Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Will KILL YOU!

 

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.)

There are 45 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member

    “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?

    • #1
    • July 22, 2012, at 2:36 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. Nick Stuart Inactive

    The Environmental Left is trying to save the world. You’re just trying to save your own bloated plutocratic hide, and kids — they just grow up to be consumers.

    • #2
    • July 22, 2012, at 4:01 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. SMatthewStolte Inactive
    SMatthewStolteJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Enough with the doubts and skepticism! This is a matter of life and death. It’s time to act!

    • #3
    • July 22, 2012, at 4:03 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. raycon and lindacon Inactive

    In sum; Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

    Forget the UV being dangerous to your health. How about life an a formerly free country where the tyrants can force this stupidity on us. And just to reinforce the obscenity, the Republican president, GWB, perpetrated it. So, where is our hope in politicians?

    Thank God I at least know where REAL life is. And it isn’t in our political rulers.

    • #4
    • July 22, 2012, at 4:03 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. EThompson Inactive

    Grreat post. As an individual with severe myopia, I practically need to hire a seeing eye dog when I travel to Europe. I’ve been hoarding incandescents for months now.

    And don’t get me started on HE washing machines; pioneer women spent less time doing laundry than I…

    • #5
    • July 22, 2012, at 4:06 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. ConservativeWanderer Inactive

    Well, according to environmentalists’ statements for the last few decades, overpopulation has been a critical problem. This just solves that problem along with the others.

    • #6
    • July 22, 2012, at 4:09 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Mel Foil Inactive
    Compact Florescent Light Bulbs: The Truthhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqrCij6CbHA

    Image149.jpg

    • #7
    • July 22, 2012, at 4:38 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  8. C.J. Box Inactive

    So, not only do CFL’s emit horrible light (Dennis Miller compares it to an “East German stairwell” and I agree) but they’ll also kill us. 

    Thanks for shining a light on this, so to speak.

    • #8
    • July 22, 2012, at 4:39 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  9. Profile Photo Member
    Rob Long

    Finally! A scientific study I can get behind!

    Sounds like confirmation bias.

    • #9
    • July 22, 2012, at 4:49 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. Scarlet Pimpernel Inactive

    How about some civil disobedience. Hurl a bunch of CFLs at the front door of the EPA. If the bulbs are so safe, it would not be a big deal.

    • #10
    • July 22, 2012, at 5:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. BrentB67 Inactive
    ConservativeWanderer: Well, according to environmentalists’ statements for the last few decades, overpopulation has been a critical problem. This just solves that problem along with the others. · 54 minutes ago

    Rob – early death from skin cancer induced by these bulbs isn’t a flaw in the program, it is the primary feature. Get with it.

    • #11
    • July 22, 2012, at 5:14 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  12. donald todd Inactive

    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?

    • #12
    • July 22, 2012, at 5:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Dave Carter Podcaster

    So instead of pushing granny off a cliff, they’re going to barbecue her epidermis. Nor worries though. The President will give her a pain pill.

    • #13
    • July 22, 2012, at 5:18 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. ConservativeWanderer Inactive
    Dave Carter: So instead of pushing granny off a cliff, they’re going to barbecue her epidermis. Nor worries though. The President will give her a pain pill. · 6 minutes ago

    No he won’t, ObamaCare will put her on a patented Path To The Graveyard.

    • #14
    • July 22, 2012, at 5:25 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  15. Mothership_Greg Inactive
    Dave Carter: So instead of pushing granny off a cliff, they’re going to barbecue her epidermis. Nor worries though. The President will give her a pain pill. · 6 minutes ago

    Those pain pills are expensive, Dave. Maybe they’re even “pseudo-innovations” (I have no idea what the definition of this term is, since I’m not a Most Reverend doctor like Mr. Emanuel). Surely ’tis better to mark the checkbox that says “Granny’s complaining again” than to waste the funds of the People on frivolous medically unnecessary pain reduction.

    • #15
    • July 22, 2012, at 5:32 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  16. Mothership_Greg Inactive

    Fortunately, through the beneficence of our Beloved Leader, Granny will be able to obtain medically necessary items, such as child prevention medication. What’s that you say? Granny’s past menopause? Yet her tax dollars still go towards paying for young folks’ pregnancy disease stopping chemicals? Surely this is a small price for Granny to pay to live in the Glorious Republic of the People That Somebody Else Built. Long may our CFLs burn!

    • #16
    • July 22, 2012, at 5:38 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Mothership_Greg Inactive

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

    I thought you were being perfectly serious until this, given your career as a…. oh never mind.

    • #17
    • July 22, 2012, at 5:43 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Dave Carter Podcaster

    Somebody else built that light bulb…

    • #18
    • July 22, 2012, at 5:46 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. Cornelius Julius Sebastian Inactive

    Awesome post! THANK YOU!

    • #19
    • July 22, 2012, at 5:54 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. Duane Oyen Member
    Duane OyenJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Er, I sort of like my CFL’s in the right places. I have a bathroom mirror illuminated by three 13-watt bulbs, and the room is lit up like a stadium, my family room reading lamp next to my recliner has a 200 watt equivalent (actual 30-something draw), and the back entry light we keep on all day for the puppy in the Winter can run forever for no drain but is at least 100 watt lumens equivalent. Other places and situations make no sense (e.g., where the level is too low, turn on and off a lot, etc.)

    But there is nothing wrong with embracing tecvhnology in the appropriate places- the problem here is not CFLs (I read a lot of flat-earth stuff on CFLs from conservatives), it is the nanny-state coercion. 

    The technology is not to blame, it is the bossy, statist politicians who are yahoos. I’m looking forward to really cheap high-output LEDs.

    • #20
    • July 22, 2012, at 6:49 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. Paul Erickson Inactive

    Fortunately TiO2 nano-particles must already have been outlawed. I can’t find them anywhere at Home Depot.

    • #21
    • July 22, 2012, at 6:58 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. Viator Inactive
    ViatorJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

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

    • #22
    • July 22, 2012, at 7:01 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. iWe Reagan
    iWeJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    Paul Erickson: Fortunately TiO2 nano-particles must already have been outlawed. I can’t find them anywhere at Home Depot. · 9 minutes ago

    Titanium dioxide is the dominant ingredient in sunscreens. So CFLs react with sunscreen… there is irony in them thar hills….

    • #23
    • July 22, 2012, at 7:21 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Mothership_Greg Inactive

    At which point I must hasten to add that I use CFLs in my home, lest any “Moderates” (you know, those rare enlightened individuals who have the ability to point at the black boxes known as “Fox News” and “MSNBC” at the same time) take me for some kind of backwards conservative know-nothing Luddite ABR supporter. Being of a higher intellectual capacity than all those kooky Sarah Palin fans out there, I occasionally watch PBS, so I will be keeping an eye on the effects of various forms of light on human health thank-you-very-much.

    • #24
    • July 22, 2012, at 7:27 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. raycon and lindacon Inactive

    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.

    • #25
    • July 22, 2012, at 7:47 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  26. tabula rasa Member
    tabula rasaJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    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?

    • #26
    • July 22, 2012, at 7:55 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. SMatthewStolte Inactive
    SMatthewStolteJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

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

    • #27
    • July 22, 2012, at 7:55 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  28. Cutlass Inactive

    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!?! 

    • #28
    • July 22, 2012, at 8:28 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. iWe Reagan
    iWeJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    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!

    • #29
    • July 22, 2012, at 8:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. iWe Reagan
    iWeJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    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.

    • #30
    • July 22, 2012, at 8:33 AM PDT
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.