The scientists research was on how light affects humans and they discovered that the

pure sunlight is healthier than the regular light people get from cool-white fluorescents light
bulbs, which is the most common light bulb used. In the article it says, “In experimental animals,
prolonged exposure to ordinary indoor lighting has been linked to reproductive abnormalities
and enhanced susceptibility to cancer.”-(Brody 1981) This study shows that the ordinary indoor
lighting isn’t good enough to keep you a safe distance from cancer. After learning this Dr.
Wurtman suggests that everyone spend as much time outdoors in natural sunlight as possible.
These researchers published this discovery in “The New York Times Archives”.
This research discovery impacts individual decision-making because if people decide to
spend more time outdoors in the natural sunlight from the sun, they will have a reduced change
of forming cancer. This discovery also Impacts health care practices because they can add this
knowledge in order to help patients stay healthy and lower their chances of cancer. The
scientists research defined some problems that could happen if people didn’t get enough natural
sunlight as follows, “Preliminary studies in people have suggested such problems as increased
fatigue, decreased performance, diminished immunological defenses, reduced physical fitness
and possibly impaired fertility associated with living and working under incandescent or
cool-white fluorescent lights.”-(Brody 1981) this discovery may even impact companies in so
that they put in programs for their employees to get a certain amount of sunlight each week
along with exercise to get the best performance from them.
The article didn’t say that they were apart of any nonpartisan group like a University or
Government, or affiliated with a for-profit corporation, but they did use some research from Dr.
Lewy, “a psychiatrist who is now director of the Sleep and Mood Disorders Laboratory at the
University of Oregon Health Sciences Center”-(Brody 1981). I suspect that they didn’t alter their
conclusions from their research because they aren’t affiliated with a for-profit corporation and I
don’t see how they could make money on this discovery. They are literally giving out a healthy
fact to help people reduce their chances of getting cancer and performing better. If they were
Hypothetically affiliated with a for-profit institution such as a pharmaceutical company or any
other sort of business, then I would still think that they didn’t alter their findings because the only
way they could possibly make money on this discovery is to make better light bulbs that mimic
the sun's natural light. Other than that, I don’t see any other reason they would alter their
findings. The article didn’t mention anyone that was trying to disprove them, but it did mention
that they used some of Dr. Lewy’s research in their findings.
The article changed and expanded my views of the topic to wanting to get more sunlight
and if the fact that I work and spend most of my time indoors affect my grades. (my
performance). I chose to analyze this article because I knew to some degree that sunlight was
healthy, but I didn’t know that the cool-white fluorescent lights were that much different then
sunlight that it would affect my health. I believe that the reporter did a great job of giving
background for the story because I understood that they've tested it and found out that even
animals that are restricted to indoor light have an enhanced susceptibility to cancer. Not only
that, but it was easy to learn from their findings in a way that I could apply them.