dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
40

tmh
@verizon.net

tmh to SparkChaser

Anon

to SparkChaser

Re: Another Reason to Not Use CFLs...

said by SparkChaser:

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/rel ··· 2738.htm

The question is still valid. This is a paysite.
19579823 (banned)
An Awesome Dude
join:2003-08-04

19579823 (banned)

Member

 

Try changing your user agent,THE STORY DISPLAYED FINE FOR ME..

tmhj
@verizon.net

tmhj

Anon

said by 19579823:

Try changing your user agent,THE STORY DISPLAYED FINE FOR ME..

My bad, I meant the Wiley one with the peer reviewed manuscript.

Guess I *am* going blind after all.

SparkChaser
Premium Member
join:2000-06-06
Downingtown, PA

1 recommendation

SparkChaser to tmh

Premium Member

to tmh

Re: Another Reason to Not Use CFLs...

said by tmh :

said by SparkChaser:

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

The question is still valid. This is a paysite.

Unfortunately, many papers are distributed this way.

More info questioning the research:

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 found3,4,5 and did not follow international measurement standards,6 he adds.

»ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2012/1 ··· 20-a387/