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

[jagec]

Oooo the scary UV light. Whatever did our ancestors do without sunscreen and they worked outside all day?

Died well before they got old enough to worry about cancer.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Died well before they got old enough to worry about cancer.

2010 life expectancy was 67.5 years.

In the Medieval Era, life expectancy was 64 years, not including infant mortality which was so high it shoved the overall average down by many points.

And they were the ones working in the fields all day.

 

[jagec]

2010 life expectancy was 67.5 years.

LOL, not in the first world. Do you think that they use a lot of CFLs in Somalia?

In the Medieval Era, life expectancy was 64 years, not including infant mortality which was so high it shoved the overall average down by many points.

And they were the ones working in the fields all day.

So you're comparing apples to oranges, got it. I'm sure that they have very low rates of infant mortality in Somalia as well.

Also, check out this chart of cancer incidence by age...note that this is age at diagnosis, not age at death. Interesting where that inflection point lies, huh?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

LOL, not in the first world. Do you think that they use a lot of CFLs in Somalia?



So you're comparing apples to oranges, got it. I'm sure that they have very low rates of infant mortality in Somalia as well.

Also, check out this chart of cancer incidence by age...note that this is age at diagnosis, not age at death. Interesting where that inflection point lies, huh?

None of what you say changes the fact that CFL's put out negligible amounts of UV radiation as long as you aren't sticking a lit one up your butt.

 

[jagec]

None of what you say changes the fact that CFL's put out negligible amounts of UV radiation as long as you aren't sticking a lit one up your butt.

But working outside all day for decades without sunscreen is clearly quite different, which is the comment that I was replying to.

They also had more ozone then, although that is starting to improve.

 

[tcG]

We don't actually know that the sunlight-per-say causes skin cancer. We know that there is a correlation between cancer and UV ray exposure, but the primary factor could very well be any number of other things.

 

[TridenT]

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.

Bolded is the real problem. The other problem is people who have stupid cars that don't direct light properly. I find it very bothersome to look in my rear view mirror and see it fully lit up or going down the road... and I don't think the high beams are even on for some of these people. I don't know what causes that. I think either poor design or someone putting in the wrong bulbs for their car... I would just prefer a much better design. I've seen quite a few BMWs come out with nice HIDs that are very narrow and well adjusted to NOT BLIND ME.

 

[jagec]

We don't actually know that the sunlight-per-say causes skin cancer. We know that there is a correlation between cancer and UV ray exposure, but the primary factor could very well be any number of other things.

The mechanism of UV-induced DNA damage is pretty well known.

 

[Red Squirrel]

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.

You totally need to turn all of those on at the same time. Get 1200 sockets to go with that. Don't bother with the power outlet, it's protected by a measly 15 or 20 amp breaker. Just plug it straight into the bus bar, preferably before the main breaker. :awe:

 

[SparkyJJO]

The mechanism of UV-induced DNA damage is pretty well known.

It's also overblown.

Sometimes I wonder if skin cancer is caused more by all the chemicals that people constantly slather on their skin and not as much from the sun. Sure, they prevent sun burn, but now you have cancer instead. Maybe. I don't know. But I almost never use sunblock as I hate almost everything about it

What were the rates of skin cancer 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years ago?

 

[TridenT]

9-11 was an inside job.

AM I RIGHT GUYS?

 

[Brainonska511]

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.

That's not how grants are dispersed.

Sure, there is a little fluff to build up the importance of your project, but it isn't to the point of BSing people. Plus, your grant is reviewed by your peers (people with technical knowledge in your area of research) in almost all cases. They score the proposals and then money goes to the top X%.

Did they actually get a specific grant for this one paper or did they just piggyback it on a larger grant?