As I’ve written before, (here, and here, for example) there are many good reasons to remove the ban (pardon me, “unattainable performance standard that will serve as a de-facto ban”) on incandescent light bulbs.
Now there’s another reason to add to the list of objections. Besides being expensive, undimmable, slow-to-brighten, giving off ugly light, and containing mercury, compact fluorescent bulbs apparently give off UV radiation that will damage your skin.
According to Caroline May writing in the Daily Caller:
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 study authors warn about being exposed to naked bulbs:
“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 “one-study never proves anything” rule still holds, of course. Still, I’m glad I stocked up on regular incandescent bulbs. Unban the bulb!
Let’s flush the bulb, obummer and algore down the toilet!
Thanks again Kenneth…
I understand the double envelope type CFLs cuts the problem.. but of course also makes them still dimmer!
There is more irony about CFLs, eg leave them on, waste energy, switch them on-off, shorten their life…
Basically, bulbs are the wrong way to use fluorescent lighting technology, best in long tube form, just like LEDs have natural lighting advantages in sheet form.
CFL/LED natural advantages are largely compromised in offering politically pushed incandescent-copying lighting…
More on why light bulb ban is wrong
http://tonn.ie
“Deception behind the ban” rundown, 13 points, referenced.
Thanks for the comment and the link!
Yes, Ken, but will I get the seemingly healthy glow of a tan from the CFLs in the office?
Joe -
The fluorescent bulbs in the office aren’t CFLs, they’re tubes. And, as you’ve always had a nice tan, I presume that’ll continue!
Well that’s one way to get rid of the tanning bed industry…
more frequent on/off reduces life of all lamps.
cheap $1 covered cfls are cheap. cheap uncovered cfls are 0.50 or lower in multi packs.
dimmables (ballast) cost more.
cfls are cheap because high quantity production satisfies retrofit into edison bases.
best use in close to chandelier, pendant, or ceiling fixtures, glass shade, air gaps.
halogen (incandescent) have best lighting quality. similar UVC problem with halogen, plus the ‘bare’ halogens die unpredictably early. the reflector halogens are good.
stony brook is a state u
If you don’t like CFLs you can just use one of the more efficient halogen incandescent bulbs which cost about $.25 more than a normal incandescent bulb and which satisfy the bulb efficacy requirements. No one is making anyone buy a CFL. The entire ‘outrage’ over ‘ban the bulb’ is ridiculous.