Some CFL bulbs emit UV at levels high enough to cause cell death and cancer

[specialkornflake]

You admit that, up north and most everywhere this time of year, there's no particular reason to switch, that they have negatives, that their color output sucks, and you fail to admit that they're overpriced, they're full of poison, and they're dangerous. But you think we shouldn't be unhappy with them and we shouldn't be unhappy that the government shoved them down our throats in spite of their many obvious disadvantages.

Well, sorry. They suck and the government's arrogant attitude that we need them shoved down our throats sucks. There's just no denying it.

Oh, and you really ought not listen to liberal talking points. They generally make you look like an idiot. To wit: Offices generally use fluorescent, and have for more than half a century (and not CFL but six foot tubes), and southern homes generally use open curtains for light rather than bulbs during the heat of the afternoon when air conditioners work the hardest.

Yes, up north, the fact that they burn cooler isn't a benefit for cold months. I've found CFL's in a wide array of color temperatures and don't see a difference myself. I've also found that they are priced very reasonably if you buy them in bulk (don't buy one at the grocery store). One dollar or less a bulb, especially at Costco or similar or the bottom shelf at Home Depot/Lowe's. They do contains small amounts of mercury. The argument there is that this is offset by the mercury that would have been released by the coal powered electric plant by the increased wattage of an incandescent. Of course, mercury is in every fluorescent light. So, I can understand if you don't want to use the CFLs if you don't use any fluorescent because of mercury. In that case, I would keep an eye out on some of the newer LED bulbs, like I said before. I haven't read up too much on the UV output but I don't get close to my light bulbs anyway. I don't like the government and I think it's unfortunate they got involved.

I included offices because my office at work has 65 watt floodlights throughout that, because it's a new job, haven't gotten a chance to see about getting something better in there. I used to work at an antique shop that had 150 incandescent bulbs in a small room that the A/C couldn't keep up with. So, I worked to tastefully replace some of them with cooler burning alternatives that made the place bearable in the summer. While some people might be using natural light I know a lot aren't!

Anywhere, though, where you don't want to change the light bulb often because it's high or hard to get to, even in the frozen north, I'd consider something different than an incandescent.

 

[BAllen]

Yes, up north, the fact that they burn cooler isn't a benefit for cold months. I've found CFL's in a wide array of color temperatures and don't see a difference myself. I've also found that they are priced very reasonably if you buy them in bulk (don't buy one at the grocery store). One dollar or less a bulb, especially at Costco or similar or the bottom shelf at Home Depot/Lowe's. They do contains small amounts of mercury. The argument there is that this is offset by the mercury that would have been released by the coal powered electric plant by the increased wattage of an incandescent. Of course, mercury is in every fluorescent light. So, I can understand if you don't want to use the CFLs if you don't use any fluorescent because of mercury. In that case, I would keep an eye out on some of the newer LED bulbs, like I said before. I haven't read up too much on the UV output but I don't get close to my light bulbs anyway. I don't like the government and I think it's unfortunate they got involved.

I included offices because my office at work has 65 watt floodlights throughout that, because it's a new job, haven't gotten a chance to see about getting something better in there. I used to work at an antique shop that had 150 incandescent bulbs in a small room that the A/C couldn't keep up with. So, I worked to tastefully replace some of them with cooler burning alternatives that made the place bearable in the summer. While some people might be using natural light I know a lot aren't!

Anywhere, though, where you don't want to change the light bulb often because it's high or hard to get to, even in the frozen north, I'd consider something different than an incandescent.

http://www.bulborama.com/Incandesce...ear-Shaped-Light-Bulbs/PS25-Light-Bulbs-c142/

 

[cheapseats]

An energy saving bulb has gone - evacuate the room now!
By MARTIN DELGADO
Last updated at 01:27 06 January 2008

Energy-saving light bulbs are so dangerous that everyone must leave the room for at least 15 minutes if one falls to the floor and breaks, a Government department warned yesterday.

The startling alert came as health experts also warned that toxic mercury inside the bulbs can aggravate a range of problems including migraines and dizziness.
And a leading dermatologist said tens of thousands of people with skin complaints will find it hard to tolerate being near the bulbs as they cause conditions such as eczema to flare up.

The Department for Environment warned shards of glass from broken bulbs should not be vacuumed up but instead swept away by someone wearing rubber gloves to protect them from the bulb's mercury content.

In addition, it said care should be taken not to inhale any dust and the broken pieces should be put in a sealed plastic bag for disposal at a council dump ? not a normal household bin.

None of this advice, however, is printed on the packaging the new-style bulbs are sold in. There are also worries over how the bulbs will be disposed of.

At present, they should be placed in special bins also used for batteries at a council dump. But in future, councils will have to provide a collection service or install special recycling banks for the bulbs.

There are fears that without a proper disposal system, the mercury content could contaminate water supplies.

But disposing of one municipal recycling bin full of bulbs costs about £650 each time, adding to fears of higher council tax bills.

The warnings cast a shadow over Government plans to begin phasing out traditional tungsten lights this month.

Ministers hope that using the more environmentally friendly bulbs will save at least five million tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year.

The bulbs are due to become compulsory in homes in four years. Campaigners are calling for an opt-out so that people with health problems can still use old-style bulbs.
Others are thinking of hoarding the familiar pear-shaped bulbs so that they can keep on using them even after they have disappeared from the shops.

Independent environmental scientist Dr David Spurgeon warned yesterday: "Because these light bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, they could cause a problem if disposed of in a normal bin.

"It is possible that the mercury could be released into the air or from land-fill when they are released into the wider environment. That is a concern, because mercury is a well-known toxic substance."

And dermatologist Dr John Hawk, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that some people already find it difficult to tolerate the fluorescent-strip lighting that is widely used in schools and offices, which works in the same way as the eco-friendly bulbs.

He said: "Fluorescent lights seem to have some sort of ionising characteristic where they affect the air around them.

"This does affect a certain number of people, probably tens of thousands, in Britain, whose ailments flare up just by being close to them.

"Certain forms of eczema some of which are very common do flare up badly anywhere near fluorescent lights, so these people have to just be around incandescent (old-style) lighting."[/quote]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-room-now.html

 

[specialkornflake]

http://www.bulborama.com/Incandesce...ear-Shaped-Light-Bulbs/PS25-Light-Bulbs-c142/

Interesting, I suppose in some circumstances those would be preferable, but that's a lot of wattage!

 

[donnay]

New Israeli Study: Artificial Light Causes Weight Gain and Cancer

by Deborah Danan14 Feb 2016

The study, which was published in the International Journal of Obesity, demonstrates that artificial light disrupts daily rhythms and suppresses the production of melatonin, a hormone produced by animals and humans at night.

“In recent years there are a lot of studies that use ALAN as a proxy for different health issues including obesity. Some lab studies have examined how ALAN leads to body-mass gain among mice,” explains University of Haifa mathematics and economics PhD student Nataliya Rybnikova to ISRAEL21c.

“Melatonin is responsible for metabolic function, and ALAN also influences metabolic function in people. So we decided to check if there is an association between ALAN and body-mass gain,” she adds.

Rybnikova studied captured satellite images of artificial light emitted at night from more than 80 countries. She then compared the images with data on each country’s obesity rates.

After adjusting for other factors known to influence obesity — including the country’s average birthrate, dietary patterns, gross domestic product, and percentage of urban population — ALAN still emerged as a prominent predictor for obesity.

According to the World Health Organization, about 1,900 million adults are now defined as overweight (body mass index of 25 to 29.9) and about 600 million adults defined as obese (body mass index of 30 or higher).

Rybnikova worked on the study under the supervision of Haifa University professors Boris Portnov and Abraham Haim, who co-authored the 2013 book Light Pollution as a New Risk Factor for Breast and Prostate Cancers.

Melatonin also has anti-oxidant and anti-cancer properties which, when suppressed, contributes to higher rates of breast and prostate cancer.

Studies conducted in Israel have shown that higher levels of artificial lighting in a neighborhood correlate with a higher frequency of breast cancer and prostate cancer in that neighborhood.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/...y-artificial-light-causes-weight-gain-cancer/

 

[donnay]

Eco-friendly bulbs loaded with lead, arsenic

The LED bulbs sold as safe and eco-friendly can contain high levels of lead, arsenic and other hazardous substances, a new UC Irvine study shows -- the same bulbs widely used in headlights, traffic lights, even holiday lights.

The toxic material could increase the risk of cancer, kidney disease and other illnesses, although the risks are more long-term than immediate; a single exposure to a broken bulb is unlikely to cause illness.

"I wouldn't worry about an immediate release of vapor," said UC Irvine public health and social ecology professor Oladele Ogunseitan, principal investigator and an author of the study. "But still, when these residues hang around the house, if not cleaned up properly they could constitute an eventual danger."

The lights should be treated as hazardous materials, and should not be disposed of in regular landfill trash, he said, because of the risk of leaching into soil and groundwater.

High intensity, red bulbs contained the most arsenic, while low-intensity red lights harbored as much as eight times the amount of lead permitted by state law, the study showed.

White bulbs had low amounts of lead but higher amounts of nickel, also a potentially hazardous substance.

Ogunseitan and a team of scientists from UCI and UC Davis crushed bulbs of different colors and intensity, simulating acid rain in landfill conditions to produce a "worst case scenario." Then they made precision measurements of toxic material in the resulting liquid.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bulbs-552477-ogunseitan-lights.html