Subscribe to EDN

Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard

November 24, 2008

When on the Megaman site looking for information on DORS (dim-on-switching) technology, I saw several models of CFLs (compact fluorescent lights) that encased the spiral/curved fluorescent bulbs inside a globe (pictured below on the left.) This seemed like overkill and a belt-and-suspenders approach to a light bulb, but I assumed it was for aesthetic reasons.

Enclosed/globe CFLHowever, reader Ray Hulinsky (thanks, Ray!) sent in this link to an announcement by the British governmental health organization, the Health Protection Agency (HPA), that  some CFLs emit ultraviolet radiation at levels that, under certain conditions of use, can result in exposures higher than guideline levels. The HPA guideline limit is 30 J m-2 for the eye and skin, which is equivalent to a constant irradiance of 1 mW m-2 effective for 30,000 seconds or 8 hours, the normal working day.

The problem with the higher radiation level is not eye damage, since CFLs are bright enough that no one is going to stare at them. The HPA’s concern is for skin exposure, but only when the bulb is less than 12 inches away and for a period of more than an hour per day.

This sounded kind of ridiculous: How likely is someone to be that close to a light bulb of any kind for over an hour? However, light bulbs are ubiquitous, and are used in non-standard applications. According to the HPA, patients with lupus are especially susceptible to UV exposure: Having a CFL in a bedside lamp could exacerbate the effects of lupus.

The point of this is not that CFLs are terrible, but that users need to be aware of gotcha-type applications for them. Lupus patients and their care-givers can be educated as part of the disease that some CFLs aren’t a good choice for table lamps. (CFLs in garage-door openers may not be a good choice either.)

Back to the Megaman example: The HPA suggests enclosed or globe CFLs for any applications where UV exposure is a concern: The extra level of enclosure is enough to absorb excess UV.

Posted by Margery Conner on November 24, 2008 | Comments (10)

December 18, 2008
In response to: Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard
yellowdog commented:

The CFLs we get at ACE hardware are complete over-priced junk! They last about 6 months max! Now that I know they are built only for mounting with bulb up instead of down, I'll have to come up with an alternative.


December 1, 2008
In response to: Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard
WD Barrett commented:

CFLs have significant problems - higher acquisition costs, disposal issues (due to the mercury), over-hyped lifetime, and UV-radiation are just a few. I discontinued use of CFLs indoors after I noticed the UV radiation from a CFL in a lamp discolored the carpeting. The pattern was exactly where the direct light from the lamp was hitting the carpet. Since the cost of replacing or repairing the carpet more than wipes out any energy savings, I went back to incandecents. However, they are economical for outside use, especially if an outdoor light remains on for most of the night. LEDs may be a better alternative. However, the manufacture of LEDs does produce dangerous chemical by-products. But since these chemicals are produced in an industrial environment, their disposal is easier to regulate and control. The disposal of CFLs is almost impossible to regulate.


November 30, 2008
In response to: Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard
Ken Hemingway commented:

The biggest problem that I have with CFLs is something I've never seen mentioned before. Which is- They visibly dim over a fairly short period of time. Sure, they may last for a long time, but as the light output lessens, what good are they? You have to replace them more frequently to keep the light brightness at an acceptable level. Incandenscents and "full" fluorescents also dim over time, but not as quickly. I'd just as well stay with the "original two" and stay away from CFLs.


November 26, 2008
In response to: Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard
Deepak Bhardwaj commented:

With the advent of LED lighting, it is good for the human race to adopt them and discard the CFL''s as early as we can. As has been rightly pointed out by one of the reader, has anyone really gone into assessing the "green" aspect of CFL''s completely? I believe nations which still have disparities on access to power for all its citizens, should adopt LED''s preferably. These nations would also have disposal issues and none of us would like mercury poisoned food landing on our tables over the next five years as adoption grows in villages.


November 25, 2008
In response to: Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard
Az commented:

for mr Nikolay TT your ir remote will not work because the switching frequency of the cfl is arround 40kHz....and the signal bursts from your remote control are also arround 40kHz


November 25, 2008
In response to: Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard
JoeP commented:

We started using CFLs at home in 1988 when the only ones available were made by Philips. These older ones had triple glass hoops rather than the spirals common today. They also sold for around $15 ea if I recall correctly. However, they did last and worked quite nicely in base-up configuration. Ours were almost exclusively in recessed ceiling cans with the bulb exposed. It has been 20 years and some of the originals are still in use. In contrast, most of the CFLs I find on the market now only last for 1-3 years. So, CFL technology was not released prematurely. Rather, the quality of these original Philips bulbs has been largely lost in the marketplace.


November 25, 2008
In response to: Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard
Nikolay TT commented:

Maybe some of you have noticed that the Remote controls of your TV or sililar equipment will not work properly if you use those bulbs for light in the room. I guess that is due to the "blinding" effect of those bulbs on the IR receiver. If you switch those bulbs off then everything is OK. So how comes, those are IR receivers, aren't they, and then what happens to humman vision if we are overexposed to broad spectrum light, not only UV ? Thanks for your time if commenting thins out.


November 25, 2008
In response to: Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard
Tzimtzum commented:

It will just be a matter of time before the legal vipers get a hold of this one: "If you have a rheumatoid condition such as Lupus and have been exposed to a CFL and have experienced a worsening of condition, hospitalization, or if a love one has died as a result of exposure, you may be entitled to compensation. Call this number right away. . . ."


November 25, 2008
In response to: Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard
Jeff Prystupa commented:

CFL''s have mercury and if a CFL bulb breaks, it is recommended that the room be cleared for 15-20 minutes for the mercury vapor to dissipate. In addition, it has been suggested that CFL''s do not perform well mounted down-facing as in ceiling cannister. Without adequate air flow around the bulb, the operating temperature rises from around 105 degrees (F) up to 160 degrees, thus shortening bulb life down below regular incandescents. Some critics have expressed the thought that the CFL technology was released prematurely.


November 25, 2008
In response to: Some special cases where CFL radiation is a health hazard
Darren Holdstock commented:

The anglepoise lamp on my workbench can easily be 12" away from my face for more than an hour a day. But as I need a decent quality light here, a CFL is the last bulb I''d use, so it''s fitted with a daylight-spectrum incandescent. I do have a bare-tube CFL at home that powers a chunk of the photosynthesis for a small hanging houseplant, so a bit of UV can be useful. I recall someone in another thread using one for their fishtank plants too.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2012 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows