Energy-Saving Lightbulbs a Health Danger?

[Hemidakota]

[received by e-mail]

Some energy-saving lightbulbs emit enough harmful ultraviolet radiation to cause sunburn if placed too close to the body. These fluorescent lightbulbs, which are coil-shaped and unencapsulated, are promoted as energy-savers since they use about two-thirds less energy and last ten times longer than traditional incandescent bulbs.

But Britain’s Health Protection Agency (HPA) issued a warning to people who use the bulbs close to their bodies, such as in reading lamps or in their occupations, such as jewelry makers, and those who have medical conditions that make them sensitive to UV light. If skin is in very close proximity to the bulbs, it gets the same exposure as if it were exposed to bright sun.

The HPA advises people not to use the bulbs any closer than twelve inches from the body for any longer than one hour a day. Those who use lightbulbs close to the body for longer periods should switch to an encapsulated form which is shaped more like a traditional bulb.

The agency doesn’t say that the lightbulbs could cause skin cancer, but they do believe they could cause sunburn. Still, they advise people not remove most bulbs from their homes. “This is precautionary advice,” said HPA’s Chief Executive Justin McCracken. “We are advising people to avoid using the open lightbulbs for prolonged close work until the problem is sorted out and to use encapsulated bulbs instead. In other situations where people are not likely to be very close to the bulbs for any length of time, all types of compact fluorescent lightbulbs are safe to use."

The safety of the new lightbulbs has been questioned before. They contain a small amount of mercury and some scientists fear it could cause brain and kidney damage if the bulb is accidently broken and mercury vapor is inhaled. Even unbroken bulbs could eventually contaminate soil and ground water if improperly disposed.

[Wingnut]

snopes.com: CFL Mercury Light Bulbs

[WindRiver]

---

Edited April 20, 2010 by WindRiver

[Hemidakota]

Wingnut, instead of using Snopes, which at times lack real creditability, read the article again.

"...sensitive to UV light"

It could be worse, you could use the gospel according to the Wiki god. LOL

[NeuroTypical]

From what I can tell, people started demonizing the benign and useful flourescent, right about the time we heard the govt. was considering making them mandatory and passing laws banning incandescents. that just sort of sets some people off.

I've been standing in flourescent-lit buildings for as long as I've been alive. I got my first compact flourescent light (CFL) back sometime around '90 or '91. It cost $40, and lasted around 10 years of constant use. Since the price has come down, we've replaced just about all our incandescents with CFL's, with the exception of some floodlighting. Our electric bills went down, the lights work fine and last a long time, inside or out. And apart from becoming a dupe of the illuminati, we're all doing just fine. No headaches, no sunburns.

LM

(once set my dad's car on fire by leaving a cigarette-lighter-plug-powered spotlight on the front seat)

[WANDERER]

The U.V problem was reported in Science Daily. Don't sit near one to read.

Two things to look out for:

1. They are going to retail mercury lightbulb clean up bags in the lightbulb packages with the lightbulbs.

2. They have invented an adaptation to the lightbulb that will change the u.v problem...so don't stock up on these dud ones too much and wait for the others to come out on the U.S. market. Sorry I'm a bit vague on what the change is.

[melissar]

I had not heard about the UV problems but I had heard about the mercury. Thanks for posting this!