76e13450c0a8f3e17899e13d2cf015ed

Finally!  A scientific study I can get behind!  From Examiner.com:

Environmentalists have pushed to abolish traditional incandescent light bulbs, in order to reduce the amount of electricity needed to light up our homes.

However, a small but vocal minority has insisted that the curlicue-shaped compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) pose a threat to human health.

Now, a group of scientists at Stony Brook University has proven that CFLs do emit ultraviolet (UV) light rays that can harm human skin cells.

Did you get that?  They can harm human skin cells! Regular old lightbulbs are safer, for you and your loved ones:

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said Miriam Rafailovich, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and the lead scientist for the study.

“Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure,” she said.

The researchers found that incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells, with or without the presence of TiO2. Incandescent lamps do not emit significant quantities of UV radiation.

All of which means, simply, this:  environmentalists want you to die and they want to irradiate your children and loved ones.

(Hey, if they can get hysterical and screechy, so can we.)

Comments:


raycon and lindacon
Joined
Oct '10
raycon

To be serious now, we at my house have entirely ignored the issue.  Still have plenty of incandescent bulbs here, and there are still plenty of them around at Lowe's and Home Depot. 

In my industry, television production, the industry is rapidly changing over to LED fixtures.  LED light panels are color balanced, as bright as 2KW quartz TV lights, and emit so little heat that the last few studios I designed eliminated the need for massive power distribution systems and humongous air conditioning systems.  That, itself, paid for the cost of the rather expensive LED fixtures, and will result in thousands of dollars per month in electricity cost savings.  And, the feral government has had nothing to do with it.  They didn't build it.

In my home I already have several LED light bulbs, including one in my greenhouse.  No heat, 100 watt light equivalent using only about 13 watts, and they last for 25,000 hours.  And, they are dimmable. 

The absolutely best part.  No government person whatsoever had anything to do with it.  By the way, most high powered LEDs, including car headlights, are made in China, since new businesses don't take chances here.

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10
tabula rasa

Back in the day, when you contemplated the fact that a day might come when you would need to rise up in revolt, did it ever occur to you that the precipitating event would be the banning of light bulbs that actually light a room? [We do have a few other issues, but this one may tip us all over the edge]

Also, does Congress, and that includes the Republicans who voted for this monstrosity, ever consider new data?  I'm certain the smart party, the one's who just go where the data takes them, will bring back the incandescent light.  Right?

SMatthewStolte
Joined
Feb '11
SMatthewStolte

Oh, but LEDs were once promoted on an NPR story. So you are obviously a liberal.

Cutlass
Joined
Apr '11
Cutlass

Okay, time to put to use what we've learned from the left!

Just did some googling on skin cancer.

"Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than 3.5 million skin cancers in over two million people are diagnosed annually."

Nearly everyone is exposed to LED lights, and - as with second-hand smoke - we have to presume that NO exposure is safe!

"The incidence of many common cancers is falling, but the incidence of melanoma continues to rise at a rate faster than that of any of the seven most common cancers. Between 1992 and 2004, melanoma incidence increased 45 percent, or 3.1 percent annually"

This CLEARLY a correlates to the increased use of LEDs in our offices, homes and public places! What about the children!?! 

raycon and lindacon
Joined
Oct '10
raycon

Time to demonize the LED as being almost as as bad as incandescent.  After all, the CFL has the mark of the beast on it, so it clearly is the feral government's number one solution.  Actually, rolling blackouts and general suffering are a much faster way to really screw up what remains of freedom.  With blackouts, everyone suffers equally.  The crowning achievement of socialism.

Good news though.  The socialist experiment is rapidly running out of other peoples money.  There is hope.

ConservativeWanderer
Joined
Jun '12
ConservativeWanderer

Cutlass: Okay, time to put to use what we've learned from the left!

Just did some googling on skin cancer.

"Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than 3.5 million skin cancers in over two million people are diagnosed annually."

Nearly everyone is exposed to LED lights, and - as with second-hand smoke - we have to presume that NO exposure is safe!

"The incidence of many common cancers is falling, but the incidence of melanoma continues to rise at a rate faster than that of any of the seven most common cancers. Between 1992 and 2004, melanoma incidence increased 45 percent, or 3.1 percent annually"

This CLEARLY a correlates to the increased use of LEDs in our offices, homes and public places! What about thechildren!?!  · 11 minutes ago

I think you meant CFLs, not LEDs.

John Murdoch
Joined
Sep '11
John Murdoch

The federal government is already aware of the risks posed by fluorescent lamps. 

Several years ago I was the engineering leader for a project involving newly-developed digitally-addressable dimming fluorescent ballasts. To aid in development we built a series of "test walls"--each of which had 16 2-lamp ballasts. 

In talking about this with engineers from Underwriters Laboratories (the electrical certification people) they mentioned that OSHA was cracking down on fluorescent test walls, because they violated federal standards for exposure to UV radiation. It turns out that OSHA's limits for UV radiation in the workplace work out to no more than 10 hours per day in a typical office environment with overhead fluorescent lights. 

The UL guys actually got grief from OSHA about it--because a wall of ballasts exposes you to a lot more UV than one or two fixtures will. So we installed a UV-filtering screen over each test wall.

CFLs have significant environmental risks--they "fluoresce" because there's mercury in that tube; when they're thrown out, that mercury goes into the landfill, and into the groundwater. And they really and truly pose a UV radiation hazard as well. 

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
Mel Foil

raycon: Time to demonize the LED as being almost as as bad as incandescent.  After all, the CFL has the mark of the beast on it, so it clearly is the feral government's number one solution.  Actually, rolling blackouts and general suffering are a much faster way to really screw up what remains of freedom.  With blackouts, everyone suffers equally.  The crowning achievement of socialism.

Good news though.  The socialist experiment is rapidly running out of other peoples money.  There is hope.

Maybe it's her imagination, but I know someone who claims to get headaches from LED lights--at least some of them. Most people can't detect the flicker. It's too fast. But, she claims to get headaches from it.

EJHill
Joined
May '10
EJHill

DIM BULBS PUSHED BY DIM BULBS CAUSE CANCERWomen and children hardest hit

Cutlass
Joined
Apr '11
Cutlass

ConservativeWanderer

Cutlass: Okay, time to put to use what we've learned from the left!

Just did some googling on skin cancer.

"Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than 3.5 million skin cancers in over two million people are diagnosed annually."

Nearly everyone is exposed to LED lights, and - as with second-hand smoke - we have to presume that NO exposure is safe!

"The incidence of many common cancers is falling, but the incidence of melanoma continues to rise at a rate faster than that of any of the seven most common cancers. Between 1992 and 2004, melanoma incidence increased 45 percent, or 3.1 percent annually"

This CLEARLY a correlates to the increased use of LEDs in our offices, homes and public places! What about thechildren!?!  · 11 minutes ago

I think you meant CFLs, not LEDs. · 25 minutes ago

Oops. Good catch. Oh well, might as well demonize all electric light.

ConservativeWanderer
Joined
Jun '12
ConservativeWanderer

Cutlass

ConservativeWanderer

Cutlass: Okay, time to put to use what we've learned from the left!

Just did some googling on skin cancer.

"Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than 3.5 million skin cancers in over two million people are diagnosed annually."

Nearly everyone is exposed to LED lights, and - as with second-hand smoke - we have to presume that NO exposure is safe!

"The incidence of many common cancers is falling, but the incidence of melanoma continues to rise at a rate faster than that of any of the seven most common cancers. Between 1992 and 2004, melanoma incidence increased 45 percent, or 3.1 percent annually"

This CLEARLY a correlates to the increased use of LEDs in our offices, homes and public places! What about thechildren!?!  · 11 minutes ago

I think you meant CFLs, not LEDs. · 25 minutes ago

Oops. Good catch. Oh well, might as well demonize all electric light. · 5 minutes ago

Yeah. We can't go back to oil lamps, because oil is evil.

And we can't burn wooden torches, because that gives off carbon emissions.

The New Dark Ages, brought to you by environmentalism.

Arahant
Joined
Apr '12
Arahant

"All of which means, simply, this:  environmentalists want you to die and they want to irradiate your children and loved ones."

I love it!  And it's true.  They push abortion and other things to kill us because they care.  Not about us, of course, but about nature.  Like, we aren't part of nature?


Joined
Mar '12
Donald Todd

It causes one to wonder why the Congress would vote such an item into law.

a. Could Congressional contempt for human beings be behind it?

b. Could it be love of money for personal or campaign use?  

c. Could the fact that they have the authority be behind it?

d. Could it be the prelude to justifying government healthcare, which then proves itself to be too slow to rescue anyone who suffers injury or death as a result of Congressional demands to use these new light bulbs?

e.  Could it be all of the above?

Cornelius Julius Sebastian
Joined
Jun '12
Cornelius Julius Sebastian

Awesome post! THANK YOU!


Joined
Apr '11
Viator

Don't worry, if you get skin cancer you will  have Obamacare.  And those pesky death panels.

show iWc's comment (#36)
iWc
Joined
Mar '11
iWc

ConservativeWanderer

Cutlass

 might as well demonize all electric light. · 5 minutes ago

Yeah. We can't go back to oil lamps, because oil is evil.

And we can't burn wooden torches, because that gives off carbon emissions.

The New Dark Ages, brought to you by environmentalism. · 10 hours ago

I know! Let's go back to whale oil!

show iWc's comment (#37)
iWc
Joined
Mar '11
iWc
Arahant:Love it!  And it's true.  They push abortion and other things to kill us because they care.  Not about us, of course, but about nature.  Like, we aren't part of nature? · 5 hours ago

Duh. Nature is a perfect goddess who must be prioritized above all human parasites. Our very existence is a blight on perfection.

ConservativeWanderer
Joined
Jun '12
ConservativeWanderer

iWc

ConservativeWanderer

Cutlass

 might as well demonize all electric light. · 5 minutes ago

Yeah. We can't go back to oil lamps, because oil is evil.

And we can't burn wooden torches, because that gives off carbon emissions.

The New Dark Ages, brought to you by environmentalism. · 10 hours ago

I know! Let's go back to whale oil! · 2 minutes ago

Can't kill the poor whales.

show iWc's comment (#39)
iWc
Joined
Mar '11
iWc

Besides, y'all might be natural. I am not: As the proud owner of a soul, I consider it my G-d-given duty to elevate the physical world and to improve on nature through the invention and application of technology.

Nature is not, in itself, good. Like any other gift or attribute, it can be used for good or ill. And if we see ourselves as wholly within the natural world, then we become nothing more or less than animals, slaves to our basest urges.

Edited on July 22, 2012 at 5:42pm
Dave Molinari
Joined
Jun '10
Dave Molinari

So I guess it's our turn to say, "What did they know and when did they know it?"


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In