Energy-efficient CFL bulbs cause skin damage, say researchers

The Daily Caller ^

[montag813]

LAWSUITS!

[freeangel]

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

[ArrogantBustard]

“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.

[rarestia]

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.

[Olog-hai]

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

[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?

[kingattax]

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

[rarestia]

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

[ArrogantBustard]

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.

[palmer]

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

[Olog-hai]

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

[cymbeline]

“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.

[I still care]

“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.

[InterceptPoint]

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.

[ArrogantBustard]

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.

[diogenes ghost]

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

Agreed. He is no better than his successor.

[ArrogantBustard]

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

[stocksthatgoup]

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!

[stocksthatgoup]

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!