New Dangers From CFL Bulbs Even If Unbroken and Working Properly. (Please check for your own safety.

reply to post by 00777

I have obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, so I know what you mean! I also cannot tolerate the ridiculous directions they give for cleaning them up. How did this ever become legal?

Either the danger is greatly exaggerated and somebody is having fun scaring consumers who buy them or they seriously are ok with multitudes of broken CFL's being handled improperly..

This is why I stuck with an incandescent for a while. I'm using a CFL right now in my current lamp, but I'm using precautions and want to switch to a led when I'm confident about the price.

Having said all that I still use a CRT monitor and they're not good for my health either. I think they do emite some harmful things. One day I'll switch to a flatscreen and end any anxieties about it.

And the idea that this is all about profit is probably somewhat true. CFL's use about 1/4 power consumption of an incandescent and are supposed to last 5 to 10 times longer. That's a great thing to advertise on your product and get customers! But I think it's more about the desire to reduce power usage and replacements in order to reduce Co2 emissions. It's an underhanded way to tax Co2. This tax has a cost and this has been detailed in many places, including this thread.

I'm going to repeat a link somebody put in their post in this thread:
www.dailymail.co.uk -
Fire hazard fears over compact fluorescent lamps - after they've stopped working...

Please note this is probably not true for newer models (but read the bold type!):

.........
In 2009, standards were revised for materials used in the plastic housing of the base of CFLs sold in North America. But millions are still in use that were produced before the change.

I bought a little Halogen flood bulb at the dollar store, I replaced the CFL bulb with it in the ceiling fixture above my head at my computer, I made a foil reflector from a gold foil chocolate wrapper. Nice warm light.

Gonna get me more of those.
This kind

Funny this thread comes up after I chose to get the CFL away from me.

(useless post # 4274)

Interesting subject, but something is missing... I understand the reasoning for cfl lights, 20 million homes on a grid, average lighting on per home is 1170 watts (just lights before cfls) this could be reduced 70%, that is a lot of energy reduction. the first units were built with quality materals and workmanship, heat dissapation, rf noise, etc. mass manufacturing in a cost reducing adjustments arena by a chinese company has made this from bad to worse, then it gets worse, what about your office, factory, store, etc, where you spend 8+ hours a day? most engineers know the push from the old T-12 bulbs to T-8 and now the new T-5 ho bulbs. same ingredients and process. you are seeing more "daylight" bulbs in the 6500 Kelvin range that really give the senses of daylight due to the UV spectrum. Folks we are now the lab rats for this to see the long term effects on the masses. Remember Glenn Beck's theories early on, you test on everyone, you know you have covered every possible angle, Florescent bulbs are everywhere, @277 volts ac, you can get 850 watt equalivent light output at 1.7 amps, much less energy usage, But what are the long term costs, there could be much more to this than just the little cfl bulbs that Al Gore demanded we make mandatory in law.

Great
More UV. I already have pre-skin cancer on my arms. I have to go to the doctor and have the spots burned off each year. I am forced to wear long sleeve shirts when ever I go outside. I found out last year that the factory window tint does not block UV light. I now must wear long sleeve shirts or sunscreen when I go some place even in the car. This is whether I plan on being inside all the time at my final location.

THIS SUCKS BIG TIME!!!!!!

My lights are all mostly LEDs now, except the porch light. All those purple CFLs I have for emergency backup bulbs in storage, but the LEDs should last a decade. Sure, they cost more than the lamps they are screwed in, but I guess I'll take them with me when I move.

The CFLs burn my skin more than I've ever felt from any other bulb. There is a "cloud" of high energy around them and sitting around them kind of makes me more irritated than I need to be. I prefer the sun over the bulbs; it's almost as though they emit radio frequency, tingly. It just feels that way, probably because I'm sensitive to all sorts of subtle energies, but you're not supposed to feel your lightbulbs' presence except with your eyes.

The alchemy of mercury brings the word mercurial meaning the following: characterized by rapid and unpredictable changeableness of mood. If you're into metaphysics, there must be side effects of too much mercury in the house as well. They brought agitation to me.

Originally posted by fakedirt
CFLs can be smart choices. Just be careful.

(omitted long post about directions for clearing up CFLs)

To take those thorough safety tips and condense them into a nutshell:

Treat the place like a crime scene. Wear your DBS (domestic biohazard suit) to clean up the body of the bulb.

I'm envisioning a remote controlled robot arm to approach the hazard.

I've seen easier directions for escaping a plane on fire. Those hazard procedures are another reason why I don't use CFLs anymore. It sounds like an evacuation plan for a terror attack.

reply to post by Papagrune

That is interesting, I think we will hear more of this type of thing with sensitivity to levels of UV. I know photography has serious issues with cfl bulbs due to their intensity, we had to change out a lot of them for a photoshoot, I saw the change on the camera myself. I have been using thermal imaging cameras for a while now and also see the variances, I should look at that more soon. The new units see more than just temprature and the new programming lets you layer images with the laptop, hope you get better.

Here is the CFL that broke in the studio, by itself. It did not fall. It just burnt and cracked in place. Wonder if any mercury got out.




The local health agency never said anything about potential risks of these bulbs. I had to check them out myself on the web. And now I'm warning everybody off, and pushing leds.

reply to post by apecar


tough to say, crazy thing is I have been around thousands of these and never any problems, that I can tell, They are everywhere, and tube florescent is no different, no matter what they tell you, they have the same ingredents. I have handeled broken, seperated, exploded, and burned bulbs for years, no manufacturer, distributor, supplier, representative, salesperson, or anyone has disclosed any dangers other than disposal. I do like led lights, they still have a limit on output, I am currently testing a few at home, but at 40 watt levels, they were at home depot for $9 each, we will see if pricing and output gets better. use gloves and dispose of the broken ones you encounter, good luck.

but w-LED(emitte blue light + yellow phoshpor,some types still use UV + phosphor as FL) got blue light intensity problem,and flicker due PWM worse than FL.
blue light can induce damage on retina and it's irreversible,it's proved by animal experiment and some kind of human ophthalmol clinical observation.
and blue light intensity in w-LED spectrum is way too high.the animal experiment use few mW blue light launch into animals eyes 1000sec around and observed damage on retina after 48 hours.
compare with nowdays 40Watt LCD monitor with 300cd/m2 brightness comes out ,and we stare it many hours a day,it's really freak me out.
i also read sunglass stuff a lot and realise i cant get a proper one if i dont have tools like spectrometer to test it,because in my country,quality and goverment supervise goes really bad.
what can i do to protect myself?
i hate this world , i wish i never born.