Isn’t that like countering a claim that “People don’t require oranges to be healthy,” with a cite that explains “People need Vitamin C to be healthy?”
Q.E.D. specified sunlight - not Vitamin D. It’s possible to get Vitamin D from other sources. Converting sunlight into Vitamin D may be the easiest approach, but it’s certainly not the only one.
Studies suggest that we can get enough vitamin D via diet, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t health effects and by-products of UV absorption that we don’t yet understand. Furthermore, consider the long term effect of using say 2800 kelvin lights for general illumination (incandescent) rather than the ~4100-6500K cycle that our ancestors experienced for so many thousands of years (on your eyes and brain).
The best technology is already “up there in the sky.” Florescent lights flicker and even make for bad photography and videography. I’m not saying do away with lights, but just that we can learn from nature more than we think (instead of only considering the populace: “this new light is perfect - no bad UVA/B, only the rays you need to see”).
Such as?
We know of several effects of UV exposure: skin cancer, loss of skin elasticity and cataracts to name but a few.
The reality is that a large number of people are Vitamin D deficient. Vitamin D supplements are a medication for insufficient exposure to sunlight and/or dietary intake of Vitamin D. The problem isn’t that people don’t take a pill, it’s that they don’t get sufficient exposure to sunlight.
Which I said, quite clearly. But, they can take a pill, or include in their diets those things, like milk and fortified bread, which have had vitamin D added. The lifestyle of the typical Westerner is such that they simply cannot get sufficient sunlight to meet their vitamin D requirements. If they want to avoid the health issues, they have to include supplements or vitamin-enriched foods.
That is not what’s meant by the term “warm”. Warm, as applied to illumination, means the emitted spectrum tends towards the red end. Which incandescents most certainly do. Light whose spectrum tends towards blue is termed “cool.”
Oh god, those idiots tried to judge with their eyes? Anyway, yes, that is retarded. That would mean they are picking CFs with lower color temperatures just because incandescents have low color temperatures. Incandescents have different stengths than CFs, but color temperature isn’t one of them.
http://www.nutritionhealthinfo.com/vitamins/vitamins_0236_001.pdf
There are a bunch more on pubmed too (if you search uv vitamin d or something).
Yes, why would you want all of your lights to be warm (have a low color temperature) and significantly deviate from the radiance of natural light?
We’ve already discussed the vitamin D issue. I asked what else sunlihgt was supposed to do for us.
Because, thanks to over a century of incandescent illumination, that’s what people are used to indoors.
Well our biology isn’t use to it; you don’t evolve in a century. If people were exposed to natural indoor lighting, then they would surely choose it over dull lighting.
What else sunlight does for us? Well it aids a healthy circadian rhythm, and is responsible for some of the extra energy you feel in the summer (either due to psychological effects, something I - or everyone - doesn’t know, or both).
Lighting indoors with natural light (especially by using a sun-roof, or something) can kill some molds, and other things you don’t want growing in your house (that can effect your immediate health). It will also help you grow plants - and contact with more nature (hint: sun) is beneficial to one’s health.
Furthermore, look at what happens to the mental health of someone in solitary confinement (with little or no light) - and the studies surrounding instances like this which show correlations between lighting and the subject’s emotional states.
I’m not telling you to live outside with the animals, but engineers need to come to a realization. There are definite dos and don’ts of separating humans from the “outside” world, and the better we draw these lines, the more efficiently, economically, and effectively we can build healthy and maintainable living environments.
Sunlight does help with S.A.D.
Still, you dudes- study after study has shown the CFLs last up to 10X longer in general. If you have tried them once and they didn’t, then it is time to try them again. If they still don;t work right, it is your home’s electric system or you are imagining things.
I read somewhere on the internet that it’s a cure for dyslexia. 
Which, according to that very article, can be treated with light therapy–using artificial lighting. No sun required.
It seems that the answer is yes, we need the sun to be healthy unless we do a host of other things that lots of us don’t, in fact, do.
I swear to dog, I’ll get you for that!
Yes, but it requires special and expensive artificial lights, which some don’t like.
This morning I actually had a CF fail on me. I forgot about it until I got home, and didn’t feel like making a trip to the store for a new bulb, so I replaced it with a 3-way incandescent. Man, I’d forgotten how nice and bright a 3-way bulb is! No wonder I was always squinting to read under that lamp. Screw cost and the environment. Until they make a good CF that equals a 150 watt reading lamp, I’m staying with the old bulbs.
If somebody knows of such a bulb, please point it out to me, for the environments sake.
That’s been my experience as well. I mentioned this in another thread a while back but when I re-replaced the burned out CF’s in my kitchen with incandescents, I almost cried I was so happy I could see again. Maybe it’s my eyes, but CFs just don’t do it for me.
I’ll plant some trees to make up for it.