Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Compact Fluorescent Lights Cause Breast Cancer?
Researchers in Israel are reporting in the journal Chronobiology International that exposure to artificial lighting at night boosts breast cancer rates. They also found that exposure to the bluish light of compact fluorescents is especially dangerous. Using satellite images, the researchers compared breast cancer rates between better lighted neighborhoods and darker ones. As the Washington Post reports:
...the researchers found the breast cancer rate in localities with average night lighting to be 37 percent higher than in communities with the lowest amount of light; and they noted that the rate was higher by an additional 27 percent in areas with the highest amount of light.
Abraham Haim, a University of Haifa chronobiologist involved in the study, said the findings raise questions about the recent push to switch to energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs, which suppress melatonin production more than conventional incandescent bulbs. "This may be a disaster in another 20 years," Haim said, "and you won't be able to reverse what we did by mistake." He called for more research before policies favoring fluorescent lights are implemented, and for more emphasis on using less light at night.
Will this finding spark a battle between the toxin and global warming wings of environmentalism, or will they compromise and demand that we all just sit in the dark?
Elemenope|2.20.08 @ 9:52AM|#
...or will they compromise and demand that we all just sit
in the dark?
I still have trouble understanding why more people don't do this.
It's not like they read books or anything, and the TV and computer
screen cast their own light.
Episiarch|2.20.08 @ 9:55AM|#
...or will they compromise and demand that we all just sit
in the dark?
What sitting in the dark? It's bedtime at sundown for you, mister,
and rise with the dawn.
Ali|2.20.08 @ 9:57AM|#
Using satellite images, the researchers compared breast
cancer rates between better lighted neighborhoods and darker
ones.
Huh? How can one use satellites to to compare cancer to lighting?
You can use them for measuring neighborhood lighting, but not to
compare cancer to lighting. Unless this is some
super-duper satellite or something.
adrian|2.20.08 @ 9:58AM|#
my god. are the lefties wrong on everything?
if true, this is hilarious (sad, but hilarious)
Kolohe|2.20.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Using satellite images, the researchers compared breast
cancer rates between better lighted neighborhoods and darker
ones.
Score another victory for
socialized health care! :)
Ali|2.20.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Correlation isn't causation.
Unless, in this case, you work for the florescent-lighting
manufacturers' competition.
|2.20.08 @ 9:59AM|#
I question the ability of this study to actually explain much, but in my office we've made a big push against flourescent lighting for many reasons (only one of which is that it's ugly). I've been known to stand up on my desk and unscrew a couple of bulbs in the fixture and then wave off the maintenence crew as it attempts to replace the bulbs :)
|2.20.08 @ 10:00AM|#
Using satellite images, the researchers compared breast
cancer rates between better lighted neighborhoods and darker
ones.
It seems to me there's probably a whole raft of variables between
the two categories of neighborhoods that could affect their
findings.
And what is the mechanism? Are they claiming that melatonin
suppresses cancer? Has that been shown, or are they
speculating?
|2.20.08 @ 10:05AM|#
I was under the impression that cancer is a pathology affecting the affluent. It would seem that the affluent also have more lighting.
|2.20.08 @ 10:06AM|#
I don't like them because they can trigger migraines. Now that's
a direct link...
obnoxious flickering light --> my eyes --> my brain -->
freaked out trigeminal nerve --> migraine!
Now, how that flickering light can make it through my sweater,
blouse, bra and nursing pads to my boobs... ? Yeah, I don't think
so.
They could talk about how night lighting relates to the level of
industrialization which relates to the level of chemical exposure
in the environment and processed foods which relate to breast
cancer frequencies, maybe, but it looks as though they didn't do
that.
|2.20.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Bronwyn: The researchers are arguing that CFLs reduce the amount of anti-carcinogenic melatonin your body produces. In other words, the idea is that the light acts on your hormones through your eyes.
|2.20.08 @ 10:12AM|#
...or will they compromise and demand that we all just sit
in the dark?
Quite possibly. That would allow them to address a cancer hazard,
energy consumption, and the more nebulous issues of light pollution
and habitat degradation all at once.
Except it would provide hiding places for criminals, and women and
children would particularly suffer...
Watch their heads explode trying to spin this one...
Correlation isn't causation.
No, but that's never stopped the hysterics before now.
|2.20.08 @ 10:12AM|#
Why pick of CFLs when most work places are bathed in regular FLs
?
Seems like Reason has a knee-jerk opposition to CFLs.
|2.20.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Yeah, without RTFA I figured it was a hormonal argument - I just
felt like being difficult this morning :)
I'm very upset at the prospect of being forced to use CFLs in the
future. Between the flickering and the buzzing and now the havoc
they will apparently play on my hormones, I may have to stock up on
candlewax and oil lamps to save myself.
French Candlemakers\' Guild Of|2.20.08 @ 10:21AM|#
We candlemakers have reply to this
shecky|2.20.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Do CFLs even flicker anymore? I haven't seen any FLs flicker in years. They all seem to be run at a higher, and imperceptible, frequency these days.
|2.20.08 @ 10:46AM|#
This seems shaky at best. However, it's perfectly logical to oppose laws requiring the use of CFLs even if they don't cause cancer.
thoreau|2.20.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Yeah, woofyman makes a good point: Most places of business
already use fluorescent lights to keep the electric bill low. Why
all the hating on the compact versions?
I mean, yeah, I get that some lawmakers want to impose CLFs in
place of incandescents, and of course I'm opposed to this. But all
this hating on CFLs and no mention of the fluorescent lights that
businesses run all day long.
Also, what RC said: I only read the synopsis, but if this study is
about outdoor lighting, then I wonder how much relevance that
really has to indoor fluorescent lights. How much time do people
spend under streetlights vs. indoor lights? Yes, I know that the
study controlled for a variety of neighborhood-related factors, but
I still wonder about the inferences drawn.
I need to look at the original study.
|2.20.08 @ 11:03AM|#
CFL boosters: Calm down. We have installed several ourselves. And yes, I mentioned CFLs because they and their ilk are being mandated by Congress.
Russ 2000|2.20.08 @ 11:12AM|#
How much time do people spend under streetlights vs. indoor
lights?
In the condo I used to own my bedroom looked out onto the alley. I
made that room the bedroom because there was less street light and
less noise.
Two years later the city went on some outrageous safety campaign
which essentially tripled the intesity of the light in alleys.
Alley lights became much much brighter than the street lights. It
was so obnoxious I moved my bed to the room that faced the street
because it was darker and I could sleep better. But I had to put up
with the street noise.
I moved out of the city a couple years later.
|2.20.08 @ 11:24AM|#
or will they compromise and demand that we all just sit in
the dark?
Don't be silly. That's what soy candles are for.
|2.20.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Yeah, calm down, silly CFL boosters! Sure, this is the 10,000th
idiotic environmental gotcha post Ron has written highlighting some
inconsequential study -- but just chill out!
Also, environmentalists are dumb and don't understand economics. Ha
ha! Stupid environmentalists!
|2.20.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Why all the hating on the compact versions?
Because sane people have that reaction to being forced to do
something "for their own good."
Ali|2.20.08 @ 11:59AM|#
I think the sun is behind this study. Did it pay the researchers? Well, they are from the middle east, where the sun light is abundant and flushing them with warmth.
PROMETHEUS|2.20.08 @ 12:21PM|#
I told you, the whole "Hey, Pro! Why not run up that mountain
and steal fire from the gods?!" thing was not the most well
thought-through plan at the outset.
shoo bird! shoo!! Ahhhhhgg.
HIPPY|2.20.08 @ 12:24PM|#
SugarFree | February 20, 2008, 11:24am | #
Don't be silly. That's what soy candles are for.
Uh, Hell-ooooo? RECYCLED soy candles, Mr "i can afford fancy
fresh-soy lighting"
NoStar|2.20.08 @ 12:29PM|#
It's all part of the Green Master Plan. People cause global
warming. Breast cancer kills women who produce humans. No more
humans = no more global warming.
Problem solved.
|2.20.08 @ 12:34PM|#
At certain times of heightened sensitivity, yes I can see them
flicker.... and I can always hear them.
And yes, my workplace like most is lit with fluorescents.
Fortunately, we also have huge windows - but when it's cloudy out
and there's no natural light to cancel out the buzzy fluorescence,
I have to wear my sunglasses to keep the migraines at bay.
It's just a personal gripe that, someday, I'll remedy when I have
my own office.
sorry for the whiny threadjack
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 12:37PM|#
The possible relationship between the CFLs isn't as silly as it
first sounds.
Breast cancer is very sensitive hormone levels and it has been
known for decades that total length of exposure to light alters
female hormone production. Blind girls enter puberty significantly
later than do sighted girls and girls with exposure to artificial
lighting enter puberty earlier even if we control for other
factors.
The key factor here is the wavelength distribution of the light
source and duration of exposure to light levels beyond a certain
luminosity threshold. In effect, artificial lighting lengthens the
brains perception of the daylight thus throwing off some internal
regulator.
Until recently, most people experienced florescent lighting largely
during daylight hours in institutional settings but had
overwhelmingly incandescent lighting at home. If florescent
wavelength distribution does more profoundly effect hormone levels
that incandescent, then it is theoretically possible that the
spread of CFLs could cause an uptick in breast cancer.
stuartl|2.20.08 @ 1:00PM|#
In Ron's defense, the article says:
The body produces melatonin primarily at night, and levels drop
precipitously in the presence of light, especially light in the
blue part of the spectrum produced in quantity by computer screens
and fluorescent bulbs.
-- and --
Abraham Haim, a University of Haifa chronobiologist involved in
the study, said the findings raise questions about the recent push
to switch to energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs, which suppress
melatonin production more than conventional incandescent
bulbs.
Picking on a law requiring the replacement of incandescents at home
with CFLs seems perfectly appropriate.
thoreau|2.20.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Shannon-
That's certainly plausible, but as I understand it the study mostly
looked at outdoor illumination at night. Outdoor lights are
generally dimmer than indoor lights, and people spend a lot of
their evenings indoors.
R C-
Yeah, I get the hate on CFL mandates. I don't get the hate on the
bulbs themselves. Love the bulb, hate the mandate (to steal a
phrase from the Baptists).
Another Phil|2.20.08 @ 1:09PM|#
I love compact fluorescents. I've had to change one light bulb
in about 5 years. True, their light is a bit whiter than
incandescents, but I'm used to it. And they use a lot less
electricity.
P.S. The government mandates suck. Agreed.
thoreau|2.20.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Or, hate the bulb too, but why is the hate focused on the home bulbs and not the bulbs at the office? Is it because the bulbs at the office were chosen by the corporations (in their corporation buildings, doing their corporation thing, to steal a line from Team America) to save money?
|2.20.08 @ 1:14PM|#
What I don't understand is the clothing stores that use
fluorescents in their stores. Who wants to go trying on clothes and
find out they look like they just crawled out of a grave?
I have much contempt for workplace lighting. I would be perfectly
happy with my computer monitors and whatever minimal daylight comes
in through the windows.
thoreau|2.20.08 @ 1:26PM|#
I think the analysis works something like this:
Business owner puts fluorescents in office to save money on
electricity: Ah, a savvy capitalist! Peace and blessings be upon
him!
Home owner puts fluorescents in home to save money on electricity:
Goddamn hippie just hates the electric company!
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 1:34PM|#
thoreau,
...but as I understand it the study mostly looked at outdoor
illumination at night.
As I read it, the study made two separate measurements. First, it
measured the effects of florescent lighting on breast cancer and
found a correlation. Second, they measured the correlation of
street lighting and breast cancer. I presume they used street
lighting a convenient proxy measurement for total lighting. After
all, neighborhoods with good street lighting usually have houses
with lots of lighting as well.
I believe they infer from combing both measurements that
substituting CFLs for incandescents would raise overall exposure to
to florescent lighting and thus potentially raise breast cancer
rates.
IIRC, researchers studying the correlation between artificial
lighting and onset of puberty determined that it was the artificial
lengthening of the day that triggered the effect. In other words,
artificial lighting during daylight hours had no effect but the
light in ones bedroom did. If the same effect applies to
florescents then changing over home lighting in mass could have a
significant risk over the total population.
|2.20.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Correlation is causation. As proof, I offer up test scores for
students. It is a known fact that chillen who ride the long school
bus have higher test scores than those who ride in on the shorter
bus.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go work on solving this cancer
thing. What I've found so far is a direct relationsip to living a
shorter life. However, I cannot stress enough my work is only
preliminary. My team has also uncovered evidence individuals who
engage in dangerous sports such as volcano diving die from cancer
less frequently than those who engage in otherwise safer
activities.
|2.20.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Yeah, I get the hate on CFL mandates. I don't get the hate
on the bulbs themselves.
One you get a good hate going, its hard to rein it in.
Or so I'm told.
|2.20.08 @ 2:53PM|#
This is the same Ron Bailey who keeps telling us that the
studies showing cancer risks from synthetic chemicals are phony,
right?
Dude's picture should be in the dictionary next to "confirmation
bias."
One study, Ron, and you're getting your fanbois wound up about a
cancer scare?
Oops, looks like not even the fanbois are willing to back you up on
this one.
|2.20.08 @ 2:56PM|#
And yes, I mentioned CFLs because they and their ilk are
being mandated by Congress.
That reads an awful lot like Ron Bailey admitting he will pass on
obviously unreliable information for political purposes.
But, hopefully, you've figured that out already.
Jennifer|2.20.08 @ 2:57PM|#
I know it's been a couple of years since I first read of studies
showing that blind women are less likely to get breast cancer. The
idea that illumination effects hormones doesn't sound at all
far-fetched, nor does the notion that maybe Congress ought to think
about the implications before arrogantly instituting a blanket ban
of a century-old technology.
Meanwhile, I'm stockpiling incandescents.
thoreau|2.20.08 @ 3:06PM|#
How is "fanbois" pronounced? Does the second syllable rhyme with
"gras" in "foie gras"?
With regard to the study: It sounds like thin stuff, but newspaper
accounts of scientific research rarely do a good job of explaining
what the researchers actually did.
And, yeah, I gotta admit, it is kind of interesting to see Ron
talking about a possible cancer scare from a consumer product. But
only the version of the product sold for home use. The long
fluorescent tubes used in offices to save money on electricity
bills and protect the corporate bottom line don't get any hate.
Just the stuff that people might buy for their homes because
they're worried about the environment.
I have discovered that t-shirts with environmental slogans cause
cancer, but t-shirts with corporate logos don't. I have a study
with some clear correlations, which obviously imply
causation....
T|2.20.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Meanwhile, I'm stockpiling incandescents.
I'm learning to solder so I can use leds everywhere. Take that,
bulb pushers!
Jennifer|2.20.08 @ 3:25PM|#
it is kind of interesting to see Ron talking about a
possible cancer scare from a consumer product. But only the version
of the product sold for home use.
Since the issue is "artificial light at night" I don't see how
office fluorescents matter, since most people work in offices
during the daylight hours, whereas most at-home illumination is
(obviously) done at night.
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 4:09PM|#
thoreau,
The long fluorescent tubes used in offices to save money on
electricity bills and protect the corporate bottom line don't get
any hate. Just the stuff that people might buy for their homes
because they're worried about the environment.
Lighting that is used during daylight working hours won't
contribute to the problem.
However, I will admit that I find amusement in the idea that the
same people who have built vast corporate and political empires on
hysterical fears of cancer from minute traces of chemicals and
radiation will find themselves mandating under penalty of law the
use of a new technology that might be much, much worse.
One of the great dangers of all sweeping government action is that
it destroys the slow introduction period in a products natural life
cycle in which we might determine harm before it spreads to widely.
The Thalidomide tragedy effected Europe much more than the US in
large part because the socialized health care systems mandated its
use in their protocols. If the adoption had occurred slowly in the
market, the
teratogenic effect might have been noticed sooner.
|2.20.08 @ 4:10PM|#
How is "fanbois" pronounced? Does the second syllable rhyme with
"gras" in "foie gras"?
thoreau - pronounced "boys" from the urban dictionary - a slang
term for "fag" "queer"
This spelling of the word originated in a gay magazine called,
"XY
|2.20.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Everything either gives you cancer or heart diseas. Why can't we
discover something cool for once, like a lightbulb that makes boobs
get bigger and perkier?
God sucks.
thoreau|2.20.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Look, it may be that exposure to fluorescent lights during day
hours in a windowless workplace doesn't have the same hormonal
effects or whatever, due to circadian rhythms and all that. Maybe
exposure to fluorescent lights only matters to human health during
evening hours. For all I know, it could be the case.
It's just fascinating that when a newspaper article describes a
study suggesting a link between fluorescent light exposure and
cancer, people here are all over that, particularly in regard to
CFL lights at home. But not a peep about exposure in the
workplace.
At the very least, I was expecting "Obviously there's no need to
consider the workplace safety implications of this study because in
a free market employers will have to offer incandescent lighting in
order to compete for talent." I mean, come on, can a guy at least
get a token "DEMAND KURVE!"?
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 4:24PM|#
joe,
This is the same Ron Bailey who keeps telling us that the
studies showing cancer risks from synthetic chemicals are phony,
right?
We know such risk are phony today because our chemical exposure has
increased by several orders of magnitude in the last 50 years yet
cancers rates have remained constant or fallen. Likewise cancer
rates predicted by mass dose or cellular assays do not occur based
on known exposure which proves that these carcinogenic measuring
tools are not very useful.
Yet, in the immediate post wwII era we had no way of knowing that
would be true yet government in thrall to the idea of government
managed technophillia, especially on the Left, enthusiastically
pushed novel new chemicals into people's food and environments.
Things could have turned out much differently.
Jennifer|2.20.08 @ 4:29PM|#
My office has plenty of windows, I keep a crystal incandescent lamp on my desk, and several months I had the janitor remove the bulbs from the fluorescent lights directly over my desk. Once the incandescent ban kicks in, my desk lamp will give me awesoome Alt Cred.
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 4:39PM|#
thorue
It's just fascinating that when a newspaper article describes a
study suggesting a link between fluorescent light exposure and
cancer, people here are all over that, particularly in regard to
CFL lights at home. But not a peep about exposure in the
workplace.
I think most people are keying off the very real possibility that
the State may soon mandate the use of fluorescents in people's
home's whether they want them or not. People will tolerate things
in public, even dangers, that they will not in their home.
|2.20.08 @ 4:57PM|#
We know such risk are phony today because our chemical
exposure has increased by several orders of magnitude in the last
50 years yet cancers rates have remained constant or
fallen.
In the real world, both epidemiological studies of human
populations and lab studies of the effects of various substances -
from taululine to vinyle chloride - have demonstrated beyond a
shadow of doubt that some synthetic chemicals cause cancer risks.
And yet you ignore all of them, somehow managing not to know
anything about them, while you swallow this one, single study,
which has no experimental data behind whatsoever, as well as no
investigations of human populations which back up its
results.
Second, the overall rate of cancer tells us absolutely nothing
about the cancer-causing effects of different chemicals, since some
cancers have been shown to be increased by chemical exposure, while
others have not. The large decrease in overall cancer rates that
has occured over the past four decades or so is almost entirely the
consequence of reductions in tobacco use, and the spread of
refridgeration reducing the consumption of cured and smoked
meats.
thoreau|2.20.08 @ 5:04PM|#
For all I know, this report could be true, these risks could be
real, and liberals like joe could be wrong about all of the other
risks ever reported before this.
Still, it's just fascinating the way that selective skepticism
works.
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 5:18PM|#
joe,
In the real world, both epidemiological studies of human
populations and lab studies of the effects of various substances -
from taululine to vinyle chloride - have demonstrated beyond a
shadow of doubt that some synthetic chemicals cause cancer
risks.
I don't argue that they don't poise a risk. I just argue that given
the real world exposure that people receive the possible harm is
wildly exaggerated. The FDA determined that excluding cigarettes,
only 2% of all cancers result form any all exposure to manmade
sources including radiation (like structure trapped radon).
...while you swallow this one, single study...
I didn't swallow anything, I merely pointed out that a plausible
mechanism might exist. I've got CFLs all throughout my house and I
don't plan to rip them down anytime soon.
Second, the overall rate of cancer tells us absolutely nothing
about the cancer-causing effects of different chemicals, since some
cancers have been shown to be increased by chemical exposure, while
others have not.
Since we know (1) the predicted cancer risked based on standard
assay technology and (2) the overall environmental exposure we can
predict what the cancer rates should be for most specific cancers
linked to specific chemicals. The cancers we should see from
chemical exposure don't show up. Therefore, we can question the
predictive value of the assays themselves.
The large decrease in overall cancer rates that has occured
over the past four decades or so is almost entirely the consequence
of reductions in tobacco use...
Except I'm talking about rates excluding tobacco.
and the spread of refridgeration reducing the consumption of
cured and smoked meats.
Well that's one theory except that cancers of the stomach are as
high in undeveloped countries as they used to be in the west when
people wolfed down nitrates even in cultures that don't eat
preserved meats. A better explanation in the powerful anti-oxidant
effects of common preservatives in processed foods.
Fear mongering chemicals is now a major political force and a
multi-billion dollar industry. Both recipes for bad government
decision making.
|2.20.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Has anyone, including Ron Bailey, accepted the conclusions of
this study?
My impression is that it was simply presented for consideration due
to the fact that it might be interesting, especially in light of
widespread pressure for mandating CFLs.
Of course, joe would never let the fact that Ron Bailey never wrote
"oh noes, CFBs cause cancer" get in the way of a little
Baileyhate.
|2.20.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Shannon,
That's a much more responsible statement than you originally wrote,
which was We know such risk are phony today because our
chemical exposure has increased by several orders of magnitude in
the last 50 years yet cancers rates have remained constant or
fallen. No, the risk of chemically-induced cancers is not
"phony." That's why there are such strict workplace safety regimes
for dealing with them, as well as such high cancer rates in
Louisiana's "Cancer Ally," where exposure to synthetic chemicals is
so much higher than among the population at large.
I didn't swallow anything, I merely pointed out that a
plausible mechanism might exist. Just as plausible a mechanism
- in fact, one that has been demonstrated to work - existes for the
tetragenic effect of synthetic chemicals.
|2.20.08 @ 5:57PM|#
Isaac, would you likek to buy a bridge?
Clearly, Bailey's only interest is in light-bulb technology. Only a
real meany would put this latest post in any sort of context.
NoStar|2.20.08 @ 5:59PM|#
So, Congress is forcing the CFL on us real Americans. There is no way we'll accept a football field played with a 55 yard line, 12 men to a side, and only 3 downs to make 10 yards.
|2.21.08 @ 3:46AM|#
don't you get a flourescent light coming off t.v.? is there any suggestion watching t.v. late at night causes cancer?
Dr. Napoleon Paredes Perez|2.21.08 @ 9:47AM|#
This investigation is important but it is neccessary more research about this.
Jeff|2.24.08 @ 9:11PM|#
now think abou this...
the neighbor hoods with more light have higher rate... now
shouldn't that make sense? more light means more poeple.. less
light means less peaople..
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245