3 ms·

Artificial lighting has existed for hundreds, if not tens of thousands, of years. People used to breathe superfines and ultrafines from daily cooking fires in n

Artificial lighting has existed for hundreds, if not tens of thousands, of years. People used to breathe superfines and ultrafines from daily cooking fires in nearly indoor conditions. Hell, people living in cities next to highways have no idea how they're shortening their lives if they don't have extreme MERV air filtration like I do. The AQI inside right now hovers at ~5. Outside, it varies from 15 to 200. I've been where P1.0-P10 was 5000+, to where going outside required a P100 or N100 full face respirator because the shit snowing from the air stings your eyes. Comparing an imagined concern to the life-destroying travesties of Agent Orange, Tetraethyl lead (leaded gasoline), tobacco, lead acetate, DDT, PCBs, vinyl chloride, heavy metal- and actinide-polluted water, and radium poisoning is unscientific, lacking in perspective, and offensive. To avoid evidence and testable hypothesizes is to become a conspiracy theorist. If you're worried, turn off the screen and get a sleep mask. Artificial light won't turn your DNA into paper dolls. If it did, we'd know by now.

marcell 4y ago
> is unscientific, lacking in perspective, and offensive. I agree it is unscientific speculation. Science doesn’t have any answers. As one example, there are no conclusive scientific answers on why global male testosterone is declining, or why American girls are experiencing early puberty. Any plausible explanation has compelling reasons to dismiss it, and we can’t know scientifically if they are correct. Yet we can see both clearly in the data. If you want to escape these changes, you can only get answers outside of scientific knowledge. > offensive There’s nothing offensive about these comparisons. When DDT was invented, we didn’t know it would bio accumulate. When iPhones were widely deployed 15 years ago, I doubt many predicted they cause sleep disruption, and potentially disrupt hormone regulation. They are both cases of harms taking decades to show up in scientific knowledge.
- regularfry 4y ago
  > Yet we can see both clearly in the data. If you want to escape these changes, you can only get answers outside of scientific knowledge. Those would be not answers, then.
  - marcell 4y ago
    This is a common misconception. I don't need science to tell me not eat dirt, my sense of smell does that just fine. I also don't need science to tell me why someone is being mean to me, I can judge the social situation and make a good guess. Science is great and gives lots of really good answers, but there are lots and lots of other ways to get answer.
    - regularfry 4y ago
      > Yet we can see both clearly in the data. If you want to escape these changes, you can only get answers outside of scientific knowledge This is not an arena where preferences and guesses will remotely help.
throwaway290 4y ago
LED and incandescent bulbs are artificial lighting like m&ms and avocado are food. Any incandescent bulb gives black body full spectrum, turn it down to get friendly fire-like yellow, and most LED (even visibly white) give a very spiky spectrum plus you choose between PWM or high brightness.
xg15 4y ago
> Artificial lighting has existed for hundreds, if not tens of thousands, of years. Yes, and the climate has always been changing too. A large part of the post is about the exact reasons why this kind of artificial light is different.

marcell 4y ago

> is unscientific, lacking in perspective, and offensive. I agree it is unscientific speculation. Science doesn’t have any answers. As one example, there are no conclusive scientific answers on why global male testosterone is declining, or why American girls are experiencing early puberty. Any plausible explanation has compelling reasons to dismiss it, and we can’t know scientifically if they are correct. Yet we can see both clearly in the data. If you want to escape these changes, you can only get answers outside of scientific knowledge. > offensive There’s nothing offensive about these comparisons. When DDT was invented, we didn’t know it would bio accumulate. When iPhones were widely deployed 15 years ago, I doubt many predicted they cause sleep disruption, and potentially disrupt hormone regulation. They are both cases of harms taking decades to show up in scientific knowledge.

regularfry 4y ago
> Yet we can see both clearly in the data. If you want to escape these changes, you can only get answers outside of scientific knowledge. Those would be not answers, then.
- marcell 4y ago
  This is a common misconception. I don't need science to tell me not eat dirt, my sense of smell does that just fine. I also don't need science to tell me why someone is being mean to me, I can judge the social situation and make a good guess. Science is great and gives lots of really good answers, but there are lots and lots of other ways to get answer.
  - regularfry 4y ago
    > Yet we can see both clearly in the data. If you want to escape these changes, you can only get answers outside of scientific knowledge This is not an arena where preferences and guesses will remotely help.

throwaway290 4y ago

LED and incandescent bulbs are artificial lighting like m&ms and avocado are food. Any incandescent bulb gives black body full spectrum, turn it down to get friendly fire-like yellow, and most LED (even visibly white) give a very spiky spectrum plus you choose between PWM or high brightness.

xg15 4y ago

> Artificial lighting has existed for hundreds, if not tens of thousands, of years. Yes, and the climate has always been changing too. A large part of the post is about the exact reasons why this kind of artificial light is different.