Technical > Home Improvement > Another Reason to Not Use CFLs...

Another Reason to Not Use CFLs...

quote:

---

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.

---

Unless you went blind and got cancer from the fluorescent lights in the office you've been working in for the last ten years, CFLs aren't going to make you blind or give you cancer. The glass itself absorbs most of the UV.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.

Did you read the Abstract? Much of the UV was NOT absorbed by the glass and, instead, fell on the cell cultures. That's why its a big deal.

"Regular" fluorescent lamps aren't built that poorly, the coating isn't cracked and UV is absorbed by the fluorescent layer.

reply to garys_2k
I never liked the CFLs. Ugly color temp. Yellowing base. Noise.
I know they have mercury in them (very low amount).
--
Splat

reply to garys_2k
Halogen lamps also emit UV.
As do regular old fluorescent lights.

Much ado about nothing, IMHO. Especially since I'd say most are used in some sort of fixture that will include a glass cover.

Shame really as I like the look of Daylight CFL's much better than the nasty, ugly incandescent "soft white" light.

reply to itguy05

reply to itguy05

reply to garys_2k
More about the study here:

»www.scientificamerican.com/artic···age-skin

Again, it's peculiar to CFLs and there's at least anecdotal evidence, aligned with these objective studies showing higher UV radiation, of health concerns. Not definitive yet, of course.

I don't know.

Last month, coffee was going to kill me. This month, it's going to save my life. Next month it's going to kill me again.

My point being: These studies tend to show whatever the lab/author wants it to show. Unless any of these studies can show direct evidence of cancerous UV light causing my cells to go haywire, I'll stick CFL bulbs in any fixture I can.

...At least until LED bulbs become more affordable.

reply to garys_2k
Slightly less pessimistic view of the research:

quote:

---

The team exposed healthy human keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts to the CFL with the highest UV emissions at a distance of 2.5 cm for 2 hours at a time.
...
But in contrast to media depictions of “skin-frying” CFLs, researchers are reluctant to draw conclusions about consumer risk on the basis of these findings. “The UV measurement procedures are not described, so one cannot evaluate the data,” says Mats-Olof Mattsson, a cell biology professor at the Austrian Institute of Technology. The authors also reported higher UV emissions than other studies have found and did not follow international measurement standards he adds.

In vitro studies have limitations for assessing CFL impacts on skin because the intensity of light reaching the cells within skin is much less than the light intensity at the skin surface. Furthermore, says Harry Moseley, a photobiology professor at the University of Dundee, “Work carried out in vitro can be helpful to show the direct effect of UV radiation on the cells, [but] it doesn’t tell us how the body deals with any damage to the cells.”

---

reply to garys_2k
This is some what scary because I do use CFL's quite a bit... in fact I have a "150W" (which are huge) that sits in a silver bowl clamp light, I use it for detail work, so I'm under it, at close range for a few hours at a time...

One thing I have noticed about CFLs is that the light tends to leave me night blind for longer... for example, in my bathroom I have two recessed lights and a vanity light... the vanity is incandescent bulbs and the recessed are CFLs. The emit about the same level of light in the room when position is considered... I started noticing that if I ran the CFLs (regardless of whether I run the vanity or not) when I turn the lights off my vision is completely blank for several seconds... if I run the vanity only, the same thing does not happen. The vanity consists of (4) 60W bulbs and is actually closer to eye level... the recessed are (2) 13W bulbs. That alone has had me a bit nervous as to what CFL light is doing to my eyes...

reply to itguy05

reply to itguy05

reply to garys_2k
You are basing all of this on an abstract? Or do you have the full paper.

Edit: saw your SA link, thanks

Another link »www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20···2738.htm

reply to garys_2k

reply to garys_2k

Re: Another Reason to Not Use CFLs...

reply to SparkChaser