# CFL bulbs = radiation skin cancer?



## gorrath (Feb 5, 2013)

Hi,

Ive been reading this article http://www.medicaldaily.com/article...ficient-lightbulbs-boost-risk-skin-cancer.htm

and it says CFL bulbs coz skin cancer over time and other health problems.

does this act with new CFl bulbs or just old ones?

for example the TCP CFL bulbs do they have the same problem?

as LED bulbs are not being sold where I am sadly 

though it is true that CFL bulbs at least TCP CFL bulbs are now instantly switched on correct?


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Feb 5, 2013)

Link One

Link Two


----------



## brickbat (Feb 5, 2013)

The first question these "researchers" ought to answer is why, if CFLs are bad, aren't problems surfacing with linear fluorescent lamps, the principal illuminant in commercial buildings for the last 50+ years...

(same goes for the CFL mercury scare, IMHO)


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm with these two. ”In God we trust, all others bring data.”

The only way CFLs could ” emit” skin cancer is UV emission. So: do we see raised cancer rates of indoor people? No. mostly outside workers get it. Do we measure UV emission from florescent lamps? Well, show me data.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm with these two. ”In God we trust, all others bring data.”

The only way CFLs could ” emit” skin cancer is UV emission. So: do we see raised cancer rates of indoor people? No. mostly outside workers get it. Do we measure UV emission from florescent lamps? Well, show me data.

Edit: See the next post for data.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Feb 6, 2013)

AnAppleSnail said:


> The only way CFLs could ” emit” skin cancer is UV emission...Well, show me data.



1) "Results revealed significant levels of UVC and UVA, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all CFL bulbs studied."

Source

Data in PDF Form

2) I believe the primary argument for the danger of UV emitted from these lamps is that commercial lamps are a good six feet or more above the person's head. Consumer CFL lamps are often only a couple feet away. 

Either way, I've never liked these guys as much as I wanted to, preferring incandescent or LED.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Feb 6, 2013)

The trouble with these things is that a summary is the opposite of a study.

(See edit for egg on my face)

One side says, "OMG SIGNIFICAT UV LVLS."

Another side says, "IT'S WITHIN AKSEPTABULL LEVELS."

These are summaries, and a summary like this is the opposite of a survey. A study has a lot of data. A good summary of a study has some critical data. Perhaps, "A study of _x__ samples of __y__ brands found an average __z__ +/- __n__ mW of UV per watt of CFL." Is that too much to ask before we burn our CFLs in a fire?

Although I'm with you in finding CFLs to be an ugly compromise that works well enough for now. Bring on the purpose-built LED fixtures of high output and light quality! That aren't, y'know, kickstarter art.

===============================================
Edit; Those are very complete tables of findings. I will have to study their data for more information. Some of the distances are suspiciously close. 3.5cm? But it's good data. Thank you for shoving me at this 

I'm going to add an edit to my first post too, since this is good information. The Discussion section is very good.


----------



## SemiMan (Feb 6, 2013)

AnAppleSnail said:


> The trouble with these things is that a summary is the opposite of a study.
> 
> (See edit for egg on my face)
> 
> ...




The study is good. The only thing I took issue to is using a 35cm working distance and that was chosen on the basis of a desk lamp. They used their worst case 26W twisty as their example. In CFL terms, that is a big bulb and it would be exceedingly rare that someone would have a 26W twisty CFL in a desk lamp 35cm from exposed skin. I am not saying it is impossible, but it is highly unlikely. The basic recommendation to keep an open CFL a few feet away is not a bad one though. 

Linear fluorescents may not experience similar issues due to two reasons:

- less chance of phosphor defects due to the linear construction
- less power per unit of surface area resulting in lower emission levels when a defect is present


----------



## Esko (Feb 6, 2013)

It is good that people know about the UV radiation inside the bulbs. That way they can avoid using bulbs with clearly damaged phosphors. 

I shouldn’t comment the study before reading it carefully... But one thing did catch my eye. In table 3 they are presenting some UV threshold limits. For UVA, it is 1000 mJ/cm^2 in 8 hours. A midday sunlight UV radiation power is approximately 30W/m^2, or 3mW/cm^2. Most of that is UVA. This means that in hot midday sun, the 8 hour threshold limit is reached in less than 6 minutes.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 6, 2013)

I've been joking for years saying "in 5 years they'll say broccoli causes cancer". Just kidding...but not really.


----------



## EscapeVelocity (Feb 6, 2013)

Uh oh! I have two 23w twisties within 12 inches of my head on the line in the kitchen! 3200 lumens of 2700K Warm florescent flashing. Also the kitchen has a low ceiling and the linear bulbs are less than 12 inches from my head!

Im still worried about fluoride in the water!


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Feb 6, 2013)

markr6 said:


> I've been joking for years saying "in 5 years they'll say broccoli causes cancer". Just kidding...but not really.



BREAKING NEWS:

"Millions of five and six-year-olds are now reported to be gleefully throwing broccoli in the trash after a 2013 international scientific panel announced that broccoli may be responsible for a rash of illnesses, including but not limited to..."

:sick2:


----------



## brickbat (Feb 6, 2013)

OK - call me a nit picker ,but I like this - the final line in one of these studies - they don't know the difference between phosphorous and phosphor:

"Taken together, our results conﬁrm that UV radiation emanating from CFL bulbs (randomly selected from different suppliers) as a result of defects or damage in the phosphorus coating is potentially harmful to human skin."


----------



## Megatrowned (Feb 6, 2013)

Maybe they could just coat the lamps with asbestos to guard against uv rays... 

On that note, I hear they can make products with it again :fail:


----------



## Anders Hoveland (Feb 22, 2013)

I happen to be extremely sensitive to CFLs, and to exposed fluorescent tubes without an acrylic cover. My skin begins to feel irritated after about 20 minutes under CFL lighting. It feels as if my skin is being "ruffed up", not exactly pain, but an uncomfortable mild soreness. It also strains my eyes after a while, and then for many hours afterwards my eyes continue to feel irritated. Have you ever experienced "snow blindness"? Then you have some idea how my eyes are affected.

I wish businesses and public places that use CFL bulbs would have more consideration to people that are more sensitive, like me. I can't imagine all this extra UV is good for everyone else either. After all, dermatologists recommend avoiding too many hours out in direct sunlight, as it could lead to premature wrinkling and increase the risk of skin cancer. I know it is often claimed that the sunlight gives out more UV radiation than CFL bulb, but why is it then that I do not seem to have any serious problems being outside in sunlight ?!?




This Australian government site shows several ways to try to reduce exposure to the UV from these CFL bulbs: 
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/what-you-need-to-know/lighting/resources/fs1.aspx
They have the nerve to suggest their advice be used by sensitive individuals, instead of just the *obvious* recommendation that sensitive people not use these spiral bulbs. Even if you are not one of the sensitive individuals and you are choosing to use CFLs in your home, it is still a good idea to follow the recommendations. (btw, reflecting the light off the ceiling, in diagram F, does not work too well at reducing the UV, know from personal experience)


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Feb 22, 2013)

my experience with CFL bulbs is: NONE of them have the full coating of phosphors. There are gaps, thin, and missing spots
on nearly all curly CFL's...these problems do not really exist in standard straight tube florescent...the CFL's are hard to make consistently
unless you spend a lot more making them, and charge higher unit costs to consumer

perhaps that is the reason. not the technology, but actual production vs paper


----------



## Anders Hoveland (Feb 23, 2013)

Fluorescent tubes and spiral CFL bulbs work by passing a high voltage electric current through low-pressure mercury vapor, causing the mercury to emit UV radiation. The UV radiation hits the phosphor coating on the inside of the tube and is converted into various color frequencies of vissible light, depending on what type of phosphors are used. The phosphor and glass tube absorb most of the UV, but some of it still gets through.

While long straight fluorescent tubes have a more even coating of phoshor inside, the glass is often thinner, which means not as much UV is filtered out by the glass.
Typically in an office setting, the fluorescent tubes have an acrylic light diffusor cover over them, which also helps filter out most of the UV, and helps to reduce eye strain. There are some rare individuals who cannot be under fluorescent lights, even with the diffusor coverings, but in those cases the sensitivity is so great that these individuals cannot be out in sunlight either. I actually had a teacher who had such a condition. She had to cover her entire body, and constantly wore gloves, a wide brimmed hat, and sunglasses. Still, fluorescent lighting may not be a good idea in the workplace even for individuals who are not quite that sensitive, since many people work under artificial lighting all day.

Because of the higher filament temperature, halogen capsule bulbs also can give off UV, but it is a lower frequeny "soft" UV, which cannot penetrate through normal glass. So double enveloped halogen bulbs give off virtually no UV at all. If you read the packaging on the common halogen energy saving replacement bulbs, there is a warning not to use the bulb if the outer glass covering has broken. The inner capsule might still light up, but it would be giving off soft UV that would cause eye strain and potentially be harmful to eyesight. The inner capsule is made of fused silica, and although it can withstand a higher temperature without melting, it also does not filter out any UV. It can also be dangerous to be using an exposed halogen capsule because it reaches a high temperature and if anything gets directly on it (oils from fingerprints, or a drop of water), it can result in overheating, melting, or even explosion. So the outer envelope of glass really serves several purposes.

There are different types of UV, in general the higher frequencies are more harmful. Mercury-vapor containing fluorescent tubes leak out UVA and UVB radiation: mostly at 253.7nm, some 365.4, and a tiny ammount of 184.5 (that manages to get through the glass tube). For people who have certain rare diseases, or for those suffering photosensitivity side effects from certain medications, the frequency that causes problems is not only UV but also the higher proportion of vissible violet frequency light from fluorescent bulbs. "Black lights" are another type of fluorescent tube with a special filter which mostly gives off a different type of UV, that is another fairly complicated subject which I am not going to get into.

Since CFL bulbs work by _making_ UV radiation in the first place to get the phosphor to glow, it is not surprising that some of this UV radiation leaks out.




127.0.0.1 said:


> my experience with CFL bulbs is: NONE of them have the full coating of phosphors. There are gaps, thin, and missing spots
> on nearly all curly CFL's


Additionally, the phosphor coating can gradually degrade and/or crack with age, especially in the low quality CFLs. Not only will this reduce light output, but it will also increase the ammount of UV that leaks out. So a CFL bulb that has been in use for a year is probably giving off more UV than a CFL bulb right out of the package that has never been used. This could possibly explain the discrepancy between consumer complaints and product testing for hazardous levels of UV, since most of the CFLs being tested for UV exposure were new just taken right out of the package.


----------



## Esko (Feb 25, 2013)

Anders Hoveland said:


> I know it is often claimed that the sunlight gives out more UV radiation than CFL bulb, but why is it then that I do not seem to have any serious problems being outside in sunlight ?!?



The most logical answer is that it is something else than UV that causes the symptoms. And the next logical guestion is: "When comparing sunlight and fluorescent lights, what is different?" For example, are you exceptionally sensitive to blinking (PWN, low monitor/television refresh frequences etc.).

I am not an expert on subject. Just saying that if you can handle the vast amount of sunlight UV but not the smallish amount of fluorescent UV, it sounds like the problem is something else.


----------



## Anders Hoveland (Mar 1, 2013)

Esko said:


> The most logical answer is that it is something else than UV that causes the symptoms. And the next logical guestion is: "When comparing sunlight and fluorescent lights, what is different?"


It is not that I am not effected at _all _by sunlight, it is just that it is mostly not a problem. If you are asking for a quantitative comparison, it is difficult to say, but I can be out in direct sunlight in the middle of the day for about 1 hour before there is any discomfort. Normally this is not a problem, I go hiking for hours in the forest, but it is mostly under the shade of trees, and I have no problem whatsoever. If you think about it, most people are not really in constant direct sunlight when they are outside. Usually where a wide-brimmed hat if going out to the lake. I am fine for a few hours in the office if the fluorescent tubes are covered with diffusors, but I do notice skin irritation if I am under them all day, and my eyes get strained also. There is a cumulative effect also, if I am in an office for half the day then I will not be able to tolerate being in sunlight as much that same day, or the other way around also.

So I would suppose that whatever is coming out of the CFLs, there is about 4-5 times as much of it as in direct sunlight. I would suspect that whatever health ministry is supposed to be protecting us, they are keeping silent because of some environmental agenda. In my country, at least, it seems like every bureaucrat is a radical progressive for some reason. Same thing in the media. I think they are just naturally attracted to those jobs, but that's really another matter entirely.

Something else to consider is the drop-off intensity of the light. It makes a big differences how close one is to a CFL bulb, as light intensity falls off, proportional to the inverse square of the distance. So some only moderately sensitive individuals might not notice anything unless they are using the CFL as a desk lamp within close proximity to their face, working for many hours with the light on every evening. I know that there are people much more sensitive than myself, people actually diagnosed with a medical condition who cannot be outside.


----------



## anuragwap (Mar 1, 2013)

Honestly, I'm a bit scared by these studies, as I have removed all the diffusers in my house to get 50% more lumens from the CFLs.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 2, 2013)

Esko said:


> The most logical answer is that it is something else than UV that causes the symptoms. And the next logical guestion is: "When comparing sunlight and fluorescent lights, what is different?" For example, are you exceptionally sensitive to blinking (PWN, low monitor/television refresh frequences etc.).
> 
> I am not an expert on subject. Just saying that if you can handle the vast amount of sunlight UV but not the smallish amount of fluorescent UV, it sounds like the problem is something else.




Actually the most logical answer is that Ander's is "making up" having this condition and does not have any adverse affects from CFL exposure other than he does not like them. I found an instance on another website where he claimed it was this brother that had the condition ..... You can read what you want into that, but I believe he just does not like them (like in the psychological sense, not necessarily a factual comparative sense) and will do whatever he can to discredit them.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Mar 3, 2013)

Anders, just how closely were you snuggling to fluorescents at work? The data here is CFLs from direct contact to 1 foot.


----------



## Esko (Mar 3, 2013)

SemiMan said:


> Actually the most logical answer is that Ander's is "making up" having this condition and does not have any adverse affects from CFL exposure other than he does not like them. I found an instance on another website where he claimed it was this brother that had the condition ..... You can read what you want into that, but I believe he just does not like them (like in the psychological sense, not necessarily a factual comparative sense) and will do whatever he can to discredit them.


 Strange. I googled Anders Hoveland CFL and it looks like I found a one man anti-CFL lobby group. :thinking:

Anyway, I am not too worried about some rather small UV output. Especially not UVA. After all, there is plenty of UV light (especially UVA) in sunlight. And it has good effects, too. Skin UV (UVB) exposure is necessary for vitamin D production. If there is something I worry, it might be the possibility that the small amount of UV, through years and years of exposure, makes my books, pictures, paintings etc. become yellow. As you most likely know, direct sunlight makes paper turn to yellow pretty quickly (especially the paper used in newspapers).

We are flashaholics. I suggest that we buy only high quality CFLs from reputable manufacturers.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 3, 2013)

Esko said:


> Strange. I googled Anders Hoveland CFL and it looks like I found a one man anti-CFL lobby group. :thinking .



A one man lobby group who does not feel that being honest is necessary as part of that lobby. Please see my former post on the matter:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...b-Life-Times&p=4086153&viewfull=1#post4086153



I want everyone (including Anders) to be contribute to discussions, but when discussion becomes a political agenda, I have little patience for that.

Semiman


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 3, 2013)

SemiMan said:


> I want everyone (including Anders) to be contribute to discussions, but when discussion becomes a political agenda, I have little patience for that.


And there are times when Anders does make worthwhile contributions to a discussion.


----------



## Anders Hoveland (Mar 5, 2013)

SemiMan said:


> Actually the most logical answer is that Ander's is "making up" having this condition and does not have any adverse affects from CFL exposure other than he does not like them.


Just why do you think I hate them so much?!? Do you really think I would be putting so much energy into this if there was not some big reason for it?

This government forced "light bulb phaseout" is a nightmare for me. People are not just using these things in their homes, they are now being used everywhere in public buildings, restaurants, and offices in many situations. What do you think it is like going to sit down at your favorite restaurant and they have switched to bulbs that make your skin sore and hurt your eyes? It's absolutely horrible. I know I can't be the only one.

I will not go into the details of my specific situation, but my employment options are somewhat limited because of the lighting issue. I can't work in offices where they do not have diffusors covering the tubes (some offices just have a grid over them). And now everyone is switching out all the regular bulbs to CFLs ? I am sure you can understand how mad, angry, and frustrated I am. There are spiral bulbs appearing all over the place.

Even when I go over to my family members house, they are starting to use CFLs. Not because they like them, but because of subsidized special deals at the store (the stores were virtually handing them out for free). When the incandescents are gone, I know for a fact that they are not going to buy LEDs, even for my sake. I have actually started handing out incandescent light bulbs to some of them for free, just so they will use those instead of the CFLs. I would love to hand out LEDs to them, but just can't afford it. (we all know how expensive a 100 watt equivalent LED retrofit bulb is)



Esko said:


> Strange. I googled Anders Hoveland CFL and it looks like I found a one man anti-CFL lobby group. :thinking:


Yes, it's true, I admit it. These bulbs are being deceptively mass marketed to consumers who are unaware of the UV hazard, someone needs to get the warning out.
Just because _you_ do not feel it does not mean it is not causing skin damage.



AnAppleSnail said:


> The data here is CFLs from direct contact to 1 foot.


Yes, I know, various government ministries are claiming that CFLs give off less UV than sunlight. I just think the data must be wrong. Like I said, I do not have a huge problem with sunlight, but I absolutely can't stand to be anywhere near a CFL for more than a few minutes. At some restaurants that have those spiral bulbs, I just eat outside. Not just in the shade either.

There are several different possible reasons for why these studies could be wrong or misleading. I do not actually have a meter that can measure UV radiation, so I cannot prove anything.


----------



## Esko (Mar 5, 2013)

Anders Hoveland said:


> Yes, it's true, I admit it. These bulbs are being deceptively mass marketed to consumers who are unaware of the UV hazard, someone needs to get the warning out.
> Just because _you_ do not feel it does not mean it is not causing skin damage.



Fine.



Anders Hoveland said:


> Yes, I know, various government ministries are claiming that CFLs give off less UV than sunlight. I just think the data must be wrong. Like I said, I do not have a huge problem with sunlight, but I absolutely can't stand to be anywhere near a CFL for more than a few minutes. At some restaurants that have those spiral bulbs, I just eat outside. Not just in the shade either.
> 
> There are several different possible reasons for why these studies could be wrong or misleading. I do not actually have a meter that can measure UV radiation, so I cannot prove anything.



The data is not wrong. There is considerable amount of UV radiation in sunlight.

Let me help you (although one should have assumed that you already did this research). UV radiation is absorbed by atmosphere. Plenty of UVA (the long waves, ~315-420nm) does pass through. Big part of the UVB (280-315nm) is absorbed, but some comes through, too. UVB is needed for vitamin D synthesis. And finally, pretty much all UVC (less than 280nm) is absorbed (one source here, page 4.).

I presented you a question in my last reply. "What is different?" I could agree with you that the *UVC* radiation is different. It is practically non-existent in sunlight (on earth), and even if there is some small amounts of it, it would be close to 280nm. Not 184nm which is mentioned in the study (and which, by the way, is also short enough to produce ozone).

To make sure that it is UVC that causes the symptoms, you should test yourself and a few CFL-happy friends with (for example) germicidal UVC lamp. Before doing it, have a look at some safety information here.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 6, 2013)

I hate feeding the troll, but .....

Anders, do you forget that I researched your web history.

- There was a significant period of time, almost 2 years I believe from the time you started your anti-cfl tirade until the time at which you claimed to have a skin condition
- Your skin condition claim came out soon after the study
- Your skin condition curiously migrated to your brother at some point
- You cannot validate it against science (which says you need to be quite close for their to be an issue)
- You make claims about lack of energy savings that are not supported by engineering principles
- You have claimed to live in an apartment and house at the same time to support your arguments
- CFL and fluorescent in general have not bothered peoples eyes from the time of electronic ballasts. It is just not documented to be the case. There is nothing in the light that would cause that issue and if so, you can't be out in the sun at all.
- Documented people with high UV sensitivity that can be triggered by CFL, DO have to be extremely careful in the sun yet you have indicated no real issues of being in the sun
- From the other forums you post on, you obviously have serious issues w.r.t. any government involvement/controls, issues with an array of liberal ideas, etc.

I think the real issue is you are upset at the government or life in general, and this is your personal crusade, truth be damned.

Sorry, nothing adds up at all. As JTR pointed out, you do at times add valid and useful content to threads. Try to stick to science and not political agendas, this is not the place for them.


Semiman


----------



## Anders Hoveland (Mar 13, 2013)

SemiMan said:


> Documented people with high UV sensitivity that can be triggered by CFL, DO have to be extremely careful in the sun yet you have indicated no real issues of being in the sun


Yes, from what I have read at least, typically that is the case. But the fact that I am much more sensitive to CFLs indicates to me they are leaking out several times more UV than the levels outside.

Yet I have also read several anecdotal stories on the internet about women who claim CFLs made them sick or gave them skin rashes, and no sensitivity to being outside was mentioned. Strained eyes seem to be the major complaint.





SemiMan said:


> I think the real issue is you are upset at the government or life in general, and this is your personal crusade, truth be damned.


You conveniently left out the fact that the main focus of my complaints about government control revolves around the light bulb phase out. Hmmm, is it that I oppose the light bulb mandate because I disagree with government control, or could it be that I disagree with government control because of the light phase out which is invading my life in a way that could greatly impact me ?!?




SemiMan said:


> - You have claimed to live in an apartment and house at the same time to support your arguments


 How exactly would living in one or the other specifically support my arguments? 

It's true, I live in both. Is that so difficult to understand?



Edit: I deleted several of my replies to Semi's other points because it was turning into a rant, and I have already adressed several of these points/accusations in other threads.

As for the "science", which Semi refers to, I will just quickly say that I suspect many of these studies where not impartial. It is not difficult to make a study to support what you want it to say, or downplay what you do not want to say, if you are trying to use your study to support controversial political/social policies.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 15, 2013)

Anders Hoveland said:


> Yes, from what I have read at least, typically that is the case. But the fact that I am much more sensitive to CFLs indicates to me they are leaking out several times more UV than the levels outside.
> 
> Yet I have also read several anecdotal stories on the internet about women who claim CFLs made them sick or gave them skin rashes, and no sensitivity to being outside was mentioned. Strained eyes seem to be the major complaint.
> 
> ...




- I have been kind by NOT pointing out some of the other government control issues you have and your issues on race integration, some women's issues, etc. I did not want to cloud the waters, but since your brought it up. 

- If ones read through your posts, you make your primary domicile a house and an apartment in quick succession. I know from your posts you are not rich, so no, I don't think you live in both concurrently.

- It seems odd you are the only person recorded who has issues with CFL causing a rash but it okay with sunlight. People who are photosensitive are super sensitive. What makes you so amazingly genetically unique that you are the only person who responds to UVC, but not UVA/B?


----------



## uk_caver (Mar 29, 2013)

If someone _was_ unusually sensitive, and reliably so (getting essentially the same bad reaction every time to exposure to the light from a particular CFL bulb) I'd have thought they should be able to get some academic interested in their condition, if they are anywhere near a decent academic institution.

A reliable sensitivity, especially if previously not reported, should be enough for someone to get a paper or two out of for relatively little work, and the academics I've known aren't exactly averse to getting extra publications to their name.


----------



## Anders Hoveland (May 22, 2013)

uk_caver said:


> and the academics I've known aren't exactly averse to getting extra publications to their name.


But many academics would be averse to publishing it for_ other _reasons. In recent years, CFL bulbs have become symbolic, seen as part of the solution to "change the world". There is a lot of self-censorship that goes on in academia when it comes to certain things. Many of them become angry and irrationally defensive when anyone criticizes CFL bulbs, as implausible as this may sound to some people here.

Another factor is that the more recent fluorescent tubes have been manufactured with thinner glass, so more UV radiation may be leaking through. In schools, the older classrooms had much more window area so there was much less fluorescent lighting. As I said before, I am more sensitive to CFLs than I am to exposed linear fluorescent tubes. CFLs are a relatively new thing.


----------



## uk_caver (May 22, 2013)

Why would a medical/biological academic be particularly precious about particular variants of fluorescent lighting?

When it comes to people being irrational and emotional, I'm not sure which is more likely - people being blindly loyal to CFL bulbs or blindly antagonistic to them.

The tricky thing is, there are all kinds of people out there who are '_sensitive'_ to all kinds of things from plastics to microwave radiation.
Some may be genuine, but there are a meaningful number of people like the one who get headaches induced by the emissions of mobile phone masts _even before the transmitters are turned on_.

As it is, even official bodies like the UKHPA aren't 'scared' to publish work on CFL bulbs, like the study showing measurable (but not sunlight-like) UV levels in close proximity to _some_ bulbs, recommending that people don't have bulbs inches from their skin for long periods.

Given that it is already freely acknowledged that some people with widely accepted medical conditions are unusually sensitive to UV light, why would any scientist be particularly frightened of discovering or mentioning that there may be a few more such people, assuming there was evidence of more than psychosomatic effects?

The great majority of people don't get noticeable bad reactions to CFL lighting.
Whether you get bad reactions or not won't change that, just as the existence of someone who has (or claims to have) gluten intolerance or a peanut allergy doesn't prevent me happily eating bread or peanuts.

Unless a scientist was _particularly_ thick, they'd understand that actually finding one unusually sensitive individual wasn't very likely to undermine the international drive for energy efficiency.


----------



## sniper (May 22, 2013)

I heard somewhere that saliva, swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time also causes Cancer. Hmmmmm...


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (May 22, 2013)

sniper said:


> I heard somewhere that saliva, swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time also causes Cancer. Hmmmmm...



I've never heard that.... But when you look at the numbers, most if not all people who were diagnosed with cancer swallowed saliva in small amounts over the entire course of their lives! Obviously, this causal relationship can't be denied. I believe it should be the government's duty to protect us from the dangers of saliva ingestion.


----------



## sniper (May 22, 2013)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I've never heard that.... But when you look at the numbers, most if not all people who were diagnosed with cancer swallowed saliva in small amounts over the entire course of their lives! Obviously, this causal relationship can't be denied. I believe it should be the government's duty to protect us from the dangers of saliva ingestion.



I just knew somebody would say that!


----------



## SemiMan (May 23, 2013)

Personally I think it's Dihydrogen Monoxide poisoning.


----------



## idleprocess (May 24, 2013)

SemiMan said:


> Personally I think it's Dihydrogen Monoxide poisoning.



Everything that comes into contact with that stuff ultimately dies.


----------



## Anders Hoveland (May 27, 2013)

uk_caver said:


> why would any scientist beparticularly frightened of discovering or mentioning that there may be a fewmore such people, assuming there was evidence of more than psychosomaticeffects?


To put it bluntly, many of them seem to have the idea, as ridiculous as it sounds, that energy efficient bulbs will "save the earthfrom global warming". The earth comes first, humans come second. Although this may seem completely crazy and far fetched to some of you reading this, thisis a very common type of mentality in academia.




uk_caver said:


> Unless a scientist was _particularly_thick, they'd understand that actually finding one unusually sensitiveindividual wasn't very likely to undermine the international drive for energyefficiency.


" international drive for energy efficiency"?!? LOL 

This is EXACTLY what I mean.

I have been on other forums also with this issue, and I have come to the realization that it is impossible to discuss the issue of UV sensitivity from CFL bulbs without "globalwarming" taking over the discussion, and it turning into a divided political argument.




uk_caver said:


> The great majority of peopledon't get noticeable bad reactions to CFL lighting.


That does not necessarily mean it is not causing skin damage, or contributing to other skin problems. If I personally did not have a sensitivity, I would still not want to take the risk and use it where little children are.
Even if the incidence of sensitivity is small, that may still be plenty of reason for not using these bulbs, since they are so widespread in work and public places. How much are we negatively impacting a small minority just for a small quick efficiency gain for everyone else?


----------



## uk_caver (May 27, 2013)

Anders Hoveland said:


> To put it bluntly, many of them seem to have the idea, as ridiculous as it sounds, that energy efficient bulbs will "save the earthfrom global warming". The earth comes first, humans come second. Although this may seem completely crazy and far fetched to some of you reading this, thisis a very common type of mentality in academia.


Do you have any actual evidence that information on problems with CFL bulbs is being suppressed, or are you just making up excuses for a lack of evidence supporting what you want to believe?

As I said, there are official publications on CFL bulbs and safety.
It's one thing to accuse some arbitrary number of unnamed researchers of bias and dereliction of duty for avoiding looking at an issue at all, but are you really suggesting that the people writing reports which have been published have deliberately avoided collecting some information (like ignoring parts of the spectrum), or have simply lied about the figures they have published, or have made wild assumptions, like taking known information about sunlight and UVA/UVB and using that as a basis of comparison?

And remember, UV emission from CFL bulbs isn't some deep intractable problem - if it was found to be present in standards-compliant bulbs above a safety threshold, there would be simple technical means to significantly reduce it (different/thicker glass/phosphors, making sure there were no bare spots on the bulbs, etc) which would make little difference to the cost.

If you're claiming you're particularly 'sensitive' to the special blend of UV you think is coming out of most CFL bulbs, and you can demonstrate that quickly by skin reddening in light levels which conspicuously fail to have the same effect on most other people, then maybe you should see a doctor.
If you are the special case you appear to think, there would be no obvious reason for your existence to be a huge embarrassment to medical science or business in general, since there are all kinds of unusual people who don't undermine everyday life by being sensitive to something.




Anders Hoveland said:


> I have been on other forums also with this issue, and I have come to the realization that it is impossible to discuss the issue of UV sensitivity from CFL bulbs without "globalwarming" taking over the discussion, and it turning into a divided political argument.


Well, it's not taking over this discussion.
And it seems to be you who is bringing it up as an excuse for the lack of evidence for what you want to believe.
If you have anecdotal evidence which can convince a doctor, go and see a doctor
If you don't have anecdotal evidence which can convince a doctor, what do you hope to achieve here beyond just splurging a whole load of unsupported _possiblys_ and _maybes_ and _I assumes_ onto the internet?




Anders Hoveland said:


> That does not necessarily mean it is not causing skin damage, or contributing to other skin problems. If I personally did not have a sensitivity, I would still not want to take the risk and use it where little children are.


So even if you had no reaction to it, and there was no real evidence of harm, you'd be precautionary and avoid it.
If you didn't have personal reactions to a particular kind of plastic or soap or paint or electrical appliance, and there was no real evidence that they were harmful, would you avoid them as well?




Anders Hoveland said:


> Even if the incidence of sensitivity is small, that may still be plenty of reason for not using these bulbs, since they are so widespread in work and public places. How much are we negatively impacting a small minority just for a small quick efficiency gain for everyone else?


So even in the absence of evidence of harm, we should avoid doing anything new that might conceivably affect some small (and as yet unidentified) subset of people?
Even if the potential harm is so rare that it wouldn't become apparent even with decades of use of the new technology?

If that was the actual principle societies lived by, humanity probably would have avoided some problems, but on the other hand, humanity probably wouldn't have adopted metal yet.


----------



## Anders Hoveland (Jun 1, 2013)

uk_caver said:


> So even in the absence of evidence of harm, we should avoid doing anything new that might conceivably affect some small (and as yet unidentified) subset of people?
> Even if the potential harm is so rare that it wouldn't become apparent even with decades of use of the new technology?


 People consistently exposed many hours a day in close proximity are the most likely to be affected. Perhaps there will be higher rates of skin cancer. I saw an Asian woman hunched over in a nail salon with a CFL desklamp right above her face. She must work like that for 8 hours every day. I know Asian people have thicker keratin layers in their skin, which helps provide additional protection against UV (it is what gives their skin that yellowish tone). But still I wonder if she comes home with aching eyes everyday after work, whether she has some redness on her face, whether she will suffer from premature wrinkling as she gets older.



uk_caver said:


> So even in the absence of evidence of harm, we should avoid doing anything new that might conceivably affect some small (and as yet unidentified) subset of people?
> Even if the potential harm is so rare that it wouldn't become apparent even with decades of use of the new technology?


 You mean like trans-fat? Or sugary foods? Does not conspicuously affect most people, but causes diabetes and heart attacks for others.


----------



## uk_caver (Jun 3, 2013)

Anders Hoveland said:


> You mean like trans-fat? Or sugary foods? Does not conspicuously affect most people, but causes diabetes and heart attacks for others.


I mean any new technology, from stone tools and fire all the way to modern inventions.

The problem is that without evidence, all we're left with is someone running around waving their arms saying '_Woe! Woe! Terrible harm may come to you!!!_' and speculating in ways which may seem wise to them but which pretty much anyone else could do if they actually thought it worthwhile.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 3, 2013)

Anders Hoveland said:


> You mean like trans-fat? Or sugary foods? Does not conspicuously affect most people, but causes diabetes and heart attacks for others.




I am glad you brought up such items, cause there-in lies the error in your argument.


It goes along the lines of:


- Aspartame may cause brain defects and cognitive issues .... but sugary drinks absolutely 100% increase obesity and diabetes which absolutely, 100% has serious negative health effects. Do you ban aspartame? No, because the net benefits far outweigh the alternatives.


- CFL lamps may cause some skin issues and may contribute to eye issues and has some mercury that may create some issues .... but the alternative definitely, 100% contributes to increase pollution which absolutely results in more illness and death and it likely contributes to global warming which could have devastating results as well. Net benefit of CFL from a health standpoint until LED is ready to take over far outweighs the detriments.


- Now a good political bandwagon to get on would be the banning of DDT. Wholly justified in North America and Europe, wholly unjustified in Africa. Would it have increase birth defect rates in Africa .... absolutely, but on the other hand, the banning of DDT is responsible for 100's of thousands of deaths due to increase mosquito born illnesses that flourished after the best weapon against them was banned.


CFL are not perfect, but in the big scheme of things, there are better than the alternative which we know has detrimental effects.


Semiman


----------



## Anders Hoveland (Jun 6, 2013)

uk_caver said:


> I mean any new technology, from stone tools and fire all the way to modern inventions.


 New technology is not always better. There are typically trade-offs. 



SemiMan said:


> What makes you so amazingly genetically unique that you are the only person who responds to UVC, but not UVA/B?


Not having a spectrometer that can measure UV, I cannot give a certain answer. I do not know how much UV CFLs can leak out. If the often repeated claims that sunlight has more UV than CFL are true, then one possibility could be that the sun has more "soft" UV, but CFLs can leak out more higher frequency UV radiation. And were the measurements made on spiral CFLs fresh out of the package, or ones that had been plucked out from real life conditions where the phosphor coating may have begun to ware and crack from repeated use?



SemiMan said:


> CFL are not perfect, but in the big scheme of things, there are better than the alternative which we know has detrimental effects.


 No, it's just a myth. CFL bulbs and electric cars have resulted in more pollution, more CO2 emissions. Yet governments continue to force and subsidize them because of stupidity. Central planning at it's best. :shakehead 
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Each technology has its own advantages, or course. The controversy lies in the fact that _some_ people believe they are being affected by other people using a certain type of technology. Historically, this has often been the case with many new technologies. As an example, often whenever I go to a restaurant or someone else's house, they have CFL bulbs that strain my eyes and make my skin feel sore. Should I demand government legislation banning CFLs ? 

Sorry for the rant, I just think some people are way too hung up on the whole "global warming thing" and need to stop forcing their miserable defective "energy saving" products on all the rest of us. These CFL bulbs everywhere just make me very very angry.  

Look, I'm not really against environmentalism, and I would probably stop complaining if everyone just got rid of CFLs, put UV filters over all the fluorescent tubes in public places, and brought the incandescent light bulbs back.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 6, 2013)

Anders Hoveland said:


> No, it's just a myth. CFL bulbs and electric cars have resulted in more pollution, more CO2 emissions.



Wait ... technologies that use _markedly less energy_ produce _more emissions_? Citations, please, because that assertion goes beyond being merely counterintuitive.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 8, 2013)

Anders Hoveland said:


> No, it's just a myth. CFL bulbs and electric cars have resulted in more pollution, more CO2 emissions. Yet governments continue to force and subsidize them because of stupidity. Central planning at it's best. :shakehead
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.




Sorry but there is absolutely no peer reviewed data to support your claims. CFL bulbs anytime one looks at cradle to grave comparisons result in way less CO2 emissions. It is not even close, not at all. Same for pollution. Same is pretty much true to electric cars. Though they may use dirty electricity, electric power systems are far more effective at using every little bit of energy in productive ways.

In terms of global warming, sorry, but a few somewhat paid off scientists don't refute what 99% of the other scientists say. Yes there are data anomalies along the way, but trend data not to mention the rapid increase in C02 which is not natural cannot be discounted. We can put out heads in the sand and say "everything will be okay", but that would be foolish. Yes, in the past the earth has been warmer than it is now and there is still life here. On the other hand, those warming cycles came with massive species die offs and massive local weather changes. There are an awfully lot of people on the planet who we just can't shift from one location to another. The problem with global warming is could bring about climate change so rapidly that we are unable to compensate for any number of reasons resulting in massive famines, disease and resulting wars, etc. It is not just that the earth will warm, but the scale and timelines.

Semiman


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Jun 9, 2013)

Actually, I could concoct a test that shows a CFL to be worse than a filament. I'd have to tinker with supply voltage and use a very short on/off cycle. The difference would still mainly appear in secondary costs though, even after murdering the CFLs by devious testing.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 9, 2013)

AnAppleSnail said:


> Actually, I could concoct a test that shows a CFL to be worse than a filament. I'd have to tinker with supply voltage and use a very short on/off cycle. The difference would still mainly appear in secondary costs though, even after murdering the CFLs by devious testing.



And the peer review would be that it was a completely unrealistic set of test conditions and would have a hard time getting published


----------



## EngrPaul (Jun 17, 2013)

I am a bit more concerned about cataracts from UV light. I think it's best practice to use UV blocking glasses or replace bulbs with LED when your direct line of sight is to the bulb, such as at a bathroom vanity, in the office, or in front of a computer screen.

According to this website, it's better to go with warm white fluorescents.

http://www.mnn.com/health/healthy-spaces/stories/want-to-save-your-eyes-change-your-light-bulbs

A consistent healthy diet would surely go a long way toward preventing damage to both skin and eyes. Eat vegetable containing carotene and antioxidant rich foods. Reducing glare and leads to less fatigue and lower stress level.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 17, 2013)

Sorry, but this research paper for one was contested (Rensellaer in their letter concerning this article said "although this letter cannot cover all the half-truths in the article by Walls") , and two makes conclusions not based in reality:

1) Color temp of a fluorescent light does not have much impact on the UV, that is more about the evenness of the phosphor and the glass. It will impact about 420-500nm.
2) They suggest filtering out everything below 500nm ..... ya right ... so much for circadian rhythm and proper pupil control. If you did that you would replace cataracts with everyone wearing glasses due to eye strain not to mention all the mental health issues from screwed up bodily clocks.
3) They suggest 2500-3500CCT ... ever tried to read or do anything that required visual acuity at 2500K? ....
4) 3500K halogen unfiltered has quite a bit of UV and <500nm light so what value is that?
5) Increased pollution and green house gases from lack of use of this lighting would do far more damage health wise.

Oh, and all they did is a little bit of review of former literature and some calculations. They have no tests, they even said they don't have any real good data on exposure and/or specific impacts across wavelengths in the blue.

This strikes me as some researchers long on publishing and got a kick in the behind from the University to publish something, anything, and this is what they came up with.

Now that said, perhaps there will be some more cataracts (2%-12%). Alternatives? ..... Seems to be fear mongering without any suitable alternative.


Semiman


----------



## Anders Hoveland (Jun 22, 2013)

I know this may seem silly to some, but if I am going to be exposed to UV, I would prefer it be from natural sunshine. I try to reduce my exposure to UV as much as possible (with all those warnings from dermatologists about cumulative skin damage), but at the same time I believe it is important to get out every day in the sunlight, and I want to expose my skin to some natural sunlight everyday. Not too much, of course.



SemiMan said:


> Now that said, perhaps there will be some more cataracts (2%-12%). Alternatives? ..... Seems to be fear mongering without any suitable alternative.


There are many factors that can cause or increase the risk of cataracts. A 10% increased risk is still quite significant. If there was some type of food that increased the risk of heart disease by 10%, health professionals would call it unhealthy and recommend us not to eat it. If there was some medication that was discovered to have a 10% risk of cataracts, it would be immediately taken off the shelves.

There are numerous potential alternatives to fluorescent lighting in schools and offices. I am not going to discuss them because that would derail the topic of this thread. At the very least, UV filters should be standard. The schools our children are in at least have diffusor panels covering the tubes, so that helps somewhat. 




SemiMan said:


> Color temp of a fluorescent light does not have much impact on the UV, that is more about the evenness of the phosphor and the glass.


 I would not think color would make any difference either, but perhaps the red phosphor composition is better at absorbing the UV radiation. I am still sensitive to the pinkish fluorescent tubes also, so they still leak out UV. With spiral CFL, from what I have read, apparently more of the UV leaks out through cracks in the phosphor coating, so I would not expect different color options to make much of a difference.




SemiMan said:


> They suggest filtering out everything below 500nm


Yes, this is rather excessive. I think perhaps what the researcher meant, that the writer got confused about, is that to entirely filter out the potentially damaging shorter wavelengths, a filter would have to be used which would also filter out some of the >500nm wavelengths as a side effect. The best filters of UV tend to have an orangish colored tint. Or perhaps there was a mistake and they simply meant >400nm.

While I think a small amount of indigo and violet frequencies are important components of the light spectrum, at the same time I can understand an argument for partially filtering them out. Although they are within the visible range, they are higher frequency light and could potentially still have damaging effects in some ways. For example, certain individuals can become sensitized to violet frequency light through eating certain plants, especially in combination with some medications. Deep blue to indigo light can also sterilize several types of bacteria, and has been researched for medical treatment. There are several eye conditions that can also make people sensitive to blue light, particularly deep blue.
http://ledsmagazine.com/news/7/11/13
http://greenwashinglamps.wordpress.com/category/led-issues/

As I stated before, I have not noticed any skin sensitivity to LED light, so presumably deep blue 465nm is not problematic. (I just don't like the way LED light looks, and seem to have more trouble concentrating on reading under this light)




SemiMan said:


> 4) 3500K halogen unfiltered has quite a bit of UV so what value is that?


 The UV from halogen is a much lower frequency, since it is just being generated by a hot incandescent filament. In fact, most of this UV could be more accurately described as "UV light" rather than "UV radiation". Virtually all halogen lamps _are_ filtered. And unlike the UV radiation emitted from the discharge in fluorescent tubes, a single piece of ordinary glass is enough to stop virtually of the medium frequency "soft" UV given off by the inner halogen capsule. The UV that is transparent through the glass is mostly _near_-UV. This is essentially the same as violet light except we cannot see it. The UVA with a wavelength above 350nm is also relatively transparent through glass, in both halogen and fluorescent lamps, but the fluorescent tube generates more of it.

Besides, _real_ 3500K is almost never used because it would have such a short lifespan. Most "3500K" halogen spotlights actually use a filament operated at a somewhat lower temperature, and then use filters in the reflector to give an output with the "equivalent" of 3500K. I think the only time you would ever encounter a real 3500K halogen is in photography, and those tubes are usually not left on too long. 2900-3200K halogen is more typical, so this is not really so different from regular incandescent (assuming it has a glass cover).

So it is a little misleading to discuss "UV", because there are different frequencies of UV, with different properties, that are filtered to different extents by glass. The UV given off by an exposed fused-quartz halogen capsule is the type of UV that can damage the retina, and to a lesser extent cause skin damage on the outermost layers of the skin. The UV radiation from mercury vapor (which leaks out of fluorescent tubes) is the type that can cause cancer, deeper skin damage, increase the risk of cataracts over time, and cause plastic to crack. Likely the overall intensity of UV from a non-enclosed halogen capsule would be greater, but a fluorescent tube still leaks out more higher frequency UV, if that makes sense. So I think that for this discussion, it is appropriate to divide UV into four types: near UV, glass-transparent UVA, glass non-transparent UVA, and UV radiation.

But again, all this is rather irrelevant because halogen lamps are filtered, and only 2900-3000K. Most of the UV that goes through is relatively harmless, or is of the less damaging type and is only produced in small amounts. The UV from fluorescent tubes is clearly worse.


----------



## EngrPaul (Jun 22, 2013)

Anders Hoveland said:


> I There are many factors that can cause or increase the risk of cataracts. A 10% increased risk is still quite significant. If there was some type of food that increased the risk of heart disease by 10%, health professionals would call it unhealthy and recommend us not to eat it. If there was some medication that was discovered to have a 10% risk of cataracts, it would be immediately taken off the shelves.



I agree with you Anders. I only have one set of eyes, if I can make a simple choice to reduce my risk on a daily basis I'm going to do it.

I followed eating healthier food choices on a daily basis and went from obese to optimum weight (I lost 60 lbs). 

I don't totally refuse to eat a burger or stand in front of a fluorescent bulb once in a while. Even so, reducing my cumulative risk by following the "slight edge" lifestyle has certainly paid off in my health. I don't wait for all the evidence to roll in to start making the right choices for myself.


----------



## Anders Hoveland (Jun 22, 2013)

SemiMan said:


> CFL bulbs anytime one looks at cradle to grave comparisons result in way less CO2 emissions.


False! It depends entirely on how the comparison is done.



SemiMan said:


> In terms of global warming, sorry, but a few somewhat paid off scientists don't refute what 99% of the other scientists say.


Another fallacy. Number of scientists who hold a certain opinion is not necessarily relevant at all. Several explanations for his; publication bias, confirmation bias.



SemiMan said:


> We can put out heads in the sand and say "everything will be okay", but that would be foolish.


 I would just hope that global warming theory, and the popular concern many have for it, would not in anyway bias an online discussion about the shortcomings and potential health effects of different types of lamps. And besides, while it's one thing to believe in man-made global warming, it's quite a stretch to then believe that you should therefore use "energy efficient" lighting.

Certainly I am not willing to sacrifice my lighting environment so that other people can feel better about themselves. Personally, I think this whole lighting transition in our homes is, for the most part, just a bunch of propaganda hype backed by self-serving interests, ignorance, and inadequately substantiated alarmism, but do what you want in your home.



SemiMan said:


> 5) Increased pollution and green house gases from lack of use of this lighting would do far more damage health wise.


Is there a peer reviewed study that shows this?


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 22, 2013)

I admire Anders' dedication to the _everyone is insane but me_ line of reasoning.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 24, 2013)

Anders Hoveland said:


> False! It depends entirely on how the comparison is done.
> 
> 
> Another fallacy. Number of scientists who hold a certain opinion is not necessarily relevant at all. Several explanations for his; publication bias, confirmation bias.
> ...




You know Anders, you really stepped over the line. You make claim after claim after claim with 0 supporting evidence normally and then you post crap like this:

1) It makes absolutely no difference what study is used of what method. Under any possible measure, the CO2 emissions cradle to grave of a fluorescent are way way less than an incandescent. There is no possible measure that will come up with otherwise. The embodied energy in the bulb is just a small part of the total CO2 emissions with by far the majority in energy usage which we know the CFL is way better. That is not even taking into account 3-10 times reduced shipping costs.

2) 99% of Scientists may be an exaggeration but 95% is not. Well over 95% of scientist support human activity as contributing to rapid global warming. An even higher number agree that global warming is happening period for whatever reason. Let's add in that it is not just global warming, but increase C02 that has other biosphere issues. Sure the Earth has been warm in the past, but it is the rapid rise that is different this time and every other time there was a climate change, there was massive species die off. Again, you can put your head in the sand or you can consider that odds are the "theory" is right, the results may be severe in a bad way, and perhaps we should try to remedy it? When I say 95%, I mean 95% of the scientists that actually study climate and weather and have the background to understand the data .... 

3) OF COURSE GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO BIAS A DISCUSSION ON LIGHTING ..... Just like it would bias a discussion on the merits of everyone driving gas guzzlers, CO2 capture, etc. etc. We only have ONE world. Get that? One ......

4) Yes we get it Anders, your needs are more important than everyone else's, a common view point from those that deny climate change, deny the hazardous effects of smoking, and a long list of things ultimately proven to be really bad for you. I am not saying that is a one way street, but your viewpoint is pretty much. Do you smoke? If no, how would you feel if 10 smokers came into your house and just puffed away .... I mean why shouldn't they, why should they change something they love just to make you happy and healthy?

It is not a matter of sacrificing your lighting environment so that other can feel better about themselves, it is about making a small sacrifice so that other MAY FEEL BETTER PERIOD!


5) Peer reviewed study .... actually, it would be easy to extrapolate because there are statistics on the increase of pollution which would happen replacing fluorescent with INCAN in industrial environments and what impact that has on a variety of health conditions including. On the other hand, the incidence of increased cataracts ... their evidence of which was very poorly defined, was low. Of course they did not review in that article the health impacts of eliminating blue light including eye strain from poor focus, health issues due to lack or stimulation of circadian rhythm, etc.

This "scientist" as she calls herself seems highly focused on paper ... of very low technical quality, that further her commercial interests.

Semiman


----------



## howzz1854 (Mar 3, 2014)

in my quest of trying to find an most ideal HDTV bias lighting solution. i've unknowingly done A LOT of research on this subject. 

i've came across and read all of the links you guys posted on this thread previously during my quest. as well as many other published papers and findings. too sum it all up, based on my findings and all the papers i've read, is that since CFL is a new modern adoption that's taking on only in recent years, there hasn't been a "conclusive" evidence that's agreed by all international health and safety organization that concludes that CFL and conventional Fluorescent have a "direct link" to skin cancer. 

i suggest you guys give this paper a read: 
http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiat...onTopics/UltravioletRadiation/uv_UvFromLamps/

even on FDA's own website, they came to a similar conclusion, but less detailed than the link above that they all agree CFL, and most light sources including incandescent bulbs emit UV. but so far there hasn't been enough evidence to suggest that there's a "direct link" resulting in skin cancer. however, like the UK, Australia, FDA does recommend a safety exposure distance, and ways to minimize the exposure. even tho it has already been measured that the exposed UV is a fraction of what the direct sun will provide. something like 8 hours of direct exposure within 30cm (1ft) for CFL is equivalent of 1min exposure under direct sun. the paper also traces back experiments done back in 1988, and was subsequently updated in 1997 to the similar result.


----------



## inetdog (Mar 3, 2014)

There is probably a worse exposure to UV from quartz tube halogen lights operated without a proper filter glass in place then from any CFL or LED bulb. 
With a CFL there is IMHO a much lower chance of UV overexposure from abuse or deterioration.


----------



## oplonk (Mar 27, 2014)

I know someone who is "allergic" to sunlight as part of a genuine medical conidtion. Actually it's the UVa wavelengths for her. Having looked into it myself briefly, it seems that actually there's a whole collection of such conditions with differnt symptoms. For those who are dubious - http://www.dermnetnz.org/reactions/photosensitivity.htmlIn her case, fluorescent bulbs apparently trigger it for her. The best ones she has found are halogen bulbs.


----------



## uk_caver (Mar 27, 2014)

oplonk said:


> The best ones she has found are halogen bulbs.


Best out of what selection?
CFL? long-tube fluorescent? Regular incan? halogen? LED?

Do regular incandescents actually cause problems?


----------



## inetdog (Mar 27, 2014)

LEDs should be OK too.
Even the units that use strong blue with a red or yellow phosphor will not contain any UV.
The problem with any fluorescent is that the arc itself produces mainly UV. It relies on the phosphor coating to convert the UV and the glass to help block any UV that makes it through the phosphor layer. And your friend just cannot rely on that.
Easier is to avoid the UV in the first place.
However quartz type high intensity halogen bulbs will allow a lot of UV to come out through the quartz. There has to be an additional glass layer to reduce the UV. Otherwise even non-sensitive folks can get sunburn from them.


----------



## uk_caver (Mar 28, 2014)

For people with extreme sensitivity to UV, a UV lightmeter would seem to be a worthwhile thing to have, assuming they were available with appropriate sensitivity and reliability at a reasonable price.

It'd seem much better to be able to check out suspect light sources when visiting places rather than either relying on luck and maybe ending up worrying, or risk being overconservative and further limiting one's life beyond what is necessary.


----------

