Thread: Daylight panel, a cure for S.A.D?

News - Research Executive Agency - European Commission

Researchers have found a way to make a panel that simulates daylight. LED's behind the screen illuminate nanoparticles which scatter the light and make it blue, just like daylight. An illuminated panel in the ceiling is like a skylight, letting in natural daylight. Is this a boon for those who live in dark environments, to improve their moods and reduce anxiety and depression?

This is not an unreasonable theory, but overlooks a key element. I don't believe that simulated daylight can treat seasonal affective disorder. Simulated daylight is not particularly different from light bulbs which cannot help the patients in question. Seasonal affective disorder is sourced by a lack of sunlight, and artificial lights are used to compensate for such a state. Simulated sunlight could worsen the symptoms of the said condition because it would wave into the faces of afflicted people that they can't get what their brains want and need to settle for an imitation. A cure for this disorder would have to include something which could teach the brain that it does not need to equate darkness with conflict.

It's a cool architectural feature, but as for SAD the ultraviolet from $10 fluorescent tubes work well enough.

Originally Posted by Theresa

This is not an unreasonable theory, but overlooks a key element. I don't believe that simulated daylight can treat seasonal affective disorder. Simulated daylight is not particularly different from light bulbs which cannot help the patients in question. Seasonal affective disorder is sourced by a lack of sunlight, and artificial lights are used to compensate for such a state. Simulated sunlight could worsen the symptoms of the said condition because it would wave into the faces of afflicted people that they can't get what their brains want and need to settle for an imitation.

If sunlight, either in timing, spectrum or intensity is the reason for SAD, than there's no reason that artificial light of similar timing, spectrum or intensity couldn't be a full cure.

A cure for this disorder would have to include something which could teach the brain that it does not need to equate darkness with conflict.

Huh? What does equating darkness with conflict have to do with anything? Would you like to add something that sounds more like science than pseudoscience to a explanation?

I agree with Lynx.If a daylight panel sufficiently simulates daylight, why should it not have a similar effect?

This study showed similar effectiveness between light therapy (which is artificial lights) and an antidepressant to treat SAD.

"conclusion:Light treatment showed earlier response onset and lower rate of some adverse events relative to fluoxetine, but there were no other significant differences in outcome between light therapy and antidepressant medication. "

The Can-SAD study: a randomized controlled t... [Am J Psychiatry. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

Lynx_Fox, is it necessary for you to refer to one of my lines as pseudoscience simply because you don't understand it? Seasonal affective disorder is based on an abnormal reaction to a lack of natural light, not a lack of light altogether. Ultraviolet lamps and other sources of artificial light do not affect our bodies the same way that the sun does. Even if sessions with ultraviolet lamps temporarily improve the physical symptoms of this disorder, these can't actually treat the problem. Lamps are not sunlight, and our brains know it. People with seasonal affective disorder have chemical anomalies that tell their brains that something is wrong when, by nature, there is more darkness than light, hence the depression. In this case, there is a large psychological component that cannot be fixed by pretending to be in sunlight. This is why I say that a proper treatment would involve something that works directly with the brain to help it get over its discomfort with increased natural darkness.

Theresa

There are already daylight lamps available which quite well simulate daylight. Research has already been done showing that these can be used to ameliorate S.A.D. very well. In fact, some cafes put these lamps in, in places like Britain where winter causes lots of S.A.D. and this helps their customers.

Originally Posted by skeptic

News - Research Executive Agency - European Commission

Researchers have found a way to make a panel that simulates daylight. LED's behind the screen illuminate nanoparticles which scatter the light and make it blue, just like daylight. An illuminated panel in the ceiling is like a skylight, letting in natural daylight. Is this a boon for those who live in dark environments, to improve their moods and reduce anxiety and depression?

Interesting, but can exposure to this 'simulated daylight' actually effect the body's ability to create vitamin D3? If it does, then there may be some application for treating seasonally affected disorder.

My own experience of working graveyard shift and then staying awake during the daylight hours before retiring and getting a significant amount of time out of doors each day seems to have enhanced my appreciation of winter. I barely notice the decreasing daylight hours because my schedule allows me to make the most of the daylight we have.

I doubt any of the artificial lights produce UVB which is required for D3 production. By full spectrum, I'm pretty sure they are talking visible light.

I'd thought common fluorescent tubes typically stray a bit on the ultraviolet side. Grow-lamps certainly do.

S.A.D. has nothing to do with a lack of ultra violet. It is more a lack of blue light. If we need to get ultra violet for vitamin D production (easier to drink vitamin D enriched milk!), then a proper ultra violet lamp is indicated. But to prevent S.A.D. we need a blue lamp, and these daylight panels appear to be just the ticket.

I have grown plants under lights for several years and while they grow moderately well, they do not demonstrate nearly the robust manner that they do once the sunlight begins to return.

For that reason, I hypothesize that these new led lights may offer some benefit, but I will find it interesting to see if studies are able to determine just how much that benefit will be. As LED lights tend to be more energy efficient than other forms of lighting, the financial aspect may be the greatest benefit realized.

As for drinking milk to get vitamin D, many people either do not tolerate the stuff of find it just plain disgusting. I would rather eat the unborn embryos of chickens and spend daily time outdoors.

Remember for treating SAD, we only need just enough sunlight - imitation or otherwise - to get the condition past whatever threshold makes the condition serious enough to need treatment of any kind.

If this panel is good enough to do that, then it's good enough. No need for perfect replication of sunlight.

Skeptic, we cannot prevent seasonal affective disorder. We are not advanced enough to do so. Seasonal affective disorder is a chemical imbalance that someone is born with, although the age of the onset of symptoms varies. The problem is not with light itself, but how the brain perceives changes in the availability of natural light. In fact, the condition even comes in a rare form that causes the opposite issue in the summer, leading to anxiety and difficulty sleeping. For these reasons, no kind of lamp can treat seasonal affective disorder. What you are referring to is comparable to taking a narcotic for a skeletal matter. The drug only smothers the pain, it does not improve the bone. I know that this is not related to your question, but since you have mentioned the topic, you should be made cognizant that the word 'enriched' is just the food industry's euphemism for 'watered down with ersatzes of vitamins'. Imitations of vitamins are dangerous, and often have the opposite effect of their genuine counterparts. By nature, milk has very little vitamin D. I love milk and drink it every day, but of course only ever consume the pure form, meaning organic and whole with nothing added.

Originally Posted by Theresa

Lynx_Fox, is it necessary for you to refer to one of my lines as pseudoscience simply because you don't understand it? Seasonal affective disorder is based on an abnormal reaction to a lack of natural light, not a lack of light altogether. Ultraviolet lamps and other sources of artificial light do not affect our bodies the same way that the sun does. Even if sessions with ultraviolet lamps temporarily improve the physical symptoms of this disorder, these can't actually treat the problem. Lamps are not sunlight, and our brains know it. People with seasonal affective disorder have chemical anomalies that tell their brains that something is wrong when, by nature, there is more darkness than light, hence the depression. In this case, there is a large psychological component that cannot be fixed by pretending to be in sunlight. This is why I say that a proper treatment would involve something that works directly with the brain to help it get over its discomfort with increased natural darkness.

And you continue to think and write as if there is some sort of fundamental and special difference between natural and artificial light that goes beyond the intensity and frequency spectrum....there isn't. If the artificial light's intensity, spectrum and duration are the same as sunlight--the body doesn't not know the difference. If you were writing "natural light" simply to identify that optimum light conditions to avoid SAD than I wouldn't have commented on it. This is why blanket comments such as " For these reasons, no kind of lamp can treat seasonal affective disorder. " are not scientific. You haven't put forth any reasons related to the character of the light--and that's all that matters.

There are a number of concerns related to various forms of artificial light and there has NOT been a lot of long term study and data to reach conclusions from.

4. Some press articles claim that according to recent research, artificial light with a strong blue component could affect human circadian cycles and the hormonal system, and could result in diseases ranging from sleep disorders, immune system disorders, macular degeneration, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and osteoporosis to breast cancer. Some comparisons of the light of different artificial light sources claim further health disadvantages related to fluorescent lamps as compared to incandescent lamps. Taking into account the above, it is considered necessary to ask SCENIHR to update the conclusions of its opinion on Light Sensitivity as appropriate and to carry out an analysis of a wider range of lighting technologies and of associated potential health risks. Considering the scarcity of scientific evidence in relation to many of the questions raised, the assessment of the plausibility of the alleged health effects followed, if required, by the identification of potential research needs, is likely to be an important part of SCENIHR's work.

Underlining and bold added by me.

1. Why is artificial light a concern? - European Commission

As a graveyard shift worker of nine years, I have done a considerable amount of reading on the risks associated with shift work, especially third shift. The evidence does point toward elevated risks of serious health concerns but there are a number of factors involved, of which artificial lighting is just one.

Sadly. I think Theresa is affected by an irrational belief in woo. She indicates she thinks natural is better than unnatural. She mentioned vitamins and claims unnatural vitamins cause harm. Sorry, Theresa. If a person is lacking a particular vitamin, it does not matter whether the vitamin taken in natural or synthetic. It is the chemical structure that counts, not the origin. Synthetic vitamin C will comfortably prevent scurvey, just as it will in the form of orange juice.

In the same way, synthetic blue light, simulating daylight should be able to prevent S.A.D just as natural daylight does. One of the things I find ironic, in relation to the weird belief that natural always beats unnatural, is the human health and longevity increases the further away we are from our original "natural" way of life. People who believe in the paleo diet for example, fail to realise that our paleolithic cousins, eating that diet, lived to less than 30 years on average, compared to the 80 years plus we enjoy today.

Skeptic, I have only said that in the case of vitamins natural is better than artificial. I have never said that natural things are always more reliable than artificial things because I know that this is not true. Please do not put words in my mouth. I am cognizant that when it comes to vitamins and minerals, the chemical structure is what stands out to the body, which is precisely my point. For botanical reasons, it would be impossible for artificial vitamins to chemically replicate their natural versions. I'm afraid that you are mistaken about the supplemental form of ascorbic acid. It has a weak effect on the human body because it is nothing but the synthetic shell of vitamin C. Vitamins work in harmony with each other, and if something is missing from or different in one, which it will be in the case of pills, the blood cannot accept it the same way. It seems that you are having difficulty separating the symptoms of a disorder and its mere presence. At the moment, nothing can prevent seasonal affective disorder. It's something that one is born with. Even if there were a surefire treatment for it, this condition would still be carried by afflicted patients. A treatment is not a cure, and a cure is not a prevention.

Theresa

Vitamin C is ascorbic acid. It makes no difference at all whether the ascorbic acid is made in a plant or a chemical factory. Both have exactly the same chemical structure. If the body needs ascorbic acid, it will use it from either source.

It should be obvious upon reading my previous post that I know that vitamin C is ascorbic acid. I also know that synthetic ascorbic acid is identical to the shell of vitamin C. The key element here, though, is that synthetic ascorbic acid is identical to only the shell of vitamin C. This is due to the fact that it is impossible for artificial vitamins to be exactly like their natural forms in every way. From the perspective that involves a whole vitamin, the natural and artificial forms of vitamin C are not the same. This is why supplemental vitamin c often causes illness in ways that natural vitamin c does not. It passes through the digestive system and kidneys differently.

This is due to the fact that it is impossible for artificial vitamins to be exactly like their natural forms in every way. From the perspective that involves a whole vitamin, the natural and artificial forms of vitamin C are not the same.

I think you're mixing up two different concepts here. It is pretty well impossible for vitamin supplements to match the benefits obtained from foods containing those vitamins.

But it makes no difference to the inadequacy of supplements whether the chemical in question is extracted and purified from plants or is synthesised by other means. All you finish up with is two powders with exactly the same chemical composition. The only reason these things are not extracted and purified from plant sources is that the process is more expensive. If it were cheaper to do it that way, you can bet your boots that the companies would do it that way - and those supplements would still be inadequate substitutes for the foods in question.

I think Theresa is confusing the fact that natural vitamins may come associated with other valuable materials such as flavenoids. Obviously a purified synthetic vitamin does not have these. But the vitamin itself is exactly the same regardless of its origin, and the vitamin effect is exactly the same.

In rereading the discussion on vitamins, I am of the impression (possibly in error) that Theresa means vitamins ingested from whole foods are not to be compared to vitamin supplements.
Vitamins can be synthesized or extracted from natural sources, yet unless one cannot digest the food itself, most of what I have read advocates for the whole food precisely because of the synergistic relationship between the nutrients of various food combinations.

I've always taken SAD at face value because of anecdotal evidence, but to be honest, I've never really looked at the research. Is it just day light? Do people in warmer climates experience SAD in the winter months, like say, in San Diego? If it's a warmer climate, a person might get outside more, but if you work 9-5, you're not going to catch a lot of daylight in January there either.

One thing I notice in the winter is how restricted and routine my activities become. It seems like I'm getting lots of stimulation because I read different kinds of books, or paint different kinds of pictures, or watch different kinds of movies in my leisure time, but I don't go out as much, or go to as many different places in the winter. I sometimes wonder if SAD is related to a lack of spontaneous and novel activity or environments, as much as daylight.

Thank you, scheherazade. Your idea does fit with my argument on a secondary level, but is not the chief reason for it. My primary message is that synthetic vitamins are only identical to parts of natural ones. These are chemically isolated substances. No vitamin supplement is fully identical to its pure version. This is why artificial vitamins can cause hypervitaminosis and general organ damage whereas natural vitamins cannot unless if a ludicrous diet is followed, such as living on carrots. For instance, if you had a choice of an ice cream sundae made with chocolate ice cream, a brownie, chocolate chips, chocolate whipped cream and chocolate syrup or an ice cream sundae comprised of vanilla ice cream, strawberries, chocolate chips, plain whipped cream, and chocolate syrup, then it's highly probable that you would choose the latter since the former would include a nauseating amount of chocolate. Since a synthetic vitamin is not a complete vitamin, it carries too much of one thing, like the first sundae. A natural vitamin is in its whole form, so it has the right combination of components, like the second sundae. Artificial vitamins can treat deficiencies because even a portion of anything that the body lacks is surficially welcomed, so the blood grabs it and stretches it to its capacity. The process is just like what would follow mixing glasses of water with red food coloring. On the visual level, you might fool your friends into thinking that you're serving them fruit punch, but once they taste it, they'll know that it's nothing but water and will want beverages of flavor. This, however, is where some of the danger resides. Once your blood learns the truth, it will drag the missing parts of the vitamin that it needs from the body's reserves, which can actually lead to another deficiency. Skeptic, no, I do not suffer from such confusion, but can see why you might think so. DianeG, no, seasonal affective disorder is not caused by boredom. It comes from a chemical imbalance in the brain that tells your body that your environment is not normal when the amount of sunlight changes. In most cases, the brain will make an unnecessary connection between darkness and sadness or exhaustion, but there is a rare version that afflicts people during summer. This rare form, understandably enough, causes the opposite symptoms of its classic mate: hyperactivity, anxiety, and difficulty sleeping.

Theresa

Sadly, you are mistaken.

On the molecular level, there is no difference between a natural and a synthetic vitamin. They are totally identical.

There are other considerations, of course, such as what other chemicals you get along with the vitamin. The average human needs 50 milligrams per day of vitamin C. That can be given equally effectively with orange juice or with a vitamin C tablet. But the orange juice provides other chemicals also which may be of value. So the orange juice will be healthier than a pure vitamin C tablet. But the vitamin C component is identical either way.

Another consideration is dose. If you need 50 mgm per day, then that is what you should take. Some idiots take vitamin C tablets which are up to 1000 milligrams each. An overdose is not healthy. Using fruit as your vitamin C source is less likely to cause overdose. But the actual vitamin molecules are identical regardless of whether they are natural or synthetic.

Originally Posted by Theresa

it is impossible for artificial vitamins to be exactly like their natural forms in every way.

You seem to have resurrected the ancient doctrine of Vitalism, where substances produced in vivo somehow differ from the same substances produced in vitro because the former are supposedly endowed by the organism with some sort of special energy or quality. Your unconventional use of the word "shell" further substantiates this — apparently artificial substances have the *outward* appearances of the natural substances but supposedly lack something *inside*.

For example, prior to 1828, scientists believed that urea was a substance obtainable only through biological processes of living organisms. In 1828, Frederich Wöhler produced urea artificially — that is, without using biological processes. This process, called the Wöhler synthesis, struck a mortal blow to Vitalism.

So, if you do wish to continue arguing your Vitalism-like philosophy, please explain to us in what specific ways artificial Vitamin C differs from naturally produced Vitamin C, and please provide references.

Jrmonroe, you will be glad to hear that I will not continue to argue a philosophy germane to vitalism for two reasons: I have yet to start, and share your disapproval of the theory. Skeptic, you need not feel sadness for me. I am always happy to engage in discussions about my areas of interest.

Originally Posted by skeptic

News - Research Executive Agency - European Commission

Researchers have found a way to make a panel that simulates daylight. LED's behind the screen illuminate nanoparticles which scatter the light and make it blue, just like daylight. An illuminated panel in the ceiling is like a skylight, letting in natural daylight. Is this a boon for those who live in dark environments, to improve their moods and reduce anxiety and depression?

It's possible, but definitely depends on the circumstances. A recent study has shown that light actually intensifies affects for better or worse. If somebody is depressed, there is a very real possibility that you would be making it worse by increasing exposure to light. Having said that, one of my main qualms with the study I am talking about is that "Light intensity" influences affects through the mediating variable of perceived warmth. So it's debatable just how large of an effect light intensity actually has on affects outside of the controlled environment of the laboratory.

Abstract:

Incandescent affect: Turning on the hot emotional system with bright light