<p>[Edited down from a verbose initial posting:]</p>
<p>In works that I have seen, people are raising questions about how appropriate LED lights (and, starting earlier, other forms of artificial light) are compared to sunlight. A search for <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dangers+of+led+lighting&amp;atb=v386-1&amp;ia=web" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;dangers of LED lighting&quot;</a> turns up multiple results, some of them raising serious concerns about the appropriateness of LED light as a surrogate for natural sunlight.</p>
<p>What I have not seen raised as a question, in light of a recent &quot;out of Africa&quot; theory implying that the human chassis is built for African savanna sunlight, and discussion or challenge of whether &quot;natural&quot; sunlight at latitudes markedly further north/south of the equator is an adequate surrogate to the African equatorial sunlight that the human race is adapted to.</p>
<p>In Alaska, Home Depots carry sun lamps and backpackers in Scandinavian countries carry light boxes, so there is at least a sense that at that kind of latitude &quot;natural&quot; sunlight fails to be a gold standard. I have in the comments raised the question of whether &quot;Seasonal Affective Disorder&quot; is not a pathology against humans living in the light conditions we are adapted to, but a potentially normal response when subjected to conditions we are not adapted to (a problem but not a pathology in the same sense that developing hypothermia when deprived of adequate heat is a problem but not a pathology against our living under conditions we are adapted to).</p>
<p>To what extent should sunlight at different latitudes (say, in 10° intervals from the equator to the poles, and at different times of year) be seen as the gold standard for a human race that is at its origin adapted to equatorial sunlight?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-16T18:33:58.690Z
[This paper](https://doi.org/10.5498%2Fwjp.v5.i1.138) says: "... our previous work reporting a similar frequency but a lower awareness of SAD and its treatment in African-Americans." and "The study did not find any significant group difference between African-Americans and their Caucasian counterparts in adherence with light treatment as well as in symptomatic improvement." - so no difference, but this was in Baltimore, not very high latitude.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-16T19:16:33.837Z
There are various potential interactions between sunlight on health. To name a few: susceptibility to skin cancer (through UV exposure of skin), vitamin D synthesis (through UV exposure of skin), circadian rhythms and sleep/wake cycle (through visible light especially in the blue range, through the eye), seasonal affective disorder (possibly involving vitamin D, possibly involving circadian circuits). I think it would be helpful to narrow your question to just one of these.
Bryan Krause
<untagged>
Have any recommendations for sunlight exposure noted differences?
Christos Hayward
# Have any recommendations for sunlight exposure noted differences?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-10-14)

[Edited down from a verbose initial posting:]

In works that I have seen, people are raising questions about how appropriate LED lights (and, starting earlier, other forms of artificial light) are compared to sunlight. A search for ["dangers of LED lighting"](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dangers+of+led+lighting&atb=v386-1&ia=web) turns up multiple results, some of them raising serious concerns about the appropriateness of LED light as a surrogate for natural sunlight.

What I have not seen raised as a question, in light of a recent "out of Africa" theory implying that the human chassis is built for African savanna sunlight, and discussion or challenge of whether "natural" sunlight at latitudes markedly further north/south of the equator is an adequate surrogate to the African equatorial sunlight that the human race is adapted to.

In Alaska, Home Depots carry sun lamps and backpackers in Scandinavian countries carry light boxes, so there is at least a sense that at that kind of latitude "natural" sunlight fails to be a gold standard. I have in the comments raised the question of whether "Seasonal Affective Disorder" is not a pathology against humans living in the light conditions we are adapted to, but a potentially normal response when subjected to conditions we are not adapted to (a problem but not a pathology in the same sense that developing hypothermia when deprived of adequate heat is a problem but not a pathology against our living under conditions we are adapted to).

To what extent should sunlight at different latitudes (say, in 10° intervals from the equator to the poles, and at different times of year) be seen as the gold standard for a human race that is at its origin adapted to equatorial sunlight?

**Tags:** untagged

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: [This paper](https://doi.org/10.5498%2Fwjp.v5.i1.138) says: "... our previous work reporting a similar frequency but a lower awareness of SAD and its treatment in African-Americans." and "The study did not find any significant group difference between African-Americans and their Caucasian counterparts in adherence with light treatment as well as in symptomatic improvement." - so no difference, but this was in Baltimore, not very high latitude.  
> **username_2**: There are various potential interactions between sunlight on health. To name a few: susceptibility to skin cancer (through UV exposure of skin), vitamin D synthesis (through UV exposure of skin), circadian rhythms and sleep/wake cycle (through visible light especially in the blue range, through the eye), seasonal affective disorder (possibly involving vitamin D, possibly involving circadian circuits). I think it would be helpful to narrow your question to just one of these.  

---

## 0 answers

