# CFL and Fluorescents | Dirty Energy



## atlashomeric (Mar 7, 2012)

Alright, now I now this may have been discussed already somewhere on this site, but I can't find it, and it's worth mentioning again if it is. CFL bulbs and Fluorescent lighting in general is now speculated to cause specific problems in human and possibly plant species. With the majority of the study being on humans, and since we're all human... right. This phenomenon is known as _Dirty Energy_. Researchers have found that Fluorescent and Compact Fluorescent lighting could very well be responsible for the flare-ups of some major diseases and health issues i.e. Diabetes, Crohn's disease, migraines, etc. The science behind it makes good sense, the rF emitted by these lights is not jiving with human, and recently studied, certain plants' resident frequencies. Here's an article giving a little more breakdown on the subject.

_Dirty Energy | Making Sense of CFL_

Take a look, do some research into the subject, and form your own opinion. 
I would love to hear everyones thoughts on this subject. Especially someone who is educated in the subject of lighting, physiology, botany, etc. 

All the best, 

A


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

What I'm finding interesting is how LEDs are even "cleaner" than incandescents in terms of "dirty energy".

While the article is interesting and the research may be valid, CFLs, and fluorescents in general, are well on their way to obsolescence anyhow. A local grocery store actually recently converted all of their lighting to LED. And LED screw-base bulbs continue to get less expensive each year.


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Mar 7, 2012)

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/cfls-dirty-electricity-and-bad-science/
I don't think CFLs are a problem, nor do I think LEDs are going to soon obsolete them they have a steep road to climb as they need to get the cost and efficiency/output to competing levels to even start replacing most bulbs in houses let alone try and compete with the large T8 and T5 based fixtures in stores. Perhaps in another 7-12 years LEDs will be 50% more efficient at the 100 watt bulb level for less than $10 and electricity prices will be such that you can pay off such bulbs in 5 years of average usage.


----------



## fyrstormer (Mar 7, 2012)

The EM radiation produced by CFLs is nothing compared to the EM radiation produced by the sun.

Radio waves don't cause disease. They can't even cause heat burns like microwaves can, because radio waves aren't the right frequency to make water molecules vibrate. They have no meaningful effect on living tissue at all.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Mar 7, 2012)

Incandescent bulbs produce UV. I can prove this by wrapping one in Wood's Glass. Wal-Mart and Target already sell bulbs like this (Black light bulbs). Also I'm told frequently that various electronics will give me hives, headaches, or sudden death, but I haven't yet heard of anyone who can tell when modern cell towers are on (Aside from the older 900 MHz ones that really do cause headaches as if they were a headache ray. The military has researched this capability for riot control).

Power factors do matter, but they are also going to be a part of most modern electronics. Nobody complains about the power factor of my computer, and Google and Microsoft run big server farms (Standard CPU power supplies have a power factor of 0.7) that consume kilowatts without burning anything down. It sounds to me like an electronic fire caused by installing some devices with a poor power factor indicates poor electronics that are in need of an upgrade. This upgrade should be a part of the cost-analysis of installing CFL, LED, or other ballasted electronics.


----------



## atlashomeric (Mar 7, 2012)

fyrstormer said:


> The EM radiation produced by CFLs is nothing compared to the EM radiation produced by the sun.
> 
> Radio waves don't cause disease. They can't even cause heat burns like microwaves can, because radio waves aren't the right frequency to make water molecules vibrate. They have no meaningful effect on living tissue at all.



I'm left wondering why people who have symptoms flare when they are being exposed to the fluorescents and cfls and not when they walk outside on a sunny day. Try searching for dirty energy + cfls on youtube. There are some interesting reports.


----------



## atlashomeric (Mar 7, 2012)

Lynx_Arc said:


> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/cfls-dirty-electricity-and-bad-science/
> I don't think CFLs are a problem, nor do I think LEDs are going to soon obsolete them they have a steep road to climb as they need to get the cost and efficiency/output to competing levels to even start replacing most bulbs in houses let alone try and compete with the large T8 and T5 based fixtures in stores. Perhaps in another 7-12 years LEDs will be 50% more efficient at the 100 watt bulb level for less than $10 and electricity prices will be such that you can pay off such bulbs in 5 years of average usage.



I just saw this, but like I was saying to fyrstormer, I wonder why these peoples symptoms flare immediately at the exposure of fluorescent lighting. But, that's an informative article from a good source. props.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Mar 7, 2012)

atlashomeric said:


> I'm left wondering why people who have symptoms flare when they are being exposed to the fluorescents and cfls and not when they walk outside on a sunny day. Try searching for dirty energy + cfls on youtube. There are some interesting reports.


I think that these people (wherever they are) are the only ones who can really investigate this. Do all CFLs do this? Can they tell which CFLs in a room are bad and which ones are good? With the bases secretly marked and switched around, do they get it right?

Having heard of CFLs that are apparently 2 for $1, I could see poor quality control leading to problems - but I'd expect it to be high-pitch tones from the driving electronics rather than unusual UV or something. Let's see data!


----------



## fyrstormer (Mar 7, 2012)

I have never heard even anecdotal reports of people suffering from fluorescent-light-related symptoms except for headaches, and the headaches are only an issue when the tint of the light is substantially different than the lights they use at home, or when the fluorescent ballast is very worn-out and the light is flickering noticeably. I've certainly never heard of anything about fluorescent-light-related skin disorders.

I don't know if you noticed, but the article you originally linked is marketing fluff for an LED vendor.


----------



## atlashomeric (Mar 7, 2012)

Well good insight guys, I think it's probably safe to say that that the majority of us aren't going to get sick because of fluorescent lighting. Just some intrigue because there was a lot of these posts going around Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube.


----------



## brickbat (Mar 8, 2012)

"Dirty Energy"? To be frank, what a colossal load of crap. I wouldn't buy anything from these folks because of their attempt to mislead. Their credibility just dropped to zero.


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Mar 8, 2012)

We are already awash in 'dirty' energy. The sun and the cosmos generate loads of electrical and RF noise. This is what makes phenomenons like the Aurora Borealis possible. We are also being constantly bombarded by minute amounts of alpha, beta and gamma particles from the earth and from space. Even bananas and brazil nuts are mildly radioactive because of their high potassium content. Are you ready to give up bananas? I'm not.

Prudent avoidance is always a good policy, but considering how quickly the energy level drops off from an EMI souice with distance, I'm not worried.


----------



## mattheww50 (Mar 8, 2012)

You are incorrect. You certainly can get some very NASTY burns from Radio Frequency energy, even at wavelengths far longer than microwaves. RF burns are nasty. You don't need to make the water molecules vibrate, just induce voltage and the I^2xR losses will heat things up. This is the principle of induction heating.


----------



## brickbat (Mar 8, 2012)

mattheww50 said:


> ...You certainly can get some very NASTY burns from Radio Frequency energy, even at wavelengths far longer than microwaves. ...



That is of course true. But keep the context of this thread in mind. RF burns from stray EMI emitted by a CFL? I don't think so...


----------



## atlashomeric (Mar 9, 2012)

I thought I would look a little further into this and I found this site, specifically these "scientific studies". http://www.dirtyelectricity.ca/scientific_research.htm


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Mar 9, 2012)

atlashomeric said:


> I thought I would look a little further into this and I found this site, specifically these "scientific studies". http://www.dirtyelectricity.ca/scientific_research.htm


Like I would trust a site whose ads are to sell meters to "measure" dirty electricity.


----------



## fyrstormer (Mar 9, 2012)

mattheww50 said:


> You are incorrect. You certainly can get some very NASTY burns from Radio Frequency energy, even at wavelengths far longer than microwaves. RF burns are nasty. You don't need to make the water molecules vibrate, just induce voltage and the I^2xR losses will heat things up. This is the principle of induction heating.


Maybe if you're standing in the way of a microwave antenna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating#Penetration

Not if you're standing near a CFL ballast. The total broadcast power of a device like a CFL ballast can be measured in microwatts, less than a cellphone antenna, unless the ballast is damaged.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Mar 9, 2012)

fyrstormer said:


> Maybe if you're standing in the way of a microwave antenna.


Actually, people who climb towers without knowing what they're doing frequently strip clothes off before dying. The intercepted RF heats them up and they get too warm. "Naked body found on top of tower" is a common headline, really.

Again, you have to be near megawatts of RF to intercept enough to warm your body. Getting concentrated burns requires much higher RF than usually exists anywhere beyond licking megawatt antennae.


----------



## fyrstormer (Mar 9, 2012)

Climbing a radio tower, standing in the way of a satellite dish...(makes a balanced-scale gesture with his hands)...both things I'm never going to do.

Out of curiosity, how does one climb a radio tower _properly_? Is there anything that can be done besides shutting the tower off?


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Mar 9, 2012)

fyrstormer said:


> Out of curiosity, how does one climb a radio tower _properly_? Is there anything that can be done besides shutting the tower off?


Work it out with the tower owner, use proper safety gear, wear proper RF meters, manage your time atop the tower, and climb fast past the main broadcast beam.

Some rooftops with radio relays have 900 MHz antennae (just right to vibrate your brain) that are headache generators. Having been on local rooftops with the radio club, the rule of thumb was "If you're getting a headache, it will go away if you stand someplace else." Rooftops are a moderate-RF environment, but generally you're okay if you don't see a "Keep xx distance from antennaes" sign. And leave if you get warm or headachey. You aren't likely to encounter field strengths to cause cataracts, ie 150 W/kg.


----------



## atlashomeric (Mar 9, 2012)

Lynx_Arc said:


> Like I would trust a site whose ads are to sell meters to "measure" dirty electricity.



Everyone has an agenda. But I was talking about the research study links on the site. They link to actual third-party studies.


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Mar 9, 2012)

atlashomeric said:


> Everyone has an agenda. But I was talking about the research study links on the site. They link to actual third-party studies.


yes, and none of them have anything to do with flourescent lighting either that I saw listed. A properly constructed CFL lamp assembly doesn't have any more dirty energy than the power supply to your stereo system IMO. A desktop computer probably makes more "dirty energy" than a handful of CFLs.


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Mar 9, 2012)

Lynx_Arc said:


> A desktop computer probably makes more "dirty energy" than a handful of CFLs.



This is easily confirmed with a portable AM radio tuned to a blank spot at the low end of the dial. Wave it around the room and you'll find the EMI hot spots, usually centered around digital devices like computers in addition to fluorescent ballasts. The sharp edges of the high frequency square waves running around inside the computer produce harmonic energy well into the RF spectrum.


----------



## SemiMan (Apr 22, 2012)

Wow what a colossal load of crap

So CFL have 90 times more dirty energy than LED but only 22 times more than incandescent?

Can someone please explain to me how a resistor behind a glass globe (cuts UV) excited with 60Hz generates ANY dirty energy? Again, what a load of crap.


So the fact that people on average at least in North America where diabetes is so high are FAT has nothing to do with diabetes ..... or more specifically the massive intakes of refined carbohydrates burning out their insulin management systems?

Or Chrones has nothing to do with gluten being 3x what it was in the past so that we have fluffier bread?

This is false advertising to the extreme. Fraud practically!

Semiman


----------



## fyrstormer (Apr 23, 2012)

AnAppleSnail said:


> Work it out with the tower owner, use proper safety gear, wear proper RF meters, manage your time atop the tower, and climb fast past the main broadcast beam.
> 
> Some rooftops with radio relays have 900 MHz antennae (just right to vibrate your brain) that are headache generators. Having been on local rooftops with the radio club, the rule of thumb was "If you're getting a headache, it will go away if you stand someplace else." Rooftops are a moderate-RF environment, but generally you're okay if you don't see a "Keep xx distance from antennaes" sign. And leave if you get warm or headachey. You aren't likely to encounter field strengths to cause cataracts, ie 150 W/kg.


Just saw this post. Interesting stuff. I didn't realize RF exposure meters existed, but I guess I'm not surprised.

900MHz is just the right frequency to microwave your brain? That's not so great. Didn't cordless phones run on 900MHz for a long time? Isn't that still one of the four frequencies that cellphones can use?


----------



## fyrstormer (Apr 23, 2012)

SemiMan said:


> Or Chrones has nothing to do with gluten being 3x what it was in the past so that we have fluffier bread?


Crohn's Disease isn't caused by gluten; gluten is just an irritant for some people who are sensitive. Crohn's Disease is caused by a long-term imbalance of gut bacteria, some of which eat gluten, so excess gluten _can_ help cause and perpetuate the imbalance, but gluten doesn't cause Crohn's by itself. Too much gluten, too little fiber, too many antibiotics which kill some gut bacteria and not others, and who knows what else -- _that_ is what causes Crohn's. Some people have benefited greatly by transplanting gut bacteria from a healthy family member, but for obvious reasons that solution is frowned upon by squeamish Americans.

Anyway...


----------



## SemiMan (May 3, 2012)

fyrstormer said:


> Crohn's Disease isn't caused by gluten; gluten is just an irritant for some people who are sensitive. Crohn's Disease is caused by a long-term imbalance of gut bacteria, some of which eat gluten, so excess gluten _can_ help cause and perpetuate the imbalance, but gluten doesn't cause Crohn's by itself. Too much gluten, too little fiber, too many antibiotics which kill some gut bacteria and not others, and who knows what else -- _that_ is what causes Crohn's. Some people have benefited greatly by transplanting gut bacteria from a healthy family member, but for obvious reasons that solution is frowned upon by squeamish Americans.
> 
> Anyway...



Whistle away, but keep in mind acute Chrohn's often has as part of its treatment antibiotics to reduce the bacterial load in the intestine.

I should have clarified though. I do not believe that Chrohn's is caused specifically by gluten (and casein) but that it triggers an inherent underlying condition via continued low (or high level) triggering of the immune system eventually leading to a dangerous auto-immune response.

Of course, my favourite current theory is no more right or wrong than yours and we could each probably find 5+ researchers to sit in a room and argue about it.

What I am pretty sure we could both agree on is that it is not caused by "dirty energy".

Gluten is far more than an irritant for some people that are sensitive. EVERYONE is at some degree sensitive to gluten. It is an allergen for absolutely everyone. It is not a natural food to eat. We only eat it after significant processing. Keep in mind that there are several vectors to how gluten causes health issues:

- Direct effects within the intestine due to autoimmune responses to gluten (think celiac and yes over time, chrones)
- Indirect effects throughout the body through autoimmune disorders including skin rashes, psoriasis, fibromyalgia flare ups, etc.
- Autism spectra disorders, schizophrenia, etc. through exorphin peptide bonding to opiate receptors in the brain

Again, I am not saying that it is the underlying cause of these disorders (other than Celiac). I am saying that as an allergen that is persistently in almost everyone's diet, that it acts as a trigger to bring on the symptoms of these disorders.

So anyways ... whistling away .....


----------

