Cancer Bulbs

[Gipper]

Energy saving light bulbs 'contain cancer causing chemicals'
Fears have been reignited about the safety of energy saving light bulbs after a group of scientists warned that they contain cancer causing chemicals.

Their report advises that the bulbs should not be left on for extended periods, particularly near someone’s head, as they emit poisonous materials when switched on.
Peter Braun, who carried out the tests at the Berlin's Alab Laboratory, said: “For such carcinogenic substances it is important they are kept as far away as possible from the human environment.”
The bulbs are already widely used in the UK following EU direction to phase out traditional incandescent lighting by the end of this year.
But the German scientists claimed that several carcinogenic chemicals and toxins were released when the environmentally-friendly compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) were switched on, including phenol, naphthalene and styrene.
Andreas Kirchner, of the Federation of German Engineers, said: “Electrical smog develops around these lamps.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8462626/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-contain-cancer-causing-chemicals.html

Hahahaha....get these damn things out of your home ASAP.

Thanks to our ever expanding government for promoting a dangerous product.

Isn't big government grand?

 

[steveox]

If i get cancer can i sue the Obama aminstration and the EPA?

 

[Dr.Who]

Yea, I read that article in another source and it makes me wonder. If I remember right it said that more research needs to be done. I suspect that an initial study found the cancer causing chemicals but did not measure how much of the chemicals the bulbs released nor if it raised the amount of those chemicals above baseline.

Definitely a reason to research it.

 

[dahermit]

I find that the longevity of low-energy use florescent bulbs to be exaggerated. My observation, albeit not a scientific test, is that they do not last any longer than the standard tungsten/filament bulbs. So, the higher cost, but longer life does not save any money.

 

[Dr.Who]

I find that the longevity of low-energy use florescent bulbs to be exaggerated. My observation, albeit not a scientific test, is that they do not last any longer than the standard tungsten/filament bulbs. So, the higher cost, but longer life does not save any money.

I don't mean to be disagreeable and I am sure that your experience is true for you.

In my home I have over a hundred lightbulbs and I got pretty tired of changing them on average twice per year. I switched over to the cfl's and it was pretty expensive, especially since at first the price was quite a bit higher than now. Yes, they do sometimes burn out within a year or two. I kept my boxes and receipts for a few of them and when they burn out the store takes them back - which now means that I end up with the life I got out of the old bulb plus the life I will get from the new one. Even more since the store requires you to return full boxes.

I have had one fall and break which I am not happy about. None have exploded. I saw no appreciable reduction in my electric bill or use which surprised me until I realized that even with lots of bulbs (which are usually off) my biggest user of electricity is not lighting but running the fan on my furnace and the TV.

I hope they do not turn out to be dangerous and I hope that the savings does add up. I also hope that no crat ever coerces people into buying them.

 

[Dude111]

Hahahaha....get these damn things out of your home ASAP.

This is no surprise and quite disgusting!

 

[dahermit]

All energy savings efforts seem to be aimed at homeowners. However, there seems to be a huge amount of wasted energy in other areas. How much energy could be saved by not lighting business signs at night? Also, street lights at rural cross roads? Just fly over a city at night and the tremendous waste of electricity can be observed...but no one seems to suggest that as possible savings source.

 

[dahermit]

Also not mentioned as of yet is the disposal problem that is inherent with florescent light bulbs. Standard bulbs pose no health problem when discarded (other than broken glass). But florescent bulbs contain "small amounts" or Mercury that may make disposal more problematic than traditional tungsten bulbs.


http://industrialodorcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/03/old-energy-saving-light-bulbs-hazard.html

Mercury can cause both chronic and acute poisoning. If a bulb is smashed, the UK’s Health Protection Agency advice is for householders to evacuate the room and leave it to ventilate for 15 minutes.

 

[Gipper]

All energy savings efforts seem to be aimed at homeowners. However, there seems to be a huge amount of wasted energy in other areas. How much energy could be saved by not lighting business signs at night? Also, street lights at rural cross roads? Just fly over a city at night and the tremendous waste of electricity can be observed...but no one seems to suggest that as possible savings source.

We can agree Ludington Geezer (though you now claim you are 35).

It seems governments at all levels are BIG wasters of energy. I have long marveled at our local state university. It often is fully lite at 11pm. Nearly all the lights in the buildings are on. The admin building which could not have contained anyone at that hour, had all 12 floors fully lite.

 

[Dr.Who]

All energy savings efforts seem to be aimed at homeowners. However, there seems to be a huge amount of wasted energy in other areas. How much energy could be saved by not lighting business signs at night? Also, street lights at rural cross roads? Just fly over a city at night and the tremendous waste of electricity can be observed...but no one seems to suggest that as possible savings source.

Not just signs but lights inside empty buildings.

Remeber the goal is not to cut energy use as much as it is to recruit individuals into the green movement. The average joe will never be recruited if the steps he is asked to take are painful.

So what is the motive to recruit people? If motives are worthy then it is to later each people to take larger steps. If motives are not worthy then it has nothing to do with saving energy.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

you fear your lightbulbs but could care less what chemicals companies spew into the air and dump in the water...typical.

 

[Dr.Who]

you fear your lightbulbs but could care less what chemicals companies spew into the air and dump in the water...typical.

You did not say to whom you aimed that insult. I was the last one to post before it so I will say that I have indicated my position against mercury being spewed into the atmosphere several times.

Granted mercury is spewed by coal burning companies and not by chemical creating companies. As far as I know companies that make chemicals do not even use smokestacks or drainpipes. But you could start a thread if you know that they do.

 

[dahermit]

Granted mercury is spewed by coal burning companies and not by chemical creating companies. As far as I know companies that make chemicals do not even use smokestacks or drainpipes. But you could start a thread if you know that they do.

Dow Chemical, Ludington, MI. Some years ago, a privet person in a light airplane few over Dow, took pictures of their smokestack to prove that they were not in compliance to control their emissions. Court threw out the evidence stating that the pictures were not admissible on the basis that they were obtained without Dow's permission. Which seems strange in that evidence of marijuana production is obtained in the very same way.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You did not say to whom you aimed that insult. I was the last one to post before it so I will say that I have indicated my position against mercury being spewed into the atmosphere several times.

Granted mercury is spewed by coal burning companies and not by chemical creating companies. As far as I know companies that make chemicals do not even use smokestacks or drainpipes. But you could start a thread if you know that they do.

its was mostly aimed at gipper, but overall many republicans who are like him.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Dow Chemical, Ludington, MI. Some years ago, a privet person in a light airplane few over Dow, took pictures of their smokestack to prove that they were not in compliance to control their emissions. Court threw out the evidence stating that the pictures were not admissible on the basis that they were obtained without Dow's permission. Which seems strange in that evidence of marijuana production is obtained in the very same way.

Dow Chemical pays politicans money, pot heads don't so much...simple and easy reason