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

Skip to comments.

Compact fluorescent bulbs may contribute to skin cancer
Tucson Citizen | Jul. 23, 2012 | Jonathan DuHamel

Posted on 07/24/2012 9:11:40 AM PDT by neverdem

Here's the link.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Technical
KEYWORDS: bsarticle; cfl; energy; health; skincancer

1 posted on 07/24/2012 9:11:46 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Another reason not to like those &%$#@ bulbs.

And your federal government will force you to buy them.


2 posted on 07/24/2012 9:14:37 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yep, that’s a government program allright

Take something simple, that works, and is made of simple metal and glass, and turn it into something complex, that contains toxic mercury, costs 10 times as much to produce, creates millions of tons of non-recyclable plastic waste, and now causes skin cancer.. all in the name of “protecting the environment”

And the private sector already has created LCD lighting that is considerably better than these crappy flourescent bulbs.


3 posted on 07/24/2012 9:19:39 AM PDT by Mr. K ("The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum [of good]")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Just one more Liberal screw up!


4 posted on 07/24/2012 9:20:31 AM PDT by Obadiah (Insurrection is now an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/02/21/how-many-haz-mat-suits-do-you-need-to-change-a-lightbulb/


5 posted on 07/24/2012 9:23:55 AM PDT by Salamander (I laugh to myself at the men and the ladies who never conceived of us billion dollar babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
And the private sector already has created LCD lighting

They didn't create that.

It was roads and bridges and teachers and internets and stuff.

6 posted on 07/24/2012 9:30:47 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I can’t wait until these become available for home use.

Light Emitting Plasma

7 posted on 07/24/2012 9:33:10 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Here is the full abstract of the study from the The American Society of Photobiology (this is a public abstract, not from the Tucson Citizen; to read the study itself requires membership or subscription).

Abstract

Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs can provide the same amount of lumens as incandescent light bulbs, using one quarter of the energy. Recently, CFL exposure was found to exacerbate existing skin conditions; however, the effects of CFL exposure on healthy skin tissue have not been thoroughly investigated. In this study, we studied the effects of exposure to CFL illumination on healthy human skin tissue cells (fibroblasts and keratinocytes). Cells exposed to CFLs exhibited a decrease in the proliferation rate, a significant increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in their ability to contract collagen. Measurements of UV emissions from these bulbs found significant levels of UVC and UVA (mercury [Hg] emission lines), which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all bulbs studied. The response of the cells to the CFLs was consistent with damage from UV radiation, which was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs), normally used for UV absorption, were added prior to exposure. No effect on cells, with or without TiO2 NPs, was observed when they were exposed to incandescent light of the same intensity.

The Effects of UV Emission from Compact Fluorescent Light Exposure on Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes In Vitro


8 posted on 07/24/2012 9:36:49 AM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

Don’t sweat it. Gubbermint health care will take care of all our skin cancer woes.

It’s win-win... for the environment AND our health! Yay!


9 posted on 07/24/2012 9:38:45 AM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Other than being twisted, what makes these bulbs different than the straight tube fluorescent bulbs?


10 posted on 07/24/2012 9:39:42 AM PDT by 1raider1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Interesting. A few years back my friend said the same thing. She’s a research scientist, PhD. She didn’t do research on it but knew the make up of them. Something that I’ll have to pass on for her review. Thanks.


11 posted on 07/24/2012 9:53:48 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac; Mr. K; neverdem
I have been working on the distribution of Magnetic Induction Lighting for the last couple of years. One of the things I've really been shocked to learn is that the government business of environmental protection and energy reduction is far, far more corrupt than I ever imagined - and I imagine a lot.

The scams of moving taxpayer money through non-profits to big party donors are monumental and almost always democrat driven and cooperative.

I have followed leads when reading about municipalities seeking energy saving projects and found that they have no intention of actually being effective. They just go through the process of having their media publish a feel good story to keep the donations coming and the public support strong. I recently talked with the director of a big energy and environmental department int he west that had lost a ton of money on a non productive wind farm. I went into detail about what can be done to accomplish actual energy cuts and cost savings with induction lighting and he told me they had just finished converting all of the government offices and facilities in the county to compact fluorescent. I mentioned the fact that this technology is being recognized as a failure and he said, "I know. But, we began the grant process almost four years ago and it was based on CFL."

The point of the project was not to really save energy, it was to spend government money and have some banquets.

12 posted on 07/24/2012 9:55:58 AM PDT by Baynative (A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
All anyone needs to do is read the warnings that come with these bulbs to know what a horrible idea they are.

You have to evacuate the room if one breaks. Yeah, that's reassuring.

And there have been several reports of these bulbs becoming flame throwers when they burn out.

13 posted on 07/24/2012 10:09:22 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Is there anything that won’t wind up killing you?


14 posted on 07/24/2012 10:10:39 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

And the government wants to run HEALTHCARE????


15 posted on 07/24/2012 10:15:50 AM PDT by goodnesswins (What has happened to America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

Except for our congresscritters and WH who will make sure that they will keep the old incandescent bulbs at home and in the office.


16 posted on 07/24/2012 10:22:42 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

And the private sector already has created LCD lighting that is considerably better than these crappy flourescent bulbs.”””

I have a really hard time convincing myself that I should pay $50 for an LED light bulb when I pay about 55 CENTS for an incadescent bulb.

When someone starts giving me 100 times the current social security I now get, perhaps I will re-think all of this.


17 posted on 07/24/2012 10:24:27 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I have a very large supply of incandescent bulbs in my basement.
I will burn candles and oil lamps before I will use CF bulbs.


18 posted on 07/24/2012 10:25:15 AM PDT by Edward Teach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

As both a victim and survivor of skin cancer who has the scars to prove it, my environment has always been, is now and will always be CFL free.

LEDs are coming down in price at last. I suspect CFLs will be but a vague memory in 10 years.


19 posted on 07/24/2012 10:53:02 AM PDT by upchuck ("Definition of 'racist:' someone that is winning an argument with a liberal." ~ Peter Brimelow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

When are they supposed to stop selling the regular bulbs? I still need to supplement my 300 bulb hoard.


20 posted on 07/24/2012 11:08:05 AM PDT by misharu (US Congress: Children without adult supervision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

> Other than being twisted, what makes these bulbs different than the straight tube fluorescent bulbs?

Not much. It’s almost identical technology to that used in the fluorescent bulbs we all have known and used for five decades, in our homes, offices, shops, etc. The only significant difference is that CFLs use a higher frequency of electrical stimulation of the ionized gas, to reduce the “flicker” of the classic straight tube and circular tube types. And that is an improvement.

All fluorescent tubes have mercury. All fluorescent tubes are potentially dangerous for the identical reasons. And always have been. How many people do you know who we’re killed by classic fluorescent bulbs?

The legitimate objection to CFLs is that they’re being forced on us. But this talk of how they’re some new kind of Evil Tech Device is just silly.


21 posted on 07/24/2012 12:07:04 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

Some people vastly prefer incandescent for reading and close work so for them and me it is evil. Foisting compact fluorescent on us is evil. No more 100 watters. 75 watts will be banned next January. Ridiculous and evil

You want 100 watt conventional bulbs? Find them on ebay for double-triple the old price


22 posted on 07/24/2012 12:13:48 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

I use all three types... Incandescent, straight FLs, and CFLs, depending on the application. They all have their places.

I strenuously object to the goober mint telling me what kind of bulb I can or can’t use where. Damn bunch of control freak fascists, they are.


23 posted on 07/24/2012 12:36:39 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

I have several very good LED lights in my home where they can be used. I like them; the only problem with them is the initial cost.

I guess in the long run, lifetime of the LEDs would beat out incandescent or fluorescent lights, but that’s just the LEDs - semi conductors, basically. However, there are other component parts in these lights. Transformers, rectifiers, capacitors (likely), voltage regulators, resistors, etc. These are what I’d think will limit the lifetime of LED lights. Time will tell, if I live that long.


24 posted on 07/24/2012 12:44:33 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

Where are people finding $50 LEDs? I have been working on replacing all of my lights with LED and have never paid $50.


25 posted on 07/24/2012 12:46:05 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 17 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1
Other than being twisted, what makes these bulbs different than the straight tube fluorescent bulbs?

Energy efficency and cost for sure, and maybe the tendency to leak UVA and UVC light, the latter possibly due to its unique shape.

26 posted on 07/24/2012 1:22:14 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Thanks for the link.


27 posted on 07/24/2012 1:23:52 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
I suspect CFLs will be but a vague memory in 10 years.

I hope it doeesn't. It's a shining example of the crappy laws passed by rats based on crappy, half-baked science!

28 posted on 07/24/2012 1:36:40 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
Other than being twisted, what makes these bulbs different than the straight tube fluorescent bulbs?

They are considerably different in where the starting components are located and that is another danger. The older tube type fluorescent bulbs used a ballast to start and it was a step up transformer. With that the bulb could even be used outside. The ballast did put off some heat {I used too change them out daily} but were reliable which is why commercial application was used that and building vibrations that made incandescents blow in a matter of hours.

There is evidence that CFL's can cause fires and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why. Placing the starting components {electronic ballast} in the base of the bulb doesn't allow for the heat to safely be displaced thus the starting components burn out literally. This would especially be true where utilities have the voltage jacked up to the upper limits of allowable which is the trend as of late.

The electronic ballast is also why a fluorescent bulb of any shape will not function outside in colder temps. They lack that extra kick to heat the gas in colder temps the transformer ballast had. Of course the makers knew this about them and said nothing because CFL's mean larger profits for them. I can not see a CFL ever paying for itself. One reason being for most persons you must buy 2-3 of them to give the lighting coverage of an incandescent.

29 posted on 07/24/2012 2:09:09 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Everything may contribute to cancer.


30 posted on 07/24/2012 2:10:51 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

Yup! I like ye ol 48” florescents in some places, usually the “daylight” full spectrum type. The CFs I boycott. Have no use for them.


31 posted on 07/24/2012 2:16:55 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All

Know What Your Gov't Is Up To
By Keeping The News Going
On The WWW #1 Conservative Site
Free Republic!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


32 posted on 07/24/2012 2:18:54 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Thanks for the link


33 posted on 07/24/2012 3:47:13 PM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1
Other than being twisted, what makes these bulbs different than the straight tube fluorescent bulbs?

CFL bulbs are self contained units. They contain the ballast and some electronics. A "standard straight (homophobic term!) bulb" needs a balast that is built into the lighting unit.

34 posted on 07/24/2012 4:19:55 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (Another day. Another small provocation. Another step closer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Couple of minor corrections...

> The older tube type fluorescent bulbs used a ballast to start and it was a step up transformer.

No, it was an inductor, not a transformer. The inductor limited the current once the arc was established.

> The electronic ballast is also why a fluorescent bulb of any shape will not function outside in colder temps. They lack that extra kick to heat the gas in colder temps the transformer ballast had.

I recommend you check a wiring diagram. What you’re thinking of is the inductive kick during startup, which the CFLs do also — they have to, to establish the arc.

FWIW, I have used CFLs outdoors in temps down to 10degF where straight bulb FLs didn’t work — and vice versa. Mostly it depends on the quality of the bulb and the electrical components. Crappy CFLs and crappy straight FLs both suck in the cold. I generally use an incandescent in cold applications.

With regard to “lighting coverage”, lumens are lumens. If the spectral characteristics are similar, and the lumen ratings are similar, most people can’t tell the difference in the light in a room.

The real problem is that the damn goober mint is trying to force us to use the CFLs everywhere, against our will. And without regard to matching the characteristics properly against the “standard” incandescent spectrum. That’s just stupid and wrong.

I resent being forced to use anything I don’t want to use. Let’s not confuse politics with science, though. The CFLs are just another type of bulb, with its plusses and minuses, not the Spawn of Satan as some folks would have us believe.


35 posted on 07/24/2012 5:41:12 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Now that's funny - "save the planet" , give the humans cancer.
36 posted on 07/24/2012 6:41:32 PM PDT by Wicket (God bless and protect our troops and God bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Edward Teach

I have so many incandescents that I put them in my will!


37 posted on 07/24/2012 7:23:39 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
No, it was an inductor, not a transformer. The inductor limited the current once the arc was established.

A ballast is in fact a step up transformer from 120 VAC to several thousand volts actually. I'm talking about the about 3" X 6" ballast common to older fixtures.

I recommend you check a wiring diagram. What you’re thinking of is the inductive kick during startup, which the CFLs do also — they have to, to establish the arc.

I do know this much. Never buy newer electronic ballast shop tube lights and put them in an outside shed they won't work. The old reliable transformer ballast will however light it up.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4843370_test-ballasts-fluorescent-light-fixtures.html

38 posted on 07/24/2012 8:46:09 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
> A ballast is in fact a step up transformer from 120 VAC to several thousand volts actually. I'm talking about the about 3" X 6" ballast common to older fixtures.

Turns out we're both right. :) I was describing the simple (older) single-winding inductor type ballast, usable for bulbs up to about 4-ft length; you were describing the auto-transformer type ballast, usable for longer bulbs where more voltage is needed to establish the arc over the greater length (also usable with shorter bulbs, though unnecessary).

However, I'm unaware of any auto-transformer types that develop "several thousand" Volts; I thought it was a few hundred (a factor of 2 increase) rather than a few thousand (a factor of perhaps 20). Do you happen to have a link to such a component? If they exist, I'd like to learn about them.

> Never buy newer electronic ballast shop tube lights and put them in an outside shed they won't work. The old reliable transformer ballast will however light it up.

I accept your advice, thanks!

Regarding the link you posted, I find two things curious about the "contributor's" brief article. First, as above, I have a hard time believing the transformer develops "thousands" of volts; that seems both unlikely and unnecessary. But I'll look around for an authoritative source, now that you've piqued my curiosity. Second, the contributor believes that filling the ballast with oil "reduces the heat created by the action of the transformer". I am unaware of any physics that could produce this effect. Transformer oil conducts/convects heat from the coils to the enclosure and helps avoid "hot-spots" that burn out windings. But oil can't "reduce" the heat produced by an electrical component unless it improves the component's electrical efficiency, and Ohm's Law doesn't care that the copper is in oil. So I think that the "contributor" is confused.

But again thank you for replying; you've given me something to research, which I appreciate.

39 posted on 07/25/2012 12:15:34 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
The ballast I dealt with were mainly for 4' tubes. I agree about the oil. All it would do is help displace heat more evenly. BTW the transformer feeding your home is likely oil filled. I never tested ballast much if I did it was the primary side. Once you got the fixture apart it made more sense to replace it anyway vs the cost to company to come back and change it.

Generally you could tell by looking at the tubes if it was bad the tubes IIRC took on a brownish tint. Here is another link for what it's worth. How an Electric Ballast Work

My background is Commercial/Industrial wiring and HVAC. I worked as a Maintenance Mechanic in large multi story nursing homes for the most part and I've been retired {medically} since 1994. I had about three years VOC/Tech courses related to both fields as well.

If you look at the secondary side wires on a ballast they are considerably smaller than the primary. You're dealing with a higher voltage and lower amperage. The same with a car engine. The ignition spark is several thousand volts and on older systems is obtained via what I learned it to be called as a kid reading Dads old study manuals was Pulsating DC caused from the distributor points which allowed the step up coil and capacitor to work. Coils and capacitors will work with PDC but not DC. An electric fence on farms or a good one rather is in excess of 5000 volts secondary.

I can't remember why specifically the voltage on a tube needed to be several thousand unless it was to actually heat the gas. It's been about 30 years since school LOL Perhaps the for lack of a better term I can think of right now the static in nature discharge from higher voltages would allow an arc & ignite the gas a lower voltage would not. Much in the same way you can tel if a fence is hot and not have to actually touch it. You can ease the back of your hand toward it slowly and you'll feel it before actual contact. .

The reasons they are used in commercial applications go well beyond the obvious long life. When you get into multi-story buildings you get internal problems from the structure itself to factor in. Buildings due to HVAC, elevators, and the nature of concrete decks have an unending vibration going on. A standard incandescent bulb will not take that abuse more than a week. A heavy filament incandescent will take it maybe a couple of months. When I began hording bulbs those were the kind I bought :>} In a home they last a good while. The tubes can go several years in most cases.

On the lights not working outside I remember after I built a storage shed/shop I decided to light it with 4 sets of 4' tube fixtures. The temps I'm guessing were in the low 20's. They would not function and they had the electronic ballast. I turned the heat on and they would light up. Needless to say I changed them out to incandescents.

40 posted on 07/25/2012 2:49:58 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | 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