Low energy bulbs cause migraines

A good reason not to use them at all.
Time for letters to the MP and the shadow health minister, I think.
Reply to
Andy Hall
As stated in the article CFs do not flicker in the way conventional ballasted strip fluoros do, so any effect would have to be related to light intesnity, colour spectrum or electromagnetic effects of the electronic ballast. Or perhaps lack of heat output of the CFL :-)
The BBC article was more honest in saying "Low-energy bulbs 'cause migraine'" with the 'cause migraine' bit in quotes indicating that this is just someone else's claim rather than an established fact.
Reply to
John Stumbles
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:41:19 GMT John Stumbles wrote :
Perhaps they read it in the Daily Mail . Given that millions of people spend their entire working day in fluorescent lit offices (x 52 weeks in some deep plan and internal offices) you would expect problems of this sort to be widely known if true. What may be true is that trying to read with inadequate levels of light causes migraines, but that reflects the lighting level not the technology.
Reply to
Tony Bryer
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:06:32 GMT someone who may be "ARWadworth" wrote this:-
Not really, especially as you have not reported the article title correctly. It is, "Low-energy bulbs 'cause migraine'".
I still have a few compact fluorescent lamps that do noticeably flicker a little when they start, though this doesn't last long. They are all rather elderly and don't tell one about how current lamps start.
Reply to
David Hansen
It's interesting to read that the lacklustre Benn is now talking about a voluntary agreement with retailers. Presumably this will mean that other types will remain available.
Reply to
Andy Hall
In article , "ARWadworth" writes:
The article admits it's just someone's unsubstantiated say-so. The industry association has correctly identified the misunderstanding. It wasn't worth writing, or reading for that matter.
Reply to
Andrew Gabriel
I am particularly sensitive to flickering CRTs etc. and anything less than about 75Hz was always a problem.
Reply to
Andy Hall
Like Volkswagen tail-lights?
The only thing I know that triggers my migraines is aspartame. One diet cola, and that's it. Unfortunately that isn't the only trigger... just the only one I've pinned down.
Andy
Reply to
Andy Champ
Cold around the neck, tiredness, stress, chocolate, cheese, oranges, but usually more than one required.

Reply to
Andy Hall
In article , snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk says...
Don't CFls work at a much higher frequency than mains, or was I imagining that bit?
Reply to
Skipweasel
Andy Hall wrote [about migraine triggers]:
Cold around the neck: No. I race sailing dinghies, and that would certainly be a known trigger.
Tiredness, stress: Quite likely. It's the way I live :(
Chocolate: Don't get enough to tell (calories!) but I don't think so.
Cheese: Definitely not. I've had them when eating none, and I've not had them when I've had cheese sandwiches for lunch and toasties for tea!
Oranges: How many do you need? I've had half pint of juice with no problems...
Andy
Reply to
Andy Champ
These were just some of the many.
Others are going for too long between eating and not drinking enough liquids.
Reply to
Andy Hall
On Jan 3, 11:06 am, "ARWadworth" wrote:
The difference between a conventional (incandescent) bulb and a low- energy one is that while the former emits radiation across the whole visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (and thus very roughly emulates natural light), the second one emits radiation narrowly peaked around one (or a few) specific visible frequencies. The same applies to traditional neon (fluorescent) lighting, sodium lights (the yellow ones used as street lights), etc.
Now the human eye cornea is composed of a huge number of cells, each reacting to a specific light frequency only. Under daylight, all the cells are stimulated more or less with the same intensity; the eye is stimulated by natural light in the natural way. More specifically, the eye is the fit-for-purpose result of evolution based on daylight only. Using artificial sources that only emit light at one or few specific frequencies, only a small proportion of the cells that compose the eye cornea are stimulated, while all the rest remain "in the dark". This means work overload for those few cells... the results is the well- known feeling of "tired eyes", migraines, and the similar.
This limitation of low-cost light sources and its negative physiological effect on the eye is well known since the early fifties. Low-cost bulbs are nothing but in-the-small evolutions of more traditional fluorescent (neon) lights. The same sort of limitation affects - in an even more stringent way - LED lights. Hence, it has always been recommended (but never enough publicised) only to use fluorescent and low-energy bulbs in passageways only or in those ambients where people were not required to work or read.
"Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said that a voluntary agreement with retailers would remove all conventional bulbs from the shops by December 2011"
Usual governmental stupidity at work - the nanny state is at it again. Until when there will be a market request for them - and many people will continue to use conventional (incandescent) bulbs to work, read, or just relax because they know the shortcomings of low-energy bulbs, there will be conventional bulbs. They are neither dangerous nor an energy-unsustainable technology. Only an idiot would fail to realise that in these days of global markets they will be purchased on the internet from sites that procure them outwith the UK... Would they be moronic to the point of banning them with an Act of Parliament? It will be amusing to see smugglers dealing with drugs, tobacco, alcohol... and 60W pearl bulbs
W.
Reply to
Woland
It's OK we have it on authoriuty that only a few are going to be going through hell whether they like it or not:
"However, the Lighting Association, which represents bulb manufacturers, said that the latest energy-saving bulbs did not produce a flicker.
"A small number of cases have been reported by people who suffer from reactions to certain types of linear fluorescent lamps."
Maybe some of them will like it. We will see. Maybe of the only some, most of the only some will think it a great joke and really enjoy the sport.
Reply to
Weatherlawyer
I'm using a 75 W equivalent energy saver but topping it up with the TV and the CRT monitor.
Maybe I will turn into Radiation Man if I survive. I love politicians.
Reply to
Weatherlawyer
The Natural Philosopher coughed up some electrons that declared:
I had a temporary CRT at my new job while waiting for my new twin Dell panels to turn up - forgotten how bad it used to be looking into a fishbowl!
Back on topic, I used to get a boat load of headaches at my second to last job. Given that the lighting was brand new fluorescent (office refurb), and good quality fittings, plus no-expense-spared decent LCD panels, I came to the conclusion it was the air conditioning. Not had a problem since working in more old-fashioned office/lab environments with opening windows.
Had a hell of a lot less diseases too (always getting colds before), but that could equally well be no longer having to ride the germ express to London everyday.
Cheers
Tim
Reply to
Tim Southerwood
In article , Skipweasel writes:
That's correct. They work at a frequency way above the phosphor decay rates and the eye's response rate, and somewhat above the mercury ion's excited state decay rate, so there's no flicker.
Reply to
Andrew Gabriel
In article , Woland writes:
^^^^^^ retina
Actually the cone cells have wide overlapping response curves, with the green cones covering most of the visible spectrum. Much post-processing of the raw signals from the retina happens in the brain. Even a monochromatic light source will trigger at least two of the three types of cone cells throughout nearly all the visible spectrum.
This is rubbish. There are visible effects from using narrow line light sources, but they relate to accurate colour rendering of coloured objects, whose absorbtion bands will result in different apperance of colours depending on the spectural content of the light source. In terms of discomfort, this might produce decrease contrast on some occations. It can be used to produce enhanced contrast too over daylight -- e.g. with higher levels of green -- which probably require less processing in the brain to resolve the image.
No it hasn't.
Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

Site Timeline Threads

  • Soooooo since no one is mentioning building something I'll mention the POS I...
  • site's last updated in

    Woodworking

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.