These bulbs have transformers that power the bulb, and can emit a large amount of energy.  Many people are sensitive to these bulbs due to the pulse from the inductive ballast, however with the electropolution from cellular networks on top of the strong pulsating signal, the combination of the two can be stronger depending on the cellular networks frequency and strength.

………………………………………………………………

The Dark Side of Compact Fluorescent Lights

by Walt Mc Ginnis

Download this PDF Here

http://emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The_Dark_Side_Of_CFL1.pdf

………………………………………………………………

In the Cold Light of Day: Energy-Saving Lamps.

The End of the Light Bulb – The End of Healthy, Natural Lighting?

http://www.buildingbiology.ca/pdf/2009cflights.pdf

………………………………………………………………

Do CFLs Cause Headaches?

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs and You

8.17.2008 12:00 am

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/cfls-headaches-460808#ixzz0oP1agnGE

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/cfls-headaches-460808

………………………………………………………………

Canadian reports on CFL vs LED

http://www.magdahavas.com/category/electrosmog-exposure/lighting/

………………………………………………………………

LIGHT BULBS & UV RAYS

Canwest News Service, Global News: Thursday, July 30, 2009

http://www.globalnews.ca/story.html?id=969860

We’re told every bulb we switch will help save energy and the planet, but could the new compact fluorescent lightbulbs be damaging our skin? The issue is ultraviolet radiation, and officials at Health Canada tell Global News that “CFLs are not provided with a prismatic diffuser that filters ultraviolet radiation out. Therefore, there may be skin sensitivity issues, especially in people with certain skin diseases.” So how much UV radiation are they giving off? We don’t know. Health Canada is testing the bulbs but declined an on-camera interview.

Instead, we went to London, England to find out.

For more information on emissions from compact fluorescent lights click here.

Read it on Global News: LIGHT BULBS & UV RAYS

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1223534061375

Mon, Nov 17 – Can new energy-efficient light bulbs lead to skin cancer?

Tue, Nov 18 – Fluorescent light bulbs may trigger migraines in some people

Wed, Nov 19 – A look at alternatives to fluorescent light bulb

………………………………………………………………

Energy saving light bulbs ‘could trigger breast cancer’

Energy saving light bulbs could result in higher breast cancer rates if used late at night, an academic has claimed.

Energy saving light bulbs cast a bluer light than filament bulbs, mimicing daylight more closely

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8288982/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-could-trigger-breast-cancer.html

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent 6:30AM GMT    31 Jan 2011   Comments

Abraham Haim, a professor of biology at Haifa University in Israel, said that the bluer light that compact flourescent lamps (CFLs) emitted closely mimiced daylight, disrupting the body’s production of the hormone melatonin more than older-style filament bulbs, which cast a yellower light.

Melatonin, thought to protect against some breast and prostate cancers, is produced and secreted by the brain’s pineal gland around the clock.

Highest secretion levels are at night but light depresses production, even if one’s eyes are shut.

A possible link between night time light exposure and breast cancer risk has been known for over a decade, since a study was published showing female shift workers were more likely to develop the disease.

Prof Haim explained that a recent study by himself and fellow colleagues had found a much stronger association than previous research between night-time bedroom light levels and breast cancer rates.

Their study, published in the journal Chronobiology International, found breast cancer rates were up to 22 per cent higher in women who slept with a light on, compared to those who slept in total darkness.

They thought one of the reasons for this stronger link could be that people had switched to using energy saving lightbulbs.

They wrote: “In the past decade, light bulbs emitting bluer light waves (~460 nm) have been widely introduced to save energy consumption and reduce CO2 emission.”

They quoted another study which showed that exposure to bluer, shorter wavelength light for two hours in the late evening suppressed melatonin production more than the same exposure to yellower light (~550nm), which is more typical of filament bulbs.

The bluer light also made people more alert and increased their body temperature and heart rate.

Prof Haim thought this was because the bluer light from eco-lightbulbs mimiced the stronger light of midday closer than filament bulbs did.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he said he had subsequently removed eco-friendly lightbulbs from his house, as he thought they caused “light pollution”.

He said: “Around the world the advice is to change the lights to ‘green’ bulbs – but they are not really green. They pollute much more light.”

Because people thought they were so cheap to run, they were turning on more lights at home, he explained.

He emphasised that the study did not prove that using eco-friendly light bulbs late at night or overnight resulted in higher breast cancer rates than using filament bulbs, and that it remained an unproven theory.

British cancer charities echoed that point.

Jessica Harris, senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: “As this study didn’t investigate low energy ‘eco’ light bulbs and there isn’t any other evidence that they have an effect on breast cancer risk we can’t draw any conclusions about the risk of breast cancer from low energy light bulbs.

“Although it’s far from settled, the evidence that light at night – from any source – could affect breast cancer risk is strengthening and the World Health Organisation classify shift working as a ‘probable’ cause of cancer.”

Dr Sarah Rawlings, head of policy at Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said the link was “purely speculative”.

“We know there are a number of lifestyle, genetic and environmental risk factors associated with breast cancer, which require more research,” she said.

………………………………………………………………

http://www.magdahavas.com/2011/07/06/mercury-in-broken-cfl-bulbs-can-exceed-safe-exposure-levels-for-humans/

MERCURY IN BROKEN CFL BULBS CAN EXCEED SAFE EXPOSURE LEVELS FOR HUMANS!

July 6, 2011.  Finally someone measured the mercury content of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs!

We have been told that these bulbs contain 0.5 mg of mercury and that lower mercury-content bulbs will be produced in the future, yet many bulbs exceed this value as shown in the article below.

Li,Y. and L. Jin.  2011.   Environmental Release of Mercury from Broken Compact Fluorescent Lamps, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE. 28 (10), 5 pp. Click here for pdf with links and here for abstract.

The total amount of mercury in CFLs ranged from 0.1 to 3.6 mg.

What does this mean?

Let’s look at the water quality guidelines for mercury as a comparison.

The maxiumum concentration of total mercury in drinking water is 1.0 micro gram per litre.  That number is 0.001 mg mercury per litre of water.   Therefore the mercury content of a CFL bulb, at the nominal 0.5 mg per bulb, is  500 time higher than the concentration in a litre of drinking water!

Is there anyone out there who is a watch dog for this product or can CFL manufacturers do anything they want? We don’t allow lead paint on toys from China yet we import light bulbs that contain mercury!  This is not a bright idea for us, for the environment, or for the Chinese workers.  Click here to read ‘Green’ lightbulbs poison workers, Hundreds of factory staff are being made ill by mercury used in bulbs destined for the West.

According to Li and Jin (2011), CFL bulbs continue to release mercury vapor for more than 10 weeks once broken.  ”Total amount of Hg [mercury] vapor relased from a broken CFL can exceed 1.0 mg, which can cause Hg [mercury] levels in a regular room to exceed the safe human exposure limit under poor ventilation conditons.”

Mercury, as long as it is contained within the light bulb is not a problem.  But if the CFL bulb breaks, either in the home or at the dump, the mercury is released into the atmosphere contributing to the global load of mercury.  In the home the neurotoxic mercury can be inhailed by the occupants if a bulb breaks.  Rapid clean-up according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is highly recommended as is proper disposal at a toxic waste site that is equiped to handle these light bulbs.  Click here for EPA recommendations.

The fact that Canada is considering extending the deadline for banning energy inefficinet light bulbs for two more years is a breath of fresh air.

Reducing greenhouse gases is a noble venture but not with products that are poisons to both humans and other life-forms.  Surely our engineers and designers can do better than this!