Full Spectrum Lighting

[Lee.T]

I was looking for information on full spectrum lighting and how plants grow using full spectrum light bulb, specifically for vegetables plants.
I have started a project to build an internal vegetable garden using nutrient baths and full spectrum lighting. While researching the for this project i came across an article that mentioned how UV light affects us. The article quotes from a book "John Nash Ott. Entitled Health & Light: the effects of natural & artificial light on man & other living things"

Here is the article:

A few years ago, my friend Wayne Martin sent me a book by John Nash Ott. Entitled Health & Light: the effects of natural & artificial light on man & other living things , it is without doubt the most fascinating book I have ever read (and I have read quite a few).

John Ott DSc, was a pioneer in time-lapse photography in the middle of the twentieth century. Many of the Disney films, in which we see plants growing and flowers opening were made by Ott. To enable him to take photographs of plants at a rate of one every few minutes, hours or days, Ott had to stop the plants from being blown about by the wind or otherwise disturbed. So he put his subjects in glasshouses. He found, when he did this, however, that they did not behave as they had outside.

So Ott began to conduct experiments changing the lighting conditions, the temperature and humidity in an attempt to isolate the cause of the problems. To cut a long story short, what he found was that, where the glass cut out the long-wave ultraviolet (UV) spectrum of the sun's light, this had sometimes severely detrimental effects on the plants.

Ott began giving talks based on his experiences. One TV appearance brought a letter from a Chicago biology teacher who was doing research on fish eggs and wanted time-lapse photography to help his experiment. Ott was happy to oblige. The aquariums were not near a window, so Ott used 40 watt fluorescent tubes with three different lights - pink, cool white and daylight white - to light his subject. The fish stopped laying.

Ott wondered if the light was affecting the fish. He gradually reduced the intensity and then the duration of the light. When only on for eight hours a day the fish started laying again. But when the newly hatched fish were old enough that their sex could be determined, an astonishing and almost unbelievable fact emerged: all fifty fish - from different parents - hatched under the pink light were female; there were no exceptions.

Word reached the newspapers. As a result a woman breeding chinchillas wrote to Ott of her problem. When breeding chinchillas, it is important to have many more females than males, for one male can fertilise many females. The woman's problem was that she had a preponderance of male births with very few females. She wondered if Ott could help.

The chinchillas were kept in a basement playroom with only a small window at one end and a 75 watt tungsten bulb for light. Ott bought two 100 watt daylight incandescent bulbs and sent them to her. Two months later the woman wrote to Ott to tell him that the first litter born under the new lights had produced three females.

There was one experiment Ott hadn't planned, but which had a dramatic effect on his thinking. This happened early in his career when Ott dropped and broke his prescription glasses - and all symptoms of his arthritis disappeared. From this, Ott considered that the full spectrum light's effect happened not from its impact on the skin, but through the eyes.

Health & Light continues with many more experiments on plants, animals and, lastly, humans. Ott discusses experiments which showed that sunlight absorbed through the eyes had dramatic effects on the pineal gland. It is these which are of the greatest significance as far as cancer is concerned.
Our irrational fear

Ott made a valid point when wrote in his last book, Light, Radiation and You: How to Stay Healthy , "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". (1) 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". (2)

Nature designed us so that the tanning pigment, melanin, in our skin was the right shade to protect us from the sunlight: black in equatorial regions, gradually getting lighter in colour as we get further from the equator and the strength of the sun diminishes. Our skin is designed specifically for the latitude at which we have evolved.

The same is true of our eyes - the different colour irises are the most obvious feature. Again they are black at the equator and pale blue in Scandinavia. In other words, we do not need the 'protection' afforded by sunglasses, we need the sunlight that we have evolved in.
So why are we so afraid of the sun?

There are three distinct bands of UV light: UVA, UVB and UVC. Excessive exposure to just one of them, UVC, the shortest wavelength, is known to damage living tissue. It is this wavelength that is used to kill bacteria. In a laboratory experiment, anaesthetised animals, had their eyes held open and intense UV light was shone into them, damaging their retinas. That's it! On the strength of this, authorities conclude that we should avoid all UV.

But while UVC is found in tanning salons and halogen lamps, (3) very little is present in sunlight (see sunlight.html). In fact, we need the trace amounts of UV radiation in natural daylight for physical and mental health, civilised behaviour, muscle strength, energy and learning. (4)
Full-spectrum sunlight and cancer

Despite what we are led to believe about sunlight, cancers don't seem to survive for long in it. In one experiment, a tumour-susceptible strain of mice lived more than twice as long under full-spectrum light as they did under standard lighting, and rats exposed to full-spectrum light had significantly lessened tumour development. (5) Six major medical centres confirmed these findings . (6)

Dr Jane C Wright, directing cancer research at Bellevue Memorial Medical Center in New York City in 1959, was fascinated by Ott's ideas. Advised by Ott, Dr Wright instructed fifteen cancer patients to stay outdoors as much as possible that summer in natural sunlight without wearing their glasses, and particularly without sunglasses. By that Autumn, the tumours in 14 of 15 had not grown, and some patients had got better. Ott wondered why the fifteenth had not benefited. He discovered that this woman had not fully understood the instructions - while she had not worn sunglasses, she had continued to wear her prescription glasses. This blocking of UV into her eyes was enough to stop the benefits enjoyed by the other fourteen. (7)
UV benefits leukemia . . .

In 1961, with five times the national average incidence, an elementary school in Niles, Illinois, was found to have the highest rate of leukemia of any school in the USA. Because of the intense glare from the sun, in the newly-constructed building in which glass had been used extensively, the teachers in two of the classrooms kept the blinds drawn and the children were exposed all day only to 'warm-white' fluorescent light. All of the children with leukemia were being taught in these two classrooms. After several years of keeping the blinds drawn and the fluorescent lights on, the teachers in these two classrooms left and were replaced with teachers who preferred to let the sunlight in. At the same time, the warm-white fluorescents were replaced with cool-white lights. From 1964, the time of Ott's last visit, there were no further cases of leukemia reported in that school. (8)
. . . and other cancers

After one of his lectures, Ott sat next to the daughter of the late Dr Albert Schweizer at dinner. They talked mainly about her experiences as assistant to her father at Lambarene, Gabon, on the West Coast of Africa. Ott asked her about the rate of cancer in the people of that area. She replied that, when her father had first started hospital, they found no cancer at all but now it was a problem. Ott asked her if the people living there had started installing glass windows and electric lights. She said they had not.

Ott then asked her jokingly if any of the natives wore sunglasses. She looked startled and told Ott that the natives paddling their dugout canoes down the river in front of the hospital often wore no more than a loincloth and sunglasses; indeed some wore only sunglasses. She explained that sunglasses represented a status symbol of civilisation and education and had a higher bartering value than beads and other such trinkets.

In another case, Ott learned from an elderly acquaintance that he had been diagnosed with cancer of the prostate and surgery had been recommended. Ott found that for many years this man had been wearing eyeglasses with a light pink tint and was able to persuade him to stop wearing those and get full spectrum, ultraviolet transmitting spectacles. Ott also advised him to cut down watching television and spend more time outdoors. At the time of writing his book, Ott reports that the man has gone three years without surgery and with no symptoms of his prostate cancer

A doctor, interested in Ott's research told him of a close friend of his who had been diagnosed as having a fast spreading terminal cancer. Life expectancy was only estimated to be four months at best. Although the doctor could not see how installing fluorescent tubes with added ultraviolet in the man's hospital room could do any good, he didn't see any harm in trying. Accordingly Ott helped to install the fluorescent tubes in the patient room and also install some in his room at home. This man lived a further 10 months, was remarkably active and free of pain during this time.

Yet another man had been troubled with skin cancer and on several occasions had undergone minor surgery. He was having considerable difficulty and his doctor had recommended more surgery. On his own initiative he decided to try ultraviolet therapy and to avoid watching television. His skin cancers began to disappear immediately, and within for five months his skin appeared perfectly normal without surgery or other treatment.

Lastly, in another incidence, several cancer patients ventured out on a fishing expedition with Norwegian fishermen. All but one of them stayed inside the ship but one woman stayed on deck. She recovered; her fellow patients died of their cancers. (9)

Ott has been criticised for making no scientifically controlled human studies to support his statements. This criticism is unjustified: Ott applied many times for funds to conduct studies, but even with the backing of leading oncologists, he was continually refused them. (10) Similarly, funding for continuation of Dr Jane Wright's study above was withdrawn. It may sound cynical, but one has to be realistic - who can make money promoting sunlight?
Conclusion

Because of the lack of clinical studies, all the above cases are regarded as being merely anecdotal. However, there are so many examples of the benefits of ultraviolet light through the eyes, that we would be foolish to disregard them. Our irrational fear of ultraviolet light may well do us far more harm than good.

Under these circumstances, it might be a good idea to wear prescription glasses made of material that does not cut out ultraviolet light, and wear sunglasses which have a neutral grey shade to reduce the amount of light across the whole spectrum equally.

Note: the sign UV400 on sunglasses means that they cut out all wavelengths shorter than 400 nm, but for our health we really need to allow UV down to 315 nm.
References

1. Ott, JN. Light, Radiation and You: How to Stay Healthy . Devin-Adair Publishers, Greenwich, CT, 1990.
2. Ott JN. Interview by Bland JS. Prev Med Update 1991; (Jan).
3. Ceder K. Healthy office lighting: A bright idea. Healthy Office Rep 1992; 2: 3-4.
4. Kime Z. Sunlight . World Health Publ, Penryn, CA, 1980. And Downing D. Daylight Robbers . Arrow Books, London, 1988.
5. Ott JN. Lecture to Society for Clinical Ecology, 1974.
6. Ott, JN. Light, Radiation and You: How to Stay Healthy .
7. Ott JN. Health & Light . Devin-Adair Publishers, Greenwich, CT, 1973. p 60.
8. Ott JN. Health & Light .
9. Ott, JN. Light, Radiation and You.
10. Ott, JN. Light, Radiation and You . Op cit

Edit: Link to above _http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/full_spectrum_sunlight.html

It Reminded me of a Tread started by Laura which was absolutely fascinating regarding light and UV light. To all who haven't read this thread i would recommend it.
found here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7462.0

Seems there is a lot more to this light business than meets the eye ;D

Has anybody read any of the books by John Ott ?

And no wonder the BBC with there nightly UV weather forecast warns of high UV values.. and you had better cover up!
Seems the PTB can't have a healthy population. That just wouldn't Do

Off for a

 

[T.C.]

And no wonder the BBC with there nightly UV weather forecast warns of high UV values.. and you had better cover up! Cry
Seems the PTB can't have a healthy population. That just wouldn't Do

That was a fascinating piece, roylateel, thanks for sharing it.

In light (pun intended) of the info, it sends a shiver down my spine when I think about how all sunglasses are supposed to have this UV protection.

How insidious

T.C.

 

[Bobo08]

Well, I personally know at least 4 people who died of cancer, who had hardly worn sunglasses in their lives. One of them was my maternal grandmother. She was a farmer and spent most of her time outdoor. So the curing effect of full spectrum light on cancer may not be as good as implied by the article.

 

[Meg]

Well, I personally know at least 4 people who died of cancer, who had hardly worn sunglasses in their lives. One of them was my maternal grandmother. She was a farmer and spent most of her time outdoor. So the curing effect of full spectrum light on cancer may not be as good as implied by the article.

Hi Bobo,

This thread might shed some 'light' on the subject

FRITZ-ALBERT POPP thought he had discovered a cure for cancer. It was 1970, a year before Edgar Mitchell had flown to the moon, and Popp, a theoretical biophysicist at the University of Marburg in Germany, had been teaching radiology, the interaction of electromagnetic radiation on biological systems. He'd been examining benzo[a]pyrene, a polycyclic hydrocarbon known to he one of the most lethal carcinogens to humans and had illuminated it with ultraviolet light.

Popp played around with light a lot. He'd been fascinated by the effect of electromagnetic radiation on living systems ever since he'd been a student at the University of Würzburg. During his time as an undergraduate he'd studied in the house, sometimes even in the very room, where Wilhelm Röntgen had accidentally stumbled on the fact that rays of a certain frequency could produce pictures of the hard structures of the body.

Popp had been trying to determine what effect you'd get if you excited this deadly compound with ultraviolet (UV) light. What he discovered was that benzo[a]pyrene had a crazy optical property. It absorbed the light but then re-emitted it at a completely different frequency, like some CIA operative intercepting a communication signal from the enemy and jumbling it up. This was a chemical which doubled as a biological frequency scrambler. Popp then performed the same test on benzo[e]pyrene, another polycyclic hydrocarbon, which is virtually identical in every way to benzo[a]pyrene save for a tiny alteration in its molecular makeup. This tiny difference in one of the compound rings was critical as it rendered benzo[e]pyrene harmless to humans. With this particular chemical, the light passed right through the substance unaltered.

Popp kept puzzling over this difference and kept playing around with light and compounds. He performed his test on thirty-seven other chemicals, some cancer-causing, some not. After a while, it got so that he could predict which substances could cause cancer. In every instance, the compounds that were carcinogenic took the UV light, absorbed it, and changed the frequency.

There was another odd property of these compounds. Each of the carcinogens reacted only to the light at a specific wavelength — 380 nanometres. Popp kept wondering why a cancer-causing substance would be a light scrambler. He began reading the scientific literature, specifically about human biological reactions, and came across information about a phenomenon called 'photo-repair'. It is very well known from biological laboratory experiments that if you can blast a cell with UV light so that 99 per cent of the cell, including its DNA, is destroyed, you can almost entirely repair the damage in a single day just by illuminating the cell with the same wavelength of a very weak intensity. To this day, conventional scientists don't understand this phenomenon, but nobody has disputed it. Popp also knew that patients with a skin condition called xeroderma pigmentosum eventually die of skin cancer because their photo-repair system doesn't work and so doesn't repair solar damage. Popp was shocked to learn that photo-repair works most efficiently at 380 nanometres — the very same wavelength the cancer-causing compounds would react to and scramble.

This was where Popp made his logical leap. Nature was too perfect for this to be simple coincidence. If the carcinogens only react to this wavelength, it must somehow he linked to photo-repair. If so, this would mean that there must he some light in the body responsible for photo-repair. A cancerous compound most cause cancer because it permanently blocks this light and scrambles it, so photo-repair can't work anymore.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7462.msg52995#msg52995

 

[Bobo08]

Hi Vide,

Yes, I know it is beneficial. I rarely wear sunglasses myself. But the original article only talked about cases that have up to 100% cure or improvement rate. I think that's misleading. Cancer is caused by many different factors and no one method can cure all. As always, the body is a complex and highly connected machine. To fix it, one has to work on all areas at the same time.

 

[Pierre]

Also this article should not be considered as an apology of limitless sunbathing.

The same is true of our eyes - the different colour irises are the most obvious feature. Again they are black at the equator and pale blue in Scandinavia. In other words, we do not need the 'protection' afforded by sunglasses, we need the sunlight that we have evolved in. So why are we so afraid of the sun?

If I correctly understand when someone is not getting the sunlight is has evolved in, he does need some eyes protection.

For instance you have to protect your eyes when you go skiing or sailing, if you're Scandinavian and have to live in Florida, ...

 

[Annette1]

I realize this is a bit off the topic (sunglasses), but a thought popped into my head this morning as I was pondering the "sunlight" issue.

What about all this SPF stuff that is in everything these days?? I recall when SPF first came out in all the tanning/sunscreen lotions
(along with all the noise about how harmful the sun is for you). I used some sunscreen and my skin broke out very badly over my
entire body. I've not used it since.

It now seems to be turning up in numerous skin moisturizers and lotions and makeup applications; lipstick, eyeshadow, foundation. It's difficult to find a product without it these days. Almost like finding a toothpaste without fluoride.

 

[Green_Manalishi]

After reading this post i decided to seek some more info, and I came across the following statement:

In 1973, Dr. Ott used four windowless, first grade classrooms in Sarasota, Florida to test the effectiveness of full spectrum lighting. Two classrooms received installations of full-spectrum lights while two classrooms kept the standard cool-white fluorescent lights. The results: the level of behaviour improved considerably in the classes with the full-spectrum lights while the overall academic level of the children in those classes rose considerably.

By the above statement it seems that the cool-white lights are to avoid.

In 1961, with five times the national average incidence, an elementary school in Niles, Illinois, was found to have the highest rate of leukemia of any school in the USA. Because of the intense glare from the sun, in the newly-constructed building in which glass had been used extensively, the teachers in two of the classrooms kept the blinds drawn and the children were exposed all day only to 'warm-white' fluorescent light. All of the children with leukemia were being taught in these two classrooms. After several years of keeping the blinds drawn and the fluorescent lights on, the teachers in these two classrooms left and were replaced with teachers who preferred to let the sunlight in. At the same time, the warm-white fluorescents were replaced with cool-white lights. From 1964, the time of Ott's last visit, there were no further cases of leukemia reported in that school.

In this the cool-white light are referenced has a good solution.
So I got confused, what is the least bad solution (direct sunlight being the optimum). cool white or full spectrum light. Judging by the name i would say that full spectrum light bulbs are obviously the least bad solution.
Does anyone have any more information about this subject.

 

[durabone]

I have had a couple of Ott lights for a while. I bought the first to
power a BioSphere, and put it on a timer. Seemed to work well.
I only knew of the commercial products, ie.

_http://www.ott-lite.com/Cms/home.aspx]http://www.ott-lite.com/Cms/home.aspx

til' now. Had not seen any reports such as rolyateel showed.
Thanks!


db

 

[jordifs]

As read: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/180511-Cancer-Vitamin-D-and-Sunshine.html

Skin produces Vitamin D when in direct contact with UVB rays. At present day this Vitamin D is greatly needed due to world contamination. As a consequence the amount found in a normal diet is mediocre. The best source is sun exposure, as the number 1 provider. Nonetheless see that is UVB which is good, not UVA which seems to be very bad affecting the DNA. As commented in the following article and more detailed on the original source. The Vitamin D support to the general function of the body, help the immune system to fight illness like Cancer.

As I read (another sources), on a daily basis each body may be subject to 6000 attacks (cancer-like). Only 6 may be able to develop a single cancer cell. Nonetheless the body gets rid of this cancer cells. It attacks and eliminates each cancer-cell. Whenever the immune system is under stress or debilitated, then one cell can expand developing a more dangerous tumor. See that strengthening the immune system is the way to fight.

The following book, which I did not read, precisely talk about this issue in detail: "Light, Medicine of the Future"
_http://www.nomorehoaxes.com/catalog.html?page=shop.product_details&category_id=14&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=142

Another interesting issue is the application on Air Filter Systems for killing bugs using UV lighting. I saw a documentary that this technology applied for modulating precise spectrum can kill some "bug" but not all of them. It was applied through the eyes of the patient for a few minutes. Nonetheless I do not have the online link to the documentary.

At the end if you believe this about UVB, you see how the society promotes precisely what is bad. A gym can have UVA-light-emitting machinery, and the "sun is dangerous" message is always sent with protective measure that block UVB and UVC, but not UVA!

This is a complex matter and a lot of research is required, for some also with medical studies to support any claim.