Energy-efficient CFL bulbs cause skin damage, say researchers

The Daily Caller ^

[Cicero]

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.

[TheOldLady]

" 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.

[netmilsmom]

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

[Tunehead54]

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>

[GOPJ]

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...