Skip to main content
  1. Life
  2. Health & Fitness
  3. Healthcare

Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Hazards: The UVC Hazard, Pt 2

See also

When 60Hz household current (power line electrical current) enters a lamp and passes into the plastic covered base of the compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb, the circuitry within the base of the bulb digitally raises the incoming current from 60Hz to 20,000Hz to 100,000Hz. This is done to electrically excite the mercury in the upper spiral glass compartment of the bulb.

In this first step of creating fluorescent light, the excited mercury particles then emit Ultraviolet C (UVC) radiation, which moves at the speed of light towards the phosphorous chemicals painted along the inner glass surface of the bulb, exciting them to another energy level, which results in the emission of fluorescent light.

But the UVC radiation is not contained within the glass of the bulb; it passes through it, and can adversely impact the nearby user.

And the UVC radiation emitted outside a CFL presents a much greater hazard than that emitted by tubular fluorescent lights, which also produce UVC radiation. This is because tubular fluorescent lights, while creating fluorescent light in a similar process, have diffusers or “prismatic filters” within the tubular glass, or use plastic covers, which help to diffuse some of the produced UVC radiation from reaching the user.

The other obvious difference between tubular fluorescent lights and CFLs is that CFLs will likely be used much closer to the user, exposing the user to more intense UVC radiation.

But once again, like the mercury hazard surrounding these bulbs, if and when a CFL breaks, a well-financed public relations campaign has been in place for years, by the lighting industry, government “regulatory” agencies and “public interest” environmental groups, to downplay and misinform the UVC risk to the public.

See also: “Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Health Hazards, Pt 1: Mercury Vapor” at: http://www.examiner.com/article/compact-fluorescent-light-cfl-health-hazards-pt-1-mercury-vapor

The UVC hazard

The intentionally misleading public relations line used to allegedly “ease the fears” of consumers is that the general ultraviolet radiation a person is exposed to while using a CFL is far less than what they would receive from sunlight. This would only be “technically true,” if it were only considering part of the UV spectrum.

Lumping together all UV radiation— to obscure a specific danger within the group— has been a classic technique used by industry and the military for decades to try and hide or lose incriminating research results of a specific hazard within the group.

Ultraviolet radiation from the sun is composed of three types of UV radiation: UVA, UVB and UVC— with UVC radiation having the shortest wavelength and the highest radiation energy, and subsequently being the most dangerous.

And while both UVA and UVB radiation reach the earth’s surface from the sun, UVC radiation

does not reach the earth’s surface. So stating that a person is exposed to more UVC radiation from the sun than from exposure from CFLs is flat out false.

UVC radiation is completely blocked by the earth’s ozone layer. (See also later sub-section on Skin Cancer for misinformation surrounding the suggestion that rises in skin cancer rates is due to depletion of the ozone layer covering populated regions.)

As a result of the UVC radiation never reaching the earth’s surface, no species on the planet was ever designed to protect itself against this extremely dangerous form of UV radiation, which, in human beings can easily penetrate the skin and break DNA bonds, or damage the DNA during DNA replication, to create cell mutations as a forerunner to skin cancer, as well as a host of other skin and eye hazards.

Germicide lamps, which are used to sterilize surgical equipment, kill bacteria by emitting UVC radiation. Because bacteria, like the cells of human beings, were also never designed to protect themselves against UVC radiation. ("Device physics: A bug-beating diode" by Asif Khan, Nature, May 2006 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7091/full/441299a.html)

And the amount of UVC radiation emitted outside CFL bulbs is not minor, or insignificant, as implied by industry, government, and “public interest” environmental groups.

It is the exact opposite. It is massively more than the amount of UVC radiation that even “theoretically” reaches the earth’s surface from the sun.

UVC radiation emitted from CFLs is, at minimum, 10,000 TIMES that which reaches the earth’s surface from the sun

In 2008, the British Health Protection Agency (the equivalent of the U.S. EPA or FDA) published “Optical radiation emissions from compact fluorescent lamps”— a study which performed a variety of tests on over 70 CFL bulbs, and recorded that CFLs are capable of emitting UVC radiation outside the bulbs at levels of 0.1 to 1.0 mW/m2/nm (miliwatt/meter/nanometer).

("Optical radiation emissions from compact fluorescent lamps," M. Khazova, J.B. O’Hagan, Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2008 131(14):521-525, Aug. 2008, Published by Oxford University Press http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/4/521.abstract )

This can be compared to the “measurable” amount of UVC radiation that reaches the earth’s surface from the sun— which is estimated to be less than 1 x 10-12 W/cm2/nm, or 1 trillionth of a Watt.

When you do the conversions (which the British study did not bother to do for comparison), the lower level of UVC radiation emitted by a CFL, 0.1mW/m2, is equal to 1 x 10-8 W/cm2, and the upper level of UVC emitted is 1.0mW/m2, or equal to 1 x 10-7W/cm2.

This is compared to 1 x 10-12 W/cm2 UVC radiation that reaches the earth’s surface from the sun.

This means that CFLs can expose the user to (1 x 104) or 10,000 times to (1 x 105) or 100,000 times the amount of UVC radiation that reaches the earth’s surface from the sun. That is extremely significant.

Fraudulently downplaying the real UVC exposure hazard posed to the public from CFL bulbs is beyond public relations disinformation; it is flat out criminal reckless endangerment of the public’s safety.

Trivializing the health risks from the public's exposure to CFL bulbs

Meanwhile, as a result of their 2008 study, the British Health Protection Agency had to issue several public health warnings about these bulbs (just based upon optical problems, and not even touching upon the mercury vapor hazard if broken, elevated blue wavelength light radiation at night reducing melatonin levels, or manmade EMR exposure increasing the risk of cancers).

And the warning about UVC radiation was that users should NOT USE CFLs for longer than one hour per day for close task work— such as a desk lamp or reading lamp. And that using a metal shade— the construction of virtually all desk lamp shades— will further increase the UVC hazard.

And that those in the population who are particularly sensitive to UV radiation should simply avoid the use of these bulbs. Such as those suffering from lupus.

These “health warnings,” themselves, were not only totally incomplete, but their application, totally absurd.

First of all, every single human being on the planet using these bulbs is going to be exposed to, and be vulnerable to, hazardous levels of UVC radiation that have been documented for years in creating very serious DNA damage.

Secondly, it is ludicrous to assume that you can release a bulb into the market that is so dangerous that it is advised that it should only be used for one hour a day due to its UV radiation hazard, and then expect the public to abide by this safety suggestion— which in and of itself is not safe. Any exposure to UVC radiation— and particularly chronic, daily exposure— is going to present a very serious risk of damage to human cells.

The 2008 British study also suggested that the public use CFLs that have a plastic envelope (cover) surrounding the usual, exposed, spiral bulb— to help to diffuse a portion of the UVC radiation being emitted through the bulb’s glass.

That’s a nice suggestion, except that one, plastic “enveloped” CFLs are very rare in the lighting market, and two, there have already been billions of “un-enveloped” CFLs released into the market, and continue to be released4 years after the publication of this study. Three, plastic “enveloped” CFLs have absolutely no effect on, and afford no protection against, blocking hazardous elevated levels of manmade electromagnetic radiation (EMR) that are also emitted from these bulbs. And which will also penetrate human tissue of the nearby user and compound the skin hazard risk from the UVC exposure. (See also EMR Hazards in Part 4) And four, plastic covered CFLs only partially block the UVC hazard, which still exists from these "enveloped" bulbs.

Corroborating the UVC hazard

Four years after the British CFL study, U.S. researchers predictably confirmed the UVC hazard from CFLs.

In “The Effects of UV Emission from Compact Fluorescent Light Exposure on Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes In Vitro,” published in the June 2012 issue of Photochemistry and Photobiology, researchers at New York Long Island’s Stony Brook University exposed human skin cells to both CFLs and regular standard incandescent light bulbs for 5 hours and at a distance of 35 centimeters— about 15 inches, or about the distance of the body from a desk or bedtime reading lamp.

The results of the study showed that skin cells— keratinocytes (90% of the skin cells) and fibroblasts (skin cells involved in wound healing) were abnormally altered by ultraviolet radiation damage (free radical damage) when exposed to ALL CFLs tested.

Conversely ALL standard incandescent bulbs tested produced NO EFFECTS on the skin cells.
(A completely predictable outcome since standard incandescent lights emit negligible UV radiation.)

The conclusion of study being that if using a CFL bulb as a desk lamp or reading lamp, get ready for some kind of serious skin damage, up to and including cancer— not to mention eye damage as well.

Also worth noting, the Stony Brook researchers also lightly infused the skin cells with Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles (manmade billionth of a gram molecules that distort normal atomic charges leading to a wide range of hazardous molecular effects) commonly used in most modern “sun block,” “UV protective” personal care products.

And when the researchers exposed these so-called “UV-protected” skin cells with CFL lighting, they recorded even more damage to the skin cells from free radical damage. See relevance of this aspect of the research study in the later section: Sunscreens and hidden health hazards.

The Skin Cancer hazard (and the fraudulent Ozone depletion excuse)

Aside from multiple skin and eye hazards, skin cancer will become a significant risk from the chronic, nearby use of CFLs.

But the "public interest" environmental groups that initiated the whole process to ban completely biologically safe standard incandescent light bulbs and replace them with billions of CFLs, based on a totally distorted and insignificant electrical energy savings claim, are not interested in the UVC hazard to individuals. And pretend it doesn't exist.

In the face of the completely unnecessary, and outrageous, multiple health hazards forced upon the public by removing completely safe standard incandescent bulbs from the market, the environmental groups and the U.S. healthcare community would like the public to believe that the steady rise in skin cancer over the last decades is due to either the use of artificial tanning beds, or to the increased depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer.

The truth, however, is that neither of these two sources can account for the steady rise of skin cancer seen in the public.

Over a 50-year period in the United States, from 1930 to 1980, skin cancer rates of melanoma— the most dangerous form of skin cancer— have increased over 6-fold relative to the population growth, or by over 500%.

While in Norway, virtual identical recordings of skin cancer rates over a 25-year period (1957 to 1984) have been documented. And have recorded increases of 350% in men and 440% in women, with a follow-up study comparing rates from 1960 to1990, and registering a 600% increase.

The Norway study was performed by one of the world’s leading experts in the area of skin cancer, Johan Moan, PhD, Group Leader at the Department of Radiation Biology at the Norwegian Cancer Institute, and published in the British Journal of Cancer in June of 1992.

What the Norway study, “The relationship between skin cancer, solar radiation and ozone depletion,” also found was that this rise in skin cancer was not connected to any ozone depletion— a fact corroborated by two of Sweden’s most recognized expert researchers in the area of dermatology and epidemiology— Orjan Halberg and Olle Johanson, from the Experimental Dermatology Unit and the Department of Neuroscience at the world renowned Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden (over the course of their own, multiple, published studies covering the ever increasing cancer prevalence.) http://home.swipnet.se/~w-78067/Cancers.htm

While there is some ozone depletion occurring, it is not occurring over populated regions in Europe or the United States, but concentrated in the north and South Pole regions— which probably accounts for one of the reasons for the increased melting of the polar ice cap. And this polar depletion of the so-called "general ozone” surrounding the planet could not, and cannot, account for the steady increases of skin cancer over the past decades (1930-1980).

Meanwhile, from 1980 to 2010 in the U.S., skin cancer (melanoma) rates have further increased over 4-fold, or over an additional 300% in 30 years. http://www.webmd.com/melanoma-skin-cancer/news/20100309/melanoma-cases-o...

While non-melanoma skin cancer rates, during the same period, have been higher than all other cancer combined.

(This occurring at a time when computer and cell phones use has been increasingly dominating the market. See more for the association to skin cancer in the later section, Likely greatest risk factor for current skin cancer increases.)

The tanning bed over-emphasized impact on skin cancer

Tanning beds— which the U.S. medical community indicts for apparently adding significantly to increased skin cancer rates— particularly among 15-30 year olds, where skin cancer is the most prevalent cancer of this age group— were not even introduced into the country until 1979, and thus could not have had any impact on the over 6-fold increase of skin cancer recorded in the U.S. from 1930 to 1980.

While skin cancer increases related to tanning beds after 1980 can only account for a small percentage of skin cancer increases in the general population.

Additionally, tanning beds, which are nothing more than beds with rows of tubular fluorescent lights attached to them, emit 97% of UV radiation as UVA radiation, with the remainder 3% as UVB radiation— and emit no UVC radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanning_bed

And while it is obvious that being chronically exposed to this kind of nearby UVA and UVB radiation will definitely increase skin cancer risks— which has become a priority health concern of the U.S. medical community— there has been absolutely no concern registered by the same U.S. medical community for the well over 100 million Americans who will very likely be exposed to CFL lighting, and to hazardous levels of far more dangerous UVC radiation.

Ozone depletion by upcoming "space tourism" flights, ignored

Additionally, while the U.S. medical community is apparently highly concerned about the ozone depletion— although this is not the cause for the skyrocketing increases in skin cancer— it has also chosen not to offer one iota of criticism of the new, sub-orbital, "space tourism" flights to the edge of space, spearheaded by Virgin Airlines.

These completely unnecessary " space tourism" flights into the upper atmosphere, where the ozone layer exists, will be dumping tons of hydrocarbon exhaust particles into the upper regions of the atmosphere, and which will be significantly depleting the ozone, as well as increasing global warming conditions.

Virgin Airlines’ CEO, Richard Branson, who's Virgin Airlines is the leading promoter of these space flights for wealthy clients, is also one of the most outspoken “environmentalists” warning about the hazards of global warming. And as he cavalierly advocates the mass use of CFLs as an allegedly solution to help ward off global warming, he himself creates perhaps the worst damage to the atmosphere, purely for self-serving profits, couched as opportunities to allegedly appreciate the earth from the atmosphere, of which he and others are fast degrading.

(See also, "FRAUD: Regular light bulbs CAUSE global warming (CFLs PREVENT IT) Part 2" at http://www.examiner.com/article/fraud-regular-light-bulbs-cause-global-warming-cfls-prevent-it-part-2

Sunscreens and hidden health hazards

Meanwhile, as a supposed way of trying to get a handle on the steadily rising skin cancer rates— which have become the fastest growing cancer rates of all cancers— the U.S. medical community promotes that the public to continually use sunscreens when outside, to allegedly “block” the damage of UVA and UVB radiation from the sun.

Aside from the fact that sun exposure is completely normal (unless one believes that human beings were designed to live in caves or underground like moles or earthworms) and significantly beneficial to human biology, for a variety of reasons— among them, for the creation of vitamin D in the skin needed to sustain healthy bones, as well as to help protect against the development of cancers— the chemicals compounds in sunscreens are themselves hazardous to the body. (While they additionally block the normal creation of Vitamin D in the skin.)

The active chemicals in most sunscreens like benzophenone, or its derivative oxybenzone, etc., or synthetic Vitamin A (retinyl or retinyl plamitate), or Titanium Oxide (TiO2), or the ubiquitous PABA (para-aminobenzoic acid)-- which has since been removed from sunscreens after having been identified as a probable carcinogenic, while this and other related health information on PABA has been illegally suppressed from the public by the FDA, for at least a decadedo not block sunlight radiation as advertised. http://naturalsociety.com/sunscreen-causes-cancer-what-you-may-not-know-...

Sunscreen chemicals absorb, and become “photo-excited” by the incoming UVA and UVB radiation from the sun. And in doing so, become powerful free radical chemicals, which can increase damage in skin cells, including that of the DNA of skin cells.

While additionally, many of these highly reactive, fat-soluble chemicals used in sunscreens (except for PABA which is water soluble) can also act as estrogen-like compounds when absorbed into the skin— further placing the user at risk for cancer development, since abnormal levels of estrogen, and/or synthetic derived estrogen by-products, can induce and increase abnormal cell growth.

Meanwhile, and only further corroborating the fact that UVC does not reach the earth’s surface, there is not one sunscreen on the market that suggests it blocks UVC radiation. If it did, its makers would be committing fraud and would open themselves to being sued— unlike the promoters of CFLs, who apparently exist within some kind of hands-off exclusion clause to commit fraud at will about the apparent “lack of” health risks surrounding CFLs.

The likely greatest risk factor for the current skin cancer increases

The single most likely cause of the epidemic, and rising, skin cancer rates since the 1930s is the one consistent environmental toxin that has kept parallel pace with the steady rise in skin cancers in the population— the public's increasing and continually nearer exposure to various forms of manmade electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which have been increasingly emanating from a variety of electronic sources and their delivery systems over the decades. And which will now add CFLs to their list. Sources like cell phones and computers and multitudes of wireless products, etc.

Yet this is the one major environmental toxin that the U.S. medical community refuses to acknowledge. Despite thousands of studies published since the 1940s incriminating chronic manmade EMR exposure for a wide variety of health risks, up to and including cancer.

This denial exists, in part, because the U.S. medical community itself is heavily invested in high-tech electrical technology, regardless if these products emit a wide range of manmade, and subsequently completely foreign to human biology, and harmful, electromagnetic radiation. And because the U.S. medical community criminally irresponsibly protects other industries that produce manmade EMR products and delivery systems.

Beginning with early radio frequencies in the 1930s, to the development of radar microwave frequencies during World War II, to the surge of commercial radio and television broadcast frequencies after WWII in the tens of thousands, then the hundreds of thousands, and then million hertz range, including the steady rise of microwave telecommunication telephone frequencies, to military and commercial microwave emitting satellite signals, to the wireless signals for computers, cell phones and other wireless devices, to the transfer to digital television signals (much more dangerous than previous analogue television signals), to the wide use of high-tech medical equipment, and to the overall, ever nearer, exposure of the public to these manmade and completely foreign to human biology EMR frequencies— all of which can penetrate the human body and exact varying amounts of damage and chaos on human molecular electrical fields, which can in turn adversely affect molecular reactions upon which correct functioning cell systems are dependent, leading to adverse impacts on organ systems (see also later section on EMR Hazards in Part 4)— the human body has been increasingly exposed to a massive amount of abnormal electromagnetic radiation frequencies that it was never designed to recognize, or for which its molecular and cellular components were never designed to function correctly.

And what is the first tissue that all of these manmade EMR frequencies penetrate, before going on to deeper tissues, like internal organs, muscle and bone? THE SKIN.

Not surprisingly, multiple, highly accurate, studies over the years have continually incriminated skin cancer development with the chronic exposure to low-level, non-thermal, manmade electromagnetic radiation emanating from a variety of sources-- including manmade EMR emitted from fluorescent lights, documented since the early 1980s. (See EMR Hazard section Part 4.)

It is not at all surprising that skin cancer is the number one cancer for 15-30 year olds. Not because they use tanning beds, but because they are dead center in the demographic of those in the population who use computers and wireless technology the most.

And for the same reason, it is also not shocking that skin cancers are rising the fastest among all cancers in the general population. And that they will only continue to rise, since there is virtually nothing being done in the United States to regulate the safety of the public’s exposure to these manmade electromagnetic radiation hazards— and particularly those that are emanating off high-tech electronics or their antenna support system, and which will now include CFLs. (See also EMR Hazards in Part 4)

Corroborating this obvious connection between skin cancers and the chronic exposure to manmade EMR sources, in 1990, the U.S. EPA composed a draft report that stated that manmade electromagnetic exposure in the extremely low frequency range (ELF)— part of the range that is emitted by CFLs at hazardous levels— “is a probable carcinogen.” (see Microwave News May/June 1990 issue at: http://microwavenews.com/back-issues/1990 )

But the 1990 EPA draft was never published. Not because it wasn’t accurate, but because the military and the electrical industry used their formidable influence to suppress its publication during the Bush Sr. administration.

Not that it would have made any difference if it had been drafted during the Clinton administration, or the Bush Jr. administration, or the present Obama administration.

Not only has the same research results been available to each and every one of these administrations, but the evidence accruing from around the world— since the U.S. has officially stopped doing any research into the adverse health effects of manmade EMR hazards since the mid-1990s (an illegality in and of itself)— has only increased, and only further implicated and connected manmade EMR exposure at non-thermal levels to cancer development.

And what were the findings in 1990 that spurred the EPA to write up its draft report?

That the most prevalent cancers associated with elevated exposures to non-thermal, low-level, manmade EMR were leukemia, brain cancer, and malignant melanomasskin cancersthe exact same kinds of cancers that are surging in epidemic numbers today, twenty years later.

http://microwavenews.com/back-issues/1990 (May/June issue)

A denial that continues to criminally irresponsibly place the public's health at risk

Meanwhile, there are those in the public who continually come to the defense of the present ban of standard incandescent bulbs— the safest bulbs on the market that do not pose a skin cancer, or any other, health risk to the public— by stating that incandescent bulbs are not really being banned, they are only being replaced by more energy efficient alternative incandescent light bulbs.

These “energy efficient” incandescent replacement/alternatives they are referring to are halogen/incandescent hybrid bulbs. These bulbs have a halogen element within them, which also emits very high levels of UVC radiation outside the bulbs, at comparable levels as those emitted by CFLs, and which also emit elevated levels of hazardous manmade electromagnetic radiation— posing an additional, increased risk for skin cancers and other skin and eye abnormalities. While LED (light emitting diode) bulbs, though not emitting elevated levels of UVC radiation, emit elevated levels of manmade EMR, and very high levels of blue wavelength light radiation which will suppress melatonin levels when used at night and increase the risk of developing a variety of cancers.

End Part 2

Part 3 continues with the Blue Wavelength Light hazard, which reduces melatonin levels in those exposed to these bulbs at night, reducing the ability of the body’s immune system to function correctly, and increasing the risk of the development of multiple forms of cancer.

Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs): Blue Wavelength Light and Cancer Risk, Pt 3 at:

http://www.examiner.com/article/compact-fluorescent-lights-cfls-blue-wavelength-light-and-cancer-risk-pt-3-1

Advertisement

Life

  • Dead babies found
    Seven dead babies were found in Utah resident Megan Huntsman's old home
    Video
    Shocking Discovery
  • Kendall Jenner
    Get the Coachella looks: Kendall Jenner’s nose ring, green hair and edgy nails
    Camera
    Coachella Look
  • Dog's Easter basket
    How to fill your dog’s Easter basket with the perfect toys
    Easter Basket
  • Rabbit owners
    Bringing home the bunny: Important information for rabbit owners
    Camera
    7 Photos
  • Haunted island
    The world’s most haunted island may soon be the most haunted luxury resort
    Haunted Resort
  • Sunken ferry
    Search continues for missing passengers after a ferry sinks off the South Korean coast
    Video
    Sunken Ferry

User login

Log in
Sign in with your email and password. Or reset your password.
Write for us
Interested in becoming an Examiner and sharing your experience and passion? We're always looking for quality writers. Find out more about Examiner.com and apply today!