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

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

See also

The Blue Wavelength Light Hazard and Melatonin Depression, and the Cancer Risk

This is part three of a continuing four part series on the multiple hazards of CFLs.

See also:

Part one: Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Health Hazards, Pt 1: Mercury Vapor

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

Making fluorescent and blue wavelength light

To create fluorescent light in a CFL bulb, the incoming 60Hz electrical “house” current is raised to 20,000Hz to 100,000Hz to electrically excite the mercury within the glass tubing, which releases UVC radiation, and blue wavelength light radiation— the wavelength of light just below violet light on the color spectrum. (see also “Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs): UVC Hazard)

And while a combination of colored wavelengths of light make up “white” light, light created by CFLs is heavily weighted in blue wavelength light, which is completely abnormal to the body at night, when lights are predominately used. Exposure to increased blue wavelength light at night depresses melatonin hormone levels, which are required to be elevated at night for the proper functioning of the immune system.

This can be compared to regular incandescent lights— now banned— which are weighted in the red, orange and yellow wavelengths of light— which do not adversely affect the body at night, or at any other time during the day.

The UVC radiation released— when the mercury in the glass compartment of a CFL is excited by the increased current created in the CFL (manipulated by the electrical circuitry in the base of the bulb) travels at the speed of light (as does all electromagnetic radiation, visible or invisible, natural or manmade) and electrically excites the phosphorous chemicals coated along the inner surface of the bulb.

These now excited, red, green and blue, phosphors then emit distinct spikes of red, green and blue wavelength light (in addition to the blue wavelength light emitted when mercury is excited to release UVC radiation), which all combined give the perception of “white light.”

This process of creating fluorescent light is completely different from the light created by incandescent lighting.

Regular standard incandescent light, similar to sunlight

To create incandescent light in a regular standard incandescent light bulb, the incoming 60Hz house current enters the bulb and passes, unchanged, through the fine tungsten-metal filament suspended in the center of the bulb. The metal filament then heats up and emits a blended, unbroken, spectrum of the colored wavelengths of lightvery similar to sunlight, though weighted in the red, orange and yellow wavelengths.

(A simple review of the visual color wavelength spectrum begins after infrared radiation (heat), followed by red, then orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, and then the ultraviolet radiations begin with UVA on up to UVC.)

And the difference in the quality of light emitted from a CFL and a standard incandescent light, particularly when used at night, is critically important.

Sunlight, like incandescent light, emits an unbroken spectrum of light, like a bell curve, but whose most intense light is blue wavelength light, which is required during the day to elevate serotonin hormone levels in the body needed for the body’s daytime hormones and cellular metabolic activities to function properly.

Since the sun and the moon and the stars existed before any species on earth developed, species with eyes developed their sight to the pre-existing visual daylight spectrum (high blue wavelength light) created by sunlight.

And when the sun sets, blue wavelength light in the natural environment disappears, and serotonin production is switched over to melatonin production— a critical hormone which initiates the preparation for sleep, and switching of the body’s energy over to its optimal use by the immune system to do repairs on the body’s cells during rest and sleep, and to locate and remove potential cell mutations that can become the forerunners of tumor formations.

Or, in other words, the body is NOT supposed to be exposed to elevated levels of blue wavelength light at night— the exact kind of light exposure the body is exposed to with the use of CFLs and LEDs.

Distracting the focus from biological safety to abstract energy “savings”

The way the government and “public interest” environmental groups distort, and criminally ignore, this critical biological safety factor— of the need to expose the body to low levels of blue wavelength light at night— is to focus not on hazardous blue wavelength light radiation at night (or elevated UVC radiation, or elevated manmade EMR radiation at any time of the day or night) emitted by CFLs, but to focus the public’s attention on the heat released in the creation of standard incandescent lighting.

While keeping silent of the fact that the release of heat to provide light by a standard incandescent light bulb is the same process that occurs naturally with the creation of sunlight. And which is the reason for the smooth, blended spectrum of light being emitted by both light sources, and which the eyes were only designed to interpret correctly.

But “public interest” environmental groups act like the environment is distinct from human biology and health, and ignore any of the real and dangerous hazards to human health from the use of CFLs, by focusing solely on energy savings (whether these savings are accurate or not, see below). When the baseline starting point for any product safety has to begin with its biological safety.

And only if a product is safe, then should the most energy efficient applications be considered.

Except apparently in the United States, where the public’s health is considered last in any product decision making. And as a result, the U.S. public’s health is the worst among all other developed nations. And the accompanying healthcare costs are allowed to skyrocket into the multi-trillion dollar-per-year level. While the supposed solution is simply to give the public more healthcare insurance, while allowing the products responsible for their increasing ill health, like CFLs, to continue to undermine their health.

What government agencies, like the FDA and the EPA, and the “public interest” environmental groups, have avoided telling the public is that standard incandescent lights— or this heat based light—is a completely safe light for the human body.

And that the standard incandescent lighting impact on global warming is virtually nonexistent.

And that the real adverse impacts of global warming are from the production, use, and charging of high-tech electronic products, which the U.S. government has banked its future on. Despite these high-tech products (including high-tech “energy saving” light bulb replacements from CFLs to LEDs) being responsible for the lion’s share of global warming, due to the extremely high level of electrical energy needed to produce and service these products. Which is overwhelmingly delivered by coal burning power plants, which then emit CO2 into the atmosphere and increase global warming conditions.

See also “CFL FRAUD: Regular light bulbs CAUSE global warming (CFLs PREVENT IT) part1” at:

Focusing on the heat released from standard incandescent lights bulbs as “wasted” energy is done intentionally to scapegoat and cover up the biological hazards of CFLs, and other “energy saving bulbs,” like halogen/incandescent hybrids or LEDs, as well as to totally distort the role that light bulb use plays in energy consumption, and subsequently in the creation of global warming conditions.

The total amount of electrical energy used by all standard incandescent lighting in the United States (before the ban) was around 3.6% — of all the electrical energy used. A figure comparable to all other developed nation’s energy consumption.

And replacing all standard incandescent bulbs with either CFLs, or LEDs or halogen/incandescent hybrid bulbs— which all present health risks to the public— would save, at most, 1% of electrical energy use. Leaving at least 99% of electrical energy use untouched, to continue to INCREASE global warming conditions.

What “public interest” environmental groups, who aggressively pushed for the ban of standard incandescent bulbs from the start, do not want the public to focus on is that fact that since 1980 lighting energy use has remained absolutely stable, while the high-tech product electrical energy drain has steadily soared, and kept parallel pace with ever increasing global warming trends, which only began to significantly rise, coincidentally, in the 1980s with the mass influx of computers into the market, and with their accompanying huge energy needs to produce the highly complex computer chips and the associated miniaturized electronics.

And this is reflected in the steady rise in electrical energy costs— not from light bulb use, but from a continuing saturation of the market by high-tech— so-called energy efficient— electronic appliances and products.

Any significant drain of electrical energy use is not from light bulbs, but from high-tech electronic products— in their production, use, or charging.

While in addition, these high-tech electronic products are also responsible for emitting highly abnormal, and harmful, amounts of manmade electromagnetic radiation fields, which are, in turn, adversely impacting human health. Whether by introducing abnormal levels of blue wavelength light to the eyes, or by exposing the body to a variety of completely abnormal manmade electromagnetic radiation (EMR). EMR that is readily capable of penetrating the body to adversely affect cell and organ systems, starting, “seemingly innocuously” with the body’s innate electrical fields at the molecular level. (See Part 4 for EMR hazards of CFLs)

How the eyes interpret light for the brain

In addition to recognizing shapes and colors, the eyes were designed to take in cues from the quality of light of the environment, and translate these light “cues” into nerve signals back to the brain (along the optic nerve) to adjust correct hormone levels within the body, to sustain the correct 24-hour awake/sleep cycle, known as the circadian rhythm. A critical daily day/night cycle that impacts correct biological functions, from cell divisions, on up to coordinated regulations between the brain and the rest of the body’s organs, and which subsequently keeps human beings, and all other species, alive and their biological systems in balance and functioning properly to sustain life and health.

Getting a bit more specific, in human beings, cells in the retina— at the back of the eye— retinal ganglion cells, interspersed between the “rods” and the “cones” (determining shapes and colors) have been designed by evolution to be highly sensitive to blue wavelength light, and to fire off nerve signals according to the amount of blue wavelength light they receive from the environment.

During the day, high levels of blue wavelength light from sunlight is translated into nerve signals initiated in the retinal cells that then travel through the eyes to the brain, to produce correct amounts of hormones to sustain daytime metabolic activity in the body’s cells.

And as expected, when the sun sets, the amount of blue wavelength light in the environment virtually ceases to exist, and the body subsequently adjusts to a new level of hormones to sustain optimal biological performance at night and during sleep.

Simply put, exposure to sunlight— high levels of blue wavelength light— initiates the pineal gland, located in the center of the brain near the cross of the optic nerve, to produce high levels of the hormone, serotonin, to adjust correct daytime activity (metabolism) within the body.

While low levels of blue wavelength light initiate the pineal gland to change over from creating serotonin, to creating melatonin hormone, for the shift into nighttime biological activity. With the cycle repeating itself the next day when the sun rises.

So obviously, the safest bulbs to use at night— when most lighting is used— are ones emitting very low level blue wavelength light, and weighted in the red, orange and yellow wavelengths that have virtually no adverse effect on depressing melatonin levels during night, or while sleeping. Which is exactly what standard incandescent lights provide.

And the worst ones to use are ones that emit elevated levels of blue wavelength light that depress melatonin levels during the night, and carry over the effect during sleep. Which is exactly what compact fluorescent lights create.

While in addition to the blue wavelength light emitted by the blue phosphors coated along the inner surface of the CLF bulb, and by exciting mercury vapor contained in the upper spiral glass compartment by raising household 60Hz current to 20,000Hz to 100,000Hz for CFLs to emit light (while emitting UVC and blue wavelength light), many CFL bulbs further enhance the blue phosphorous component to achieve brighter light— falsely promoting this to the public as a supposed advantage. When the exact opposite is the case when these bulbs are used at night.

Meanwhile, the human body has been acclimated to just the kind of light emitted by standard incandescent lights— weighted in the red wavelengths— for about 500,000 years. Beginning with fire light, and moving on to kerosene and then gas light.

Macular Degeneration. An eye disorder of the retina

In addition to impacting melatonin levels, overexposure of the eyes to blue wavelength light will also increase the risk of a condition called macular degeneration— the loss of retinal cells and sight beginning at the center of the field of vision and moving outwards. A condition that usually appears after the age of 70 (if it does appear), but which is increasingly being diagnosed decades earlier, in 40 and 50 year-olds.

When retinal ganglion cells at the back of the eye are exposed to blue wavelength light, they go through a type of exposure sequence that ends with the firing off of nerve impulses to the brain, and then regroup for another round of nerve firing. During the process of firing off a nerve signal, high amounts of free radical chemicals are produced in the retinal cells. And while free radicals created in this manner are normal by-products of chemical reactions, the retinal cells have to neutralize then before being ready to be excited again, or risk cellular damage.

But if the eyes are chronically over-exposed to blue wavelength light, the retinal cells are progressively over-exposed to free radicals chemicals and progressively lose the ability to neutralize the free radical buildup, and the chance of progressive free radical damage to cell structures, including the cell’s nucleus.

The same principle applies when these light radiation sensitive retinal cells are over-exposed to a variety of manmade electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation— not only from the 20,000Hz to 100,000Hz range emitted from CFLs, but on up to the microwave range in the millions and billions of hertz emitted by cell phones, computers, and all wireless products. Manmade EMR which is nearly 100% absorbed by the cells of the eye.

And the damage is not only limited to the cells of the retina. Highly sensitive eye structures, like tear ducts are also vulnerable, which also is a likely reason why there is such an abnormal increase in tear duct/“dry eye” problems in the population at ages well below the age when tear ducts begin to naturally dry up in the elderly.

Since the eyes were only designed, over the course of evolution, to be exposed to heat (infrared radiation) and light radiation from sunlight, and since there were (and are) no other natural-based electromagnetic radiation (EMR) sources between visual light in the trillion hertz range and the earth’s magnetic field at the 1to 30Hz range, any manmade electromagnetic radiation— and particularly radiofrequency radiation (above 3,000Hz)— anywhere in the vicinity of visual light radiation (including “low level” radiofrequency radiation of CFLs) will have the potential to abnormally stimulate and excite the retinal ganglion cells.


In addition to being released at night as a hormone that begins the shift of the body’s metabolism towards sleep, melatonin is also nature’s most effective free radical neutralizer.

Dispersed throughout the body to reach nearly all the body’s cells, melatonin helps to neutralize the free radical build-up within cells, which if not adequately kept in check can lead to the damage of the cells’ molecules and cellular structures, and increase the risk of tumor development.

Melatonin also plays an important role in binding to receptor sites on cell membranes to compete with abnormal amounts of lipid (linoleic fatty acid) biochemical molecules seeking entrance into cells, which happen to be one of the preferred nutrient sources for growing cancer cells.

And melatonin is also intricately linked to supporting the function of specific immune system cells and their biochemical components, whose job it is to repair the body’s cells and to destroy or disable early cell mutations from gaining a foothold and developing into more dangerous, early tumor structures.

Melatonin levels begin to rise when the sun sets, and peak between 2:00am and 4:00am— in coordination with the peak activity of the immune system, which performs its most effective activity at night when the rest of the body’s organ systems are using very little energy, which can subsequently be optimally used by the immune system.

Effect of light on melatonin

Studies have consistently shown that not only are exposures to elevated levels of blue wavelength light at night detrimental to sustaining normal melatonin levels, but exposure to bright light at night, in general, is also a risk.

The sleep research group at Harvard University has consistently shown that exposure to elevated levels of blue wavelength light at night has had very significant adverse impacts on lowering circulating melatonin levels at night and during sleep.

Typical of their research results are those of a study published in 2003— four years before the 2007 energy bill banning standard incandescent bulbs, and paving the way for the introduction of CFLs and other alternative light sources that also emit very bright light (halogens), and/or light sources emitting very high levels of blue wavelength light, such as light emitting diodes (LEDs).

Volunteers in the 2003 Harvard study were exposed to elevated levels of blue wavelength light for six and a half hours overnight— of similar magnitudes as released from CFL bulbs— and had their circulating melatonin levels diminished by at least 65% to an average of 85% throughout the night and up until the morning. In addition, exposure to blue wavelength light depressed melatonin levels twice that over the same exposure to green wavelength light— the next wavelength of light moving down the light spectrum towards red wavelength light.

Also worth noting, the Harvard research group took until the spring of 2012— nine years after the obvious implications of this 2003 studyto publish a mild warning about the blue wavelength light hazard from CFLs and LEDs in the Harvard Health Publications. Yet the Harvard researchers did not suggest banning these bulbs because of their obvious hazard to the production of critical melatonin levels, but only that the public might want to reduce their exposure to them (if they can, such as being forced to be exposed to them at work), and other high blue wavelength emissions from computer screens, etc. (which also use blue phosphors to produce brightness) a few hours before going to sleep, and/or to invest in costly eyewear with blue wavelength blocking lenses.

While another lighting study, published in 2010, and produced by another expert lighting group from the Lighting Research Center in New York at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, showed that exposure to the predominately red wavelength light— the kind produced by standard incandescent bulbs— did not at all depress melatonin levels at night.

As for exposure to bright light in general at night, studies have been produced for decades showing a direct correlation between exposure to bright light at night and the increased prevalence of cancers— with specific reference to breast and prostate cancers, since they have been studied the most. (Though because of the general link between melatonin and the immune system, depression of melatonin at night will have an increased risk on the development of virtually all cancers.)

Typical of this group of “light at night” studies are those produced by School of Public Health at the University of Haifa in Israel, by researchers Itai Kloog and Abraham Haim. And specifically of a study covering the entire country of Israel and published in 2008, “Light at Night Co-distributes with Incident Breast but not Lung Cancer in the Female Population of Israel,” which showed a direct, linear, and progressive relationship between the amount of light the public is exposed to at night and the increased prevalence of breast cancer. With up to a 73% increase risk of breast cancer for those exposed to the most light at night over those exposed to the least amount of light at night.

As a result of this and other studies, one of the prominent Israeli researchers of the study, Abraham Haim, has warned strongly about the potential of CFLs to depress melatonin when used at night, and the associated adverse impact on breast cancer risks.

Meanwhile, in 2011, the Israeli scientist, Abraham Haim, collaborating with Italian scientists at the Institute of Science and Technology Light Pollution and American scientists at the NOAA National Geophysical Data Center, in Boulder Colorado, published: Limiting the impact of light pollution on human health, environment and stellar visibility” in the Journal of Environmental Management which showed that LED (light emitting diode) lights reduced melatonin levels over 5 times that of yellow wavelength light sources— such as the now banned standard incandescent lights. With the researchers concluding of the increasing hazards to the public’s health from the increasing use of such high blue wavelength emitting light sources, not just being emitted from LEDs and CFLs, but from LED light sources used in cell phones and computer screens. (see next section)

The link between bright light at night and cancer is so strong that the usually ultra-conservative World Health Organization (WHO) had to admit in 2007 that light at night, as a result of "night shift-work," is a probable carcinogen.

Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs)

Light Emitting Diode (LED) bulbs, which are often promoted in an effort to offset the multiple health hazards produced by CFLs, while saving energy, also emit very high levels of blue wavelength light, as well as light that is very bright (as do halogen and halogen/incandescent hybrids replacing standard incandescent bulbs). And like CFLs, these alternative bulbs will also lead to the depression of melatonin when used at night (and because of their intense brightness will create an even greater melatonin depression risk).

LEDs create the impression of full spectrum “white” light by one of two methods. They can create it, as fluorescent lighting does, by using red, green and blue diodes that combine to create the perception of white light, while emitting very sharp respective spikes of radiation at these colored wavelengths. But because of the expense of using three types of diodes, the vast majority of LEDs designed to replace regular light bulbs use only one type of semi-conductor blue diode, surrounded by a yellow phosphorus coating on the inner surface of the bulb, which produces an extremely bright and intense blue wavelength spike, along with an accompanying, smaller, yellow wavelength emission.

Compounding the blue wavelength light risk, researchers at the University of California Davis and UC Irvine’s Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention published early in 2011 that LEDs also contain significantly harmful amounts of toxic chemicals like arsenic and lead, which, like CFLs, will not only pose a health risk if the bulbs break in a residence, but also will pose risks when deposited in landfills.

And because of this risk, the clean-up of LEDs requires a similar precaution as that needed for CFLs.

While additionally, LEDs also pose an EMR risk by also manipulating the incoming 60Hz household current to illuminate their colored diode components. A worse elevated EMR emission problem that also exists with halogens and halogen/hybrid incandescent replacement bulbs. (While Standard Incandescent lights emit zero EMR risks, other than an extremely low emission within an inch or two of the bulb, which will never be a problem for any user.)


Clearly the only safe bulb to use at night is a regular standard incandescent— the one bulb that is being fraudulently, and criminally irresponsibly, removed from the market. And preferably a lower wattage standard incandescent bulb as the night progresses— to best acclimate the body to the amount of light at night it was designed to be exposed to over the course of evolution, in order to best sustain its optimal production of melatonin.

Additionally, as will be documented in Part 4 in EMR HAZARDs, elevated manmade electromagnetic radiation fields in the ELF (extremely low frequency) and VLF (very low frequency) range— both being emitted by CFLs at 60Hz and 20,000 to 100,000 Hz— can penetrate the nearby user’s brain and adversely impact the pineal gland directly to reduce melatonin levels, compounding the blue wavelength light impact (a potential hazard that also exists with LEDs and halogens).

While in general, there has also been a growing concern about the population suffering from an increasing lack of sleep over the past decades. And while mattress companies are capitalizing on the problem, a lack of sleep among the vast majority of the public has likely far less to do with poor sleeping mattresses than from the public’s overexposure to increasing manmade electromagnetic radiation exposures at night, which can depress melatonin levels and disrupt proper sleep patterns.

The public, willingly or unwillingly, is being increasingly assaulted from such EMR emitting sources from computers and cell phones, cell phone charges, the recent increase of Wi-Fi, low-level, 24 hour microwave exposure in homes— to give the “convenience” of moving TVs and computers anywhere in the home— microwave emitting electrical Smart Meters— emitting low-level microwave pulses 24-hours a day— and from any other wireless product on the market, or any other high-tech product that contains internal electrical switching electronics that increase incoming 60Hz to higher frequencies to run the internal high-tech electronics circuitry of the products— from appliances to office equipment.

And now into that mix comes billions of CFLs, and other alternative “energy-saving” light bulbs— all of which emit elevated, and subsequently hazardous, levels of manmade EMR frequencies.

All the while the U.S. government “health” regulatory agencies pretend the growing and expanding EMR adverse effect on the public’s health is non-existent. By fraudulently setting exposure standards to allow for these non-thermal (below the level needed to created physical burns or electrocution), hazardous, and cumulative, adverse EMR impacts to occur. And then “innocently” pointing out— as their alleged defense— that the public exposures are still below U.S. safety levels. So that there is allegedly no problem, “legally.”

Without also revealing to the American public that U.S. “safety levels” for EMR exposures are on the order of at least 100-fold to 1,000-fold above other countries, like Sweden and Austria and Russia, which have been protecting their citizens for decades from the well-documented EMR hazards being emitted from very low-level, non-thermal exposures.

While U.S. “health regulators” have stubbornly set criminally high and hazardous EMR exposure levels to protect industry and Wall Street profits from the cost of safety regulations, at the expense of the U.S, public’s health (see also EMR HAZARDS in Part 4).

The simplest, safest, and most productive lighting solution for the public’s health, and the environment, IGNORED

Meanwhile, standard incandescent bulbs, which do not emit any EMR hazards to the user— the one safe bulb on the market, and virtually the only remaining safe electronic device still in use— are being outrageously, and criminally, banned from the market.

While any of the prior mentioned health hazards from CFLs: mercury vapor hazards, flame retardant chemical hazards, UVC hazards, and blue wavelength light hazards— none of which apply to standard incandescent bulbs— should have barred compact fluorescent lights from ever having been released into the market.

But because the promoters of CFLs, and other alternative “energy saving” lights, looked only at the isolated electrical energy use of an essential utility, lighting— and even fraudulently at that— in a panic and a criminally irresponsible rashness to address a vast and complicated global warming problem, they ignored the fundamental, first criteria, and obvious priority consideration of any light, or any other, product. IS IT SAFE?

And if it is not safe, you do no mass release it into the market and worry about the health hazards later, while abetting that crime by criminally suppressing those hazards to the public for an “ends justifies the means” agenda. Whatever that agenda is.

And CFLs ARE NOT SAFE. They never were, and they never will be (whether they have mercury in them or not). And they are not safe by not by multiple factors. And those that have, and continue to promote CFLs as safe will be accountable to the damages these bulbs will inevitably inflict on the public’s health.

While what can only be described as criminal absurdity surrounding the mass production and distribution of CFLs— along with the world-wide ban of completely biologically safe standard incandescent light bulbs— initiated and forced through by environmental “public interest” groups like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club and The Environmental Defense Fund, etc., is that the entire issue of reducing energy use from light bulbs, while protecting the health of the public and the environment, could have been simply and safely accomplished, and still given the global lighting industry a chance to make a modest profit in the bargain.

All that had to be done was for the United States, and other nations around the world, to produce a public relation campaign of literature and media announcements for a year or so on the dangers of being exposed to bright light at night, and the need to reduce light exposure as the night progresses— to not only preserve optimal levels of melatonin through the night to help protect against cancer, but to realistically, and safely, and responsibly, help to reduce energy use by reducing lighting wattages.

And then to advise lighting conglomerates, like GE and Phillips and Sylvania, to produce a three-way standard incandescent light bulb— from 60watt to 40watt to 25watt— for the public to begin using to reduce their lighting exposures in their homes at night. While slowly reducing the number of 100watt and 75watt bulbs in circulation, and to encourage the use of higher wattage bulbs for only those in the society who, because of medical issues, require brighter light at night to see.

Instead, a criminally fraudulent hysteria campaign was allowed to race across the world banning all incandescent light bulbs and replacing them with all hazardous high-tech lighting alternatives, from CFLs to LEDs. With CFLs being by far the most prolific alternative bulb produced and distributed into the market, and by far and above the most dangerous bulb ever designed for mass use.

All this was done to defraud the world’s population, so that environmental “public interest” groups could protect their own interests in the high-tech energy industry, which, along with the computer industry, whose parts are utilized in all high-tech products, are creating the indefensible lion’s share of electrical energy drain across the world, and subsequently the lion’s share of the CO2 emissions into the environment, and subsequently being responsible for the lion’s share of global warming increases.

While throughout the entire absurd and criminally outrageous process, the lighting global conglomerates, like GE, were allowed to get behind the move to ban standard incandescent lighting so that they could “greenwash” themselves while getting in on the $billions to be made on the forced switch-over to high-tech lighting— while pretending that their motivation was to help the environment, while in reality not giving a damn about the human health fallout that would result from the high-tech bulbs they would be dumping into the market, for the highest prices they could get.

End of Part 3

Part 4 continues with the multiple manmade electromagnetic radiation (EMR) hazards from CFL use— both directly to the nearby user, and indirectly to the user and to others in adjacent rooms or apartments.

See also: Parts 1 and 2

Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Health Hazards, Pt 1: Mercury Vapor” at:

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

And the energy saving fraud of CFLs in:

"FRAUD: Regular light bulbs CAUSE global warming (CFLs PREVENT IT) part 1" at:

"FRAUD: Regular light bulbs CAUSE global warming (CFLs PREVENT IT) Part 2" at:



  • Johnny Manziel
    Should Johnny Manziel apologize for his hard partying over the offseason?
    Today's Buzz
  • Crop circles
    Similar crop circles appeared in Germany and England within days of each other
    19 Photos
  • Advanced placement
    The AP program is gaining traction as a key component in college admissions
    5 Photos
  • Beach hats
    Beat the heat with the best summer beach hats for women
    Beach Hats
  • Expectations for ministry
    Pastor preaches to newly ordained ministers about expectations for ministry
    6 Photos
  • Medical symptoms
    See which symptoms should cause you to seek a doctor’s attention right away
    6 Photos