend to make one retire early. Especially of the neighbor's pesky rooster sounds off at daybreak.

Last but not least, the machanism that regulates our circadian rhythms has been discovered. It's a small part of the brain which undergoes a complex chemical change from one substance to another and back again. Sort of like the way water evaporates into steam which condenses back into water. The circadian rhythm does not appear to be influenced by light, per se.

Daniel

I just read that awhile ago!

Frankly, I believe that the article doesn't really put forward the idea that "progress" is bad for us, especially health-wise. That would be taking it in to such simplistic terms and I'm rather surprised by people's reactions to it. That would turn the whole thing into "man vs. machine/cruel system" kind of scenario (although it does seem like it sometimes).

I believe that realistically, in terms of evolutionary development, BOTH the phenomenon of artificial lighting (which encroaches on our bodily systems) as well as our species itself, "homo sapiens" are relatively new in the greater scheme and measure of things. Wouldn't it then be plausible to believe that we may not yet be fully adjusted to such an impact of light to our system?

Thus, I tend to believe and go to the other side of the fence and say that there MAY be some sort of impact or effect. That's all there is to it.

As to the extent of the impact, then that's where it gets academic.

jtr1962 said:

Interesting that these researchers didn't consider that man has been using artificial lighting for literally millenia. Granted, the light bulb made it easier and cheaper, but nevertheless people didn't always go to sleep at sunset.

Click to expand...

True, but I you'll agree with me that back in those ancient times, their version of "artificial lighting" (a torch or large bonfire perhaps?) isn't as "invasive" nor pervasive as that of the many neon lights, street lamps, spotlighted billboards, etc. that we do have today. Really pushing the body to be subjected to more light than the more "adequate" levels of long ago. I saw a special on TV once showing the new phenom of "light pollution" via the satellite views of the Earth which have certain countries, especially the first-world ones, literally "lit-up" in the night.


[/QUOTE]If being deprived of darkness is unhealthy then I should be dead by now.[/QUOTE]

Er, I don't think that that was what the article was trying to drive at. Being deprived of darkness, per se, doesn't kill. The human body is resilient. However the various illnesses or unhealthy conditions arrived at from such a state may do so in the long run.


[/QUOTE]Truth is I always had trouble falling asleep in a dark room anyway since I'm a night person. My circadian rhythm tells me to sleep when there's light, as strange as that sounds.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly the point, as you yourself say it's "strange".

Remember this scence :

Sundance Kid: I can't swim.
Butch Cassidy: Why you crazy, the fall will probably kill you.

No need to worry about artificial light, global warming will kill us first.:huh:

dcarch8

There is one huge and obvious fact that appears to be left out of this "study": The amount of daylight varies tremendously from the equator to the poles!

At the equator, the daylight/nighttime balance is almost always 50-50. Nearer to the poles it can vary up to 0-100 and 100-0. Certainly there would be a noticible effect that would be simple to trace based upon one's residence in relation to the equator.

magic79 said:

There is one huge and obvious fact that appears to be left out of this "study": The amount of daylight varies tremendously from the equator to the poles!

At the equator, the daylight/nighttime balance is almost always 50-50. Nearer to the poles it can vary up to 0-100 and 100-0. Certainly there would be a noticible effect that would be simple to trace based upon one's residence in relation to the equator.

Click to expand...

Excellent. Is the overall heath of people better or worse as we approach the poles?
Near the poles day and night are close to the same length all year long.
By the time you reach Germany, you can read at 3:00 AM in the summer time.

Mike Painter said:

Is the overall heath of people better or worse as we approach the poles?

Click to expand...

There would be too many confounding variables to draw any valid conclusions based solely on hours of daylight in such a study. You obviously have a difference in climate so I would imagine that would tend to lengthen lifespan as you approach the poles (colder climates are generally more conducive to longer life since you have fewer insects and other diseases). Average hours of daylight over the year would actually be the same regardless of where you are but prolonged periods of light or dark as you move closer to the poles could have short-term negative consequences. And then alot depends upon the individual. Some people like warm weather, others like myself prefer cold. Unless the numbers of such individuals are equalized you introduce yet another confounding variable. In the end I doubt any kind of controlled study would be possible but it would certainly be interesting.

"Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century, especially in developed nations. Life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1901 was 49 years. At the end of the century it was 77 years,..."

Yes, thanks to improvements in medical care, sanitation, penicillin, the Salk Vaccine, lots of other vaccines, etc.

On the other hand, we're sitting in front of TVs and computers longer and exercising less, eating greasy fast foods, working in high stress jobs, inhaling smog and ozone...

There are so many variables that can nudge the pendulum one way or the other that it would be difficult to isolate just one or two of them as a primary villian. Not that we shouldn't be aware of trends though.

Mike Painter said:

"Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century, especially in developed nations. Life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1901 was 49 years. At the end of the century it was 77 years,..."

Click to expand...

I've heard thanks to the obesity epidemic the next generation might be the first one to live fewer years than their parents. Also, the dramatic increases in life expectancy in the 20th century are mostly due to the fact that very poor sanitary conditions at the beginning of the 20th century resulted in very short life spans. If you look through history, lifespan has its ups and downs coinciding with the rise and fall of civilizations. Life span falls during dark ages, and rises again in times of renaissance. There were villages in the Roman Empire with average lifespans nearly as long as today's. Looked at in that context, modern medicine has at best extended the average lifespan by maybe 10 years once the negative effects of modern lifestyle mentioned by PhotonWrangler are factored in. Interestingly, I've heard that getting rid of environmental pollution combined with modern sanitary systems would probably result in people living to 100 as often as not, and without relying on modern medicine.

There is another gaping fallacy with this study: artificial light has been used since the first caveman harnesed fire.

To buy their bilge (sorry for the strong word, but I think it's warranted), you would have to believe that Scandanavians slept 18 hours a day in every December prior to the infiltration of the electric light there in the early 1900s since they claim "human sleep schedules were largely governed by the Earth's day and night cycle"!!! That is logically and factually absurd. Methinks Vikings never slept 18 hours any one night in their lives unless they were ill.

Lousy study, ridiculous results.

magic79 said:

There is another gaping fallacy with this study: artificial light has been used since the first caveman harnesed fire.

Click to expand...

Touched upon this in my response to jtr1962, post #8. . .

Artificial lighting has done a lot of damage to marine life such as sea turtles as they are drawn to it.

Artificil lighting has made it very difficult for astronomy to study the sky.

dcarch8

The book Lights Out postulated that the ability to extend our waking hours at night was directly linked to the growing obesity problem. Why? The author maintains that summer's extended daylight hours trigger a biochemical response to pack on the pounds for the coming of winter. With the ability to generate light at will, this signal is sent all year long. The author made a good case for it, at least in my experience--I am currently going through insomnia as I type this, and am much heavier than I'd like.

Progress has given us some wonderful things, but also some detrimental things, like hydrogenated oils, also in part responsible for the obesity problem. Another detriment is the relative lack of effort in obtaining and preparing food. Those living in an agrarian society were bound by the effort it took to obtain and prepare food; it was an investment of time and effort that is currently lacking in our society. If after working in the fields all day, you'd be entirely too tired to get up and snack, and the added caloric output would greatly offset the amount of your intake when you did eat, unlike those of us who work in relatively sedentary jobs, suffering mental rather than physical stress.

I don't suggest we should renounce artificial lights, fast food, or other modern conveniences as a panacea for these problems. However, if we lived our lives more mindfully and took some time to make eating and living more effortful, there might not be the problem of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and insomnia. I don't suggest for a minute that this would be easy.

Lest anyone think this is an indictment of the US, no, it isn't. Obesity rates are climbing in Europe as well, and may well be climbing elsewhere, so this isn't a localized phenomenon.

I think that in a few hundred years, a thousand at most, human evolution will have eliminated the need for sleep. I regard sleep as an abbreviated form of hibernation adopted by many animals to cope with the dangers and problems of night time activity which are now largely eliminated with artificial lighting.