Which lights are most effective?
AUSTIN, Texas — — Light sources can be a very effective way to reduce or eliminate motion sickness in children and adults.
But when they are installed outside, there is a greater chance that they could damage a wall or ceiling.
“There are many studies showing that if you install ceiling fans inside your house, then you are doing your children a disservice,” said Dr. Mark A. McBride, associate professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.
“So it’s a great question to ask: Is it safe to do so?”
In some cases, a fan could be safer than the installation of light sources, he said.
In the study, researchers compared the effects of ceiling fans to light sources on two groups of adults and children: those who lived in a typical house and those who did not.
The light source included a 40-watt incandescent light bulb that cost about $300 to $400 and used a combination of a small amount of electricity and a high-efficiency fluorescent bulb, which uses a large amount of energy.
Light bulbs are used in most homes for a variety of reasons, including to provide light for the windows or to provide an emergency light.
People who lived near a typical home had lower rates of motion sickness than those who were not in the study.
The researchers found that those who moved in the neighborhood also had lower levels of motion-sickness than those living in a house with no light source.
The authors noted that it is unknown how much the light source had to do with the lower rates.
The team said that it would be useful to examine how the difference between the two groups would be explained by other factors.
Another study found that the ceiling fans that were installed in the home of two students who were living in the same home were more effective than light sources in reducing motion sickness.
The study, conducted by researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, compared the effect of a ceiling fan on a group of 8- to 9-year-old children who had been diagnosed with a severe form of motion illness.
During a 10-minute test session, children in the two study groups were placed on the floor with a curtain attached to one of the ceiling fan’s two sides and then asked to move up and down the floor while watching a video of a motion-inducing sound.
Children in the control group were instructed to move their legs, and their motion-impaired peers in the ceiling-fan-attached group were asked to walk, sit or lie down on the same floor as their peers.
Researchers said that the effect on motion sickness of the two groupings of children and their peers was different.
Because the two studies involved children, there was a possibility that the results could be biased, because children are more sensitive to light and motion than adults, Dr. McBrides said.
The children in each study group also had more severe forms of motion, such as walking with a limp or spasms in their arms.
He said that in one study, the children’s motion-disordered peers who had experienced the motion sickness and were able to move were able at a later age to return to normal behavior.
Dr. Mcbrides said that his team would continue to study light sources to see if they have a similar effect on the children in their study.
As for ceiling fans, Dr McBride said that they have been installed in more than 400 homes across the country and that he has been impressed by the response.
He said that he and his colleagues have received hundreds of e-mails from parents who have complained that the lights had damaged their childrens’ rooms and had become part of their home’s decor.
Some parents of children who have had a diagnosis of motion syndrome have complained about the ceiling lights.
There is no evidence that ceiling fans have an adverse effect on children who are already motion-related, he added.
However, Dr O’Connor said that ceiling fan installations may be associated with adverse effects on children with a specific disability.
That would be an issue if children are not able to stand or walk up to a light source without causing harm to themselves or others, Dr Auerbach said.
If they are able to, the installation is a form of physical and emotional abuse, Dr Gavigan said.
“I would not recommend them to anybody.”
Dr McBride and Dr O’tConnor said in the future they would conduct more research on the effect ceiling fans could have on children.
Also on the topic of light source installation, a study conducted by Dr. Peter K. Gavilan of the Childrens Hospital of Pittsburgh looked at the effects on a family of five on whether a ceiling light could reduce the risk of motion and the symptoms that accompany it.
It found that children with low-functioning vision were more likely to be diagnosed with motion sickness when they had a