Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Dangers From CFL Bulbs Even If Unbroken and Working Properly. (Please check for your own safety.

page: 1
29
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I know there have been threads discussing the mercury in the new light bulbs, but there is a six month-old study dealing with a different danger which you really should know about. It seems legitimate to me and will cause me to reconsider some of my CFL use. I hope you give it some serious consideration as well.

A quick summary? Ok. CFL bulbs emit more ultra-violet light than expected. This causes the same skin damage normally associated with UV light. It's made worse if you have small amounts of products on your skin which are supposed to block UV light.


STONY BROOK, NY, July 18, 2012 – Inspired by a European study, a team of Stony Brook University researchers looked into the potential impact of healthy human skin tissue (in vitro) being exposed to ultraviolet rays emitted from compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. The results, . . . were published in the June issue of the journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology.

Stony Brook researchers collected CFL bulbs purchased from different locations across Suffolk and Nassau counties, and then measured the amount of UV emissions and the integrity of each bulb’s phosphor coatings. Results revealed significant levels of UVC and UVA, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all CFL bulbs studied.

At Stony Brook’s Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center (AERTC), the team took the same bulbs and studied the effects of exposure on healthy human skin tissue cells, . . . .Tests were repeated with incandescent light bulbs of the same intensity and with the introduction of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, which are found in personal care products normally used for UV absorption.

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said Professor Rafailovich. “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.” Rafailovich added that incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells, with or without the presence of TiO2.

“Despite their large energy savings, consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs,” said Professor 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.” (Emphasis added)

commcgi.cc.stonybrook.edu...

A news report mentioned that the bulbs should be kept at least two feet away from you, but that wasn't mentioned in the Stony Brook press release. An abstract of the article may be found here:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Unfortunately, viewing the entire study requires a subscription which I don't have.

I have stocked up on the older, incandescent, style of bulbs. May I suggest you do, too?

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 3-1-2013 by charles1952 because: headline edit




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Thanks for the practical, useful knowledge.. OP...



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
How alarming some 20 years after the infiltration of CFCs into the residential market,

the that such a relatively dim source of UV light van still cause actinic/free radical/oxidative species damage.

And that natural/mineral sunblocks such as titanium oxide particles (from makeup, moisturizers, as well as sunscreens) actually enhance actinic damage instead of reflecting some of it (UV) away?

Bizarre.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Oh I cannot wait until LED bulbs come down to a level the common man can afford. They may not work for every spot I need light but they'll work for plenty to dump all the CFL's and make my stockpile of the old ones last for years on what remains. Just need a price I don't need to trade off which bill to pay in order to buy one of them. lol



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Not surprised. I knew the push for CFLs was too precipitous. I knew even before everybody started complaining about it that they contained mercury--and I knew that it was a cruel joke to pretend that people would dispose of them properly.

I'm just so goddamned tired of being part of some cynical gigantic social experiment. There's only one way off this demented merry-go-round, and it's not through more government overreach....



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
So... Mercury, UV, but cheaper in the long run?

Cheaper than what? Going blind or getting tumors?

At least they're cool.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
I remember when almost any law, no matter how stupid, could be passed if one added "It's for the children." Perhaps we're at the stage when stupid laws can be passed if one adds "It's for the environment."



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
CFLs can be smart choices. Just be careful.

1. Isolate the site.
Get everyone out of the area. Open windows, leave the room, and close the door behind you. Turn off the heating or cooling system. Children and pregnant or nursing mothers should not return until cleanup is complete.

2. Air out the room for 5 to 15 minutes.
Give mercury vapor time to disperse and settle into tiny dust-like beads. Don't wait longer: mercury spreads easily.

3. Don safety gear.
Wear rubber gloves, safety (or other) glasses, work clothes and a dust mask or face covering when cleaning up the broken bulb.

4. Put large bulb pieces and other waste in a large glass jar with a screw-on metal lid, such as a Mason jar.
Scoop up glass fragments and dust with stiff paper or cardboard and deposit in the jar. Pat the area with sticky tape to collect tiny splinters and dust, then wipe with a damp cloth, baby wipe or moist paper towels. (Second choice: a plastic jar with a screw-on lid.)

5. Seal up the waste.
Put paper, cardboard, tape and wipes in the jar and close the lid. Throw away any contaminated fabrics, like clothing or bedding, that have come into direct contact with bulb fragments.

6. If a bulb breaks on a rug or carpeting:
Fabrics are harder to clean than hard surfaces; removing all mercury may be impossible. Hang a CFL-contaminated rug outside. Experts disagree on whether to vacuum carpeting. EPA recommends doing so and cleaning the vacuum afterward. Scientists with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection disagree: after testing various CLF cleanup scenarios [link], they concluded that vacuuming can spread mercury vapor and permanently contaminate the vacuum.

Keep infants, children and women of childbearing age away from the carpeting for several weeks.

7. Wash up.
The clothes you wore to clean up the breakage can be washed unless they made direct contact with the broken bulb or dust. Wipe your shoes with wet wipes or a moist paper towel, then add the wipes to the waste jar.

Wash your hands and face.

8. Follow your state's disposal rules.
Use EPA's website to find the nearest location for disposal of household hazardous waste www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling If no facilities exist it may be legal to send well-packaged waste to your local landfill.

www.epa.gov...

9. Ventilate the room for several more hours.
Next time you clean the area:

Turn off heating or cooling systems, close the room's doors and open the windows before vacuuming. Leave doors closed and heating or cooling off for 15 minutes post-vacuuming. Follow this regime for several cleanings.

www.ewg.org...


an end of life carbon 'bigfoot' print.

there have been two occasions in the last three years where cfl bulbs have shattered in my vicinity.
the clients/owners had no idea as to handling the disposal and after suggesting actions similar to above, i was frowned at and both insisted there was no danger whatsoever. profit eh?

f.
btw i would not wear a dust mask only a cartridge filter respirator when in the vicinity.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
So... Mercury, UV, but cheaper in the long run?

Cheaper than what? Going blind or getting tumors?

At least they're cool.


Considering that CFLs require far more energy and resources to produce than incandescent bulbs as well as the higher initial cost, the longer life and lower energy consumption are not the pluses the government and the companies producing them would have us think. And now we have to add UV exposure and mercury contamination to the mix???

It makes you wonder who is really profiting from them and how many politicians had to be bought to force us to use them.

Like one of the members above did, I also am well stocked with standard bulbs and won't need to buy a CFL in the foreseeable future.

S&F to the OP
edit on 4-1-2013 by happykat39 because: clarified a point



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by fakedirt
 


Morons and insane idiots must abound in any government agency that can write that clean up procedure, that nearly 100% won't follow, and then tell us how energy efficient and SAFE they are. And, even if they had the written procedure in their hands, how many people do you know who are equipped to do it and get it right.

I was a staff level manufacturing engineer and I can tell you that performing safety training for shop personnel for far easier procedures was a difficult task. How any government agency can expect the average member of the household to be able to carry out those procedures would be laughable if it were not so serious.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I'm sure I read somewhere that they also emit some kind of electromagnetic field ( or something along those lines, memories a little fuzzy, and can't conduct an Internet search at the moment )

But again something that has been said to be not terribly good for us



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neocrusader
I'm sure I read somewhere that they also emit some kind of electromagnetic field ( or something along those lines, memories a little fuzzy, and can't conduct an Internet search at the moment )

But again something that has been said to be not terribly good for us


Just like regular ceiling mount fluorescent lights, the CFL lights have a ballast transformer built into the base. I don't know if it emits enough EM energy to be unsafe but it does emit some.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I have never liked those lightbulbs and I have fought my husband
over using them! I buy up as many of the regular bulbs that I can.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 

I think if you don't break the glass the mercury can't get out. And if the bulb is in a fixture behind a glass "shade" or up in a fixture then that is far away enough that the UV is not a problem. It really only is if the inner phosphor coating is "cracked".

Like your microwave. They say don't watch the food cook and you won't get to many x-rays. And wear your seatbelt, don't drive to fast, etc, etc...



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by happykat39
 

I think if you don't break the glass the mercury can't get out. And if the bulb is in a fixture behind a glass "shade" or up in a fixture then that is far away enough that the UV is not a problem. It really only is if the inner phosphor coating is "cracked".

Like your microwave. They say don't watch the food cook and you won't get to many x-rays. And wear your seatbelt, don't drive to fast, etc, etc...


Even if you don't break the CFL in your home, it almost certainly will not survive the trip through the garbage truck to the landfill intact. So, for all of us, the mercury is still a problem.

As for the UV problem, the tests they mentioned in the OP article said the all of the tested CFLs had cracked phosphors and leaked UV radiation.

Yes, you can take precautions if you know what to take them against. But the average consumer will not have that information and therefore will be at risk for lack of proper knowledge.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by happykat39
 

I think if you don't break the glass the mercury can't get out. And if the bulb is in a fixture behind a glass "shade" or up in a fixture then that is far away enough that the UV is not a problem. It really only is if the inner phosphor coating is "cracked".

Like your microwave. They say don't watch the food cook and you won't get to many x-rays. And wear your seatbelt, don't drive to fast, etc, etc...


Even if you don't break the CFL in your home, it almost certainly will not survive the trip through the garbage truck to the landfill intact. So, for all of us, the mercury is still a problem.

Recycle those and long flourescent tubes. We have a local place to take them. The amnount of mercury in them is insignificant to the amount released in say, mining in South America. There, in Colombia, mercury is used in gold mining to the tune of hundreds of tons a year.


Mercury in Colombian gold mining
In Segovia and four nearby cities, an estimated 350 entables release 50 to 100 metric tons of mercury each year into the air and soil of northeast Antioquia



As for the UV problem, the tests they mentioned in the OP article said the all of the tested CFLs had cracked phosphors and leaked UV radiation.

And so not to get "to close."


Yes, you can take precautions if you know what to take them against. But the average consumer will not have that information and therefore will be at risk for lack of proper knowledge.

I agree with you . The world is more and more toxic. We have sown the seeds of our own destruction a long time ago. Its impossible to avoid it all. There are things one can do to stay ahead of the curve.

Have faith...

Drink distilled water. Stay hydrated so the bodies cells can throw off toxins instead of collecting them. Eat less processed foods.

We ain't seen nothing yet as far as sickness and disease from this technological waste civilization we have wrought. If you use incandescent bulbs that consumes more kilowatts and that increases power plant output so more CO2 emissions and radioactive waste. Its a tradeoff no matter how you slice it.

edit on 4-1-2013 by intrptr because: BB code



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I saw an experiment that showed that under typical use, CF's and incandescents had teh same life. The LED's never burned out.

I'm replacing all my CR's with LED's.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by davjan4
 


LED lights have been coming into wider use for quite a while now. They were too dim and too expensive for any real use to replace standard lighting and were mostly in novelty items like shake up flashlights that didn't use batteries. Instead they used a magnetic induction system you charged the internal storage system with by shaking the unit back and forth to run the magnet inside through a coil. Think "dirty gesture". They also didn't have a light "color temperature" that was comfortable to the eyes for general lighting.

But now they have made some tremendous advances.
Here are just a couple...

1 - New developments in high output LEDs have led to their use to replace older lighting systems for photographers. And they can be adjusted somewhat for color temperature without using gels.

2 - The cheesy bulbs for night lights are always burning out at the most inconvenient times. I now have a pair that I bought in a two pack for a small fraction of what I would have spent on replacement bulbs over the next several years. And I don't expect to, at 73 years old, replace them in my lifetime.

3 - Not only are they available for home lighting now, but they are available in many different types from reading lights to outdoor security lighting. Check out this Home Depot page to see just how much variety is available.

R.I.P. CFL



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
So much for "saving the environment". All this "environmentally friendly" stuff is going to put me into an early grave, both conceptually and literally speaking.

Time to go back to the trusty ol' fashioned incandescent bulb.

I guess the adage "Don't fix what ain't broke" proves to be true once again.

*sigh*



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I am all for saving/preserving the environment, but all this environmentally friendly stuff has not been studied for long term effects. I work at an electrical contracting company and I deal with thousnds of bulbs cfls/flourescent/ u types, pretty much everything. I get why we can not just throw these things into the trash, but it is Fing stupid how much it costs to recycle them. You think if the government wanted to be more green and environmentally friendly, that they would make it easier, more accesable, and more affordable for companies and citizens to recycle them. Im ready to throw them in the dumspter at work I have so many
Just joking! I want my drinking water mercury free.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join