Some Israeli scientists have discovered a link between exposure to light during the night and breast cancer. This is consistent with other recent findings about night time light and cancer with the major hypothesis being that light suppresses the production of melatonin, which fights tumor formation. The Washington Post reports that
researchers found the breast cancer rate in localities with average night lighting to be 37 percent higher than in communities with the lowest amount of light; and they noted that the rate was higher by an additional 27 percent in areas with the highest amount of light.
This story might just seem like an interesting bit of information with no real policy implications, but not so!
Abraham Haim, a University of Haifa chronobiologist involved in the study, said the findings raise questions about the recent push to switch to energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs, which suppress melatonin production more than conventional incandescent bulbs. “This may be a disaster in another 20 years,” Haim said, “and you won’t be able to reverse what we did by mistake.” He called for more research before policies favoring fluorescent lights are implemented, and for more emphasis on using less light at night.
Now, perhaps this study is flawed and the new bulbs won’t have any impact on cancer rates. Perhaps whatever problems exist with the light produced by the bulbs can be easily overcome. But what we just end up with a bunch more women with breast cancer because of bans on incandescent bulbs?
The problem illustrates a general point about government bans and mandates: they are extraordinarily blunt instruments. Sure, they might acheive their stated goals, but what about unintended consequences? Government moves far too slowly to react in a timely manner to every piece of new research, but it is simultaneously subject to panics about whatever danger is currently in the media regardless of whether the risks are major or miniscule. Furthermore, government bans cannot take into account individual needs or preferences. The solution to these problems is to let people make their own decisions about what tradeoffs are acceptable to them–energy efficiency vs. a somewhat lower risk of breat cancer–and purchase the products that meet those criteria.
Link from Hit and Run.
