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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
You don't have to get a sunburn, in order to have skin damage from ultra-violet light.

Can you please quantify the amount of UV light it takes to create melonoma, and compare it to the amount of UV light emitted by CFL's?

Or, better yet, simply give us the amount of UV radiation that is emitted?

You see, while those are really cute headlines, the article, that is a copy of another article, that is a copy of a third article, does not sight a single relevant figure from the paper.

The website that hosts the paper requires registration, but since you are making the claim, I assume you'll be providing the actual facts.

I've also heard that vaccinations cause autism.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,576
126
How is a halogen bulb 'energy efficient'?

It's efficient enough to meet the requirements.

They put out more light with less power than a regular incandescent, and so they are not banned at all.

You can get them in Reveal varieties as well if you like the natural light look.

Anyone who wants to stick to conventional bulbs should be fine with these halogens.
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
Can you please quantify the amount of UV light it takes to create melonoma, and compare it to the amount of UV light emitted by CFL's?

Or, better yet, simply give us the amount of UV radiation that is emitted?

You see, while those are really cute headlines, the article, that is a copy of another article, that is a copy of a third article, does not sight a single relevant figure from the paper.

The website that hosts the paper requires registration, but since you are making the claim, I assume you'll be providing the actual facts.

I've also heard that vaccinations cause autism.

lawn-chair1.jpg
 

TXHokie

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 1999
2,558
176
106
The last study I recall about things that was bad for me was broccoli....yeah, the same broccoli that my parents made me eat. I've been putting all studies on IGNORE. Well except for that one that says squeezing boobs prevent cancer - that one intrigues me.
 

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,400
1,076
126
It's efficient enough to meet the requirements.

They put out more light with less power than a regular incandescent, and so they are not banned at all.

You can get them in Reveal varieties as well if you like the natural light look.

Anyone who wants to stick to conventional bulbs should be fine with these halogens.

They still don't dim worth a shit and they contain mercury. Not to mention a circuit board that is also very likely to end up in a landfill.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,576
126
They still don't dim worth a shit and they contain mercury. Not to mention a circuit board that is also very likely to end up in a landfill.

There's no mercury or circuit boards in a halogen bulb as far as I know. They are also dimmable.

Never heard anyone claim such before.

I think you are confused.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
I know right? Because: journalists. Most journalists are trying to sell you a bunch of sensationalized B.S. Most scientists are trying to not BS you, even if they have a B.S. degree.

Scientists have to BS the people who decide where grant money gets spent. This study would probably have received no funding, if the earlier study hadn't raised some concerns.

Blow it off, if you want. All I ask is that you make an informed decision. :)
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
Bit of a "meh" on the cell culture results, but the UV measurements were a little alarming. Another advantage to LEDs I guess...
Most white led's do the same thing. They produce UV and convert to visible light with phospurs. Since the LED is so much smaller though and the phosphurs are sealed in place with plastic rather than being coated onto glass, missed, cracks in the coverage are probably a lot less.
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
Scientists have to BS the people who decide where grant money gets spent.

They don't have to BS people. They can if they want, but then they'd be more con artists than scientists.

It's like that song tainted love. Bit of an oxymoron. If it's tainted, is it still truly love? Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,574
13,804
126
www.anyf.ca
This is kinda scary, I have mostly all CFLs in my house. In fact there's a lamp right beside me and while the bulb is blocked by the glass diffuser, I doubt that blocks UV rays (or does it?). My skin has been getting worse over the years, it never ocured to me what could be the cause. Doctor said basically some people just get that more than others. He's pretty sure it's eczema, but I've also been told it might be Impetigo or Serilasys. (probably not spelling those right).

Or is this just an overhyped BS claim, like the mercury? Arn't CFLs the same as bigger flurescent tubes, but just smaller? What would make CFLs less safe than tubes?
 
Oct 20, 2005
10,978
44
91
This is kinda scary, I have mostly all CFLs in my house. In fact there's a lamp right beside me and while the bulb is blocked by the glass diffuser, I doubt that blocks UV rays (or does it?). My skin has been getting worse over the years, it never ocured to me what could be the cause. Doctor said basically some people just get that more than others. He's pretty sure it's eczema, but I've also been told it might be Impetigo or Serilasys. (probably not spelling those right).

Or is this just an overhyped BS claim, like the mercury? Arn't CFLs the same as bigger flurescent tubes, but just smaller? What would make CFLs less safe than tubes?

So you read one article that claims CFL's are harmful to you...an article that provides little to no data to support their claims, and you freak out and start believing it's the cause of your skin problems?

Not saying it can't be it, but do you immediately believe everything on the internet?
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
The bulb is glass which filters harmful UV-C radiation.
So called germicidal tubes will actually have envelopes made of quartz. These will pass the harmful shortwave UV-C radiation. There is sufficient UV-C to generate ozone as well with those.

A CFL with cracks in the phosphor? I would not worry about it!

Speaking of halogen bulbs did you know they generate UV radiation?
Since the filament is driven considerably harder producing a whiter light, the amount of UV radiation produced is augmented. Since the bulbs are made of quartz this will be passed freely. This is why they will use a glass sleeve or light bulbs will employ a glass envelope.

Perhaps the biggest offenders of UV-C emissions would be double ended HID (metal halide) lamps. Without a glass shield or envelope in place these are extremely dangerous to look at when operating at full brightness. Not really any different than staring into a welding arc. :eek: They will also cause sunburn to exposed skin in a very short period of time.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,574
13,804
126
www.anyf.ca
So you read one article that claims CFL's are harmful to you...an article that provides little to no data to support their claims, and you freak out and start believing it's the cause of your skin problems?

Not saying it can't be it, but do you immediately believe everything on the internet?

No, that's why I'm asking if this is just some overhyped BS crap, or if it's real.

Is there a way to actually test this?

There seems to be groups of scientists out there that are against CFLs, such as the ones that say they have deadly amounts of mercury. So I tend to take this with a grain of salt. but it's still alarming until it can be proven wrong.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,574
13,804
126
www.anyf.ca
The bulb is glass which filters harmful UV-C radiation.
So called germicidal tubes will actually have envelopes made of quartz. These will pass the harmful shortwave UV-C radiation. There is sufficient UV-C to generate ozone as well with those.

A CFL with cracks in the phosphor? I would not worry about it!

Speaking of halogen bulbs did you know they generate UV radiation?
Since the filament is driven considerably harder producing a whiter light, the amount of UV radiation produced is augmented. Since the bulbs are made of quartz this will be passed freely. This is why they will use a glass sleeve or light bulbs will employ a glass envelope.

Perhaps the biggest offenders of UV-C emissions would be double ended HID (metal halide) lamps. Without a glass shield or envelope in place these are extremely dangerous to look at when operating at full brightness. Not really any different than staring into a welding arc. :eek: They will also cause sunburn to exposed skin in a very short period of time.

Good to know. So don't really have to worry then.

Speaking of HID lights, am I the only one who can't stand people who use these on their car? They're way too freaking bright for nothing. The blue color is also harder on the eyes than white light.
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
Good to know. So don't really have to worry then.

Speaking of HID lights, am I the only one who can't stand people who use these on their car? They're way too freaking bright for nothing. The blue color is also harder on the eyes than white light.

There's several reasons for this and laws needed to be updated to get these hazards off the road.

Firstly the laws are based on watts, not lumens. When efficacy is greatly increased one can have a ludicrously bright headlamp and technically still be a legal beagle because the wattage is allowed. Placing a cap on lumens would solve this issue.

Second, the color temperature varies wide from 3700K (which appears yellow white like a tungsten halogen lamp) all the way to 8000K and higher which is very blue. For automotive applications 4100-4300K provides best balance of visibility and not becoming a nuisance to approaching drivers. 5000K should be the absolute highest for highway use. Higher has no real benefit, driving range is reduced and oncoming drivers find them very annoying!

Third is retrofitting aftermarket HID lamps into projectors designed for tungsten lamps. This is hazardous because it can produce a very broad glare, collimating the light into a ring which appears very bright to oncoming drivers. Also where the light is "bent" the corona produced is very blue and super bright, again wrecking the vision of oncoming drivers. These offenders should be ticketed and have the lights fixed to be in compliance.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,801
91
91
Thank the baby Jesus that I stocked up before the Assault Lightbulbs Ban of 2011.

I've got 1200 incandescent lightbulbs in my basement. Should last me the rest of my life.

FUcking libruls.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
No, that's why I'm asking if this is just some overhyped BS crap, or if it's real.

Is there a way to actually test this?

There seems to be groups of scientists out there that are against CFLs, such as the ones that say they have deadly amounts of mercury. So I tend to take this with a grain of salt. but it's still alarming until it can be proven wrong.

You don't prove things wrong. You prove them right.

If you read the damn article, the worst they could find was that over a period of 5.6 hours when you stay at 35 cm from a CFL, you receive 8 hours worth of uv radiation.

Radiation drops in intensity as a function of distance very quickly due to the inverse square law.

You're fine.
 

Ice_Dragon

Senior member
Nov 17, 2011
236
0
71
I like the LED technology, I have two bulbs in my house but the rest are CFLs for now. I love cool white and the cool whites are more expensive than the warm whites.
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
Last edited: