I honestly believe that the response about the above title is “beating around the push” answer. You contradict yourself. On the article you say "there haven’t been many studies period,“so how can you honestly write that article. Then you also state "
The danger of ultraviolet light remains controversial and given the difficulty of epidemiological studies may never be definitely settled.”
I do not know how you can say enough is known about that issue, with those comments. You should just be honest and admit, that we do not know period and should avoid it as much as possible. Who knows if this is the cause of eye problems to people like me that have been working in front of a computer with 3 flurecent lights right on top of me and many others lights around me. Especially at such a young age and the doctors find me healthy. Don’t suggest thing should be taken as safe, just because there are not enough studies about it. Of course there is not enough studies, do you know who many companies would have to invest to change these lights.
How many studies have been conducted on the long-term health effects of sitting in front of a computer? You clearly have no worries about that, or you wouldn’t be posting here. Or breathing air-conditioned air? Or wearing synthetic fiber clothes? For that matter, why not worry about the effects of lack of fluorescent lighting? If you avoid everything whose health effects have not been studied, just in case, you’re not going to be left with much. The prudent thing is to decide which activities are more likely to be dangerous, and study those (and maybe avoid those things until the results come in).