 tmh
@verizon.net | reply to SparkChaser
Re: Another Reason to Not Use CFLs... The question is still valid. This is a paysite. |
|
 Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | Try changing your user agent,THE STORY DISPLAYED FINE FOR ME.. |
|
| said by Dude111: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. |
|
 SparkChaserPremium
join:2000-06-06
Downingtown, PA
kudos:3
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply 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/2012/10/120-a387/
--
--
--
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley
|
|
