THE RADIATION THROWING-MERCURY POISONING SCAM OF ENERGY BULBS.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CVLa_tRslY&feature=player_embedded
Energy Efficient Light Bulbs Unscrewed: A Triple Threat to Your Health and Environment (Part 1)
http://www.renewableenergygeek.ca/energy-efficiency/energy-saving-light-bulbs-dangerous-to-health-and-environment-part-1/
If there’s one thing that gets under my skin, it’s the one sided truth about compact fluorescent light bulbs.And if you’re fed up with skyrocketing energy bills or the damage inflicted on our environment, I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of hype for these light bulbs.These energy efficient light bulbs are supposed to drastically reduce your power bills and green house gas emissions that are linked with global warming.
Don’t get me wrong. I do like lower power bills and a sustainable planet for my children and future generations.
But the simple fact is…
There’s a dark shadow cast by compact fluorescent light bulbs on your health and the environment that you should know about! Before I tell you all about it let’s quickly go over the benefits of CFLs that we’ve been force fed by the media, industry, and governments.By now you and I have been led to believe compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs are great! After all, they use 75% less electricity. They’re four times more efficient than incandescent light bulbs, meaning a 13 Watt CFL would give off as much light as a 60 Watt incandescent. Prices have dropped so much over the last few years that CFL bulbs are a bargain compared to the cost of incandescent bulbs. Heck they even last up to ten times longer than incandescent bulbs.This is great for the environment because it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants created by fossil-fuel power plants. As an added bonus you save money by having to purchase less CFL bulbs compared to incandescent bulbs. Plus, your electric bill is reduced too! Governments are mandating CFL use and banning incandescent light bulbs. Media, industry, and governments have screwed the benefits of CFL bulbs into the deepest sockets of our mind.In a nutshell, we have been led to believe CFL bulbs are good for the environment, the energy crisis, our bank account, and global warming, right? I thought so until I heard this…
Investigation Announced into Potential Dangers of Compact Florescent Lights
Always believing CFLs were a good thing, I was surprised to hear my local radio station, AM800 CKLW in Windsor Ontario, announce Health Canada was measuring exposure levels of CFL bulb’s potentially harmful electromagnetic-field and ultraviolet radiation levels.I decided to investigate energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs to uncover the truth.My Research Into Energy Efficient Light Bulbs Was Shocking
In the end I discovered there’s a dark side to compact fluorescent light bulbs.You will soon see three areas of concern to your health and the environment. The question is have they been downplayed. They include toxic mercury, ultraviolet radiation, and electromagnetic fields. These are what I call CFLs Triple Threat.
As you continue reading, I’ll explain what I found about each threat in more detail. But before doing so you should know…Lots of people are reporting serious health problems they are convinced come from compact fluorescent light bulbs.Some symptoms they complain about include…
Mild to severe Headaches (Migraines)
Skin Irritation, redness, burning sensations, and or itchiness
Dizziness and Nausea
Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) and Earaches
Numbness and Tingling sensations
Tired, Weak and Fatigued
Difficulty Sleeping / Restlessness
Chest Pains / Heart Problems
Poor Memory and Concentration
Irritability
Feelings of Stress and Anxiety
Depression and Mood Swings
Difficulty breathing
Muscle and joint pain
Pain and pressure in the eyes
The big question: Are Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs really responsible for causing these health problems? I suspect the CFL Triple Threats are a major part of what’s behind it all. So in the next several blog posts I’ll examine the details of toxic mercury, U.V. radiation, and electromagnetic fields and how this ties into energy efficient light bulbs, the environment and the potential danger to your health.In the mean time here’s proof that compact fluorescent light bulbs can be dangerous to your health. Go ahead and watch this video and you’ll be shocked! Thanks for reading Part 1 in this series of posts. Part 2 will get into more of the hushed up truth about the dangers of energy efficient light bulbs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CVLa_tRslY&feature=player_embedded
Energy Efficient Light Bulbs Unscrewed (Part 2): CFLs Emit Ultraviolet Radiation Ultraviolet radiation emitted by CFL bulbs, along with toxic mercury, and electromagnetic radiation are the three threats introduced in Part I of Energy Efficient Light Bulbs Unscrewed. These threats make up the dark shadow cast by compact fluorescent light bulbs on your health and the environment.
So let’s investigate the details of…
Threat 1: Compact Flourescent Lights Emitting Ultraviolet Radiation
To begin, early in October 2008, only months before Health Canada announced an investigation into CFLs, the British Health Protection Agency (HPA) cautioned CFLs sometimes emit UV radiation that is beyond acceptable safety levels.Nine out of 53 CFL bulbs the HPA investigated emitted unacceptable levels of UV radiation. The thing is you should only be concerned if you are a distance of 30 centimeters (about one foot) or less from the bulbs for an hour or more. The HPA stated there is no evidence that CFLs pose a cancer risk. True there may not be any scientific evidence… yet! But tell that to the people suffering from mild to sever skin reactions like red skin and burning sensations.To be fair, I believe those suffering from skin reactions are effected by the electromagnetic radiation not the UV but we’ll get into that in Part 4 of this series of posts.
Getting back to UV radiation emitted by CFLs…
An Australian spokesperson from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts said these emissions should not be significant when the CFLs are installed in ceiling fittings and, if necessary, could be absorbed easily by appropriate filters in desk or bed lamp fittings. This implies the light’s U.V. radiation is not harmful if you are a safe distance away or if they’re equipped with U.V. filters. Unfortunately, CFLs don’t have UV filters.So if you spend a lot of time near reading or desktop CFL lamps, or if your work requires a lot of lighting, like jewelers, students, and auto mechanics, then you should be cautious. After all we know too much UV rays form the sun can seriously damage your skin. Especially, for sensitive skin that is prone to burning. Guess what? UV rays from CFLs are no different.Are you starting to wonder how harmful CFL emitted UV rays are to your skin? You see, there’s many people reporting CFL bulbs are making them sick (although as stated earlier its probably electromagnetic radiation behind it most of this).Nevertheless Experts Warn UV Radiation Emitted by CFLs May Cause Skin Problems
There may be skin sensitivity issues, especially in people with certain skin diseases.Philippe Laroche, Media Relations Officer for Health Canada, April 2008
Tube fluorescent bulbs have diffusers that filter the UV radiation. Compact fluorescent light bulbs do not have these diffusers and hence people using CFL are exposed to UV radiation. UV radiation has been linked to skin cancer and various skin disorders. Those who have skin problems may be particularly sensitive to this radiation.Dr. Magda Havas, associate professor environmental and resource studies, Trent University Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, June 2008.Even the British Association of Dermatologists has raised concern because many patients are reporting skin conditions associated with these energy-saving bulbs.Here in my country the Canadian Dermatology Association (CDA) anxiously awaits the results of the Health Canada study into CFLs launched earlier this year (2009):The CDA is watching with great interest. We would like to know if these light bulbs could be dangerous. Michelle Albagli, executive director of the CDA, in an interview with Maclean’s.
Health Canada, the British Health Protection Agency, the British Association of Dermatologists, the Canadian Dermatology Association, and respected scientists are concerned about UV radiation emitted by CFLs.So do you blame me for thinking these lights might be dangerous?
Want scientific proof?
True there isn’t very much scientific proof that UV radiation emitted from CFLs is causing or NOT causing skin problems.However, some people are certain that their mild to severe skin reactions are caused by CFLs. That’s because when they removed the bulbs from their homes, their skin problems went away! (I’ll show you video clips in Part 4 of this series of posts that shows this).Since, we have leading researchers, medical experts, and governments seriously taking into consideration UV rays emitted by CFLs. Then as far as I’m concerned more scientific studies need be done so we can understand this more and figure out solutions.Mark my word, evidence is mounting against CFLs. Dr. Hava’s specific research on CFLs will be made public later in 2009 and I’m sure it will be an eye opener.Side note: Dr. Magda Havas is a leading researcher on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields. She recently completed a study on the frequencies created by several brands of CFL light bulbs. Once the study is peer reviewed it will be published. Through email, Dr. Havas told me, The report is coming out later this year (2009). Don’t know exactly when but hopefully before December.I’m Not Too Concerned About Ultraviolet Radiation from Energy Saving Light Bulbs (CFLs)In all honesty, I don’t believe the UV radiation is something to worry about for most of us. In fact, I believe few individuals will have problems from UV radiation emitted by CFLs. And those will be the ones with sensitive skin who spend hours at a time next to the bulbs (for example when reading next to desktop lamps).Bottom line, in my humble opinion, UV radiation emitted from CFLs is responsible for mild to severe skin problems (possibly skin cancer) in an extremely small group of individuals.
ENVIRONETDAILY-Consumers in dark over risks of new light bulbs-Push for energy-saving fluorescents ignores mercury disposal hazards By Joseph Farah 2011 WorldNetDaily.com
Brandy Bridges of Prospect, Maine, shows a newspaper insert promoting the type of CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) bulbs she says have caused elevated levels of mercury in her home upon breaking (photo courtesy: Ellison American)
WASHINGTON – Brandy Bridges heard the claims of government officials, environmentalists and retailers like Wal-Mart all pushing the idea of replacing incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving and money-saving compact fluorescent lamps.So, last month, the Prospect, Maine, resident went out and bought two dozen CFLs and began installing them in her home. One broke. A month later, her daughter's bedroom remains sealed off with plastic like the site of a hazardous materials accident, while Bridges works on a way to pay off a $2,000 estimate by a company specializing in environmentally sound cleanups of the mercury inside the bulb.With everyone from Al Gore to Wal-Mart to the Environmental Protection Agency promoting CFLs as the greatest thing since, well, the light bulb, consumers have been left in the dark about a problem they will all face eventually – how to get rid of the darn things when they burn out or, worse yet, break.CFLs are all the rage. They are the spirally shaped, long-lasting bulbs everyone is being urged, cajoled and guilt-tripped into purchasing to replace Thomas Edison's incandescents, which are being compared to sports utility vehicles for their impracticality and energy inefficiency. However, there is no problem disposing of incandescents when their life is over. You can throw them in the trash can and they won't hurt the garbage collector. They won't leech deadly compounds into the air or water. They won't kill people working in the landfills.The same cannot be said about the mercury-containing CFLs. They bear disposal warnings on the packaging. But with limited recycling prospects and the problems experienced by Brandy Bridges sure to be repeated millions of times, some think government, the green community and industry are putting the cart before the horse marketing the new technology so ferociously.
Consider her plight.
When the bulb she was installing in a ceiling fixture of her 7-year-old daughter's bedroom crashed to the floor and broke into the shag carpet, she wasn't sure what to do. Knowing about the danger of mercury, she called Home Depot, the retail outlet that sold her the bulbs.According to the Ellison American, the store warned her not to vacuum the carpet and directed her to call the poison control hotline in Prospect, Maine. Poison control staffers suggested she call the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The latter sent over a specialist to test the air in her house for mercury levels. While the rest of the house was clear, the area of the accident was contaminated above the level considered safe. The specialist warned Bridges not to clean up the bulb and mercury powder by herself – recommending a local environmental cleanup firm.That company estimated the cleanup cost, conservatively, at $2,000. And, no, her homeowners insurance won't cover the damage.Since she could not afford the cleanup, Bridges has been forced to seal off her daughter's bedroom with plastic to avoid any dust blowing around. Not even the family pets are permitted in to the bedroom. Her daughter is forced to sleep downstairs in an overcrowded household.She has continued to call public officials for help – her two U.S. senators included. So far, no one is beating down Bridges' door to help – not even Al Gore, whose Academy Award-winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth, urges everyone to change to CFLs to save the planet from global warming.Bridges is not alone.
Elizabeth Doermann of Vanderbilt, Tenn., had a similar experience. After her CFL bulb broke – because the cat knocked over a lamp – she didn't call Home Depot. Instead, she did what she had always done when old-fashioned incandescent bulbs had broken. She vacuumed up the mess. Only then did she learn about the mercury hazard. If I had known it had mercury in it, I would have been a lot more careful,she told the Tennessean. I wouldn't have vacuumed it up. That blew the mercury probably all through the house.The warnings on the packages of some of the new bulbs are in fine print – hard to read. They are also voluntary, with many bulbs being sold and distributed with no disposal warnings at all.Charmain Miles of Toronto, Canada, had another frightening experience with a CFL bulb.Last month she smelled smoke on the second floor of her home, only to discover it was emanating from a new energy-efficient bulb.I was horrified,she told a local TV station. I went through every place upstairs and took out every bulb.The bulb had been placed in a track-lighting fixture. Though the bulb contained no warning about such fixtures, it turns out CFLs are not for use in track, recessed or dimmer fixtures.And while the Consumers Council of Canada advises not to purchase any package of CFL bulbs that contains no instructions, the entire country is on a timetable to eliminate entirely the only alternative – the incandescent bulb.In fact, practically the whole world – fearing global warming – is getting ready to ban the incandescent light bulb. It started in Cuba, moved to Venezuela, then Australia, Canada and the European Union. Now individual states in the U.S., including California, Connecticut, North Carolina and Rhode Island, are all in the process of legislating an end to Edison's greatest invention. Even local towns and cities are getting into the act.The rap against the incandescent is that it uses more energy to produce light. Advocates of CFLs say they save money and energy by producing more light over more time for less money and less energy. They prefer to minimize concerns about cleanup and disposal, usually saying more needs to be done in the area of recycling.But recycling experts say the solutions are at least five years away. Meanwhile, millions of consumers and green activists are being persuaded to make the switch.EPA currently doesn't provide a unified message to the public on what to do with fluorescent lamps once they are no longer used, admits a draft announcing plans for a pilot project by the agency.
Yet, the EPA's Energy Star program is one of the major forces behind the push for CFLs.Currently the need to recycle mercury in fluorescent lamps isn't mentioned on the Energy Star web page although they are working with the Office of Solid Waste to address this,the memo continues. This may create confusion to the public about doing the right thing.In fact, even the memo doesn't advise what the public should do. No question about it, though. You as a consumer will be required to find certified waste recycling centers to turn in your dead and broken bulbs.The American Lighting Association has some ideas. It has created a list of five considerations that should be weighed by all legislative bodies considering bans on incandescent bulbs.The association of American manufacturers and retail outlets suggests any such legislation include the following provisions:a lumen per watt energy efficiency standard should be established rather than a ban on a specific type of product. It should include a 10-year goal
halogen bulbs should be exempted incandescent bulbs 40 watts or less should be exempt.collection and disposal plans for mercury-based CFLs should be made prior to any ban;persuade consumers through education rather than coerce them through limiting choices Governments may indeed be promoting a kind of lighting that is itself nearly obsolete. Fluorescent lights are nothing new. They've been around for a long time. And while they may save money, some say the public hasn't chosen them for good reasons – including, but not limited to, the mercury issue.Some experts predict the next generation of lighting, though, is LED lights. They are made from semiconductor materials that emit light when an electrical current flows through them. When this form of light takes over, all bulbs will be obsolete. Your wall tiles can light up. Curtains and drapes can light up. Even your dining room table could be made to light up – at exactly the level you want.
That's what is ahead in the next decade, according to some in the industry.
Nobody promoted CFLs as aggressively as IKEA. Not only does the retailer sell them, it also provides one of the very few recycling centers for the burned out bulbs. But even with a plethora of recycling centers, how will the public view the prospect of saving up dead bulbs and transporting them to recycling centers? And how about the danger of breakage in that process? The industry is currently aiming at totally mercury-free CFL lighting, but this is still five to 10 years away,admits IKEA. Those who really care about this problem right now are those involved in the waste industry.Most agree more energy-efficient light bulbs can significantly curb air pollution, but fewer people are talking about how to deal with them at the end of their lives, explained a page 1 story in the April 2 issue of Waste News. It goes on to explain there is no plan to address air and water pollution concerns that could develop if consumers improperly dispose of the mercury-containing devices.Read more: Consumers in dark over risks of new light bulbs http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41122#ixzz1IxjJp7CR
