PDA

View Full Version : Energy-saving bulbs to be tested for UV radiation


Toner
01-22-2009, 06:46 PM
Energy-saving bulbs to be tested for UV radiation
Jen Skerritt, Winnipeg Free Press
Published: Wednesday, January 21, 2009

WINNIPEG - The federal government is reviewing the safety of energy-saving light bulbs, responding to concerns the low-cost green alternative may emit potentially harmful ultraviolet radiation.

Health Canada launched a study in December to test compact fluorescent bulbs to see if they emit ultraviolet rays - less than two months after British health officials issued a public warning that, in proximity, the bulbs emit UV rays similar to outdoor exposure levels on a sunny summer day.

Health Canada launched a study in December to test compact fluorescent bulbs to see if they emit ultraviolet rays less than two months after British health officials issued a public warning that, in proximity, the bulbs emit UV rays similar to outdoor exposure levels on a sunny summer day.

The United Kingdom's Health Protection Agency now recommends people should not be closer than 30 centimetres from an energy-saving light bulb for more than one hour per day, since it is like exposing bare skin to direct sunlight. The agency warns the emissions could cause problems for people suffering from medical conditions like lupus.

In Canada, the bulbs have been widely promoted as an easy way to reduce greenhouse gases and are expected to replace incandescent bulbs by 2012 after a federal ban eliminates the inefficient bulbs altogether.

Robert Bradley, Health Canada's director of consumer and clinical radiation protection, said the increased use of energy-saving light bulbs across the country prompted the review. That it comes on the heels of media fanfare over the British study is coincidental, he said.

Bradley said researchers will test whether the bulbs emit any UV rays and, if so, how intense they are. He said it's important to ensure the compact fluorescent bulbs are as safe as the old standard fluorescent tube lights.

Bradley wouldn't speculate on whether the findings could jeopardize nationwide campaigns promoting the use of the light bulbs as a green alternative.

"It's not something we've announced outright and, quite frankly, at this point in time there really isn't a lot to announce," Bradley said during a phone interview from Ottawa Tuesday.

"I'd rather have some results we can analyze and determine what if any response is required."

Preliminary results will be available by late summer or early fall.

Manitoba Hydro promotes compact fluorescent bulbs as one of the best energy-efficiency investments, since they use 75 per cent less electricity and last up to eight times longer than incandescent bulbs. The utility first started public campaigns to get Manitobans to switch to the efficient light bulbs four years ago, and continues to offer special discounts and incentives for people who purchase them.

Hydro spokesman Glenn Schneider said the utility may have to change its energy-efficient lighting programs if the federal study unearths harmful emissions from the bulbs. Schneider said Hydro hasn't received any complaints about radiation or skin damage from the light bulbs and speculates that sensitivity to light is more common in Europe than North America.

"If there's something that turns up that is of concern, then we would have to reconsider our campaigns promoting those bulbs," he said. "But I think we'll wait to see if there are any results that confirm that concern."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1199852

Auburn Boy
01-22-2009, 07:24 PM
Uh..,

Law of Unintended Consequences.

Green may not always be best.

Toner
01-22-2009, 09:38 PM
Another problem with the energy-saving light bulbs is that they contain mercury inside.

Not good if they break in your house...

Not good to have them end up in the landfill after they're burnt out...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2008/03/26/mixed-bulbs.html

Misty
01-22-2009, 09:44 PM
My main problem with them is that the light isn't as good for reading as a regular lightbulb, at least not for me. For whatever reason, it bothers my eyes.

US Blues
01-22-2009, 09:51 PM
so they UV like it's a bad thing?

Somebody someday will create a machine, similar to a dialysis machine,
whose tubing is exposed to Ultra-Violet light, killing pathogens and disease.

and I'll thread drift and say ..
one day you'll go in to the Doc's, and be placed in front of a Kirlian Photography
type of machine, and without asking a word, the Doctor will know what ails you.

:beer:

Auburn Boy
01-22-2009, 09:51 PM
My main problem with them is that the light isn't as good for reading as a regular lightbulb, at least not for me. For whatever reason, it bothers my eyes.

That might be due either to the inherent flicker, or the color spectrum emitted..,

I don't like them in some uses. The color just ain't what I'm used to.

US Blues
01-22-2009, 09:52 PM
My main problem with them is that the light isn't as good for reading as a regular lightbulb, at least not for me. For whatever reason, it bothers my eyes.

I like Cold White, vs the amber soft white

Wally World has them for 2 for 7 bucks

LizB
01-24-2009, 10:31 PM
I've been wondering: do the CF's, like the office tube lights, deplete the body of vitamin D?

BirdGuano
01-28-2009, 12:58 PM
Indoor skin cancer potential.

Just great....

angelsea
01-28-2009, 01:27 PM
I have those new Bulbs all over my house. I didn't put them there...a friend did and I totally dislike them. What gets me is when I am going into a pitch dark room I like the light to come on instantly, those don't. Also the color they make everything is nasty. One of these days I am going to replace all of them, especially after reading this article.

Mousehound
01-28-2009, 02:39 PM
I've been wondering: do the CF's, like the office tube lights, deplete the body of vitamin D?

Maybe this is a stupid question, but how do you think they would deplete the body of vit. D? Our bodies make vit. D from sunshine naturally. If you don't get enough sunshine you might not have enough vit. D, but deplete the body? I don't think so. I am eager to learn though if someone has something different. I am not sure if the full spectrum lights are good enough to take the place of natural sunshine off the top of my head, maybe someone else knows.

Exodia
01-28-2009, 02:51 PM
Do many people sit 30 cm away from bare incandescent bulbs for more than an hour a day?

Sonny
01-28-2009, 03:07 PM
I didn't put them there...a friend did andYes sometimes it's your friends you have to watch out for, (pinch)

In the summer when I'm running the air conditioner I use the CF bulbs.
but in the winter when I'm heating (all electric)
I take out the CF bulbs and put the regular bulbs back in.

HEY! not that I'm suggesting that anyone else should,
That be too much responsibility me.


!

Mousehound
01-28-2009, 03:31 PM
I have energy saving light bulbs all over my house. They have improved the quality of them since they first came out. It doesn't take as long for them to power-up any more. They come in different lighting colors, yellowish or white. I have had mine in for years now, and have only needed to replace one very large globe light. I enjoy cutting my power usage with them. I also have a full spectrum energy saving light over my desk to counter act the winter blues here in the north. If you still have the old energy saving light bulbs, it might be worth while to exchange them for new ones that power-up quicker.

gsgs
01-28-2009, 03:39 PM
LED bulbs are getting good and cheap

rb.
01-28-2009, 04:37 PM
Do many people sit 30 cm away from bare incandescent bulbs for more than an hour a day?

Sure. I'm exactly that distance from my lamp on my night table. And think of students' desk lamps. Living room lamps on tables beside where you sit.

Considering I have a mother dying from skin cancer, I found this report very disturbing. My house is FULL of these bulbs. I don't think the others should be banned, though, since the CFLs don't work worth a damn in the cold, and it's cold up here outside for half the year.

Auburn Boy
01-28-2009, 05:36 PM
Do many people sit 30 cm away from bare incandescent bulbs for more than an hour a day?

Did you mean to ask INCANDESCENT bulb????? The thread is about FLUORESCENT bulbs.

I don't think incandescents have been implicated in any cancer potential.

Ought Six
01-28-2009, 10:50 PM
USB:"Somebody someday will create a machine, similar to a dialysis machine, whose tubing is exposed to Ultra-Violet light, killing pathogens and disease."That process has been around for a long, long time. My sister has had it done.

http://www.tolifehealth.com/UVTherapy.html

Mousehound
01-30-2009, 05:22 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn16496/dn16496-1_300.jpg
Incandescent tungsten-filament light bulbs face a global switch-off as governments push for energy efficient fluorescent lamps to become the standard. But the light could soon go out on those lamps too, now that UK materials scientists have discovered a cheaper way to produce LED bulbs, which are three times as efficient as fluorescent lamps.

Although the ultimate dominance of LED lights has long been predicted, the expense of the super-efficient technology has made the timescale uncertain. The researchers now say LED bulbs based on their new process could be commercially available within five years.

Gallium nitride (GaN) LEDs have many advantages over compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and incandescent bulbs. They switch on instantly, with no gradual warm-up, and can burn for an average of 100,000 hours before they need replacing - 10 times as long as fluorescent lamps and some 130 times as long as an incandescent bulb. CFLs also contain small levels of mercury, which makes environmentally-friendly disposal of spent bulbs difficult.

The cost of production has kept the LEDs far from homes and offices, however. Gallium nitride cannot be grown on silicon like other solid-state electronic components because it shrinks at twice the rate of silicon as it cools. Crystals of GaN must be grown at 1000C, so by the time a new LED made on silicon has cooled, it has already cracked, rendering the devices unusable.

One solution is to grow the LEDs on sapphire, which shrinks and cools at much the same rate as GaN. But the expense is too great to be commercially competitive.

Now Colin Humphreys's team at the University of Cambridge has discovered a simple solution to the shrinkage problem.

They included layers of aluminium gallium nitride in their LED design. These layers shrink at a much slower rate during cooling and help to counteract the fast-shrinkage of pure gallium nitride. These LEDs can be grown on silicon as so many other electronics components are. "They still work well as LEDs even with those extra layers inside," says Humphreys.

A 15-centimetre silicon wafer costs just $15 and can accommodate 150,000 LEDs making the cost per unit tiny. That levels the playing field with CFLs, which many people only ever saw as a stopgap solution to the lighting problem.

Humphreys reckons that the UK government encouraged consumers to drop tungsten bulbs too soon. "We should have stayed with tungsten for another five years and then switched to LEDs," he says.

Full article here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16496-cheap-superefficient-led-lights-on-the-horizon.html

Mousehound
02-01-2009, 09:16 AM
Parallel research is also being carried out into how GaN lights could mimic sunlight to help 3m people in the UK with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD).

Ultraviolet rays made from GaN lighting could also aid water purification and disease control in developing countries, identify the spread of cancer tumours and help fight hospital 'super bugs'.

Source: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Full article here:
http://www.physorg.com/news152430535.html

Pablo Escobar
02-01-2009, 09:52 AM
Most stoplights in the US are now LEDs. The upfront costs were small compared to the cost of replacing burned out incandescents.

I thank the lord every day for the reverse engineering done on that crashed UFO.

hee hee

Auburn Boy
02-02-2009, 01:58 PM
:funnypost:

LOL.

Exodia
02-02-2009, 03:04 PM
Did you mean to ask INCANDESCENT bulb????? The thread is about FLUORESCENT bulbs.

I don't think incandescents have been implicated in any cancer potential.
The United Kingdom's Health Protection Agency now recommends people should not be closer than 30 centimetres from an energy-saving light bulb for more than one hour per day, since it is like exposing bare skin to direct sunlight.This is what I was referring to. It seemed like an odd recommendation, becasue I couldn't think of a circumstance where people are currently doing this with incandescant bulbs.

BirdGuano
02-02-2009, 03:26 PM
Most stoplights in the US are now LEDs. The upfront costs were small compared to the cost of replacing burned out incandescents.


The reduced energy use has also allowed some cities to put in battery backup for their stoplights, giving you about an hour of use after the power goes out to keep traffic moving.

:D

shalym
02-02-2009, 06:50 PM
This is what I was referring to. It seemed like an odd recommendation, becasue I couldn't think of a circumstance where people are currently doing this with incandescant bulbs.
Task lighting. When my husband would work on plans at his drafting table, he had a light with a flexible neck clamped onto the table. Most of the time the bulb was less than a foot away from him.

Shari

LizB
02-02-2009, 10:11 PM
The CFs are cooler which is nice in hot summers, but they aren't cheaper because they are much more sensitive than incandescents to power spikes. Power blinks off and on here at least weekly (squirrels on the wires, the power co says). Some of my Cfs last a month, some a year, probably depends on what's on when the power blinks and how many power blinks they live through. Lots of my friends, too, report early burnouts. I'd send a collection of them back to GE but don't know which receipts match which bulbs, and don't want to pay all that postage.

Auburn Boy
02-02-2009, 10:38 PM
This is what I was referring to. It seemed like an odd recommendation, becasue I couldn't think of a circumstance where people are currently doing this with incandescant bulbs.

The "energy-saving" bulbs are understood to be the fluorescent kind..,

The recommendation was referring to them, not the incandescant bulbs.

But, I wouldn't want to be too close to an incandescant because of the heat.