Don't Go Toward the Light

News & Analysis
In the News Gristmill Blog Muckraker Podcast Features

Columns
Ask Umbra® Victual Reality Weekly Recipes The Bottom Line From A to Green The Grist List

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

ADVERTISING POLICY

[Advanced]

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Compact fluorescents can cause health problems, say groups

Posted at 10:22 AM on 04 Jan 2008

As Australia, Britain, and the good ol' U.S. of A make plans to phase out traditional energy-sucking light bulbs, health concerns are being raised about compact fluorescents, the most popular alternative. The British Association of Dermatologists says CFLs can cause rashes on folks with photosensitive skin, the U.K. Migraine Action Association suggests that the bulbs can trigger terrible headaches, and U.K. charity Epilepsy Action says CFLs can induce seizures. Health professionals say exemptions to country-wide bans should be made for people with special health circumstances, but lighting industry reps point out that there are alternatives to CFLs that still meet low-energy standards, like LED bulbs.

sources: BBC News, The Telegraph, Daily Mail

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (11 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hedging My Bets

Which is why every incandescent bulb I replaced with a CF (which is every bulb in my one-bedroom apartment) is sitting in a plastic bag in the cabinet next to my sink.

Because Sub sole nihil novi est.

by jabailo at 11:57 AM on 04 Jan 2008

So it might not be my imagination...

I find fluorescent lighting makes me irritable and, perhaps, more inclined to become depressed. Every time I've tried to use CFLs, I've found that they convert a pleasant warm inspiring room into a depressingly dull blue/green room, flat and not at all enjoyable to be in. Were I required to install CFLs, I guess I would save energy simply because I would turn off all of the lights and go to sleep as soon as the Sun sets.

I think I start stockpiling incandescents. Not only for my own mental and physical health, but because there should be a profitable black market for them.

by wiscidea at 12:51 PM on 04 Jan 2008

Fluorescent Bulbs Are Not Green

Aside from their awful light spectrum, fluorescent bulbs contain mercury. As your article should have stressed, light emitting diodes are a much superior alternative to fluorescent and incandescent bulbs.

by Wolverine at 12:56 PM on 04 Jan 2008

CFLs

Popular Mechanics tested CFLs against an incandescent standard. The color of the CFLs was better than the incandescent, and the brightness matched that of the incandescent.

The amount of mercury in CFLs is more than offset by the amount emitted through the additional coal burning required to light an incandescent bulb.

LED bulbs are the ultimate solution, but costs remain prohibitive.

But given that CFLs last years longer than incandescents, it's not like we have to buy a lot of CFLs between now and the time LEDs become competitive.

by cce at 1:14 PM on 04 Jan 2008

What's Your Priority?

If you think that money and business are more important than the environment, your claim makes sense. If you're saying that people won't buy LEDs because they're too expensive, that's easily fixed by outlawing or highly taxing incandescent and fluorescent bulbs to make them competitive or the only choice. But as an environmentalist, I find it unconscionable that environmentalists are advocating fluorescent bulbs, which are also bad for the environment.

by Wolverine at 1:53 PM on 04 Jan 2008

CFLs are better for the environment

CFLs are better for the environment than incandescent bulbs because they use 1/4 the electricity. Every incandesecent replaced with a CFL represents a net reduction of mercury and other pollutants on a electrical grid that is over 50% coal.
A 60 watt incandescent or equivalent CFL puts out 900 lumens. The brightest LED screw in replacement bulbs that I can find range from 200 to 600 lumens, cost $60 - $80, and are only incrementally more efficient than CFLs.

by cce at 3:28 PM on 04 Jan 2008

CFLs vs. the electric car

I find it fascinating that we (see post from "cce") will compare the mercury in a CFL with that emitted from a coal plant, but when talking about an electric car will pretend that some or all the electricity will come from clean renewables.

The grid doesn't know if we turn on a light or plug in an electric car!

So which is it folks?

If you're going to say that an electric car "deserves" the grid average emissions then you have to give a CFL or any other electrical demand the same treatment.

Alas, I think cce's CFL comment is closer to the reality w.r.t. the generating source for incremental load: As long as the grid has meaningful non-renewable dispatchable sources, then incremental loads use those sources.

Note: RPF standards change the logic such that all incremental loads should receive around the grid average emissions factor.

(Also, note that it is possible to remove a large proportion of mercury emissions from a coal plant. This is mandated in at least one state - http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3310_4105-142890 ... )

by drocto at 3:35 PM on 04 Jan 2008

No, there are WARM CFLs that look good

Wiscidea, you havent tried the warm CFL's yet? Please do, I think you will like them much better. The packaging doesn't always communicate this well. Look for "soft" in the description and NOT "daylight" or "standard".

Grist did a wonderful comparison and found the warm "soft" bulbs:

http://www.grist.org/advice/products/2007/12/14/?source=m ...

They indicate that you would probably like the Phillips Soft White. Try it. I am often fooled into thinking I am looking at incandescent light.

by christophersj at 4:40 PM on 04 Jan 2008

Electric cars

Hasn't there been studies done for electric cars and plug-in hybrids that show a net reduction of most pollutants even with the existing grid? If there's a perfect solution, people are keeping it to themselves.

by cce at 5:05 PM on 04 Jan 2008

i hate them...

...and frankly, since i use almost NO energy whatsoever, i should be allowed to decide what i use it on. i happen to be a person who wants incandescent bulbs and a full-flow shower. i work from home so barely drive, i have always recycled, use a filter on my tap, wear a sweater/open a window, don't have TV, and turn things off/unplug them when not in use (etc.).

this whole "banning" thing smacks of fascism. if we are going to get serious about energy consumption, then let's simply cap usage on a per-person (per residence/office?) basis and charge steep surcharges above baseload. make the details about mercury, coal, renewables, grey water, origins of goods, and PV panels (etc.) widely available so people can make their own choices. just because we want to be responsible, we don't have to be totalitarians.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

by stopgreenpath at 11:28 PM on 05 Jan 2008

Thank You for the Help

chrisopherjs...

Thank you very much for the advice.

Part of the problem in adopting new technology is, I think, the effort required to sort through the options and that it is a bit of a gamble when one has limited resources. I've tried a few CFLs and have always been disappointed. If it was just light bulbs, there would not be a problem. I'd try another brand. But I've gone through a lot of money trying, for example, environmentally friendly cleaning products that just don't deliver what they promise.

So... I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE people who share their personal experience. I was assuming "daylight" would be the closest thing to a full spectrum. I will try the Phillips Soft White and report back to you. I just hope you are not an industry representative!

by wiscidea at 10:34 AM on 06 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?