Incidence and cases per year in Denmark under the
worst case scenario attributable to exposures to double- and single-capped
fluorescent lamps with high, median and low UV emissions in offices and
schools added to a basic personal annual solar UV dose, with a median of 166
SEDs/yr and 95% in the range 50 – 551 SEDs/yr. For comparison, the two
bottom rows give the effects of adding a Mediterranean holiday to everybodys
annual UV dose or having the Danish people living in Australia with the
corresponding SCC risk and incidence.
Table 8. Estimates of SCC risk
Source (all
RG0) at
500 lux |
Actinic
UV in
mW/m2 |
Eery/Eact,
ratio
erythemal
over
actinic UV |
Erythemal
UV in
mW/m2 |
SED/h at
500 lx
exposure |
30%
exposure
SED/y
from
working
days
(+% of
median
annual
solar
dose) |
%
increase
in risk at
65y#
with
median
solar
exposure |
%
increase
in
incidence |
in DK
added #
cases/y* |
| Note: Scenario with UV exposure from the fluorescent lamps during school years, 6 h/d, 5d/wk, 40
wks/y from 5 till 20 years of age, and during working days as an adult, 8 h/d, 5d/wk, 48 wk/y from
20 till 65 years of age; numbers in columns 2–5 pertain to full exposure to the lamps at 500 lux;
annual dose in SEDs stated under “30% exposure” is a more realistic maximum exposure from
working days than at full exposure; the first row under “sources” represents a hypothetical
fluorescent lamp at the upper UV limit of the exempt risk category, RG0, according to CIE/IEC
standardization.
# Overall risk at 65 yrs of age scales to 0.0057 for males and to 0.0036 for females in Denmark,
and equals 0.26 for males and 0.17 for females in Australia in 2002 (Staples et al. 2006).
**Not calculated for median solar exposure, but risk estimated from actual cumulative (agespecific)
incidence in the white Caucasian population of Australia (Staples et al. 2006).. |
Just
compliant
with RG0
limit |
max 1 |
> 3 |
> 3 |
> 0.108 |
> 62.2
(37.5) |
>87 |
>38 |
>342 |
| high UV |
Double capped
tube |
0.328 |
3.66 |
1.20 |
0.043 |
24.9 (15) |
31 |
14.0 |
126 |
Single capped
tube |
0.191 |
3.30 |
0.630 |
0.0227 |
13.1 (7.9) |
16 |
7.2 |
65 |
| median UV |
Double capped
tube |
0.141 |
3.24 |
0.4565 |
0.0164 |
9.45 (5.7) |
11 |
5.2 |
47 |
Single capped
tube |
0.00291 |
3.85 |
0.0112 |
0.000403 |
0.23
(0.14) |
0.27 |
0.13 |
1.2 |
| low UV |
Double capped
tube |
0.00834 |
5.59 |
0.0466 |
0.00168 |
0.97
(0.58) |
1.1 |
0.52 |
4.7 |
Single capped
tube |
3.64 10-6 |
3.93 |
1.43 10-5 |
5.15 10-7 |
0.0003
(0.00018) |
0.0003 |
0.0001 |
<<1 |
| Reference exposures |
Everybody 1 week Mediterranean vacation (50 SEDs) each year
throughout life |
83 |
45 |
405 |
| Living in Australia |
4,440***
* |
3,600 |
33,500 |
Source: SCENIHR, Health effects of artificial light, 19 March 2012,
3.7 Exposure and health risk scenarios, pp. 71-78.
Related publication:
Other Figures & Tables on this publication:
Figure 1. Electrical lighting sources technologies
Figure 2. Wavelength regions in optical radiation
Figure 3. Chromophores and their absorption bands (adapted from Jagger 1967)
Figure 4a. Interaction of UV radiation with the human eye at all ages (adapted from Sliney 2002).
Figure 4b. Specificity of optical radiation interaction with the eye of children below 9 years of age (adapted from Sliney 2002).
Figure 4c. Optical radiation interaction with the young human eye (10 years old up to young adulthood) (adapted from Sliney 2002)
Figure 4d. Optical radiation interaction with the eye of an aging human (adapted from Sliney 2002)
Figure 5. Light penetration in the skin
Table 1. Lamp parameters supplied by the European Lamp Companies Federation
Table 2. Overview of the classes of photodamage to the retina
Table 3. Interaction of light with eye tissues and chromophores
Table 4. "Light related" skin diseases
Table 5. Wavelength dependency in photosensitive diseases
Table 6. Examples of exposure situations from artificial light for the general population
Table 7. Percent increase in SCC incidence and risk at 80 years of age due to certain added UV doses
Table 8. Estimates of SCC risk
BOX I: Metrics of optical radiation and (bio-)effectiveness
Figure 6. shows the typical adverse effects of light on eye tissues as a function of wavelength.
Figure 7. Production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by rod photoreceptors exposed to blue light in vitro (adapted from Yang et al. 2003)
Figure 8. Photosynthesis of vitamin D3 and further metabolism (adapted from Dutch Cancer Society 2010)
