CFL

Compact fluorescent bulbs may contribute to skin cancer

A new study from Stony Brook University, published in the journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, revealed “significant levels of UVC and UVA, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all CFL bulbs studied.” UVC and UVA can cause skin cancers.

The paper abstract reads:

Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs can provide the same amount of lumens as incandescent light bulbs, using one quarter of the energy. Recently, CFL exposure was found to exacerbate existing skin conditions; however, the effects of CFL exposure on healthy skin tissue have not been thoroughly investigated. In this study, we studied the effects of exposure to CFL illumination on healthy human skin tissue cells (fibroblasts and keratinocytes). Cells exposed to CFLs exhibited a decrease in the proliferation rate, a significant increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in their ability to contract collagen. Measurements of UV emissions from these bulbs found significant levels of UVC and UVA (mercury [Hg] emission lines), which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all bulbs studied. The response of the cells to the CFLs was consistent with damage from UV radiation, which was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs), normally used for UV absorption, were added prior to exposure. No effect on cells, with or without TiO2 NPs, was observed when they were exposed to incandescent light of the same intensity.

See the press release here.

Dr. Miriam Rafailovich, the lead researcher said, “Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation.” She also noted, “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 (titanium dioxide) nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.” Titanium dioxide is frequently used in sun blocker creams and in cosmetics.

Dr. Rafailovich added, “Our research shows that it is best to avoid using them [CFLs] at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover.”

Reader note: I did not have access to the full paper, so I am unable to assess their methodology.

See also:

How Many Haz-Mat Suits Do You Need to Change a Lightbulb?

The EPA procedures you must follow if you break a compact fluorescent light bulb

Would you pay $50 for a light bulb?

Would you pay $50 for a light bulb?

In 2007 Congress, in its wisdom, mandated that incandescent light bulbs be phased out. Next year, we will not be able to buy 100-watt bulbs. Bulbs of lower wattage will be banned in 2014. What about 3-way bulbs?

The first solution was to be CFL bulbs (compact fluorescent light) which were touted to last much longer and use less electricity than incandescent bulbs. They also cost about five-times more. I’ve tried CFLs in various applications around my house. In most applications, the CFLs burned out at about the same rate as the old-fashioned incandescent bulbs. More recently, there have been several reports that CFL catch fire. More troublesome, is the fact that CFLs contain mercury and if broken, they require extensive cleanup. See my articleHow many haz-mat suits does it take to change a light bulb?”.

Enter the next panacea: LED (light emitting diode) bulbs. These are touted to last much longer and use less electricity than incandescent bulbs. Principal manufacturers are Philips, a Dutch company, and GE which produces them in China. LEDs have been around in special application for a long time, but use for main household lighting is a different matter. Home Depot has been selling LED bulbs, the equivalent of a 60-watt bulb, for $40 each and the replacement for a 100-watt bulb is estimated to sell for $50 each. An LED can last up to 30 times the life of an incandescent bulb (but costs 50 times the price).

LEDs are said to generate little heat, but in certain fixtures what little heat they do generate quickly degrades the bulb’s efficiency and life. LEDs produce focused light which may make them undesirable for broad area lighting. Another potential problem is color rendering. That depends on the phosphors used and even on the angle of viewing. LED light is generally harsher than the light of incandescent bulbs. Many LEDs do not work with dimmers.

While LED bulbs contain no mercury, according to a study of LEDs from the University of California, Irvine, LEDs ” contain lead, arsenic, and a dozen other potentially hazardous substances…”

So, how many $50 light bulbs are you willing to buy? Maybe one of these days Congress will see the light, repeal their mandate, and allow consumers to choose the type of lighting that suits their needs.

How Many Haz-Mat Suits Do You Need to Change a Lightbulb?

Congress, in their wisdom, has mandated that the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt. They use too much energy you see. The government is encouraging us to use eco-friendly green lighting such as Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) or LEDs (light emitting diodes).

HazmatThe U.S. Department of Energy has a “Change a Light Bulb Program” in which they encourage us to replace incandescent light bulbs with more-energy-efficient, but much more expensive compact fluorescent bulbs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a similar program.

Compact fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury vapor which can be hazardous to our health. Therefore, the EPA recommends you take the following steps if you should break one in your home:

Before Cleanup

Have people and pets leave the room, and avoid the breakage area on the way out.

Open a window or door to the outdoors and leave the room for 5-10 minutes.

Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning (H&AC) system, if you have one.

Collect materials you will need to clean up the broken bulb:

Stiff paper or cardboard

Sticky tape (e.g., duct tape)

Damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces)

Glass jar with a metal lid (such as a canning jar) or a sealable plastic bag(s)

Cleanup Steps for Hard Surfaces

Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place debris and paper/cardboard in a glass jar with a metal lid. If a glass jar is not available, use a sealable plastic bag. (NOTE: Since a plastic bag will not prevent the mercury vapor from escaping, remove the plastic bag(s) from the home after cleanup.)

Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.

Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.

Vacuuming of hard surfaces during cleanup is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. [NOTE: It is possible that vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor, although available information on this problem is limited.] If vacuuming is needed to ensure removal of all broken glass, keep the following tips in mind:

Keep a window or door to the outdoors open;

Vacuum the area where the bulb was broken using the vacuum hose, if available; and

Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and seal the bag/vacuum debris, and any materials used to clean the vacuum, in a plastic bag.

Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly.

Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your area. Some states and communities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center.

Wash your hands with soap and water after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing bulb debris and cleanup materials.

Continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off, as practical, for several hours.

Cleanup Steps for Carpeting or Rugs

Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place debris and paper/cardboard in a glass jar with a metal lid. If a glass jar is not available, use a sealable plastic bag. (NOTE: Since a plastic bag will not prevent the mercury vapor from escaping, remove the plastic bag(s) from the home after cleanup.)

Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.

Vacuuming of carpeting or rugs during cleanup is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. [NOTE: It is possible that vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor, although available information on this problem is limited.] If vacuuming is needed to ensure removal of all broken glass, keep the following tips in mind:

Keep a window or door to the outdoors open;

Vacuum the area where the bulb was broken using the vacuum hose, if available, and

Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and seal the bag/vacuum debris, and any materials used to clean the vacuum, in a plastic bag.

Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly.

Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your area. Some states and communities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center.

Wash your hands with soap and water after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing bulb debris and cleanup materials.

Continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off, as practical, for several hours.

Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rugs: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

The next several times you vacuum the rug or carpet, shut off the H&AC system if you have one, close the doors to other rooms, and open a window or door to the outside before vacuuming. Change the vacuum bag after each use in this area.

After vacuuming is completed, keep the H&AC system shut off and the window or door to the outside open, as practical, for several hours.

Now isn’t that easy? Strangely enough, while DOE and EPA are encouraging Americans to use CFLs, they are discouraging school children in Southeast Asia from using CFLs. The EPA says, “Just as there are no safe uses of mercury and mercury-containing equipment in schools, there are no safe uses for these products in homes, either. Tell your parents about the toxic effects of mercury, and encourage them to remove all mercury products from your home.” (Source: see Section 3.4.2, page 17). It is not clear to me just why the EPA is concerned with school children in Southeast Asia.

The EPA’s current permissible exposure to elemental mercury via inhalation is 0.3 µg/m3. A broken bulb can put 200 to 800 µg/m3 into a room. If CFLs were not important to the EPA in its war on carbon dioxide, the EPA would probably ban them as unsafe.

Maybe we should skip CFLs and go to the more eco-friendly LED (light emitting diode) lights. They contain no mercury. But, according to a study of LEDs from the University of California, Irvine, LEDs ” contain lead, arsenic, and a dozen other potentially hazardous substances…”

Isn’t it ironic that the eco-friendly, green lighting systems are not only more expensive, but hazardous to our health. It’s time for the feds to stop micromanaging the type of lighting we use and give us back our old-fashioned, and much safer incandescent light bulbs.

Demise of Incandescent Light Bulbs May Increase Energy Use

“A light bulb factory closes in Virginia as mandated fluorescents are made in China. It’s now a crime to make or ship for sale 75-watt incandescent bulbs in the European Union…. The General Electric light bulb factory in Winchester, Va., closed this month, a victim, along with its 200 employees, of a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014.” notes Investor’s Business Daily.

Incandescent light bulbs waste much electricity by producing heat. Many governments have or are about to phase out incandescent light bulbs under the belief that other, more energy efficient lighting technology will reduce energy use.

Currently, artificial lighting uses 6.5% of the world’s primary energy, which translates into about 16% of world electrical generation, and it consumes about 0.72% of global GDP.

A new study conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, takes exception to the assumption that newer technology will mean lower energy consumption.

The study authors note that “Lighting technology is evolving rapidly. Filament-based incandescent lighting is giving way to gas-plasma-based fluorescent and high-intensity discharge technology, and over the next 10- to 20 years, may give way to solid-state technology.”

It has been assumed “that consumption of light is relatively insensitive to the cost of light, and that evolution of lighting technology resulting in an increase in efficiency and a decrease in cost

leads to a decrease in the consumption of energy rather than an increase in the consumption of light.” The authors of the new study, however, reject that assumption and instead assume “a sensitivity consistent with simple extrapolations of past behavior into the future.” They also analyze the interplay between lighting, human productivity, and energy consumption.

The paper concludes: “A principal conclusion is that there is a massive potential for growth in the consumption of light if new lighting technologies are developed with higher luminous efficacies and lower cost of light. A secondary conclusion is that this increased consumption of light has the potential to increase both human productivity and the consumption of energy associated with that productivity.”

If this analysis is correct, then government policy to phase out incandescent light bulbs will have the unintended consequence of increasing energy use, just the opposite of what was intended.

Citation: J. Y. Tsao et al, 2010, Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics perspective, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 354001; doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/43/35/354001

The paper is highly mathematical in justifying its conclusions, but if you are game, you can read the paper here.