Posted on 01/04/2008 7:41:31 AM PST by fanfan
Using environmentally friendly light bulbs can be seriously bad for your skin, doctors warn.
New energy-saving bulbs produce a more intense light which can cause eruptions of existing skin problems, like eczema, and even lead to skin cancer, they claim.
The revelation comes after health experts warned the fluorescent bulbs, which are to become compulsory in homes within four years, could trigger migraines and cause dizziness and discomfort to people with epilepsy.
The lives of thousands of people may be threatened if the government's plan to phase out the normal variety of incandescent lighting goes ahead without exemptions.
Sufferers could be prevented from using electric light in their own homes, visit family and friends, or have access to employment and public services.
The warning has been issued by Spectrum, an alliance of charities working with people with light sensitive conditions, and the British Association of Dermatologists.
The government wants to phase out traditional, incandescent bulbs by 2011 but no allowances have been made for people suffering from light sensitive conditions who often suffer severe and painful reactions to fluorescent lighting and other forms of non-incandescent lighting.
Spectrum is running a campaign to raise awareness of the impact on people's health in response to the government decision to ban incandescent light bulbs.
They claim as many as 340,000 people could be affected.
Andrew Langford, chief executive officer of Skin Care Campaign, one of the charities involved, said: “Incandescent light bulbs are the only source of electric light for many thousands of people with light sensitive conditions.
”Add to this the thousands of people whose conditions or treatments may secondarily cause them to be light sensitive, and you have a large number of people potentially being isolated in the dark.
”The government simply must allow incandescent light bulbs to be available to these people, their families, friends and employers, and at a fair price.”
Dr Colin Holden, President of the British Association of Dermatologists, said: “It is important that patients with photosensitive skin eruptions are allowed to use lights that don't exacerbate their condition.
”Photosensitive eruptions range from disabling eczema-like reactions, to light sensitivities that can lead to skin cancer.
It is essential that such patients are able to protect themselves from specific wavelengths of light emitted by fluorescent bulbs, especially as they are often trapped indoors because they can't venture out in natural sunlight.”
Spectrum is urging the government to maintain the availability of incandescent light bulbs purely to those who are affected, which will enable the protection of the environment without penalising those unable to live with fluorescent lighting.
One option could simply be to allow the purchase of environmentally-friendly, energy efficient incandescent light bulbs which GE Consumer and Industrial is currently developing and hopes to market in 2010.
Spectrum argues that the total social exclusion for thousands of vulnerable, sick and disabled people, resulting from an unconditional ban, would contradict many other policies of the government, including Disability Equality Duty, which came into force on 4 December 2006, and the Green Paper on Welfare Reform published in January 2006.
Paging Big Al!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate those “environmentally friendly” light bulbs. I waste my life waiting for those things to get bright enough to see anything. They’re worthless. I’d rather burn candles.
The problem seems to stem from the fact that incandescents filaments thermal mass moderates the light output to something very close ly approximating a steady glow.Connecting an oscilloscope to a photocell will reveal a residual 50 or 60 cycle variation in the output of incandescent but will show a fluorescent as being more like 100 or 120 flashes per second.The brain has to average out the bright flashes which accounts for the headaches.
It has been proven that having your computer or tv scanning the picture at 50 or 60 Hz is more tiring to the eyes and brain ;having such a computer screen in a standard fluorescent lit area adds to the problem.
I believe our bodies and brains were designed for an analog world and all these sampling methods which make the brain fill in the gaps,whether of light or music, cause un-needed stress.
This article, Low-energy bulbs 'worsen rashes', refers specifically to problems with some forms of eczema.
Yes, “sick” buildings with fluorescent lights are that way because the 60 cycle/sec current makes them dim-bright-dim-bright and your brain “reads” your eye input about 40 times/sec. That means there is a constructive/destructive interference beat that your brain is constantly trying to adjust to. This causes severe headaches in people living under fluorescent lights as in grocery stores, offices. To wit, you don’t notice the changing light levels that happen faster than you can blink your eye but your BRAIN does. So, will these new fluorescent lights come with instructions on how to blink your eye 30 times/sec(see only the bright peaks)?
Also, the incandescent bulb, as a thermal source, puts out the whole visible spectrum whereas the fluorescent only puts out certain, specific wavelengths that SEEM white but aren’t. So, yes, these fluorescent bulbs cost far more(JOY to mfgrs)and use less energy/lumen; but your BRAIN(and skin cancer for some)pays the price.
So fellow Frers, we can show scientifically why these new screw-in fluorescent bulbs are bad news, and that these lawyers in congress are lobbyist-bought dummies(the blind leading the blind...). Get the word out...
Thanks for taking the time to explain flourescent’s “bad vibes.” I will pass on the information.
Ok, so some will suffer due to lighting policy. And? Do they not understand we all must make sacrifices in this time of crisis? Do it. Do it for the children.
Yes, it’s a health issue, rammed thru congress w/o FDA even looking at it. Environmental lighting engineers or architects could tell them about the price your body pays for fluorescent lighting, but as always : MONEY TALKS and congress was bought by the lobbyists working for light mfgrs and recyclers.
Funny : recent proposal to use corpses in crematoriums for heating/electrical generation. This is EXACTLY a sci-fi story in analog magazine many years ago. Do you know anyone who has old analog magazines stowed away somewhere?
You know, timer, my congressman is Jay Inslee, a “progressive” leader on the left. Our community is very enviro-conscious. I’m going to contact his office and see if they’ll give me more info on this situation.
Analog magazines? Sorry, can’t help you there. Hope you find them. Scary about crematoriums!
It is helpful for people that have eczema and psoriasis, unless they also have photosensitivity, then it can worsen the condition rather than help it.
http://dermnetnz.org/reactions/photosensitivity.html
Also tell him to subsidize insulation. Instead of throwing money after THIS source, THAT source; to get out of the foreign oil narcotic habit, just INSULATE the living bejesus out of every home in america. The SUN does a perfectly good job of heating the air, why do YOU have to spend YOUR money heating it? Also, 3 KW of heat energy at that distant coal fired electrical generating plant only gets 1 KW to your home’s electrical panel, that lost 2 KW goes as waste heat in the thermodynamic process, CO2 exhaust, transmission line losses. Super-duper insulation gets rid of that 2 out of every 3 KW thermal loss(with electrical heating).
Example : thought experiment : suppose you have a 3 BR floor plan, 1500 sf footprint. 8’ high ceilings, 30’x 50’ interior volume; 2’ thick urethane skin all around for a 12’x 34’x 54’ outside dimension. Outside temp at 32 deg F, inside at 72 deg F(dT of 40). Urethane foam(2” thick w/silver foil)is rated at R7/”; thus 24” x 7 = R 168.
Now, taking the mid-line depth, 10’x 32’x 52’ as surface loss area(ignoring windows, doors for the moment), you get 10x64 + 10x104 + 32x52x2 = 640 + 1040 + 3328 = 5008 sf. Then 5008 x 40/168 = 1192 BTUH loss/hr. HEY, a person at rest(couch potato)puts out about 1250 BTUH. Thus, discounting doors, windows, infiltration; a couch potato can heat his own 3 BR house with his own body heat, and it’s FREEZING outside, his food bill becomes his heating bill; with 24” of solid(like a refrigerator)urethane high density foam insulation.
Sounds wonderful, until you look at the cost : $5/cf retail for urethane, then there’s installation(mat’l, labor, overhead/profit). That box-shell contains about 7000 cf x $5/cf = $35,000 mat’l(retail). Double that + 15% = about $80,000; WAY more than normally insulated walls, ceilings, floors cost in construction.
That’s where Inslee comes in : federal matching funds for home insulation remodels. Get that $80K price hammered down to 10% or $8K and it becomes worthwhile to practically every homeowner. Selling points : one shot price : your heating/cooling bill drops to ZIP for the life of the home, also, insulation is already an integral part of the construction industry, no foreign labor required, just make a whole lot MORE of it by american insulation suppliers. Also it means more new siding, roofing...basically a new “quilt” with new skin.
So, enough already with the hydrogen economy this, solar that, nuc this, windmill that, coal this, ethanol that...just INSULATE the living bejesus out of every home and that whole SOURCE thing dwindles in importance. Or, first plug the holes in your boat before you bail like hell....
As to the Sci-Fi story, the bottom line goes something like this : it’s a gruesome thought but uncle george, you light up my life...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.