Compact fluorescent lights – readers weigh in
Compact fluorescent lights – readers weigh in
It’s the light of the future – a cool, blue glow from a swirled bulb known as the compact fluorescent light (CFL). Congress has mandated that by 2016 nearly all the light bulbs available in U.S. stores will be CFLs. It’s for our own ecological good, we’re told. But there’s something a little too “1950s Soviet Union” about the fact that this change has to be forced on us.
After sending you the e-Alert “Right (and Wrong) on Schedule” (2/2/09) about the CFL controversy, I received a couple of e-mails with two very different views of the approaching CFL era.
The first is from a member named Karen: “Well, this is just another case of just enough internet information to be dangerous! Incandescent bulbs contain a spot of mercury too! The mercury is used to create a small flash fire inside the bulb once it is sealed to burn the oxygen in the bulb and create the vacuum necessary for the megawatts of electricity to HEAT the tungsten wire in the bulb. It is actually BURNING, but since there is no air in the bulb, the tungsten doesn’t burn away, it simply glows, using mass quantities of electricity and producing immense heat contributing two fold to global warming. So with the use of CFL bulbs, there is less demand for fossil fuels to generate electricity, less emissions by the power plants and less heat than that created by the incandescent bulbs.
“The CFL bulbs themselves last longer than incandescent bulbs leaving me in the black with lower energy bills and less changing of bulbs. Even though I may throw the bulb away when it burns out, I’m throwing LESS of them away than incandescent bulbs which contributes more Mercury to the landfill and ground water. Do these people RECYCLE their incandescent bulbs? Furthermore, the lower heat emission of the CFL allows me to use a 100W rated CFL (which actually uses 35W of energy) in my light fixture rated at 60W for an incandescent bulb. MORE light, less electricity. Sorry! AGAIN… don’t believe EVERYTHING that’s on the internet…it isn’t all true!”
But a member named Bob has more than mercury on his mind: “CFLs are 10 TIMES WORSE than what you described. This is because long-term exposure to the light they emit causes cancer. If you contact the Dinshah Health Society, they can provide you a scientific paper by a German doctor who showed that exposure to fluorescent light screws up the body’s hormonal system which leads to significantly increased rates of cancer, especially cancers intricately linked to one’s hormone system, such as breast cancer.
“This country, in the name of ‘energy efficiency,’ wants now to have all homes use CFLs, which if this happens would mean that all children would be bombarded from cradle to grave with fluorescent light; this is yet another way this country is committing national suicide; I myself have loaded up on a lifetime supply of incandescent light bulbs; others would be wise to do similarly.”
Karen and Bob both make some valid points. They also make it clear that the CFL controversy will only intensify as we close in on 2016. But a couple of notes: The standard incandescent bulb does not contain mercury. And although a 1993 Johns Hopkins study found a possible link between fluorescent lighting and increased risk of malignant melanoma, we’ve yet to see a substantial series of studies that would draw a clear link between fluorescent use and cancer risk.
