The Healing Power of Full-Spectrum Light 1/2

[Guest guest]

The Healing Power of Full-Spectrum Light 1/2

 

 

The Healing Power of Full-Spectrum Light

Good health can be maintained and many disease conditions alleviated

with adequate exposure to full-spectrum light.

 

 

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/light.html

----------

----

 

 

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 8, Number 4

PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor

Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381

From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

 

 

© 1995, 2001 by Joseph G. Hattersley

7031 Glen Terra Court SE

Olympia, WA 98503-7119, USA

Telephone: +1 (360) 491 1164

Email: josephhattersley

Website: www.angelfire.com/wa/jhattersley/content.html

 

 

 

 

----------

----

 

[Editor's Note: This article refers to several research studies involving

animals. We wish to advise that NEXUS does not condone animal

experimentation or vivisection.]

 

 

 

ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT: MYTHS AND FACTS

 

America has a phobia, an irrational fear, about ultraviolet (UV) light. In a

new science fad, unwise practices are being urged on us. The resulting

sickness and misbehaviour will mystify yet enrich physicians, psychiatrists,

dentists and criminal specialists as well as pharmaceutical drug companies.

 

In too many scientific and medical fields, for a lot of researchers the

truth is defined only in relationship to the next grant, peer pressure and

the fight to further an entrenched view. This essentially political process

goes on despite any--in this case very strong--evidence to the contrary.1

Much " science " research is known to be fraudulent.2, 3 Such a flow of funded

research almost exclusively in one direction is characteristic of

potentially dangerous science fads. Almost all " scientists " are out to prove

something so as to continue their careers; to them, finding the truth is

only secondary.

 

UV intensity is now forecast in population centres daily. The US

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that when outdoors we should

" protect ourselves against ultraviolet light whenever we can see our

shadow " . And many physicians give their patients the same warning. This is

terrible advice. If man were a machine, a doctor could repair or replace one

part without worrying about the rest of the contraption. Man is no machine,

but more like a web or hologram. Every organ and every part affects all the

other parts; in fact, cells in every part communicate with all the other

parts.4

 

As a result of the EPA's kind of advice, which is based on junk science, the

use of sunglasses is epidemic; we hide behind stylish darkened car windows,

we slather our skin with sunscreen for even brief sun exposure. People who

engage in these practices are ruining their disposition5 and health.

 

The phobia arose after investigators anaesthetised animals, propped their

eyes open and shined intense UV light into them; this damaged their retinas.

Excessive exposure to one kind of ultraviolet (shorter-wave, germicidal UVC)

can damage tissue. But the EPA makes the ridiculous leap from that truth to

the conclusion that we should avoid all UV. UVC is not present increasingly

in sunlight; a purported thinning of the protective ozone layer has been

debunked (see below). UVC is found in tanning salons and halogen lamps.6 In

fact, the trace amounts of UV radiation in natural daylight are required for

physical and mental health, civilised behaviour, muscle strength, energy and

learning.7 Sunlight, in moderation, improves immunity and stimulates our

metabolism while decreasing food craving, and increases our intelligence.

 

 

 

? Ozone Hole Danger Disproved

The following passages and references are from Richard Hobday's book, The

Healing Sun: Sunlight and Health in the 21st Century.8

 

" There have been no increases in skin cancer, eye diseases, immune system

disorders or environmental damage which can be attributed to an increase in

ultraviolet radiation. The largest South American city close to the

Antarctic ozone hole is Punta Arenas in southern Chile. Despite reports to

the contrary, there have been no ozone-related health problems at Punta

Arenas, and measurements of ultraviolet radiation show that any increases

are too small to have any appreciable effect.[9]

 

" A paper published in 1998 by the European Science and Environmental Forum

challenges the consensus view on ozone depletion, and argues that

predictions made by the scientific establishment and the media have been

ill-founded.[10] If this is the case, and the hole in the ozone layer is,

after all, a temporary thinning of the upper atmosphere in the early spring,

then there is no reason to fear that people will develop skin cancer because

ultraviolet radiation has become more dangerous.

 

" There is certainly no evidence to support the widely held view that the

increase in malignant melanoma in recent years is in some way linked to

ozone depletion. The trend predates the issue of ozone loss, which may have

been going on for some time before it was noticed. A paper published in the

British Journal of Cancer shows that from 1957 to 1984 the incidence of

malignant melanoma in Norway increased by 350 per cent for men and 440 per

cent for women. During the same period there was no change in ozone levels

over Norway, nor any significant change in annual exposure to ultraviolet

radiation from the Sun.[11] Scare stories, such as the one about sheep in

Chile developing cataracts because of increased ultraviolet radiation, are

not supported in the scientific literature. The sheep in question were later

found to have had an infectious disease, and sunlight was not

implicated.[12, 13]

 

" What is clear, however, is that there is a great deal of ill-informed

comment on the subject of ozone depletion and, for that matter, sunbathing.

Should depletion of the ozone layer ever become a cause for real concern,

then some people might develop cancer who might not have, had there been no

 

depletion, but until this happens there is much more to be gained from

investigating the real causes of skin cancer and encouraging safe sunbathing

than in being preoccupied with the state of the Earth's upper atmosphere and

blaming everything on the Sun. Diet and lifestyle play a far more

significant part in the genesis of cancer than is currently recognised. The

same can also be said about another condition that is supposed to be on the

increase because of ozone depletion--that of senile cataract. "

 

Note that even low exposure to UVB significantly increases the risk of

cataracts,14 but only with the consumption of a Western junk food diet rich

in unsaturated fats and their oxidised products.15, 16 Those (including

myself) who consume a more sensible diet, and supplement it with vitamins C

and E, do not get cataracts even from lengthy sun exposure.17, 18

 

 

 

PHOTOBIOLOGY

Starting from a high-school hobby of time-lapse photography, the late John

N. Ott, DScHon,19 founded the new science of photobiology. He was active

into his tenth decade.

 

Dr Ott's last book, one of many publications, is Light, Radiation and You:

How to Stay Healthy (1990).20 In it he wrote: " Mankind adapted to the full

range of the solar spectrum, and artificial distortions of that

spectrum--malillumination, a condition analogous to malnutrition--may have

biologic effects. " In an interview published in 1991, he noted: " There are

neurochemical channels from the retina to the pineal and pituitary glands,

the master glands of the whole endocrine system that controls the production

and release of hormones. This regulates your body chemistry and its growth,

all organs of your body, including your brain, and how they function. " 21

 

The critical reader will ask: where are the controlled, scientific tests

supporting Dr Ott's statements? The answer to that question is: who can make

money promoting sunlight? Think about it.

 

 

 

SIDEBAR:

Two hours of bright light in the evening can sometimes cure symptoms such as

weight gain, depression, carbohydrate craving, social withdrawal, fatigue

and irritability.22

 

 

 

I. Ultraviolet Deprivation Health Effects

First, let's consider the health effects of ultraviolet deprivation.

 

? Indoor Lighting and Melanoma

Malignant melanoma is often alarmingly but wrongly blamed on sun exposure.

The dangerous kind, called skin cancer, is ultimately fatal if not

corrected. A study by the US Navy found the most melanoma in people who

worked indoors all the time. Those who worked both outdoors and indoors some

of the time had the lowest incidence. Also, most melanomas appeared on parts

of the body that are seldom exposed to sunlight.23 The inference is that

both very high and very low exposures to UV light can be harmful--and

moderate exposure is healthful.24

 

 

 

? Sunscreens and Melanoma

Sunscreens block out only UVA and UVB, which we all need in trace amounts,

but not the potentially dangerous, germicidal UVC. No commercial sunscreens

have been proved safe.25 Their chemicals penetrate the skin into the

circulation and add to the burden of toxins to be detoxified.26 Commercial

sunscreens increase the risk of melanoma by causing mutations when the

cells' chromosomes interact with the chemicals and the light.27 Natural

sunscreens, as well as commercial ones, curtail needed uptake of vitamin D3

from UVB, increasing the risk of the bone-thinning disease osteoporosis.

 

Moreover, Lita Lee, PhD, notes: " Mounting evidence indicates that many of

them [sunscreens] contain carcinogens and that the rise of skin cancers

parallels the increase in sunscreen usage. The only sunscreen I recommend is

coconut oil, although, believe me, you cannot slather this oil on your skin

and bake in the sun all day. Adding a little iodine to the coconut oil for

the first week of summer gives added protection; however, do not use the

iodine for more than a week, as continued use will inhibit your thyroid

function. In my opinion, the only other safe (non-carcinogenic) sunscreen

would be one containing titanium dioxide. " 28

 

 

 

? Fluorescent Lighting and Melanoma

A study published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet and a Russian st

udy found that fluorescent light rather than sunlight promotes melanoma,

proportionately to the time of exposure.29, 30 In the Lancet study, among a

sample of nearly 900 women, those who worked indoors under fluorescent

lighting had 2.l times higher melanoma risk (95% confidence interval, CI,

1.32 to 3.32) than others. Among women exposed for 20 years or more, the

relative risk (RR) was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.2 to 5.9). Relative risks were lower

in women who had been most heavily exposed to sunlight, both playing

outdoors as children and sunbathing as adults. In a smaller sample of men,

the RR for fluorescent lights with 10 or more years' exposure was 4.4; and

for those who had spent the least time in the sun while children, the RR was

7.3.

 

And so we see that lengthy exposure to full-spectrum sunlight, including

trace UV, partially " immunised " both men and women against later development

of melanoma. These exposures had taken place in the 1960s and 1970s, before

the supposed thinning of the protective ozone layer far above us. But as we

saw earlier, UV penetration of the atmosphere has not increased.31, 32

 

All this thoroughly explodes the claim that sun exposure causes malignant

melanoma.

 

In the 19 years since publication of Beral's carefully researched article in

the Lancet, no one has refuted the finding. But many ignore it and could

make more money if the article and its information would simply go away.

 

Why do fluorescent lights cause melanoma? " Emissions from such light extend

into the potentially carcinogenic range. " 33

 

Dr Ott found that, specifically, the cathodes located at the ends of the

light tubes emit X-rays and other electromagnetic pollution. Plants living

under the central portion of long fluorescent light tubes grow normally; but

when placed close to the ends of the tubes, their growth is abnormal and

stunted. Laboratory animals placed in a cage close to the ends of these

light tubes become aggressive and cannibalistic.

 

Dr Ott also found that the light from fluorescent tubes, as well as TV sets

and computer terminals, causes red blood cells to clump together after

prolonged exposure. This reduces alertness, promotes a tired feeling and

increases the risk of heart attack and stroke.34 But when the ends of the

light tubes are shielded with lead and traces of UV are added to the light,

plants and animals under them grow and function normally.35 And so wrapping

the ends of fluorescent light tubes with lead tape, says Dr Ott, is fully as

important as full-spectrum light itself.36

 

Melanoma can also result from excessive exposure to sunlamps;37 their rays

and those from bright halogen lights include some of the dangerous UVC.38 If

users of sunlamps consume a junk diet, their risk of melanoma will be

increased. Halogen lamps are also a serious fire hazard if they fall over or

if inflammable material touches the extremely hot bulb.39, [40]

 

 

 

Sidebar.

Valdemar Valerian, PhD, and his Leading Edge Research Group " ...noticed that

DNA molecules undergo erratic vibrational patterns in the vicinity of

cathode ray tubes (television or computer monitors), and that a certain

subsonic signal emanating from computer monitors connected to the Internet

make the DNA molecules vibrate in unison, in a form of entrained pattern. We

consulted the eminent Russian researcher Professor D. S. Goldstein. He said:

'I know that. It is a phenomenon known as electronically induced

sonochemistry. That is how mutations occur, and that is why I stay away from

the Internet.' " 40

 

 

 

? Chlorination and Melanoma

Drinking and swimming in chlorinated water can also cause malignant

melanoma.41, 42, 43, 44 Sodium hypochlorite, used in chlorination of water

for swimming pools, is mutagenic45 in the Ames test and other mutagenicity

tests.46, 47 Redheads and blonds are disproportionately melanoma-prone;

their skin contains a relative excess of pheomelanins48 compared to darker

people.49

 

Franz H. Rampen and his associates in The Netherlands state that the

worldwide pollution of rivers and oceans and the chlorination of swimming

pool water have promoted an increase in melanoma.50, 51, 52

 

Another major factor in the increase in reported incidence of melanoma has

been physicians' continually relaxing their standards for what constitutes

melanoma.

 

? Synthetic Hormones and Melanoma

What about oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy (HRT)?

Melanomas have increased sharply among women in the principal Pill-taking

countries of Australia, America and in Europe. In the Walnut Creek

(California) study, all the women who developed melanomas under the age of

40 had used the Pill. By 1981, the overall increased melanoma risk for

Pill-users was statistically significant at three times.53 The Pill also

promotes development of heart attacks, in part by depleting body stores of

vitamin B6.54

 

Further, like breast cancer cells, those tumours have oestrogen receptors.

And so women on HRT are more likely to develop melanomas than non-users. A

recent study of 52,705 women on HRT found that the risk of breast cancer

increases by 2.3 per cent for each of the 11 years the average woman takes

HRT. The good news is that the effect diminishes on stopping it and

disappears after about five years. The authors comment: " These findings

should be considered in the context of the benefits and other risks

associated with the use of HRT. " 55 Others challenge the assumption that HRT

provides benefits.56, 57, 58

 

 

 

II. Ultraviolet Deprivation Health Effects

Certain effects of ultraviolet deprivation are equally remarkable and tie

together with health benefits.

 

? FS Light & Childhood Health

In 1973, radiation-shielded full-spectrum (FS) lights were installed in five

classrooms in Sarasota, Florida. And what happened? Several extremely

hyperactive, learning-disabled children calmed down completely and learned

to read. Absenteeism dropped. The children in four standard-lit rooms

continued to misbehave (as tracked by concealed motion-detecting cameras);

their learning disabilities and absenteeism were unabated.59 And after a

year, students in the full-spectrum classrooms had one-third less tooth

decay than those taught under standard lighting. Laboratory mice, which had

been exposed all their waking hours to FS light, had zero tooth decay.60

Similar findings were reported from California, Washington state and

Alberta, Canada.61 A classroom comparison in Vermont found that

full-spectrum lighting strengthened immunity.62, 63

 

Why was there so much less tooth decay after exposure to full-spectrum

light, including trace UV? And why did immunity improve under FS lights?

According to Dr Ott: " Every nutritional substance and medicine has a

specific wavelength absorption. If those wavelengths are missing in the

artificial light source a person is exposed to, then the nutritional or

other hoped-for benefits of the substance will not be utilised. " 63a UV

functions as a nutrient and as a co-factor (a substance required for a

bodily process to occur) in the utilisation of other nutrients.