The CF controversy

[Leafless]

So, the government of Canada wants to eliminate incandescent light bulbs in favour of compact fluorescent lights in order to save energy.

But what they are ignoring is the associated fluorescent health hazard.

Some people, how many is anyone's guess, who are sensitive to the frequency pulsations given off by cheap fluorescent lighting.

These pulsations 120 hertz per second or pulses per second, cause headaches, migraines, sore eyes along with unknown side effects. No one knows what these potentially long term exposures to fluorescent light can do and could be a definite risk since people will be using fluorescent lighting on a regular basis when incandescent lighting is phased out and will no longer be available.

Science tells us our eyes adapted to a steady white light such as the sun and not to a pulsating light source.

The worst part is, as fluorescent lights age the pulsations decrease to around a hundred hertz making it even harder on the eyes. The ends of a fluorescent tube I understand where there is hardly any light decrease even lower.

Even laptop computers and LCD televisions or any type of monitor that contains a fluorescent back light to increase screen illumination can potentially cause problems.

Even the light itself from a fluorescent tube gives off a yellowish light and not white light because of fluorescent natural tendency to produce an abundance of blues and reds. This of course is not noticed because of the phosphor coating on the inside of the fluorescent tube producing a white light but with a lot of blue and red escaping producing the familiar yellowish light.

So why would the federal government promote a product that has the potential to create a fairly serious health hazard for many Canadians, with also no recourse to switch back to incandescent lighting??

[Charles Anthony]

This is being discussed in the You know what worries me more than GHG emissions? -- Compact Fluorescent Bulbs. thread.

[Leafless]

This is being discussed in the You know what worries me more than GHG emissions? -- Compact Fluorescent Bulbs. thread.

This is a completely different take concerning the morality and wisdom of the federal government imposing and promoting a potentially hazardous product that is potentially harmful to ones health.

This is why it is in the moral and religious section as it has nothing to do concerning the net benefits of an energy saving device.

[cybercoma]

We see everything above 60 hertz as being continuous, no flicker. Televisions and computer monitors are at this frequency and higher for that reason.

The colour of a standard compact fluorescent tube is no less white than a standard incandescent bulb. Soft white bulbs are roughly 3100k colour temperature and daylight bulbs are around 6500k (true white, even though most people think they look blue). Soft white fluorescent bulbs look more like regular incandescent bulbs and the true white bulbs actually look blue to people because our household bulbs are actually a warm colour and our eyes adjust.

CFL bulbs are CSA tested and approved for safety in Canada. I highly doubt there are any adverse affects to lighting your home with these things. There has never been any serious health concerns reported from exposure to fluorescent lighting, let alone the more efficient electronically controlled fluorescents out there.

[Leafless]

We see everything above 60 hertz as being continuous, no flicker. Televisions and computer monitors are at this frequency and higher for that reason.

Well then, what exactly causes sore eyes, migraines and headaches when exposed to watching television, monitors?

Even in office buildings where people work under fluorescent lighting all day these symptoms are complained about by people in the same way people complain about monitors and television.

Just because the eyes do not notice the rapid pulsations, hertz or cps. does not mean it is not harmful. Obviously it is harmful or there would be no symptoms from devices incorporating rapid pulsations.

But my point is directed basically for lighting purposes where most people around the home, virtually use artificial light for everything, for continuous lengths of time.

The incandescent light bulb is subjected to 60 hertz like the fluorescent tube is.

Unlike the fluorescent tube the incandescent light bulb is like a heater, basically a glowing filament that does not have time to reduce in brilliance in between each cycle of alternating current. So there is no flicker and hertz is not an issue. The brain recognizes this as a STEADY light source, like the sun.

Fluorescent tubes do flicker (on-off), due to reversing polarizations that vaporize the mercury that produces the light.

How this will affect all Canadians when exposed to daily use is unknown and we already know flickering causes headaches, sore eyes, migraines.

This is what the issue is, fluorescence (flicker) is a health hazard to many people and with the planned banning of incandescent light bulbs there will be no recourse to rectify the situation by simply going back to incandescent lighting.

[speaker]

Mall lighting for example is really depressing, and I do get the feeling that it has something to do with frequency, and the same can be said for a lot of offices. Perhaps it is having the big tubes hooked up in series one after another. That said I think that the newer compact flourescent bulbs are far better than that or even the old CF bulbs.

I heard recently that GE and other manufacturers were working kind of feverishly on bringing out more efficient incandescents, but haven't heard any results yet. That would be a good jumpstart for the industry

[cybercoma]

Fluorescents in commercial buildings usually use 347v ballasts. Fluorescents do flicker, but everyone reacts differently. The amount of people to have adverse affects from fluorescent lighting is extremely low compared to the number of people who are not affected.

[Leafless]

Mall lighting for example is really depressing, and I do get the feeling that it has something to do with frequency, and the same can be said for a lot of offices. Perhaps it is having the big tubes hooked up in series one after another. That said I think that the newer compact flourescent bulbs are far better than that or even the old CF bulbs.

I heard recently that GE and other manufacturers were working kind of feverishly on bringing out more efficient incandescents, but haven't heard any results yet. That would be a good jumpstart for the industry

I know what your talking about relating to mall lighting.

I was in a large chain store the other day and it was obvious the fluorescent lighting in the store was on dimmers.

Everything around you seemed unreal and lifeless. But worse than that after about 20 minutes I had a harder time than normal seeing things and felt slightly dizzy. After we left that store everything cleared up instantly.

We returned to that same store a week later and the same thing happened again. I suspect colour wavelengths and frequency are the culprits but can offer no proof.

Relating to your comment that CF bulbs are improving could be true.

But in saying that probably means a price increase, opening a whole new ballpark for CF manufactures to cash in on.

[Leafless]

Fluorescents in commercial buildings usually use 347v ballasts. Fluorescents do flicker, but everyone reacts differently. The amount of people to have adverse affects from fluorescent lighting is extremely low compared to the number of people who are not affected.

The 347v ballast are if I am correct, the magnetic type, and still flicker at 120 hertz.

But worse that this, relating to fluorescents, is what are all those stray frequencies, otherwise know as harmonic distortion (created by ballast) going to do to electronic equipment and communications when you have hundreds of thousand of ballast all operating at the same time.

Of course this is related to overall load but could present a problem in that area.