Comments on: Health Concerns With CFLs – Compact Fluorescent Lights http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/ Natural Motherhood, Breastfeeding, Baby Wearing and Green Living. Wed, 23 May 2012 08:40:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mark L. Grossmann http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-154954 Mark L. Grossmann Sat, 07 Apr 2012 15:44:48 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-154954 In 2008, I wrote a blog (above) in which I inaccurately reported that CF light bulbs emitted microwaves at close range (less than 6"). Just about a week ago, I checked the CF light bulbs again and got the same readings. I used the same meter I'd used in 2008. I'd just had it recalibrated. Then, I supplemented my 2008 blog with another, on March 23, 2012, in which I restated the inaccurate readings. My meter was, in fact, defectively manufactured, and displayed radio wave readings as being in the microwave range. (Displayed kHz as GHz) Just 7 days ago, I read a skeptical blog suggesting that a microwave reading from a CF bulb would be impossible. I checked the FCC faq on the subject and got a few others, trained in electronics, to bring better equipment and check the same CF bulbs. Their repeated testing showed no microwave emissions. There were radio wave emissions, but well within the safe range at any distance. I have always been critical of reporters to who mix up their frequencies, e.g., discussing microwaves and ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) as if these were interchangeable. To my embarrassment, though unintended, I've done so myself--reporting radio waves and microwaves in 2 previous blogs (above). I still advocate the continued sale of incandescents with the choice left to the consumer. However, without microwave emissions, the use of CF's in reading lamps would pose no danger. I regret blogging inaccurate information and thank the skeptical blogger (I don't know his or her name) for their helpful blog pointing to the inaccuracy. In 2008, I wrote a blog (above) in which I inaccurately reported that CF light bulbs emitted microwaves at close range (less than 6″). Just about a week ago, I checked the CF light bulbs again and got the same readings. I used the same meter I’d used in 2008. I’d just had it recalibrated.
Then, I supplemented my 2008 blog with another, on March 23, 2012, in which I restated the inaccurate readings. My meter was, in fact, defectively manufactured, and displayed radio wave readings as being in the microwave range. (Displayed kHz as GHz)
Just 7 days ago, I read a skeptical blog suggesting that a microwave reading from a CF bulb would be impossible. I checked the FCC faq on the subject and got a few others, trained in electronics, to bring better equipment and check the same CF bulbs. Their repeated testing showed no microwave emissions. There were radio wave emissions, but well within the safe range at any distance.
I have always been critical of reporters to who mix up their frequencies, e.g., discussing microwaves and ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) as if these were interchangeable. To my embarrassment, though unintended, I’ve done so myself–reporting radio waves and microwaves in 2 previous blogs (above).
I still advocate the continued sale of incandescents with the choice left to the consumer. However, without microwave emissions, the use of CF’s in reading lamps would pose no danger. I regret blogging inaccurate information and thank the skeptical blogger (I don’t know his or her name) for their helpful blog pointing to the inaccuracy.

]]> By: Mark L. Grossmannn http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-151841 Mark L. Grossmannn Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:36:53 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-151841 I wanted to supplement my "too long-lived" 2008 blog, above, with some more details. My concern, then as now, is with CF's used in reading lamps built to place the actual bulb close to the eyes of the user. CF's at close proximity (about 6") emit microwaves at what is considered an unsafe level. The human eye is particularly sensitive to microwaves. With children’s lamps, my concern was/is greater because of youngsters’ creative use of many common items, including lamps, for purposes "not intended by the manufacturer." However, CF's are only florescent lights. We're exposed to fluorescent light, at a bit more distance, in schools, at work, and in stores all the time with no harmful effects. I use CF's in utility areas, mounted ceiling fixtures, and closets. The modern versions last as long, even longer than, incandescents and are about as bright for the wattage. I don't think CF's are bad. I just don't think they're good for all lighting purposes and can't understand why we should be effectively forced to use CF's through the banning of the sale of incandescents. Also, considering the mercury content and high cost, balanced against the small energy savings, I don’t understand the description “eco friendly.” To cheer the “recovery” of our auto industry—increased sales of, for the most part, giant gas guzzling automobile--while mandating the exclusive sale of CF’s to “save energy costs,” seems silly. I wanted to supplement my “too long-lived” 2008 blog, above, with some more details. My concern, then as now, is with CF’s used in reading lamps built to place the actual bulb close to the eyes of the user. CF’s at close proximity (about 6″) emit microwaves at what is considered an unsafe level. The human eye is particularly sensitive to microwaves. With children’s lamps, my concern was/is greater because of youngsters’ creative use of many common items, including lamps, for purposes “not intended by the manufacturer.”
However, CF’s are only florescent lights. We’re exposed to fluorescent light, at a bit more distance, in schools, at work, and in stores all the time with no harmful effects. I use CF’s in utility areas, mounted ceiling fixtures, and closets. The modern versions last as long, even longer than, incandescents and are about as bright for the wattage.
I don’t think CF’s are bad. I just don’t think they’re good for all lighting purposes and can’t understand why we should be effectively forced to use CF’s through the banning of the sale of incandescents.
Also, considering the mercury content and high cost, balanced against the small energy savings, I don’t understand the description “eco friendly.” To cheer the “recovery” of our auto industry—increased sales of, for the most part, giant gas guzzling automobile–while mandating the exclusive sale of CF’s to “save energy costs,” seems silly.

]]> By: Mark L. Grossmannn http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-151837 Mark L. Grossmannn Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:31:21 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-151837 I wanted to supplement my "too long-lived" 2008 blog, above, with some more details. My concern, then as now, is with CF's used in reading lamps built to place the actual bulb close to the eyes of the user. CF's at close proximity (about 6") emit microwaves at what is considered an unsafe level. The human eye is particularly sensitive to microwaves. With children’s lamps, my concern was/is greater because of youngsters’ creative use of many common items, including lamps, for purposes "not intended by the manufacturer." However, CF's are only florescent lights. We're exposed to fluorescent light, at a bit more distance, in schools, at work, and in stores all the time with no harmful effects. I use CF's in utility areas, mounted ceiling fixtures, and closets. The modern versions last as long, even longer than, incandescents and are about as bright for the wattage. I don't think CF's are bad. I just don't think they're good for all lighting purposes and can't understand why we should be effectively forced to use the through the banning of the sale of incandescents. Also, considering the mercury content and high cost, balanced against the small energy savings, I don’t understand the description “eco friendly.” To cheer the “recovery” of our auto industry—increased sales of, for the most part, giant gas guzzling automobile--while mandating the exclusive sale of CF’s to “save energy costs,” seems silly. I wanted to supplement my “too long-lived” 2008 blog, above, with some more details. My concern, then as now, is with CF’s used in reading lamps built to place the actual bulb close to the eyes of the user. CF’s at close proximity (about 6″) emit microwaves at what is considered an unsafe level. The human eye is particularly sensitive to microwaves. With children’s lamps, my concern was/is greater because of youngsters’ creative use of many common items, including lamps, for purposes “not intended by the manufacturer.”
However, CF’s are only florescent lights. We’re exposed to fluorescent light, at a bit more distance, in schools, at work, and in stores all the time with no harmful effects. I use CF’s in utility areas, mounted ceiling fixtures, and closets. The modern versions last as long, even longer than, incandescents and are about as bright for the wattage.
I don’t think CF’s are bad. I just don’t think they’re good for all lighting purposes and can’t understand why we should be effectively forced to use the through the banning of the sale of incandescents.
Also, considering the mercury content and high cost, balanced against the small energy savings, I don’t understand the description “eco friendly.” To cheer the “recovery” of our auto industry—increased sales of, for the most part, giant gas guzzling automobile–while mandating the exclusive sale of CF’s to “save energy costs,” seems silly.

]]> By: maah! http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-46608 maah! Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:45:22 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-46608 Four years ago my rural home got solar power. To save energy we switched from using 60 watt incandescents in the center ceiling of 7 rooms to cf at only 11 watts each. Two weeks ago i switched only my office light (where i spend most my indoor time) back to incandescent and my mood has drastically improved. Thank you for this article. Four years ago my rural home got solar power. To save energy we switched from using 60 watt incandescents in the center ceiling of 7 rooms to cf at only 11 watts each. Two weeks ago i switched only my office light (where i spend most my indoor time) back to incandescent and my mood has drastically improved. Thank you for this article.

]]> By: cure snoring naturally http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-39262 cure snoring naturally Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:16:57 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-39262 Is snoring ruining yours or your partners life? Find out about this 100% natural 2 week cure Is snoring ruining yours or your partners life? Find out about this 100% natural 2 week cure

]]> By: Britt Du Fournet http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-33572 Britt Du Fournet Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:15:24 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-33572 LED lights, are a little more expansive but are safe and they can last for 15 years Regards Britt LED lights, are a little more expansive but are safe and they can last for 15 years
Regards
Britt

]]> By: Justin http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-31762 Justin Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:05:01 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-31762 Then what are the best lights that you would recommend? Then what are the best lights that you would recommend?

]]> By: Mark L. Grossmann http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-21387 Mark L. Grossmann Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:08:04 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-21387 Recently, I was using a standard trifield meter to check for faulty electrical connections in my home when I was shocked to detect microwave radiation at excessive/unsafe levels at a six inch distance from several compact fluorescent lights I was using in my home. I had purchased these lights 4 years ago to reduce heat emissions from the incandescents in my home. Generally, the fluorescents had performed badly, burning out well before the end of their projected life, and giving off dimmer light than corresponding incandescents of the same wattage. However, several fluorescents have survived, and I could easily identify the location of each one by testing for microwave emissions. Although most ambient home lighting places bulbs more than 6 inches from the occupants, use of reading lamps and other appliances could easily result in prolonged exposure of adults and childen to known, dangerous levels of microwaves. May I repeat what is already well known: microwaves are potentially extremely injurious to human beings and particularly stressful, if not injurious, to human eyes. I am beside myself--deeply upset-- that these fluorescents could ever be characterized as "eco-friendly" or "environmentally safe" under any set of circumstances. Cutting the power to a hospital might save energy, but only at the cost of the health and welfare of the patients. Certainly, we can afford the extra energy required by incandescents to protect ourselves and our families from the illness and injury that can result from dangerous exposure to these marginally cheaper fluorescents. Mark L. Grossmann Hazelwood Missourihave survived, and could easily identify the location of each one by testing for microwave emissions. Although most ambient home lighting would place bulbs more than 6 inches from the occupants, reading lamps and other appliances could easily result in prolonged exposure of adults and childen to known, dangerous levels of microwaves. May I repeat what is already well known: microwaves are potentially extremely injurious to human beings and particularly stressfull, if not injurious, to human eyes. I am beside myself--deeply upset that these fluorescents could ever be characterized as "eco-friendly" or "environmentally safe" under any set of circumstances. I cutting the power to a hospital might save energy, but at the cost of the health and welfare of the patients being treated. Certainly, we can afford the extra energy required by incandescents to protect ourself and our families from the illness and injury that can result from dangerous exposure to these marginally cheaper fluorescents. Mark L. Grossmann Hazelwood Missouri Recently, I was using a standard trifield meter to check for faulty electrical connections in my home when I was shocked to detect microwave radiation at excessive/unsafe levels at a six inch distance from several compact fluorescent lights I was using in my home.

I had purchased these lights 4 years ago to reduce heat emissions from the incandescents in my home. Generally, the fluorescents had performed badly, burning out well before the end of their projected life, and giving off dimmer light than corresponding incandescents of the same wattage. However, several fluorescents have survived, and I could easily identify the location of each one by testing for microwave emissions.

Although most ambient home lighting places bulbs more than 6 inches from the occupants, use of reading lamps and other appliances could easily result in prolonged exposure of adults and childen to known, dangerous levels of microwaves. May I repeat what is already well known: microwaves are potentially extremely injurious to human beings and particularly stressful, if not injurious, to human eyes. I am beside myself–deeply upset– that these fluorescents could ever be characterized as “eco-friendly” or “environmentally safe” under any set of circumstances.

Cutting the power to a hospital might save energy, but only at the cost of the health and welfare of the patients. Certainly, we can afford the extra energy required by incandescents to protect ourselves and our families from the illness and injury that can result from dangerous exposure to these marginally cheaper fluorescents.

Mark L. Grossmann
Hazelwood Missourihave survived, and could easily identify the location of each one by testing for microwave emissions.

Although most ambient home lighting would place bulbs more than 6 inches from the occupants, reading lamps and other appliances could easily result in prolonged exposure of adults and childen to known, dangerous levels of microwaves. May I repeat what is already well known: microwaves are potentially extremely injurious to human beings and particularly stressfull, if not injurious, to human eyes. I am beside myself–deeply upset that these fluorescents could ever be characterized as “eco-friendly” or “environmentally safe” under any set of circumstances.

I cutting the power to a hospital might save energy, but at the cost of the health and welfare of the patients being treated. Certainly, we can afford the extra energy required by incandescents to protect ourself and our families from the illness and injury that can result from dangerous exposure to these marginally cheaper fluorescents.

Mark L. Grossmann
Hazelwood Missouri

]]> By: Kristina Richardson http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-17932 Kristina Richardson Tue, 27 May 2008 14:27:49 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-17932 Most CFLs today on the market contain less than 5mgs of mercury and there are CFL options out there that contain as little as 1.5mgs of mercury- which can hardly be called a “significant amounts of mercury” considering that many item in your home contain 100s of times more of mercury including your computer. Mercury levels in CFLs can never be “nonexistent” since mercury is a necessary component of a CFL and there is no other known element that is capable of replacing it. But CFLs actually prevent more mercury from entering the environment. According to the Union of Concerned Scientist, “a coal-fired power plant will emit about four times more mercury to keep an incandescent bulb glowing, compared with a CFL of the same light output”. Most CFLs today on the market contain less than 5mgs of mercury and there are CFL options out there that contain as little as 1.5mgs of mercury- which can hardly be called a “significant amounts of mercury” considering that many item in your home contain 100s of times more of mercury including your computer. Mercury levels in CFLs can never be “nonexistent” since mercury is a necessary component of a CFL and there is no other known element that is capable of replacing it. But CFLs actually prevent more mercury from entering the environment. According to the Union of Concerned Scientist, “a coal-fired power plant will emit about four times more mercury to keep an incandescent bulb glowing, compared with a CFL of the same light output”.

]]> By: carrie http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-16986 carrie Fri, 02 May 2008 18:54:18 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-16986 Hi Bruno, Yes that is exactly my concern: that most people are simply unaware of the dangers of willy-nilly throwing away broken CFLs, and that this will result in increasing levels of mercury in the soil, water and food supply. The amount of mercury present in a bulb doesn't bother me so much as the cumulative effect of millions of them in the landfills. Thanks for your comment! Hi Bruno,

Yes that is exactly my concern: that most people are simply unaware of the dangers of willy-nilly throwing away broken CFLs, and that this will result in increasing levels of mercury in the soil, water and food supply.

The amount of mercury present in a bulb doesn’t bother me so much as the cumulative effect of millions of them in the landfills.

Thanks for your comment!

]]> By: Bruno http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/concerns-over-fluorescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-16983 Bruno Fri, 02 May 2008 16:53:09 +0000 http://naturalmomstalkradio.com/blog/?p=757#comment-16983 As someone who sells <a href="http://bulbster.com/lightbulbs/index.php" rel="nofollow">light bulbs</a> for a living, I am less enthusiastic than most about compact fluorescent bulbs. This is due to the fact that the ones currently available contain significant amounts of mercury. If one of these bulbs should break inside of a person’s home, it could cause a challenging disposal situation. It is my belief that the technology should progress to a point at which the mercury levels are low or nonexistent before people changeover their entire homes. Another consideration is that as these bulbs burn out, they will most likely be thrown away as though they are normal rubbish and landfills will have incredibly high levels of mercury in their soil as a result. As someone who sells light bulbs for a living, I am less enthusiastic than most about compact fluorescent bulbs. This is due to the fact that the ones currently available contain significant amounts of mercury. If one of these bulbs should break inside of a person’s home, it could cause a challenging disposal situation. It is my belief that the technology should progress to a point at which the mercury levels are low or nonexistent before people changeover their entire homes. Another consideration is that as these bulbs burn out, they will most likely be thrown away as though they are normal rubbish and landfills will have incredibly high levels of mercury in their soil as a result.

]]>