Talk:Lunar effect

New study
There was a study in Quebec (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235964/Full-moon-Patient-study-confirms-common-myth-lunar-patterns-driving-mad-false.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) heard on radio today - they found no empiric evidence of full moon affecting mental health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autismal (talk • contribs)

More light
I'm not really a believer in this effect, but there's no mention that there's simply more light during the fuller phases of the moon, and therefore it's much easier for people to be active outdoors, especially in rural settings. (As a teenager, I certainly learned it was much easier to be out and up to no good near a full moon.) More people out and about equals more crime. Studies may not support this, but it's a much more reasonable hypothesis to believe in than tides and positive ions. M-1 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there is mention of this. For example: "The term lunar effect refers to the unfounded belief that there is correlation between specific stages of the Earth's lunar cycle and deviant behavior in human beings that cannot simply be explained by variation in light levels." Also: "A study into epilepsy found a significant negative correlation between the mean number of seizures and the fraction of the moon illuminated by the sun, but this correlation disappeared when the local clarity of the night sky was controlled for, suggesting that it was the brightness of the night that influenced the occurrence of epileptic seizures." If you have more to add (using suitable sources), you're very welcome to do so. garik (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for taking the time to answer M-1 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is to be distinguished by the mere presence of greater light of the moon that may rouse someone from sleep or even make possible some conventional nighttime activity (as with the harvest moon). Although night usually affords a measure of privacy for doing anything possible (strange or otherwise) in limited light, a full moon can undermine that privacy. Pbrower2a (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a dismissive lede, no?
The Straight Dope counts as a reliable source? Hell, I'd buy that before some webiste called Skepdic.com, I suppose. But anyway the lede of the article establishes a rather dismissive tone of the entire subject, declaring it an "unfounded belief" right at the start. If this belief, which is supported by at least some evidence, (i.e. it isn't "groundless", being another word for unfounded), is "unfounded" then I'm guessing I can pop over to, say, Christianity and see that it's described in its lede as "the unfounded belief that a Sky Daddy created humans to worship Him, and later sent his Son to be a stand-in sacrifice for mankind's sins"? No? Hmm. Okay, then surely the article on Islam will describe it as "the unfounded belief that a dude in a cave in the mountains talked to the Angel Gabriel, who told him how everyone on Earth should live and behave." No? And yet both of those beliefs are supported by less direct evidence than even belief in the Lunar Effect, which is to say they have exactly zero, since no one's currently alive who could possibly have witnessed either of them first-hand, and yet those beliefs, as ridiculous as they are, aren't dismissed out of hand the way this one is, even though it's attested to directly by thousands of people. The examples of the Lunar Effect are largely anectdotal, but not entirely, and to be fair the article does reference several studies that corroborate it. Would anyone really see a problem with simply removing the word "unfounded" from that sentence? The conclusions some people have drawn may be, as the article implies, founded on false ideas or mistaken assumptions, but they certainly aren't "unfounded". So why not just describe it as "the belief that...." and go on from there? 77.58.231.67 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with your dismissal of the non-neutral (extreme POV) tone of the article. This Wikipedia article is definitely not sceptical in a scientifically healthy way, instead it expresses a strong prejudice - it doesn't match the Wikipedia standards. By chance the first article that I encountered on Google before seeing this one is the meta article here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16407788. And guess what? That recent review concludes just the contrary as the older cited article that is presented as conclusive. Harald88 (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Skeptic's Dictionary is actually not a bad source, and typically provides a reasonable summary of the mainstream scientific view, but feel free to improve the article with better sources. Just don't give undue weight to WP:Fringe views. (I agree the word "unfounded" unnecessary, incidentally.) garik (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Tides are not lunar cycle
The reasons for belief section, states this gravitational effect is untrue because of scale difference and weakness of this effect being insignificant. The obvious point here being that gravity is the same whether its full moon or at any other phase. Tides happen daily caused by the earth's rotation, whilst the lunar cycle is the moon's orbit. They have simply confused this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.123.246 (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not so – spring (syzygial) tides are controlled by the lunar cycle, although we have two maxima one synodic month, namely on full and new moon. By the way, the “[no] significant extraordinary effect of the full Moon on life on Earth” caption is hence a patent lie. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Another new study - Cajochen et al, Basel University
Where does this study, recently reported in Current Biology, fit? It seems to suggest that the opening paragraph of this article might need to be adjusted (although a replication would probably be required first). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Lunar gravitational pull and a mosquito
Perhaps, “astronomer George O. Abell” is a competent astronomer. But he fits for the waste-basket as a physicist. Lunar gravitational influence on the Earth’s surface is not dominated by a tidal force exerted on small bodies, such as humans. It is a tidal force exerted on the whole planet, weakening its own gravity around sub-lunar and anti-lunar points. Humans are not usually falling, floating, or orbiting Earth such that tidal effects on their tiny bodies could be relevant. They are usually standing, sitting, or lying, i.e. they exhibit the reaction force against the Earth’s gravity. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relative changes of the terrestrial gravity by the Moon are on the order 10−7. The astronomer’s quotation is a mosquito would exert more gravitational pull on your arm than the moon would.
 * If he meant really what he said, the gravitational pull, then he’s silly. If he meant the weight of a mosquito then yes, a moon-induced loss of the weight for the full human body has the same order. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * George Abell (UCLA) was an excellent physicist. His assertion, in the context of tides, is entirely correct.  Tidal effects are proportional to M/R3, and a M=2.5 mg mosquito at a distance of R=1 cm exerts tides that are stronger than lunar tides.
 * JeanLucMargot (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * JeanLucMargot, do you copy? Lunar gravitational effects, as experienced by living beings on the Earth’s surface, are consequences of the tidal force applied to the entire planet. Possibly, the people from www.skepdic.com are even worse with physics than George Abell that they do not understand this thing and provided an irrelevant citation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Proponents of the lunar effect claim that the Moon influences humans on the human scale, not on the planetary scale (see references in main article). The Moon does this, of course, but the magnitude is infinitesimally small, as it is proportional to the mass of the tide-raising body and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance to the tide-raising body.  George Abell understood this, and his mosquito rebuttal is therefore entirely correct and relevant.  The folks at www.skepdic.com understood this, and their quote of Abell's rebuttal is also entirely relevant.
 * JeanLucMargot (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're misunderstanding the claim made by proponents of the Lunar effect, Incnis Mrsi. The claim is specifically about the lunar gravitational force on the liquid in the human body. garik (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

this quote seems wrong
but ionic charge—positive or negative—has no effect on human behavior, and no physiological effect other than static electric shock.[39] see new york times article http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/06/science/ions-created-by-winds-may-prompt-changes-in-emotional-states.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.5.117 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This conclusion seems wrong
From the section Human behavior: "but this correlation disappeared when the local clarity of the night sky was controlled for, suggesting that it was the brightness of the night that influenced the occurrence of epileptic seizure". Regardless of the clarity of the night sky, on a full Moon the sky will be bright and you will therefore be unable to see faint astronomical objects, only the very brightest stars. Presumably they mean if it is cloudy? Cannot read the original article as it is behind a paywall. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Local clarity" includes conditions such as cloud cover, precipitation, fog, smog. JeanLucMargot (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The references on plant effects are horrible
The only sources for the effects on plants are from www.downhome-mystic.com and www.gardeningbythemoon.com. They are based on unsupported claims.

I think the section should just say that there seem to be no reputable studies on the effects of the phases of the moon on plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.51.13 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'd support just straight out removing any claims based on such poor sources. Garik (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. These are not reliable sources and the claims are not supported by the evidence. JeanLucMargot (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion being now about two weeks old, I've made the changes. Feel free to adjust the language. I've added a scientific reference. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 study shows no relation to sleep and the phases of the moon.
This study was only on children and it is not clear how the data on sleep was taken. They were not laboratory results and thus suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.253.120 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Good sources
The articles cited in the stock market section may be a good source of references for other sections of this article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WOW...
"Despite all of the beliefs, no valid scientific study has ever found a significant extraordinary effect of the full Moon on life on Earth."

This is a huge claim. NO EFFECT? Come on people. If an owl can see a mouse across a field, and has amazing visual acuity, and has the intelligence to navigate its home forest... we're really saying it has NO concept of fluctuating light levels at night over a 28 day cycle, one of which is the brightest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.250.51 (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Heart surgery
I know we are strictly forbidden, on pain of death, from using the painfully disgustung and plagiaristic Daily Mail as a source, but this artiucle mentiins a paper in the journal Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. It is claimed that: "The study indicated that patients who have aortic dissection repairs performed during the full moon phase had a significantly shorter length of stay than those who were treated during other stages of the Moon’s cycle – 10 days for the full moon cycle compared to 14 days for the other phases." Is this correct? Or notable? Or do we need a medical secondary source? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If the source that the "Daily Malingerer" cites is valid, then cite the source and ignore the rag. I'd rather see what the JAMA has to offer. Pbrower2a (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Politics
The source of the claim in the politics section does not appear to meet WP:RS. Has the claim been cited in reliable sources? If not, should this section be removed? JeanLucMargot (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Removed, just as a lot of other similar stuff. And I do have a problem with self-published materials. Perhaps an author knows these subjects at a level of popular science, but consider that he makes a claim about something on his website without even bothering to provide a reference indicating where such info came from. This is really a low bar - per WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lunar effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907101916/http://www.dancaton.physics.appstate.edu/Birthrates/AASstuff/ to http://www.dancaton.physics.appstate.edu/Birthrates/AASstuff/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)