Fort Wayne, IN
|reply to garys_2k |
Re: Another Reason to Not Use CFLs...
Slightly less pessimistic view of the research:
quote: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.
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 doesnt tell us how the body deals with any damage to the cells.