{"title":"016 Daily non-solar UV exposure","authors":"R. Sayre, J. Dowdy","doi":"10.1034/J.1600-0781.2002.180208_16.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An examination of the UV emission by fluorescent and tungsten lamps often used for lighting in the home, office or school indicates a considerable amount of UV radiation load for unsuspecting individuals. The amount of UV exposure from non-solar sources would appear to be potentially as great as 1/2–2/3 MEDs daily or 150 MED yearly. This is interesting as it exceeds the generally often-quoted levels of expected UV accumulated from sunlight exposure during normal daily activities. \n \n \n \nOf possibly greater significance is the fact that this exposure contains wavelengths not present in sunlight reaching the earth's surface. Fluorescent lamps, activated by excited mercury wavelengths, emit significant amounts of short radiation < 290 nm, including clearly detectable 254 nm lines. Similarly, the common tungsten bulbs, even low 60 Watt bulbs, emit detectable UV radiation as short as 280 nm. Wavelengths this short do not represent a detectable risk from outdoor exposure. \n \n \n \nIt would appear plausible that concern about the increasing risk of melanoma due to UV in sunlight exposure may be misplaced. Individuals at greatest risk include doctors, nurses, school teachers, lawyers and office workers and not farmers, fishermen, or construction workers. The indoor office workers would receive vastly greater exposure from artificial lighting, especially at non-solar wavelengths, than would similar outdoor workers.","PeriodicalId":20104,"journal":{"name":"Photodermatology, Photoimmunology and Photomedicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Photodermatology, Photoimmunology and Photomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1034/J.1600-0781.2002.180208_16.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
An examination of the UV emission by fluorescent and tungsten lamps often used for lighting in the home, office or school indicates a considerable amount of UV radiation load for unsuspecting individuals. The amount of UV exposure from non-solar sources would appear to be potentially as great as 1/2–2/3 MEDs daily or 150 MED yearly. This is interesting as it exceeds the generally often-quoted levels of expected UV accumulated from sunlight exposure during normal daily activities.
Of possibly greater significance is the fact that this exposure contains wavelengths not present in sunlight reaching the earth's surface. Fluorescent lamps, activated by excited mercury wavelengths, emit significant amounts of short radiation < 290 nm, including clearly detectable 254 nm lines. Similarly, the common tungsten bulbs, even low 60 Watt bulbs, emit detectable UV radiation as short as 280 nm. Wavelengths this short do not represent a detectable risk from outdoor exposure.
It would appear plausible that concern about the increasing risk of melanoma due to UV in sunlight exposure may be misplaced. Individuals at greatest risk include doctors, nurses, school teachers, lawyers and office workers and not farmers, fishermen, or construction workers. The indoor office workers would receive vastly greater exposure from artificial lighting, especially at non-solar wavelengths, than would similar outdoor workers.