The Polluted Spectrum

An Essay on John Ott, Mal-Illumination, and the Hidden Cost of Living Indoors

---

Author’s Note

This essay operates in two registers. When examining the work of mainstream researchers — Axelrod’s Nobel-winning pineal studies, Wurtman’s neuroendocrine pathway, the dental cavity studies in golden hamsters, the Wills Eye Hospital findings on retinal pigment epithelium — I use their terminology: endocrine system, pituitary, melatonin synthesis, gonadotropic function. These are functional descriptions of observable glands, hormones, and biochemical processes. They are not germ theory and they are not the “immune system” construct. They describe what the body actually does with light.

When I speak in my own voice, I draw on the terrain framework: the body as a self-regulating organism, illness as the consequence of toxic exposure or nutritional deprivation, symptoms as intelligent responses to insult. John Ott’s central insight — that light is a nutrient, and that the spectrum reaching the body has been systematically polluted — sits squarely within this framework. He documented a category of damage the establishment refuses to name: mal-illumination, the chronic deprivation of the wavelengths the body evolved to require.

This is not a competing theory. It is the missing seat at the table.

---

A Pumpkin That Wouldn’t Set Fruit

In the early 1950s, a former Chicago banker named John Ott was filming a time-lapse sequence of a pumpkin vine for Walt Disney’s Secrets of Life. He planted the seed in his basement studio under a skylight, hung fluorescent tubes overhead to supplement the daylight, and started the cameras. The vine grew vigorously. The male flowers grew vigorously. Every female flower turned brown and dropped off. No pumpkin developed.[^1]

The next year he tried again, this time replacing the burned-out tubes with daylight-white fluorescents — the bluer ones the hardware store happened to have in stock. The vine grew. Female flowers developed normally. Every male flower turned brown and dropped off.[^1]

Ott had stumbled onto something the textbooks said could not happen: the sex expression of a flowering plant determined by the wavelength composition of artificial light. Word of the experiment reached the press. A New Jersey chinchilla breeder wrote to him. She had been getting nine males for every female in her basement breeding room — financial ruin for a small ranch — and had read about the pumpkins. Ott mailed her two clear-glass daylight incandescent bulbs to replace her standard frosted ones. The next litter, conceived halfway through gestation under the new bulbs, produced three females. The litter after that, all females.[^2]

That correspondence triggered a five-year study by the Kline Chinchilla Research Foundation involving more than two thousand ranchers worldwide. The result, published in 1970: under ordinary incandescent lighting, chinchilla litters ran sixty to seventy-five percent males. Under daylight incandescent bulbs, the ratio inverted — sixty to seventy-five percent females.[^3] A change of bulb. A reversal of population.

The chinchilla industry now uses light periodicity commercially — the same principle the poultry industry has used for decades to manipulate egg production by extending artificial daylight in winter. The mechanism is not in dispute. Light entering the eye stimulates the pituitary. The pituitary regulates hormonal secretion throughout the body. Change the spectrum, change the signal, change the biology.

What was disputed — and remains disputed, because the implications are uncomfortable — was whether the same principle applies to the human animal living under cool-white fluorescents in a windowless office.

---

Support This Work

This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.

Paid subscribers get access to all books — including The DMSO Book, The Kitchen Remedies Guide, Chlorine Dioxide, The PSA Trap, Breast Cancer, and more — with 1-2 new books added each month. Plus the Deep Dive Audio Library: 180+ in-depth audio book summaries and discussions.

Paid subscribers also get the Questions for Your Doctor series, short printable guides built around the questions doctors are not trained to answer, one decision at a time. The companion Before You Consent series goes deeper, walking through a single diagnosis or prescription from the moment it lands to the days after, with every figure sourced. And the Package Insert series reads the labels the doctor never opens and the pharmacist never mentions, what the manufacturer admits, in their own words, about what they sell.

I do this work independently, outside the institutions these books so often describe. No foundation grants, no academic approval, no editorial gatekeepers deciding what’s acceptable to publish. Your subscription makes that independence possible.

---

The Hamsters With Ten Times the Cavities

Also in 1970, three researchers — R. P. Feller and S. W. Burney of the Boston Veterans Administration, and I. M. Sharon of the School of Dentistry at the University of the Pacific — fed thirty golden hamsters a high-carbohydrate diet containing sixty percent sucrose. The diet was identical for all animals. The only variable was light. Half lived under fluorescent tubes that included ultraviolet, approximating natural sunlight. The other half lived under standard cool-white fluorescents — the same tubes that lit every school and office in America at the time.

After fifteen weeks, the hamsters under the simulated sunlight averaged 2.2 teeth with cavities. The hamsters under cool-white averaged 10.9. The cavities under cool-white were also ten times more severe.[^4]

The development of the male sex organs in the cool-white group was one-fifth that of the sunlight-equivalent group.[^4]

This is not a study of a pathogen. This is not a study about diet. The diet was identical. The teeth rotted, and the testes failed to develop, because of the light. The body — receiving an incomplete spectrum through the eyes — could not regulate the mineralisation of teeth or the development of reproductive tissue.

Ott had previously documented something parallel in mice. Of 536 mice raised under unfiltered natural sunlight, ultraviolet-transmitting plastic, or quartz glass, ninety-seven percent survived to maturity. Of 679 mice raised under various fluorescent lights, eighty-eight percent survived. Under pink fluorescent — a tube commonly used in supermarkets to make meat look fresher — only sixty-one percent survived.[^5] Mice under pink fluorescent developed tumours, lost their hair, accumulated calcium in their hearts, and had cell walls that ruptured under microscopic observation.[^6] Mice under natural unfiltered daylight lived an average of 16.1 months. Mice under pink fluorescent lived 7.5 months.[^7]

The light was the cause. The bulb was killing them.

The Sarasota Classrooms

In 1973, Ott and the Environmental Health and Light Research Institute conducted a five-month study in four first-grade classrooms in a windowless school in Sarasota, Florida. Two rooms kept their standard cool-white fluorescent tubes with plastic diffusers. Two rooms received full-spectrum fluorescent tubes shielded with aluminium egg-crate grids that allowed the full spectrum through while grounding the radio-frequency emissions and blocking the trace cathode radiation.

Concealed time-lapse cameras filmed the children at random intervals. The teachers knew of the study but not when the cameras were running. The children knew nothing.

Under cool-white, the children fidgeted, leapt from their seats, flailed their arms, exhibited what the educational system was already beginning to call hyperactivity and attentional deficit. Within one week of the full-spectrum installation in the other rooms, the difference was visible on film. The children in the full-spectrum rooms settled. They sat still. They paid attention. One boy who had been singled out for constant motion and chronic inattention quieted, learned to read, and began independent study during the five-month period. No drugs were administered.[^8]

After the study, eight dentists from the Sarasota County Dental Society examined the children’s six-year molars. The children under shielded full-spectrum lighting had developed one-third the cavities of the children under cool-white.[^9]

One-third the cavities. The same diet. The same neighbourhood. The same fluoride exposure. The variable was the light.

A subsequent series of studies by Harry Wohlfarth and Catherine Sam at the Elves Memorial Child Development Centre in Edmonton, and across four matched elementary schools in Wetaskiwin, replicated the pattern: systolic blood pressure dropped an average of twenty points per child after full-spectrum tubes were installed, behaviour improved, aggression diminished, and when the cool-white tubes were reinstalled, the gains reversed.[^10] Notably, the effect appeared in blind children as well as sighted ones — light entering the body through pathways other than vision.[^10]

By 1973, Time magazine quoted child psychiatrist Mark Stewart of the University of Iowa warning that “by the time a child on drugs reaches puberty, he does not know what his undrugged personality is.”[^11] Estimates of the number of American children on amphetamines and other psychoactive drugs had already reached one million. Ott’s question, repeatedly raised and repeatedly buried, was simple: how many of these children had been pharmacologically managed for what was, at root, light malnutrition?

The American educational system did not adopt full-spectrum lighting. It adopted Ritalin.

The Eye Is a Hormonal Organ

The mechanism Ott documented was not speculative. It rests on a chain of findings that even mainstream physiology now grudgingly acknowledges, while continuing to ignore the implications.

The retina is not merely a visual organ. It is the primary photoreceptor for hormonal regulation. Light entering the eye travels not only to the visual cortex but to the hypothalamus, the pituitary, and the pineal gland. The wavelength composition of that light determines the signal those glands receive. The 1970 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine went to Julius Axelrod, whose work with Wurtman and Fischer established that the pineal gland’s production of melatonin depends on light received through the retina; remove both eyes, and the pineal cannot respond to light.[^12]

Earlier work by Jacques Benoit on ducks had established the same principle: light entering the eye stimulates gonadotropic function in the anterior pituitary, regulating reproductive cycling.[^13] Robert Y. Moore at the University of Chicago traced the neural pathway from retina to pineal — the inferior accessory optic tract — and confirmed it as a separate, non-visual pathway specifically responsible for maintaining light-mediated neuroendocrine responses.[^14] Thorne Shipley showed that this wavelength-dependent pathway involves photoreceptors with “no visibility function” — the eye is processing light for hormonal purposes that have nothing to do with seeing.[^15]

The body uses light as a chemical signal. Different wavelengths produce different signals. An incomplete spectrum produces an incomplete signal. The pituitary, the master regulator of hormonal secretion, receives degraded input and issues degraded instructions to the thyroid, the adrenals, the gonads, the pancreas. Calcium fails to mineralise teeth. Sex hormones fail to develop reproductive tissue. Melatonin fails to cycle. Cortisol fails to fall at night.

Ott himself, suffering from advancing arthritis, broke his hip on a stairway in Bermuda in the 1950s. He stopped wearing his eyeglasses, avoided looking through windows or windshields, refused sunglasses, and spent six hours daily outdoors. His arthritis improved within days. His hip joint, which had been calcifying, began functioning. He came to call what he had been experiencing mal-illumination, and explicitly drew the parallel: a biochemical or hormonal deficiency similar to that of malnutrition.[^16]

The parallel was his, not mine. He saw it in 1958. He spent the next thirty years documenting it. He died in 2000, and his work was not refuted. It was simply allowed to fade.

The UV You Aren’t Allowed to Have

The light pollution Ott documented does not stop at the lighting fixture. It extends to the glass between you and the sun.

Ordinary window glass blocks virtually all the long-wavelength ultraviolet that penetrates the atmosphere.[^17] Ordinary eyeglasses do the same. Sunglasses do the same, more aggressively, and add a coloured filter that distorts the visible spectrum reaching the retina. Car windshields do the same. Sunscreen does the same to the skin. Indoor lighting provides none.

The result is that a person can spend a sunny day outdoors — driving to a beach behind tinted glass, walking on the sand in sunglasses, lying under sunscreen — and receive almost none of the ultraviolet wavelengths their body evolved to require.

Ott investigated the standard claim that ultraviolet exposure causes pterygium, an abnormal eyeball growth common in tropical military personnel. He found that every case he examined of pterygium in military personnel involved someone who had constantly worn prescription sunglasses.[^18] One frequently cited counterexample — a group of Cree Indians in northern Manitoba with unusually high pterygium rates despite low sun intensity — turned out, on investigation, to have been issued specially designed wraparound sunglasses for an earlier glare study.[^19] The “ultraviolet causes pterygium” finding may, in fact, be a “filtered sunlight causes pterygium” finding. The studies were not designed to distinguish.

The same inversion may apply to other eye conditions. Ott collaborated with researchers at Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia who demonstrated that the pigment epithelium cells of the retina — long described as nondividing — will divide when exposed to low levels of ultraviolet radiation under the microscope.[^20] Most laboratory microscopes filter out UV. Most laboratory lighting contains none. The cells were described as nondividing because the researchers had been studying them under conditions that prevented cell division. The conclusion drawn from this — that retinal cells inevitably degenerate with age and UV exposure — may have inverted the relationship. The lack of UV may be driving the degeneration the establishment blames on its presence.

The skin cancer narrative repeats the structure. The framing assumes that ultraviolet exposure is the cause and that filtering it is the solution. The data are more complicated. Skin cancer rates have risen during the same decades that sunscreen use has become near-universal. Most suntan lotions contain PABA, which a U.S. Food and Drug Administration report concluded was carcinogenic in fourteen of seventeen formulations tested when exposed to sunlight.[^21] Zane Kime documented that the fats in many sunscreens, when irradiated, generate the very free radicals the products claim to prevent.[^21] The body, when allowed gradual exposure, tans — pigmenting the skin to regulate the intensity of penetration. The tan is the body’s own response, intelligent and adaptive. The sunscreen replaces it with a chemical film that absorbs and re-emits radiation in ways the body did not evolve to handle.

The terrain framework reads this clearly: filtering the natural spectrum at every interface creates a chronic deficiency state, the body responds with adaptive compensation it has been deprived of the inputs to mount, and the resulting damage is blamed on the rare moments when the spectrum is not filtered. Sunlight is described as toxic. The conditions that arise from sunlight deprivation are then prescribed more deprivation as treatment.

What Has Replaced the Sun

The conditions Ott described in the 1970s have intensified beyond what he could have predicted.

LEDs now supply most indoor and outdoor lighting in the developed world. Their spectrum is more truncated than the fluorescents Ott studied. Most white LEDs produce a sharp blue spike around 450 nanometres combined with a yellow phosphor emission, with virtually no red, no infrared, no ultraviolet, and a complete absence of the smooth solar curve the retina evolved under. Phone screens, computer monitors, televisions, and the ubiquitous backlit displays that now occupy the visual field for most of the waking day emit the same truncated profile, much of it intensely in the blue range that disrupts melatonin cycling at night.

Office workers spend their days under fluorescent or LED light, behind glass that blocks UV, in front of screens that emit blue light deep into the evening, and then sleep in rooms where streetlight or device standby LEDs continue to deliver low-grade biological signals through closed eyelids. Children spend their childhoods this way. They spend the school day under fluorescent or LED light, the after-school hours under the same, and the evening on backlit devices. They go outdoors in sunglasses, behind sunscreen, often in tinted-window vehicles.

This is the experiment Ott warned about, conducted now on the entire population, with no control group. The outcomes — the surge in attention disorders, sleep disorders, reproductive decline, metabolic disease, mood disorders, myopia in children, melatonin disruption — are real. The medical system reads them as separate epidemics with separate genetic, infectious, and psychological causes, each requiring its own pharmaceutical class. The terrain framework reads them as a single underlying deficiency expressed through multiple hormonal pathways. The body is starving for a frequency of input that no longer exists in the environment most people inhabit.

This is what Ott called mal-illumination. Weston Price documented a parallel pattern in the 1930s — fourteen distinct traditional populations across the globe, eating wildly different diets, with virtually no chronic disease, and in every case, full daily exposure to the sun. The populations that had switched to industrial foods within a single generation developed the dental decay, the bone deformities, the reproductive difficulties, the mood disorders, and the chronic illnesses that defined industrialised life.[^22] Price wrote about food. Ott wrote about light. They were documenting the same phenomenon from different angles. The terrain had been compromised. The body was starving.

The Argument for the Seat at the Table

Food malnutrition has a seat at the table. The medical establishment, however reluctantly, acknowledges that scurvy is caused by lack of citrus, that pellagra is caused by lack of niacin, that beriberi is caused by lack of thiamine. Each of those diseases was once attributed to contagion. Each was eventually traced to deprivation. Each is now treated, with whatever rhetorical reluctance the pharmaceutical industry can muster, by restoring the missing input.

Light malnutrition has no such seat. The findings Ott accumulated over four decades — peer-reviewed where peer review was available, published in mainstream journals where mainstream journals were willing, replicated across species, replicated in classrooms, replicated in schools — were never refuted. They were ignored. The lighting industry continued manufacturing cool-white tubes. The eyewear industry continued selling sunglasses. The pharmaceutical industry continued prescribing for the consequences. The architecture industry continued building windowless offices and classrooms. The screen industry, when it arrived, intensified every variable Ott had identified as harmful.

What would it take to bring light malnutrition to the table? The evidence is already there. The mechanism is documented. The intervention is trivial — full-spectrum lighting indoors, UV-transmitting windows, abandonment of sunglasses except when medically necessary, gradual daily sun exposure, screens off after sunset. None of it requires a patent. None of it requires a prescription. None of it generates the kind of recurring revenue that justifies a research budget.

This is, finally, why the seat remains empty. Not because the evidence is weak. The evidence is overwhelming. The seat remains empty because filling it would obviate entire industries — pharmaceutical, ophthalmic, dermatological, cosmetic, architectural — that depend on the population remaining indoors, medicated, sunglassed, and screen-lit. Mal-illumination, like malnutrition, is a profitable condition to maintain.

The chinchillas told us. The hamsters told us. The first-grade classrooms in Sarasota told us. The mice under pink fluorescent light died young, and the bulbs kept selling. The children developed cavities and we filled them. The children fidgeted and we drugged them. The children’s eyes weakened and we sold them glasses that filtered out the wavelengths their eyes had been trying to receive. The light that John Ott photographed for Walt Disney — the light that opened a morning glory bud and ripened a pumpkin — has not been welcome in human environments for the better part of a century.

The bulb is on the ceiling. The office has no windows. The sunglasses are on the face. The screen is in the hand. The malnutrition continues.

The seat at the table is empty because nobody profits from the body learning to feed itself.

---

Explain It To A 6 Year Old

Imagine you are a sunflower. What do sunflowers eat? They eat sunlight. If you put a sunflower in a dark closet and forget about it, the sunflower gets sick. Its leaves go yellow. Its stem goes floppy. It stops making flowers. The sunflower is not broken. It is hungry — for sunlight.

Now imagine you are a person. People eat food, but people also eat sunlight, just like the sunflower does. The sunlight goes into your eyes and into your skin, and it tells your body all kinds of important things. It tells your body what time of day it is. It tells your bones to get strong. It tells your teeth to stay hard. It tells your tummy when to be sleepy and when to be awake. It tells your feelings to be happy.

A man named John Ott noticed something strange a long time ago. He was growing pumpkins indoors with a special light bulb to help his cameras film them. The pumpkin plant grew big and tall, but no pumpkins ever came. The flowers just kept falling off. He changed the light bulb to a different one, and this time different flowers fell off. So Ott thought: the plant is hungry for the right kind of sunlight, and the bulb isn’t giving it.

Then he met a lady who raised chinchillas — little fluffy animals like rabbits. She kept having only boy babies and no girl babies, which was a big problem for her. Ott sent her some new light bulbs. After she put the new bulbs in, she started getting girl babies again. The mommy chinchillas weren’t broken. They were just eating the wrong kind of light.

Ott found out that animals raised under bad light got more cavities in their teeth, even when they ate the same food as animals under good light. He found that children in classrooms with bad light couldn’t sit still and couldn’t pay attention. When he changed the light bulbs in those classrooms, the same children could sit still and learn to read. Nobody gave them any medicine. Just better light.

Here is the thing nobody tells you. Most of the light bulbs in your house are not the right kind. The lights in shops are not the right kind. The lights in schools and offices are not the right kind. Phone screens and TV screens are not the right kind either. Even the windows in your house block out the part of the sunlight that your body needs the most. And when people go outside, they often wear sunglasses, which block it out again.

So lots of people are walking around hungry. Not hungry for food — they have plenty of food. They are hungry for sunlight. Their bodies are trying to tell them, but the message comes out as cavities, or feeling tired, or not sleeping well, or feeling sad, or not being able to sit still.

The good news is the medicine is free. Go outside. Look up at the sky. Take your sunglasses off when it’s safe to. Open your windows. Let the real sun come in. Your body knows what to do with it — the same way the sunflower does.

---

References

[^1]: Ott, John N. Health and Light: The Effects of Natural and Artificial Light on Man and Other Living Things. New York: Pocket Books, 2000 (originally published 1973). Chapter on the Disney pumpkin and morning glory time-lapse experiments.

[^2]: Ott, Health and Light. Correspondence with the New Jersey chinchilla breeder, including the documented birth of three female chinchillas after the blue daylight bulbs were installed mid-gestation.

[^3]: Kline Chinchilla Research Foundation, Utica, Illinois. Five-year study in collaboration with the Environmental Health and Light Research Institute and over 2,000 chinchilla ranchers worldwide. Results announced April 1970, reported in Ott, Health and Light.

[^4]: Sharon, I. M.; Feller, R. P.; Burney, S. W. “The Effects of Lights of Different Spectra on Caries Incidence in the Golden Hamster.” Published 1970. Documented in Ott, Health and Light, and in Liberman, Jacob, Light: Medicine of the Future. Santa Fe: Bear & Company, 1991.

[^5]: Ott, Health and Light. Survival data from mice raised under various lighting conditions, including the 97% survival rate under air-curtain natural light and the 61% survival rate under pink fluorescent.

[^6]: Liberman, Jacob. Light: Medicine of the Future. Bear & Company, 1991. Discussion of Ott’s findings on cellular damage and tumour development under orange-pink-red wavelengths.

[^7]: Liberman, Light: Medicine of the Future, citing Ott’s life-span studies: mice under pink fluorescent averaged 7.5 months; mice under daylight-white fluorescent averaged 8.2 months; mice under natural unfiltered daylight averaged 16.1 months.

[^8]: Ott, Health and Light, and Liberman, Light: Medicine of the Future. The 1973 Sarasota pilot study conducted by the Environmental Health and Light Research Institute in four first-grade classrooms at a windowless Sarasota County school.

[^9]: Eight-dentist follow-up study by members of the Sarasota County Dental Society, examining six-year molars of the participating children. Documented in Ott, Health and Light.

[^10]: Wohlfarth, Harry, and Sam, Catherine. Elves Memorial Child Development Centre study, Edmonton, Alberta, 1981; Wetaskiwin elementary schools study, 1982–1983. Documented in Liberman, Light: Medicine of the Future.

[^11]: Stewart, Mark, University of Iowa, quoted in Time magazine, February 26, 1973. Cited in Ott, Health and Light.

[^12]: Wurtman, Richard J.; Axelrod, Julius; Fischer, J. E. “Melatonin Synthesis in the Pineal Gland: Effect of Light Mediated by the Sympathetic Nervous System.” Science, Volume 143, pages 1328–1329, March 20, 1964. Axelrod received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1970.

[^13]: Benoit, Jacques, and Assenmacher, I. Work on the gonadotropic response in ducks, demonstrating the oculohypothalamic pathway, 1955. Discussed in Ott, Health and Light.

[^14]: Moore, Robert Y.; Heller, A.; Bhatnager, R. K.; Wurtman, R. J.; Axelrod, J. “Central Control of the Pineal Gland: Visual Pathways.” Archives of Neurology, Volume 18, pages 208–218, February 1968.

[^15]: Shipley, Thorne. “Rod-Cone Duplexity and the Autonomic Action of Light.” Vision Research, Volume 4, pages 155–177, May 1964.

[^16]: Ott, Health and Light. Personal account of arthritis recovery in Bermuda and the explicit framing of mal-illumination as a biochemical deficiency comparable to malnutrition.

[^17]: Ott, Health and Light. Documentation that ordinary window glass blocks long-wavelength ultraviolet, as do most prescription eyeglasses, sunglasses, and automobile windshields.

[^18]: Ott, Health and Light. Survey of military personnel who developed pterygium during tropical service, all of whom had constantly worn prescription sunglasses.

[^19]: Ott, Health and Light. Investigation of the Cree Indian pterygium cluster in northern Manitoba, revealing that the affected group had been issued specially designed wraparound sunglasses in an earlier glare experiment.

[^20]: Ott, John N., in collaboration with the research department of Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia. Time-lapse microphotography of pigment epithelium cells from a rabbit’s eye demonstrating cell division under ultraviolet exposure. Discussed in Liberman, Light: Medicine of the Future.

[^21]: Kime, Zane R. Sunlight. Penryn, California: World Health Publications, 1980. U.S. Food and Drug Administration report on PABA in suntan lotions, cited in Liberman, Light: Medicine of the Future.

[^22]: Price, Weston A. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. New York: Paul B. Hoeber, 1939. Documentation of fourteen traditional populations with virtually no chronic disease, all with full daily sun exposure, and the rapid emergence of degenerative conditions following industrial dietary and lifestyle changes.

---

Additional Sources

Liberman, Jacob. Light: Medicine of the Future: How We Can Use It to Heal Ourselves Now. Santa Fe: Bear & Company, 1991.

Ott, John N. Light, Radiation, and You: How to Stay Healthy. Old Greenwich: Devin-Adair, 1982.

Price, Weston A. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. La Mesa, California: Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, 2008 (originally published 1939).

Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. White River Junction: Chelsea Green, 2020. (For the broader context of electromagnetic terrain pollution within which light-spectrum pollution sits.)