Graphic courtesy of Bob Fosbury
by DOE initiatives. Given the discriminatory impact of DOE’s “energy savings at-all-cost" approach, it is hard to see how the existing agencies can address this problem. There may be other departments who would be more focused on learning how to provide all individuals with lighting, displays, and buildings that support human health.
PERSONAL OPINION ON NEXT STEPS In many ways the best course of action for the DOE would be to remove all L/W restrictions and get out of the lighting business. But, the damage has been done and some level of oversight is required. It is proposed that the DOE reverse course and ban the sale of lighting with greater than 45 L/W, mandate minimum NIR/VIS ratios of greater than 3, and require enhanced dimming range with minimum flicker. Similarly, DOE mandates regarding low E glass should be revisited especially for hospitals, nursing homes, and schools. The 90% of the solar spectrum the DOE eliminated was never theirs to get rid of. From a discovery and innovation perspective, the 120 L/W rule represents a major impediment to progress. While far from perfect, our GSL’s show that our industry has all the technology to create lighting that is supportive of the human body. Lighting can mimic the entire spectral range we experience under a shade tree but only if we are not constrained by the 120 L/W rule change. It is reasonable to argue that the true energy savings is via
66
designing lighting
using lighting to enhance the body’s internal energy production efficiency, pathogen protection, and neurological function. As shown by Jeffery, the very wavelengths the 120 L/W rule change eliminates enhance our most basic energy production in our cells and slow aging. At some point maybe we will be able to make emitters that can safely save some more energy without causing harm. It is more likely we will be able to provide the customer with data that shows them a real benefit to not only changing their lighting and architectural features but also to turning those lights off. These alternate innovation pathways are being severely hampered by the DOE’s “energy savings at-all-cost” perspective. The DOE has created a host of problems that now require innovation to fix. Only within the last few decades has our ability to measure biological processes and structures advanced to the point that we can get a glimpse of how sunlight impacts our health. These tools reveal how complex and finely tuned biological systems are to sunlight and our surroundings. Putting roadblocks in the way of that progress is counterproductive. As an example, Buknahov’s work shows how infantile our understanding and limited our measurements are when it comes to biological systems. Cells have for millions of years built optical structures that are the envy of any optical engineer. Altering the environment we live in should only be done with a great deal of respect for how limited our understanding is. ■