Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Energy-efficient CFL bulbs cause skin damage, say researchers
The Daily Caller ^

Posted on 07/23/2012 9:28:46 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Energy-efficient CFL bulbs cause skin damage, say researchers 8:52 AM 07/23/2012 ADVERTISEMENT

New research funded by the National Science Foundation has scientists warning consumers about the potentially harmful effects energy-saving CFL light bulbs can have on skin.

The warning comes based on a study conducted by Stony Brook University and New York State Stem Cell Science — published in the June issue of Photochemistry and Photobiology — which looked at whether and how the invisible UV rays CFL bulbs emit affect the skin.

Based on the research, scientists concluded that CFL light bulbs can be harmful to healthy skin cells.

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said lead researcher Miriam Rafailovich, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Stony Brook University, in New York, in a statement. “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.”

According to Rafailovich, with or without TiO2 (a chemical found in sunblock), incandescent bulbs of the same light intensity had zero effects on healthy skin.

The scientists found that cracks in the CFL bulbs phosphor coatings yielded significant levels of UVC and UVA in all of the bulbs — purchased in different locations across two counties — they examined.

With high levels of ultraviolet radiation present, the researchers delved into how the exposure affected the skin. According to the findings, skin damage from exposure to CFLs was consistent with harm caused by ultraviolet radiation.

“Despite their large energy savings, consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs,” said Rafailovich. “Our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover.”

The research was inspired by a similar 2008 European study conducted by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks which found a potential for skin damage and suggested the use of double-enveloped bulbs as a mitigation tool.

CFLs have been the source of political rumblings since 2007 when Congress approved new energy standards that would have started to phase out the traditional incandescent light bulb in favor of the energy-efficient CFL bulb this year. In December, Congress offered a provision to prevent the Department of Energy from enforcing the standards for nine months. The regulation is still on the books.

The restriction on consumer choice has represented a political battle cry for Tea Partiers and conservatives alike who view the regulation as an infringement on individual liberty. Environmentalists and CFL proponents argue the bulbs are environmentally friendly and economically efficient


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: envirowhackos; health; lightbulbs

1 posted on 07/23/2012 9:28:51 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

LAWSUITS!


2 posted on 07/23/2012 9:31:34 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I ope that these are the only bulbs being used in the halls and offices of our esteemed congress who voted this crap in.


3 posted on 07/23/2012 9:32:07 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,”

Well, duh! Of course. UV radiation at some particular wavelength will have the same effect regardless of its source.

Unanswered questions: What intensity of UV radiation is emitted by CFL? How does that intensity compare to conventional tube fluorescent lights? How does that intensity compare to a day at the beach?

Enquiring minds (at least, the ones who paid attention in science class) want to know.

4 posted on 07/23/2012 9:36:49 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

Maybe that explains why Boehner always looks orange!

And just wait for HHS and EPA findings on this. They’ll likely mandate that everyone purchase and use skin cream with SPF15 (minimum) daily or face a fine.


5 posted on 07/23/2012 9:37:36 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

IINM, all fluorescent lighting is of this nature. Time to ban ‘em all?


6 posted on 07/23/2012 9:38:18 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

So, since CFLs are completely identical to tube fluorescents except for the shape and size, does this mean the lamps we’ve been using for decades in every kind of application have been secretly damaging us, and yet no one noticed?


7 posted on 07/23/2012 9:38:18 AM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Rep Freddie Upton needs to hear from some folks.


2183 Rayburn House Office Bldg
Washington, D.C. 20515
PHONE: (202) 225-3761 -- FAX: (202) 225-4986

8 posted on 07/23/2012 9:39:40 AM PDT by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

Read the article and your questions will be answered. They very succinctly state that UV is not an issue from incandescent bulbs.


9 posted on 07/23/2012 9:39:40 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
I read the article. Did you read my questions?

Please indicate where in the article my questions are answered.

Please indicate where in my questions I mentioned incandescent bulbs.

Thank you.

10 posted on 07/23/2012 9:43:49 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rarestia; ArrogantBustard

Read ArrogantBustard’s comment and you will see that he/she didn’t ask about incandescent bulbs, but the comparison of CFL and FL.


11 posted on 07/23/2012 9:44:07 AM PDT by palmer (Jim, please bill me 50 cents for this completely useless post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

The workers in the workers’ paradise that produce these bulbs are getting a nice dose of mercury poisoning, apparently.


12 posted on 07/23/2012 9:44:12 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

“How does that intensity compare to conventional tube fluorescent lights?”

The report’s omission of a comparison with conventional fluorescnts is evidence to me that it’s objective is sensational or political rather than informative.


13 posted on 07/23/2012 9:47:06 AM PDT by cymbeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“Environmentalists and CFL proponents argue the bulbs are environmentally friendly and economically efficient”

They just fry your skin.

We should be able to sue the idiots in congress for this debaucle.


14 posted on 07/23/2012 9:59:14 AM PDT by I still care (I miss my friends, bagels, and the NYC skyline - but not the taxes. I love the South.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I mean really. This article is very, very misleading. It completely ignores the major (in fact the only) benefit of the CFL bulb legislation: IT LETS THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO VOTED FOR THIS PIECE OF CRAP FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES.

With any legislation their are tradeoffs. Here we have added potentially millions to the already large group of Americans who have skin cancer, added hugely to budgets for home lighting and subjected the population of the United States to mercury poisoning from broken CFL light bulbs.

A small price to pay for making our Congress (and George Bush, I might add) feel warm and fuzzy inside.


15 posted on 07/23/2012 10:01:59 AM PDT by InterceptPoint (TIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cymbeline
it’s objective is sensational or political rather than informative.

I agree. Sadly, lots of folks will fall for it.

The incandescent ban sucks; every congressthing that voted for it should be subjected to merciless derision. Likewise the president who signed it. They're fools and idiots, one and all.

The case against the ban is not helped by bad science.

16 posted on 07/23/2012 10:06:08 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
"Likewise the president who signed it. They're fools and idiots, one and all."

Agreed. He is no better than his successor.

17 posted on 07/23/2012 10:16:42 AM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

You give his successor far more credit for worthiness than I do.


18 posted on 07/23/2012 10:21:02 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
So, since CFLs are completely identical to tube fluorescents except for the shape and size, does this mean the lamps we’ve been using for decades in every kind of application have been secretly damaging us, and yet no one noticed?

A friend of mine worked for years employed by the state of California in a very large office, ie lots of fluorescent bulbs. She claimed that over time that everyone started to balding. For the women it resulted in an extreme thinning if not bald spots as well.

Think of it. You too could look like Friar Tuck!
19 posted on 07/23/2012 10:30:18 AM PDT by stocksthatgoup (Common sense although common knowledge is seldom common practice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
So, since CFLs are completely identical to tube fluorescents except for the shape and size, does this mean the lamps we’ve been using for decades in every kind of application have been secretly damaging us, and yet no one noticed?

A friend of mine worked for years employed by the state of California in a very large office, ie lots of fluorescent bulbs. She claimed that over time that everyone started to balding. For the women it resulted in an extreme thinning if not bald spots as well.

Think of it. You too could look like Friar Tuck!
20 posted on 07/23/2012 10:30:33 AM PDT by stocksthatgoup (Common sense although common knowledge is seldom common practice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: palmer; ArrogantBustard

Okay, I stand corrected and apologize to Bustard for misreading his post.

Enjoy the rest of your day.


21 posted on 07/23/2012 10:42:38 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

I like the LED bulbs, they don’t get as hot so my AC doesn;t have to work so hard against them...


22 posted on 07/23/2012 11:06:39 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

No offense taken ...

These bad science articles really annoy me.


23 posted on 07/23/2012 11:16:17 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Quick...think of ONE thing congress passed that Bush vetoed.

Then think of all the things he DID do that were detrimental to our country, especially in the Middle East.

And the TSA, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, and on and on and......

24 posted on 07/23/2012 11:34:09 AM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost
Then think of all the things he DID do that were detrimental to our country, especially in the Middle East.

Hmmm ....

If you think that disposing of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were bad, that's your business. I disagree.

As for the rest ...

Bush was often foolish.

Bam-Bam is evil.

25 posted on 07/23/2012 11:37:59 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I like the LED bulbs, they don’t get as hot so my AC doesn;t have to work so hard against them...

* * *

I am starting to like LED bulbs too. I have a couple of LED flashlights which my kids have NOT managed to break, unlike all the incandescent bulb flashlights before them.

(But CFLs still suck! ;o)


26 posted on 07/23/2012 11:42:09 AM PDT by Hetty_Fauxvert ( "Be Breitbart, baby!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

Yes. They all emit UV, so unless they have diffusers (e.g. an additional glass cover, as described in the article), they are doing a modest amount of damage. However, it is pretty negligible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp#Ultraviolet_emission


27 posted on 07/23/2012 11:42:27 AM PDT by fluorescence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

The link from that section (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1343229) suggests that long-term exposure raises a person’s lifetime skin cancer risk by 3.9%.


28 posted on 07/23/2012 11:47:58 AM PDT by fluorescence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
...Unanswered questions: What intensity of UV radiation is emitted by CFL? How does that intensity compare to conventional tube fluorescent lights? How does that intensity compare to a day at the beach?

Enquiring minds (at least, the ones who paid attention in science class) want to know.


And ... how do conventional tube fluorescent lights of the past made in the US compare to CLF's from China the land of quality fade where anti freeze finds its way into toothpaste and cough medicine and plastic bits find their way into infant formula and the ingredients for pet food.
29 posted on 07/23/2012 12:06:39 PM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I have an LED in the lamp beside my chair, very bright, and no heat, so when I fumble around to turn off the light, I don’t burn myself.

We have changed our family room flood lights to LED, put in a dimmer for them. Our hallway light is a natural light LED, extremely bright and white.


30 posted on 07/23/2012 12:13:06 PM PDT by ican'tbelieveit (School is prison for children who have commited the crime of being born. (attr: St_Thomas_Aquinas))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Here’s my concern:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2909625/posts?page=29#29


31 posted on 07/23/2012 12:15:13 PM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

later


32 posted on 07/23/2012 12:17:10 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: khelus

Most lamps have shades. Would glass really be necessary to shade from the UV radiation, or are shades enough?

I agree with you on that point as well, helus. There’s no QC in China nor when the products reach our shores. The design companies can blame the manufacturing process despite their poor QC.


33 posted on 07/23/2012 12:20:50 PM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

[ I have an LED in the lamp beside my chair, very bright, and no heat, so when I fumble around to turn off the light, I don’t burn myself.

We have changed our family room flood lights to LED, put in a dimmer for them. Our hallway light is a natural light LED, extremely bright and white. ]

Where I live it gets cold, so I like the LED lights as a replacement for flood lights because the LEDs handle extreme cold temps far far better than CFLs or even regular light bulbs.


34 posted on 07/23/2012 12:34:29 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CVLa_tRslY


35 posted on 07/23/2012 12:36:40 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; TheOldLady; WildHighlander57; netmilsmom; tomdavidd; Freeper; Gvl_M3; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

.

36 posted on 07/23/2012 1:55:10 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
"If you think that disposing of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were bad, that's your business. I disagree."

Disposed of the Taliban? Really? Then who is killing so many young soldiers? And who will control the country when we leave? Just what in hell have we gained?

Disposed of Saddam Hussein...yup, we did. But just what US interests required that? What did we gain by 'nation building' at the cost of so much blood and treasure?

In hindsight, would you want to repeat either adventure?

37 posted on 07/23/2012 2:04:04 PM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Most lamps have shades. Would glass really be necessary to shade from the UV radiation, or are shades enough? ...

Interesting question. IIRC some cloth and some glass can offer some protection, but I don't know how much protection and what affects the amount of protection offered. Perhaps someone with more expertise in UV radiation an answer.
38 posted on 07/23/2012 2:08:52 PM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: khelus

My only experience with lamp shades came during spring break in college, and I can assure you that I had quite the sunburn despite wearing that lampshade for a majority of the day.

The hotel was not amused and that was reflected in the bill for incidentals when we checked out.


39 posted on 07/23/2012 2:16:42 PM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

ROFL


40 posted on 07/23/2012 2:53:26 PM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; ArrogantBustard

I also find this article singularly uninformative. How much UV radiation? How does it compare with sunlight? Is it a different frequency?

I’m not saying that there may not be some risk, but how much? We’ve been using CFLs for years, because they cut our electric bill significantly. I think it is wrong to MANDATE them, but we have chosen to use them, since they are very cost effective.

I’d be interested in LED lights, but the cost and the color problem need to be solved first.


41 posted on 07/23/2012 4:35:55 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
" Environmentalists and CFL proponents argue the bulbs are environmentally friendly and economically efficient."

They can "argue" that, but it's not true. Mercury vapors are hardly "environmentally friendly," the light is weak and annoying, the lights cause skin damage, and the bulbs last for about five minutes.

IOW, they're another mandated boondoggle to enrich whoever is some big lefty's buddy that manufactures them, and the public be damned to skin cancer and macular degeneration.

The TEA kettle is getting on the boil.

42 posted on 07/23/2012 5:43:58 PM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

If they give off UV-B, this could solve the Obesity problem.


43 posted on 07/23/2012 6:06:55 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Actually sunblock seems to enhance the skin damage - not that the Feds still wouldn't mandate its use:
“Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.”

According to Rafailovich, with or without TiO2 (a chemical found in sunblock), incandescent bulbs of the same light intensity had zero effects on healthy skin. <\Blockquote>


44 posted on 07/23/2012 6:46:49 PM PDT by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

I’m with you - let’s force the stupid liberals to use the bulbs for the next 10 years. And while they’re at it, let’s make sure their lowflow toilets are the kind picked up at Home Depot... None of that thousand bucks for a toilet thing...


45 posted on 07/23/2012 8:28:12 PM PDT by GOPJ (Political correctness is simply George Orwell's Newspeak by a non-threatening name. FR- Bernard Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson