To expand upon Crustinator's post. . .
Bhattacharjee, C., Bradley, P. et al. (2000) 'Do Animals Bite More During A Full Moon? Retrospective Observational Analysis'. In BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 321, No. 7276. pp. 1559-1561.
Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.
Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly, pp. 114-119.
Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., pp. 141-150.
A synopsis of the above sources: an observer of the Moon is subject to the following dangers: Blindness, insanity, hypothermia, death, being bitten or mauled by vicious animals, and being mugged or assaulted by maddened human Moon-victims.
Thanks for the response. I expected to be directed somewhere to lurk.
Anyway, there are still problems with your sources (for others,
animals,
crime,
Lardner, and
ENaG):
On the biting animals subject, I'd like to add a few quotes from your source.
The effect of the phases of the moon on human nature and behaviour is well documented; some studies show positive aspects of the association and some show negative aspects.
Further experiments are needed to verify our hypothesis. Few other studies have correlated the influence of the full moon with behaviour of animals or insects.
What is already known on this topic
Human behaviour is altered during the full moon period
No study has significantly correlated the effects of a full moon with the propensity of animals to bite
While the study reasonably concludes that animal bites increase significantly during a full moon, it's made clear that no assumptions should be made thereforth until the cause of the 'aggression' can be determined. "Being bitten or mauled by vicious animals" is an inane exaggeration, especially considering the increased aggression could have been caused by any number of things (maybe animals live/behave according to lunar cycles, the full moon simulates something that increases their aggression, etc). The same goes for your (albeit much less detailed and in depth, as it only covers a study carried out a quarter-century ago) source tying increased crime rates to the full moon. And again, your wording is extremely misleading: there are clearly no "maddened human moon-victims" wandering the streets during a full moon ravaging innocent civilians... just an increase in crime.
And of Lardner's "The Museum of Science and Art, v. 3-4. The only content on those six pages was the ramblings of a man (centuries old) who was experiencing the wonders of "electric fluid", aka electricity. If I'm reading the wrong material, please direct me towards the correct book.
And of your last cite to ENaG. The first claim was that moonlight caused fish in a certain spot to "become most injurious to those who [ate] it." The
reference (pg. 367) is extremely vague and isolated and leads to no other sources. Arguably, at the time the book was written, the people were not scientifically advanced enough to realize or understand the hundreds of other reasons why the fish may have injured those who ate it. Nor does the reference cite what kind of fish, where they were fished, environmental factors, etc., which are all necessary to determine what may have caused the seafood poisoning. It also vaguely mentions that it has "a pernicious effect upon those who, in the East, sleep in its beams." Another isolated and baseless statement likely stemming from ignorance or misunderstanding.
The second reference is to a boy who evidently lost his sight after sleeping under the moon for a night. ENaG cites this to "A Newspaper", and "A Newspaper" alone (again, very shady). Not only does the cite say whether or not his sight returned, but it doesn't take into consideration the dozens of other factors that could've caused his (temporary?) blindness. See
acute/rapid onset blindess and
causes of fleeting blindness.
The third reference mentions a (vague) "experiment" involving exposing one piece of meat to moonlight and one not, claiming that the former rotted faster than the latter. Another prime example of fallicious reasoning (correlation does not imply causation) which could have been due to any number of factors and variables.
The fourth reference was essentially who looked (with an exposed face) to a full moon
on a (freezing cold) mountain to the moon, got cold, and then had to cover his face with a handkerchief to stay warm. Cleary "hypothermia" is a gross exaggeration, especially considering that his brief chill was due to the cold air commonly found on mountains.
So clearly James' belief that moonlight causes "blindness, insanity, hypothermia, death, being bitten or mauled by vicious animals, and being mugged or assaulted by maddened human Moon-victims" is false, if not obscenely over-exaggerated.
Where the hell did you get "death," anyway?