PSA: If you're using CFLs, read this.

[Kaido]

Sun gives off radiation, let's go play with some grains of plutonium, what could possibly go wrong?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDS81Ibazdk

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Did you click on the link in the article, which takes you to the university website, which provides you with a link to the actual study?

Have YOU gone to the actual study. I don't know about you but I don't have access to a university database.

 

[Kaido]

there are 2 conspiracy theories here:
1) govment wants you to get sick. pump money into health care costs. support big pharma and med cartel.
2) planned obsolecence
3) why couldn't we have options? i'd take old fashioned lightbulbs over cfls any day

You know, the government conspiracy thing was always a joke until I read this article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html

An estimated 10,000 people died from government-poisoned industrial alcohol used to make prohibition-era liquor. Huh :hmm:

 

[Acanthus]

Sun gives off radiation, let's go play with some grains of plutonium, what could possibly go wrong?!

Actually, Plutonium gives off very very low levels of radiation... It has an extremely long half-life.

 

[techs]

You know, the government conspiracy thing was always a joke until I read this article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html

An estimated 10,000 people died from government-poisoned industrial alcohol used to make prohibition-era liquor. Huh :hmm:

Don't they still put poison in non consumption alcohol? Is it life threatening or does it just make you sick?

 

[disappoint]

Did you click on the link in the article, which takes you to the university website, which provides you with a link to the actual study?

The article at the university's website is just as bad, with no data at all because sadly they either think math scares everyone or it even scares them.

The actual study is not public domain or you would have quoted that instead because you're not a vapid fool that believes everything the media tells them without any data to back it up right? Right?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Actually, Plutonium gives off very very low levels of radiation... It has an extremely long half-life.

Yep. The radiation it gives off is harmful stuff, but its not THAT much of it. Scientists used to work around with it wearing nothing but their lab coats.

Of course, when you reach critical mass its an entirely different story, which is where the Daghlian accident comes into play.

 

[SunnyD]

How do you plan to control your exposure?

Death.... duh.

 

[vi edit]

So eggs are bad.
Milk is bad.
CFL's are bad.
Next thing you know they'll do something even more crazy and tell me that Pluto isn't a planet or something.

 

[Aikouka]

Sweet! Now I finally have an excuse to wear my sunglasses indoors!

 

[jagec]

You can always tell a scientist from a layman. Or a journalist trying to sound like a scientist, but failing miserably.

Quantitative analysis. Where is the data telling us HOW MUCH UV radiation a typical bulb exposes you to? Not one NUMBER in the whole friggin article. NOT ONE.

I read the study. Noonday sunlight is around 32 watts/sq m of UV, their worst bulb (26 W power) emitted 5.6 W/sq m UV @ 2.5 cm, and 237 mW/sq m @ 35 cm.

And yes, I had to convert all those units so that we could cross-compare...I don't THINK I did the math wrong, but take it for what it's worth.

Sunlight is obviously much more energetic, but considering the duration of CFL vs. noontime sun exposure, and the fact that UV emissions are a result of manufacturing defects, it's probably worth getting the double-shell CFLs that avoid the problem entirely for your close-in work lamps.

 

[TridenT]

It's a good thing we don't have crazy devices like microwaves in our homes. Or Wi-fi. Or cell phones. Or IR remote controls. Or cordless house phones. Or wireless baby monitors.

Oh dear, Kuato just popped out of my stomach

If I hadn't watched that movie recently I wouldn't have gotten that reference, but I did. :thumbsup:

I read the study. Noonday sunlight is around 32 watts/sq m of UV, their worst bulb (26 W power) emitted 5.6 W/sq m UV @ 2.5 cm, and 237 mW/sq m @ 35 cm.

And yes, I had to convert all those units so that we could cross-compare...I don't THINK I did the math wrong, but take it for what it's worth.

Sunlight is obviously much more energetic, but considering the duration of CFL vs. noontime sun exposure, and the fact that UV emissions are a result of manufacturing defects, it's probably worth getting the double-shell CFLs that avoid the problem entirely for your close-in work lamps.

Thank god I'm not a fucking giant that sits only 2.5 cm away from 150w equiv CFL's. 35cm is <14" btw. The only light bulb that is ever that close to me is maybe my light stand...

I'm not worried about the skin cancer. :\

 

[Gibsons]

The article at the university's website is just as bad, with no data at all because sadly they either think math scares everyone or it even scares them.

The actual study is not public domain or you would have quoted that instead because you're not a vapid fool that believes everything the media tells them without any data to back it up right? Right?

I wonder if this will format correctly.

In Table 3 we list threshold limit values (TLVs) for UVA and UVC that should not be exceeded within an 8 h period. The CFL emission in the UV spectra is due to the Hg excitation bands, which are 365, 253 and 184 nm and correlate to the UVA and UVC bands. The exposure time to CFL before the TLV is reached is a function of distance and frequency. The values for UVA and the two UVC wavelengths for the radiation emitted from Bulb no. 2 are listed in Table 3, from which we can see that even at a typical working distance of 35 cm, the TLV is reached in ca <6 h, which is at least 30% less than the recommended time for the exposure at workplace (4).
Table 3. &#8194;TVLs for the UV emission from the CFL no. 2. Wavelength range Hg excitation bands (nm) TLV (mJ cm&#8722;2) Time for no. 2 26 W CFL to reach TLV
2.5 cm 7.5 cm 35 cm

CFL, compact fluorescent light; TVLs, threshold limit values.

UVA 400 nm&#8211;315 nm 365 1000 30 min 54 min 11.9 h
UVC 280 nm&#8211;100 nm 184 100 22 min &#8194;&#8194;12 h &#8194;&#8202;89 h
253 &#8194;&#8194;6 &#8194;&#8194;79 s 44 mi 5.4 h

 

[SP33Demon]

You can always tell a scientist from a layman. Or a journalist trying to sound like a scientist, but failing miserably.

Quantitative analysis. Where is the data telling us HOW MUCH UV radiation a typical bulb exposes you to? Not one NUMBER in the whole friggin article. NOT ONE.

Are people so stupid and afraid of math now that if you write an article with EVEN ONE NUMBER IN IT people will run screaming for their mommies to hold them because the evil scientists are trying to hurt their puny minds?

Yes I read the whole article and not just the quote.

So sad.



So who do we believe? The self serving CFL industry who also fails to post any data (well it's not their fault but the writer of the article in question). Or the sensationalist media that uses scare tactics to get you interested in their vapid articles so they can sell you ads for junk you don't need?

Oh by the way OP you forgot to quote the counterpoint but at least you linked to the actual article even though it left me disappointed.

You are free to look up the Stony Brook Study.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't necessarily care that much, but I already hated CFL lamps. so this just serves to reinforce that. Yet another reason CFLs are a boondoggle.

 

[jagec]

I wonder if this will format correctly.

Here:

 

[SunnyD]

Thank god I'm not a fucking giant that sits only 2.5 cm away from 150w equiv CFL's. 35cm is <14" btw. The only light bulb that is ever that close to me is maybe my light stand...

I'm not worried about the skin cancer. :\

This.

+ Lampshade.

Closest non-shaded bulb that I would sit anywhere near would be at my dining room table, which would still be at least 100cm away from the closest person. Of course there is 5 bulbs... :hmm:

Still, I think the half hour at the dinner table @ 100cm+ away will be diffuse enough to, I don't know, completely not matter.

 

[rudeguy]

I'm going to try to tan my nut sack on a CFL later.

I have the really low wattage (whatever the lowest I could find for a standard lamp) and the highest (whatever is equal to 150 watts). I figure I'll put on a base coat with the low wattage one and then move up to the high wattage for a nice finish.



This is seriously the stuff people have to be worried about?

 

[disappoint]

You are free to look up the Stony Brook Study.

NO Scary MATH make it go away!

I'd rather believe sensationalist tripe instead!

Have you ever seen Jebus do MATH? OF course not! DO you know WHY?

AHA! I told you they were evil!

 

[disappoint]

I wonder if this will format correctly.

Here:

Thank you. I shall look at this math later with my welding goggles on. It will protect my virgin eyes from....something. If my monitor explodes maybe.

 

[TridenT]

Link to study in PDF (Study is easily found using Stony Brook CFL in just about anything). http://www.mediafire.com/view/?eu7bdvmo49p9evn

 

[LTC8K6]

That would be pure speculation.

What testing did our friends at the EPA do, before they tried to ban incandescents?

Incandescents are not banned.

Halogen medium base bulbs are still good to go.

http://www.lowes.com/ProductDisplay...gId=10051&cmRelshp=req&rel=nofollow&cId=PDIO1

http://www.lowes.com/pd_236933-371-64826_4294801203__?productId=3401434& Ns=p_product_avg_rating|1

http://www.lowes.com/pd_353133-371-64833_4294801203__?productId=3408694&Ns=p_product_avg_rating|1

http://www.lowes.com/pd_353526-371-64939_4294801203__?productId=3408752&Ns=p_product_avg_rating|1

 

[TridenT]

Incandescents are not banned.

Halogen medium base bulbs are still good to go.

http://www.lowes.com/ProductDisplay...gId=10051&cmRelshp=req&rel=nofollow&cId=PDIO1

http://www.lowes.com/pd_236933-371-64826_4294801203__?productId=3401434&
Ns=p_product_avg_rating|1

http://www.lowes.com/pd_353133-371-64833_4294801203__?productId=3408694&Ns=p_product_avg_rating|1

http://www.lowes.com/pd_353526-371-64939_4294801203__?productId=3408752&Ns=p_product_avg_rating|1

How is a halogen bulb 'energy efficient'?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

So basically, they are measuring how long it take for you to absorb the max recommended about of UV exposure against the max exposure over 8 hours.

Okay.

Their own conclusion is that at 35 cm, just over a foot. A person normally works at that range of a CFL. (Bullshit, I don't know who the hell is staying within 35" in of a CFL for that long unless you're working late at night with a CFL lamp in your face).

A person will in 5.4 hours adsorb more UV than recommend over a period of 8 hours. This is the worst they could come up with.

Wow. What a non issue.

 

[TridenT]

So basically, they are measuring how long it take for you to absorb the max recommended about of UV exposure against the max exposure over 8 hours.

Okay.

Their own conclusion is that at 35 cm, just over a foot. A person normally works at that range of a CFL. (Bullshit, I don't know who the hell is staying within 35" in of a CFL for that long unless you're working late at night with a CFL lamp in your face).

A person will in 5.4 hours adsorb more UV than recommend over a period of 8 hours. This is the worst they could come up with.

Wow. What a non issue.

Meanwhile, go outside for 2 hours a day and you got some even worse problems!