dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed

garys_2k
Premium
join:2004-05-07
Farmington, MI
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·callwithus
reply to garys_2k

Re: Another Reason to Not Use CFLs...

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.

TheSMJ

join:2009-08-19
Farmington, MI

2 recommendations

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.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
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.”
So researchers found a possible issue when the source of light is extremely close for long period using no described measurement techniques and didn't follow international standards in the measurements. Seems pretty conclusive to me.