Perhaps due to this, there is an influential stream of opinion that, erroneously founded in the “first do not harm” motto, is dangerously questioning this field and ultimately trying to stop the development of the HCL concept. Have these folks ever questioned the nocive effects of fluorescent lighting in health? The “blue light hazard” meme also contributes to this. Blue radiation is essential for life, and nowadays everyone is trying to block the blue, short wavelength, component of light.
In future articles we will discuss about radical changes that have to happen in the lighting arena to enable the full potential for health. Connected lighting, cybersecurity, healthcare informatics interoperability with lighting control systems, user interface/experience (UX), pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of light, personalized medicine, are some of the key elements that will empower light and lighting in the healthcare environment.
And in the meantime, why are we questioning the benefits of light and lighting in healthcare? Not sure if it is related to the fact that light, particularly daylight, is almost free, specially if compared with chemical drugs. It could be also the paradigm shift that is around the corner that will move lighting from the niche of lighting designers and facilities managers to more holistic minded multidisciplinary teams. In any case, even if we can agree with the sort of snake oil philosophy of some lighting industry players that need new sales arguments, the blind application of the Vorsorgeprinzip concept, precautionary principle, can create more harm than the development of the HCL science and industry.
Our criteria is that the harm is more in the blindness of the traditional lighting agents than in the suggested lack of evidence. In case of doubt, turn off the light to see how important it is for your life.