Low Energy Bulbs "worsen rashes"

formatting link
time I put the quotes in the header. I apologise for not doing so on
the migraine post.
Is there are conspiracy against low energy lamps going on? Is Npower behind
it all? What next "low energy lamps worsen VD/make you an alchoholic/will
not allow you to see in the dark?"
I think we should be told.
Reply to
Colour rendering, warm-up time, physical size, weight...
I bet you have _some_ conventional bulbs...
cooker hood lamp? car lamps? radio dial lamps? Christmas tree lamps? Torch?
Reply to
Frank Erskine
If they get the 'passive smoking' people to take on the cause, you won't see a low energy lamp anywhere in a few years time.
Amazes me how easy it is to manipulate public opinion.
Reply to
The Medway Handyman
On 4 Jan,
Not GLS. Some LED
Not GLS, I'd throw them in the bin if I had the choice.
LED, Phone screen, rest not GLS.
Reply to
It amazes me it took so long to getroundtuit (and we know it's less to do with health and more to do with culpability but I care less as long as they do it). It's been 25 years since I've been forgoing *my* rights and waiting for the day when I can go into any place and have a meal or drink and not (have to be in) smoke at the same time ...
All the best ..
T i m
Reply to
T i m
Is there anything wrong with your brain? Or do you talk like you write?
These light bulbs are toxic. They can affect your brain. They contain small amounts of mercury.
I don't know if that is native mercury or a more reactive compound. You must dispose of them carefully as incinerators will produce toxic fumes with them.
All that without our having the slightest idea of the damage they have the potential for.
I think the context to be looked at more closely is the need for more nuclear power stations after most of the last ones went off line at almost identical dates. (Thanks Margarat.)
Couple that with massive power price hikes and you get the making of a conspiracy. Do you trust your government?
Would they lie to you?
Reply to
In article , Weatherlawyer writes:
Yes, about 3mg each. Another 2.5mg of mercury is produced by the generation of electricity to power them. Conversely, about 10mg of mercury is produced to power equivalent filament lighting, so CFL mercury production is significantly less than that for a filament lamp.
Also at 3mg, each CFL contains about 1/1000th of the mercury in the average person's body (3g).
It's native mercury. Long term harm to the body comes from organic mercury compounds rather than native mercury. The body is not good at converting native mercury to organic compounds fortunately, but plants (e.g. vegetables) can if it gets into their soil and taken up by their roots.
Less than power stations do in powering filament lamps.
Fluorescent lighting has been in widespead use since WWII in this country.
Government is 10 years too late to start building new power stations and maintain integrity of supply in the UK.
The problem is in part public opinion. This has stopped replacement of the infrastructure required to maintain our supply integrity. It will take large price hikes and/or collapses in supply to change this. We are just starting to encounter these now, but expect them to get very much worse as the time to fix the problem is around 15 years, and it's not even been widely recognosed as existing yet.
formatting link
additional background to this.
Reply to
Andrew Gabriel
The key fact that was missed out in this report this morning was - IF THE LAMP BREAKS. It makes me wonder who fed this story to the meja machine why they wanted to do so. I mean the risks are real (say for a care taker who is dealing with broken tubes and CFLs but must rank below 437th on the list of bad things for most people.
Reply to
Ed Sirett
In article , snipped-for-privacy@btinternet.com says...
We have three halogen bulbs left and no other incandescent lamps[1]. The halogens are in three reading lamps which, as they fall apart, will get replaced with LE units.
[1] Apart from inside the oven, inside the microwave and the lamp in the sewing machine. And probably a few others I've forgotten.
Reply to
In article , snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com says...
Though of course coal-fired power stations have been chucking out mercury for over a century.
Reply to
What hogwash! Do you subscribe to the emotive department of some Green Group rather than trying to be rational?
Back in my youth we would play with mercury splashing the little balls about. A game that is rightly not available to kids today.
Incinerators are closely monitored for their emissions; approx. 30% of the capital investment is in scrubbing the emissions so that Hg does not get into the environment. The controls, IIRCC, are tighter than those on power stations.
It is no longer permitted or possible to buy mercury thermometers. The use of mercury is tightly controlled.
The quantities involved in CFLs is minute compared to former use. Facilities are being developed to recycle CFLs and tubes (though slowly) so that they will not have to be incinerated with their mercury content present - though whether this is sensible is a moot point - perhaps we should catch all the mercury through an incinerator scrubber and then recover minerals from the ash?
Water is "toxic": I have two references available (well, will be once I've got this new PC sorted out) about two individuals who have died from excessive consumption of water.
Get a grip and be rational.
Reply to
The message from "The Medway Handyman" contains these words:
I think we should try to breed out the 'gullability' gene...
Reply to
Anne Jackson
"Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide."
Yeah, right.
Reply to
Bob Martin

Site Timeline Threads

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.