An honest look at CFL's

[Bob]

This guy makes sense.

[Frank]

What bugs me, as a retired chemist, is that fluorescent bulbs have always contained mercury:

Mercury toxicity depends on the chemical state it is in. The EPA advice cited is just plain nuts to me.

I use CFL's for energy savings but I'm damned if I want congress to tell me what to do and if I ever break one or throw it away, what I do with it is my business.

[Chuck]

CFL's also emit UV. People that have Lupus, fibromyalgia, or Sjogrens syndrome (auto-immune diseases) become very ill. Going into any store with fluorescent lighting causes them a lot of discomfort.

[ransley]

That guy is a jack ass and so are you, I bet he is paid by incandesant bulb manufacturers, he quotes the KKK, he wants more coal burning without advocating better cleaner technologies that would reduce its pollutants, one of which is Mercury. Did you know that in burning coal the energy used to operate a 100w incandesant releases

2-4 times as much Mercury into the air you breath today over the life of the bulb as a cfl contains. You do realise that the inneficent electric heater we know as an incandesant bulb actualy only outputs 3-7% of its energy consumed as light you see, and the rest is heat. Now thats a good policy to continue, run 11, 100w incandesants and you have a 1000w electric heater, run your AC more to remove that heat and release more mercury into your air, thats dumb. Has anyone ever cared about tube flourescents impact from Mercury, I bet they have many times as much mercury in them.

I have no need to throw those cfls into the garbage, HD has a nine year warranty and I am going to use it, I dont even need a reciept, My HD charge has it on permenant record.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Chuck,

Note that incandescent lamps also emit UV; where this may be a concern, halogen lamps with their hard (UV absorbing) glass construction are a better choice and, in particular, those with special UV coatings.

With respect to fluorescents and UV, here's what GE has to say:

"The amount of UV produced by standard fluorescent lamps, such as those in your office, home, or school, is not hazardous and does not pose a major health concern. In fact, a paper by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) explores this subject in more detail. It cites a study in which it was determined that UV exposure from sitting indoors under fluorescent lights at typical office light levels for an eight hour workday is equivalent to just over a minute of exposure to the sun in Washington, D.C. on a clear day in July."

Source:

Cheers, Paul

[Paul M. Eldridge]

With all due respect, Bob, the guy is, to put it politely, ill-informed. Several of us have already pointed out here that incandescent lamps will still be available after 2014 and that you will *NOT* be required to use CFLs if your preference is to continue using incandescent or halogen sources.

Cheers, Paul

[Chuck]

I guess myself and several dozen folks that have auto-immune problems I associate with are mistaken. We have all noticed that we turn beet red and begin sweating after more then 15 minutes in a store or any building that has uncovered fluorescent lighting. The same reason we all have to wear sunblock everyday all day just to go outdoors. The studies you mention are with normal folks that don't have auto-immune problems. Just a minute of exposure to sun light, outdoors, will put me in bed for a day. I am in Fl. I thank you for your research but I can not agree with you or the people that are pushing the CFL's Chuck

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Chuck,

My comments were not intended to suggest linear fluorescent or CFL lamps pose little or no risk to someone with a serious medical condition such as your own; rather, it was to point out that incandescent and to a somewhat lesser extent halogen lamps also emit UV radiation and, consequently, those who are acutely sensitive to UV radiation should still take the appropriate precautions when using these sources -- in other words, incandescent lamps do not get a free pass.

For the rest of us, the use of CFLs in a residential environment where ambient light levels are typically one-tenth to one-twentieth that of an office space and where our length of exposure may be one-third to one-half that of a normal workday, we might be looking at the equivalent of a two to three second exposure to daylight.

My apologies for any confusion.

Cheers, Paul

[CJT]

ROTFL! What an *ss!

[Frank]

The bottom line is, do you want the government to dictate everything you do from the time you flush your toilet (1.6 g.) in the morning to putting out the cfl light at night? I like cfl's and figure led's will supplant them as even more energy efficient and save me money. I just don't want to be forced to use them.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Frank,

If this individual could at least check his facts and stop spouting nonsense he wouldn't come across as such an idiot, or maybe I'm being too kind.

Cheers, Paul

[Don Klipstein]

Fluorescents produce less UV than is present in a similar quantity of daylight.

CFLs and other triphosphor fluorescents of higher color temperature (3500 Kelvin and higher) produce even less UV, since the blue-emitting phosphor component in those absorbs and utilizes much of the 365 nm wavelength (unlike most other fluorescent lamp phosphors).

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[ythread]

this guy is a jerk. i hope he gets his ass thrown out of congress

[Anthony Diodati]

Yes He does, We need more people like this of office. Well he sounds good at least. Oh boy..............what a world anymore. Tony

[Anthony Diodati]

Oh well that cool then. I live a sheltered life. Tony