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?
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
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.
Curly Q|2.20.08 @ 9:52AM|#
...Compact Flourescent...
We need the whole wheat kind.
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.
|2.20.08 @ 9:56AM|#
Correlation isn't causation.
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 @ 10:00AM|#
Curly Q: Thanks. Fixed.
|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.
|2.20.08 @ 10:16AM|#
If you don't like the flickering, switch to DC power.
French Candlemakers\' Guild Of|2.20.08 @ 10:21AM|#
We candlemakers have reply to this