I bought a SPF 50 hat at REI. It really makes a huge difference. 2 weeks ago, I wore my old had and it felt like 10X more sun was getting on my face and neck.

Do i have any options? any right to a higher quality air conditioner? lets say they find some way to fix the one i have, do i still have any legal rights to fix the energy use? OK, don't take offense at what I'm about to say. Up north here laws say it's heat that we must provide, AC is not mentioned in such a manner and is considered more of a perk than a necessity for survival. However, in areas of the country where bitter cold is not a problem, but suffocating heat is, that might not be the case. (You'd have to google your state's LL/tenant laws to find out.) If filters and coils are cleaned, is there a chance you have an older unit that has to have freon replaced ever couple seasons? That's not a costly repair at all. If it gets repaired yet you still find your energy costs are prohibitive, I'm not sure that you have any rights to pursue that. It would involve adding more insulation and I've not heard of a tenant ever having the right to alter the structure of a building in order to save on utility costs. Doesn't mean it's never happened anywhere, just nothing I've ever run across. On the conservative side you're paying an extra $100 for what, probably 3 months of summer, to get the place cooled? So in one season that's an extra $300. For about $200 you can get a small window unit for the guest room only and if you can secure it in there without doing damage (it's possible), then you're OK and simply take it with you when you leave or sell it. Those small AC units actually do a pretty good job of cooling off hard to cool areas and don't run non-stop. (I've seen floor model portable ACs that have a hose that exhausts out the window. They are a bit more pricey, but discount/overstock stores sometimes have them much less expensive than average retail. I can't vouch for their efficiency tho, you might want to read up on that.

Oh, I agree with you there (e.g. about graph data presentation, a tool that can stretch truths and deceive the uninitiated through visual and communicative distortion) - I'm ignoring those (I immediately did with that graph lol) and haven't even fully read the info on that page - trust me, I hold healthy skepticism (yet, crucial openness), to all matters when it comes to health, healing, and science - but the fact is I know the benefits of the various rays of light that the sun provides and its beneficial health effects, (or if you will, detrimental effects of not receiving it or receiving it in less natural ways), already, and that's (all) the common ground I need to share with mercola to appreciate the information they state on that page - obvious product promotion undertone notwithstanding. I appreciate your information and thoughts - nothing I don't appreciate or ignore, certainly when it is friendly and respectful. The simple matter is, I want lights that offer (appropriate levels of) UVA, UVB, UVC, and infrared light, in addition to highly accurate colour rendering, and midday-like colour temperature. I want whatever those 80's studies in Germany (that their government concluded to ban traditional LFLs from), quoted as being far better for you than normal LFLs. I know that for MONTHS (both in summer and winter), after living such a natural outdoor lifestyle out in full sun, I have been severely irritated (physiologically, in the eyes), by what I can only describe as a highly uncomfortable experience, that is the fluorescent lighting in our kitchen. So that is the data and experience I base my views on, rather than any silly 'cancelling out' conjecture like this. (I'm aware of my opposite.) Maybe our kitchen lights are just OLD LFLs that are really bad. (But they're modern current market bulbs, so how could they be? Additionally, our electrician apparently told us years ago those fluorescents we have in the kitchen are terribly inefficient, (in fact the worst watt-suckers in the house, I've been told), so I don't know what that means.) Again - more important than all of this, I want to avoid artificial lighting where I can anyway. But an interest in the healthiest form of artificial lighting, is really worthwhile. So where others think 'UV radiation' in lighting should be avoided at all costs due to 'skin cancer', I beg to differ... (Because I know that what causes skin cancer isn't just UV radiation, but other lifestyle choices in combination with it that were never meant for the human body to sustainably endure.) (And where they don't give second thought to OTHER forms of (unnatural) radiation like mobile phone or Wi-Fi or general electronic EMR - I beg to differ...) If that's the difference between them and me in one's opinion of lighting choice when it comes to health, than so be it. My goal is to try and emulate natural conditions as much as possible, as the simple yet powerful philosophy behind one's choices! :).

I highly recommend LED bulbs; we have about 100 3.6W MR16-style LED bulbs in our house in 3" mini-can housings, all at about 4500K (neither warm nor cool white). Each gives about as much light as a 35-40W halogen bulb. Our 19 x 21' kitchen has 15 for general lighting, plus the following task lighting: 4 over our 13' counter with main sink; 8 over our 5 x 9' main island; and 4 over our 3'3" x 9' small island. The 72" wide range hood came with ten 40W PAR20 bulbs but light a 9' wide area including range and landings; we'll be replacing the 40W bulbs with 5W dimmable LED bulbs. This is a good amount of light, not too much, not too little. Well, in the range hood area 50W of LED bulbs (equivalent to about 500W of halogen lights) is actually too much light but it's dimmable, not that my wife will use any setting but MAX. (There are also 10W LED bulbs available, but my wife has no self control when it comes to light and WILL burn out her retinas if I let her.) The standard medium base "Edison" bulb is not a form factor well suited to LEDs because while filaments (tungsten, halogen) are point sources and radiate in all directions, LEDs are VERY directional and have limited dispersion (15-60 degrees). Most LED medium base bulbs have more LEDs pointing outward with very few pointing up, some nearly exclusively point upward (downward in a pendant application). The distribution and "point" of the individual LEDs will affect whether the ambience (outward glow) or the task function (downward lumens) will work. Most pendant shades do have an inner white lining to even out the light distribution, and that will improve your downward light output for task lighting. LED color is tricky as well, as many are very cool white and won't give you that warm glow you expect from the pendant shade. A warm white (3000-3500K) bulb will give you the best ambience, whereas a pure white (4000-4500K) will give you the best task lighting. Another caution: pendants spaced too far apart look odd, but too close looks worse. I would recommend a spacing of about every 2-3'. Also, there should be ideally 3, or 4 max. Slimmer/smaller ones can be spaced a little closer and you can have more of them and still look fine. There are metallic shades (if modern works for your kitchen) that will give you a lot more task lighting. Here is a link that might be useful: [Houzz Pendant Light Ideabook[(https://www.houzz.com/magazine/kitchen-islands-pendant-lights-done-right-stsetivw-vs~158689)