In 1988, Tucson, Arizona-based astronomers David Crawford and Tim Hunter became concerned that the night sky above their heads was getting too bright. The city lights certainly posed a professional threat—obscuring the stars and galaxies that had become their livelihoods. But even more troubling to the duo was that increased economic development in urban areas (construction sites, downtown strips, shopping malls, restaurants) appeared to be having unusual effects on human health, as well as on urban wildlife populations. Migratory bird species, for instance, were often driven off course by billboards or skyscrapers with a neon glow.
So Crawford and Hunter founded the International Dark Sky Association, or IDSA, a network of astronomers and other scientists, along with volunteers, bent on preserving the sanctity of light pollution-free, star-filled night skies. Today, the group numbers around 3,000 members spread over 50 countries. IDSA program manager John Barentine says that the organization’s goal is not to turn off all the world’s lights, but rather to improve the quality of outdoor lighting.
Barentine believes 2017 could be the turning point for the revolution in how cities are lit, given that the American Medical Association recently acknowledged that cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity as at least partial products of chronic sleep disruption brought on by exposure to bright light sources at night. To help solve this problem, IDSA’s grassroots campaigning and publicity-generating “star parties” call for towns and cities to implement “warmer” municipal lighting systems—as opposed to the harsh, yet traditional, short-wavelength “blue” light.
[quote position="left" is_quote="true"]Giving the right light to people during the day may be just as important as removing it at night.[/quote]
But Dr. Steven Lockley at the Harvard Medical School isn’t convinced. He studies the connection between light exposure and human health, and argues that while street lights “aren’t equivalent to darkness,” the outside glare still isn’t strong enough to penetrate into people’s bedrooms. The real sleep cycle disruptors, he argues, are indoor electric light sources, like TVs, tablets, and laptop screens.
A 2015 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that exposure to an e-book before bed “acutely suppresses melatonin.” This is one of the central complaints around after-dark exposure to artificial light. Here’s why: Melatonin, a neurohormone that regulates our sleep and wake patterns, is vital to our basic functioning as humans. Eating, walking, talking—even just staying alert through the day—all depend on whether you’ve received enough melatonin during the night.
Less melatonin means less deep sleep, and “less deep sleep means less recovery and more sleepiness upon waking,” says Lockley. As an example, he cites young children, who require deep, slow-wave sleep to produce growth hormone (which in turn affects brain and body development). “Any light between dusk and bedtime will likely have a biological effect, but by minimizing the intensity and blue-light content, you can minimize these effects on sleep.”
But as it turns out, giving the right light to people during the day may be just as important as removing it at night.
[quote position="right" is_quote="true"]I remember walking around the department store during Christmas and just crying for no reason. [/quote]
“During winter, there’s a greater duration of melatonin,” explains Dr. Alfred Lewy, one of the pioneering researchers of light therapy. The method was first attempted in 1982 as a way to treat seasonal affective disorder, a term coined two years later by fellow psychiatrist Norman Rosenthal.
As Lewy explains, patients with SAD experience a “drift,” or lag, in their internal body clock, due to the slow onset of dawn in winter. “Our clock is cued to that first bright light exposure in the morning when we wake up; it resets our 24-hour rhythm.” As a result, he concluded that people with SAD needed bright light exposure in the morning to reset their clock.
Oklahoma-raised Sherrie Baxter never had an issue with seasonal affective disorder, until she moved to Oregon in 1991. “I remember walking around the department store during Christmas and just crying for no reason. And then spring would come, and I’d go back to normal and forget all about it.” When her mother spotted an ad in the local newspaper by the Oregon Health and Science University, Baxter ended up enrolling as a research subject for light therapy, and she says the experience—which involved being exposed to a box-like contraption that emitted bright beams of white light at designated times during the day—made “a huge difference.”
In fact, she felt so much better, she became a missionary for light therapy, spreading the gospel as much as possible to her community in Portland, where up to 15 percent of the population suffers from SAD. She even tried getting a few light boxes for her sister and friends. But at $1,000 a piece, they were too expensive for most. So, with help from researchers at OHSU, she decided to build her own line of user-friendly, cost-effective light boxes.
Her efforts paid off: Today, Bio-Light light boxes are shipped all over the world and recommended by doctors who work in the field; they’re even used at light therapy research centers (which is ironic, given Baxter’s history as a former research subject). Each set comes with a chart explaining how much brightness you’ll receive depending on your distance from the box. For example, if you’re 44 inches away, then the brightness level is 2,500 lux, which is the amount needed to turn off melatonin.
[quote position="full" is_quote="true"]Any light between dusk and bedtime will likely have a biological effect.[/quote]
“You don’t stare at the light, you just keep your eyes open,” Baxter explains, “That way, it goes through your retina and gets transmitted to the brain.”
Traditionally, the function of light therapy has been limited to winter mood-boosting—but that’s changing. “The original research was on SAD,” Baxter explains, “but in the last several years, they discovered it’s more complicated than that.” She points to researchers in San Diego, who in 2015 found that exposure to light lessened depression, regardless of the season. Similar results were found in studies done on women experiencing premenstrual syndrome. And just last month, the BBC reported that light therapy is even being tested to fight the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. Baxter adds: “We’ve also sold a lot of units to veterans, for regular depression, but also for post-traumatic stress.”
[quote position="left" is_quote="true"]Light therapy is being tested to fight the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.”[/quote]
Meanwhile, in Australia, researchers at the Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences—which has its own sleep program—have experimented with blue light therapy as a way to treat patients with brain injuries. And perhaps most amazing of all: A team in Europe is declaring that men with low libido experienced a near double boost to their testosterone levels after exposure to light.
All of which may, in a very roundabout way, help to underscore John Barentine’s original point, and the larger mission of IDSA. “We want people to think differently about their relationship to light,” he says. “If they can change their view of what quality lighting is, they’re going to naturally gravitate toward feeling like they need less of it.” And that’s a good thing—whether people want to see more of the Milky Way, or simply become more proactive about their own health.
Why do some folks use social media but don't engage?
Psychologist says people who never comment on social media share these 5 positive traits
For over 20 years, social media has developed into a staple in many people’s day-to-day lives. Whether it’s to keep in communication with friends and family, following the thoughts of celebrities, or watching cat videos while sipping your morning coffee, there seem to be two types of social media users: commenters and lurkers.
The term “lurker” sounds equally mysterious and insidious, with some social media users writing them off as non-participants at best or voyeurs at worst. However, mindfulness expert Lachlan Brown believes these non-commenters have some very psychologically positive and healthy traits. Let’s take a look at how each one of these traits could be beneficial and see how fruitful lurking might be even though it can drive content creators crazy.
1. Cautious about vulnerability
Consciously or not, making a post online or commenting on one puts you and your words out there. It’s a statement that everyone can see, even if it’s as simple as clicking “like.” Doing so opens yourself up to judgment, with all the good, bad, and potential misinterpretation that comes with it. Non-commenters would rather not open themselves up to that.
These silent users are connected to a concept of self-protection by simply not engaging. By just scrolling past posts or just reading/watching them without commentary, they’re preventing themselves from any downsides of sharing an opinion such as rejection, misunderstanding, or embarrassment. They also have more control on how much of themselves they’re willing to reveal to the general public, and tend to be more open face-to-face or during one-on-one/one-on-few private chats or DMs. This can be seen as a healthy boundary and prevents unnecessary exposure.
Considering many comment sections, especially involving political topics, are meant to stir negative emotional responses to increase engagement, being extra mindful about where, when, and what you comment might not be a bad idea. They might not even take the engagement bait at all. Or if they see a friend of theirs post something vulnerable, they feel more motivated to engage with them personally one-on-one rather than use social media to publicly check in on them.
2. Analytical and reflective mindset
How many times have you gone onto Reddit, YouTube, or any other site and just skimmed past comments that are just different versions of “yes, and,” “no, but,” or “yes, but”? Or the ever insightful, formerly popular comment “First!” in a thread? These silent browsers lean against adding to such noise unless they have some valid and thoughtful contribution (if they bother to comment period).
These non-posters are likely wired on reflective thinking rather than their initial intuition. Not to say that all those who comment aren’t thoughtful, but many tend to react quickly and comment based on their initial feelings rather than absorbing the information, thinking it over, researching or testing their belief, and then posting it. For "lurkers," it could by their very nature to just do all of that and not post it at all, or share their thoughts and findings privately with a friend. All in all, it’s a preference of substance over speed.
3. High sense of self-awareness
Carried over from the first two listed traits, these silent social media users incorporate their concern over their vulnerability and their reflective mindset into digital self-awareness. They know what triggers responses out of them and what causes them to engage in impulsive behavior. It could be that they have engaged with a troll in the past and felt foolish. Or that they just felt sad after a post or got into an unnecessary argument that impacted them offline. By knowing themselves and seeing what’s being discussed, they choose to weigh their words carefully or just not participate at all. It’s a form of self-preservation through restraint.
4. Prefer to observe rather than perform
Some folks treat social media as information, entertainment, or a mix of both, and commenting can feel like they’re yelling at the TV, clapping alone in a movie theater when the credits roll, or yelling “That’s not true!” to a news anchor that will never hear them. But contrary to that, social media is a place where those yells, claps, and accusations can be seen and get a response. By its design, social media is considered by experts and the media as performative, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Taking all of the previously mentioned traits into account, one can see why they would prefer to “observe the play” rather than get up on the stage of Facebook or X.
On top of that, these non-commenters could be using social media differently than those who choose to fully engage with it. Using this type of navigation, there may be nothing for them to comment about. Some commenters are even vying for this for their mental health. There are articles about how to better curate your social media feeds and manipulate algorithms to create a better social media experience to avoid unnecessary conflict or mentally tiring debate.
If you go on a blocking spree on all of your accounts and just follow the posters that boost you, it could turn your social media into a nice part of your routine as you mainly engage with others face-to-face or privately. In terms of commenting, if your curated Instagram is just following cute dogs and all you have to offer for a comment is “cute dog,” you might just enjoy the picture and then move on with your day rather than join in the noise. These non-commenters aren’t in the show and they’re fine with it.
5. Less motivated by social validation
The last trait that Brown showcases is that social media users who browse without posting tend to be independent from external validation, at least online. Social media is built to grow through feedback loops such as awarding likes, shares, and reposts of your content along with notifications letting you know that a new person follows you or wants to connect. This can lead many people to connect their activity on social media with their sense of self worth, especially with adolescents who are still figuring out their place in the world and have still-developing brains.
Engaging in social media via likes, shares, comments, and posts rewards our brains by having them release dopamine, which makes us feel good and can easily become addictive. For whatever reason, non-commenters don’t rely on social media as a means to gauge their social capital or self worth. This doesn’t make them better than those who do. While some non-commenters could have healthier ways to boost their self worth or release dopamine into their systems, many get that validation from equally unhealthy sources offline. That said, many non-commenters’ silence could be a display of independence and self confidence.
Whether you frequently comment online or don’t, it’s good to understand why you do or don’t. Analyzing your habits can help you determine whether your online engagement is healthy, or needs to be tweaked. With that information, you can then create a healthy social media experience that works for you.