Subject: Re Sodium Vapor Lights (fwd)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 115539 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:18:49 -0700
From: "Sherry A. &/or Samuel Milham, Jr."
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: Sodium Vapor Lights (fwd)
Dear Roy,
I have a light-related question for your readers:
There is work that shows the malignant melanoma is more common in
people who use tanning beds. Can anyone tell me how the UV intensity of
a half hour exposure in a sun bed compares with a half hour of sunlight
at the beach in California? I've measured between 50-100mG magnetic
fields all over tanning beds, and think that the melanoma increase in
tanning bed users is due the combination of UV plus magnetic field
exposure. My guess is that the sun at the equator delivers more intense
UV exposure than tanning beds can generate. If the tanning bed
melanomas were due strictly to the UV exposure, I'd expect more sunlight
-related melanomas. Thanks, Sam Milham
Roy L. Beavers wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:54:32 -0400
> From: "John D. Evans"
> To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> Subject: Sodium Vapor Lights
>
> Dear Roy,
>
> Regarding sodium vapor lights, I would like to add some of Dr John N Ott's
> comments in relation to Bill Lurie's concerns.
>
> As you may remember, I have been reading Ott's works since the late 1950's,
> and for some time I corresponded with him. His findings, in his original
> experiments dealing with time-lapse photography, showed that the type of
> light he used radically affected the growth of plants. Later, he found
> that animals are affected by artificial light. However, if the artificial
> lighting spectrum emitted is as close as humanly possible to the natural
> spectrum (including near ultraviolet, but not far ultraviolet), animals and
> plants under that kind of light (usually full-spectrum, cathode shielded
> fluorescent lights) behave normally. He decided that artificial lighting
> that distorts the natural sunlight spectrum can very significantly alter
> living organisms.
>
> He says, "Photobiological responses to specific colors, or relatively
> narrow bands of wavelengths within not only the visible spectrum but also
> the ultraviolet, give further evidence of the need for scientific control
> of experimental laboratory light sources."1 In a later book, he suggests,
> "We take for granted that a combustion engine needs an ignition system, . .
> . But we totally ignore the biological combustion, or metabolic ignition,
> system -- that is, the interaction of light or electromagnetic energy.
> Light is generally thought of as something other than such electrical
> energy as radio waves, but it is just as much a part of the total
> electromagnetic spectrum and, therefore, actually does come within the
> technical classification of being electric energy."2
>
> He gives an example as to how jaundiced premature babies (with the
> condition called "hyperbilirubinemia") are treated with blue lights. He
> suggests that "If a particular ailment can be treated with certain
> wavelengths of light, we might logically assume that living under an
> artificial light source that lacks these wavelengths can contribute to
> causing the ailment in the first place."3
>
> Dr Ott feels that "The recent rapid swing toward the new, more efficient
> but grossly distorted pink and orange spectrum of the new type sodium vapor
> lighting raises very serious questions concerning their effect on human
> health and behavior."4 Later, he tells us about a School Board in Forth
> Worth, Texas, who, in 1977, voted unanimously to remove high-pressure
> sodium vapor lights from about a dozen schools. There had been many
> complaints by both teachers and students regarding such problems as
> headaches, eyestrain, nervous tension, and nausea.
>
> In my opinion, almost all gaseous discharge lights emit distorted spectrums
> that can seriously affect living things -- plants, animals, and human
> beings. The sodium vapor light is a known culprit.
>
> The paragraph below is in defence of Guru's expressions regarding what he
> feels about some "scientific" research. Dr Ott tells us that he was asked
> many times by various corporations to perform certain experiments using
> time-lapse photography. Here is what he says:
>
> "The clear-cut line of demarcation in the results obtained in some industry
> research or industry sponsored research and that done by independent
> researchers at top ranking universities is of great concern to me.
> However, the pressures of vested interests are very great. This became
> very obvious to me from the number of times I was asked to make time-lapse
> pictures that would show results ranging from what was frequently described
> as just "gilding the lily a little" to pictures that would be
> unquestionably fraudulent."5 He says that such problems are not his
> alone, and he goes on to cite several examples of "tame" scientists'
> findings with widely varying results.
>
> NOTES: 1 -- John N. Ott, HEALTH AND LIGHT, Devin-Adair, Old Greenwich, CT,
> 1973/76, pp. 37-8.
>
> All other quotations are from: John N. Ott, LIGHT, RADIATION, & YOU,
> Devin-Adair, Old Greenwich, CT, 1982.
>
> 2 -- p. 21
> 3 -- p. 23
> 4 -- p. 30
> 5 -- p. 136
>
> Take care, everyone; don't wear any pink sunglasses!
>
> John
> **************************************************
> * John D. Evans, PhD
> * Retired Professor/Counsellor
> * E-mail: jdevans@sympatico.ca
> * 8 Monroe Court
> * Wellington, ON K0K 3L0 Canada
> * Phone: 613-399-5089
> *
> * There is no security on this earth; there
> * is only opportunity...........(Helen Keller)
> ***************************************************
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html