-Tracie from Lincoln Park-
The journal Photochemistry and Photobiology did publish such a study earlier this year entitled The Effects of UV Emission from Compact Fluorescent Light Exposure on Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes In Vitro which found that healthy skin cells responded to ultra-violet radiation from cracks in compact fluorescent light bulbs in the same fashion that they respond to radiation from sunlight. When added to the risk of mercury exposure associated with compact fluorescent lightbulbs, it would sound like the risk would outweigh the benefit that comes from the energy efficiency associated with the use of the bulb. Although this study does highlight a new concern that the industry must address, it does not spell the death knell for CFL technology, nor should it force a wholesale removal of such bulbs from your living space.
The first reason has to do with the analysis of the study. The authors examined several "off the shelf" bulbs and found that almost every one had damage to the phosphor surface coating that offers protection from the radiation contained within the bulb when electricity excites the gas to produce light. That damage caused the opportunity for leakage of radiation, however the impact of that radiation causes issues only up to about two feet from the bulb. Also, it came from a direct line of sight to the coiled lamp. In our house, most of the CFL we have left (we have started switching over to LED - light emitting diode - technology since our CFL are finally reaching the end of their 7-year life) are either contained within another bulb casing , are under a lamp-shade, or are at the ceiling level. If you have similar installations, then the risk is greatly reduced or eliminated. You should note that the study found the issue only with the coiled CFL and not with fluorescent bulbs in general. The coiling of the bulb is what caused the cracking, so standard bulbs - such as the ones we find in every office building in the country - should be fine.
The second reason has to do with personal choice. The study likens the exposure to that from sunlight. If you are the kind of person who wears sunscreen every day when you are outside, then you should review all of the installations in your living space that do not meet one of the criteria discussed in the previous paragraph and look to either replace the bulb or install some form of shield. If you regularly go outside without sunscreen, then you are exposing yourself to less risk in your house unless you regularly sit for long periods of time less than two feet from your bulb in which case you have about the same risk.
The final reason has to do with what I like to call a "transference of risk". This ties also to the risk of mercury exposure from broken CFL. "Transference of risk" has to do with trying to eliminate a direct risk to us in our immediate lives by choosing an alternative that decreases our risk but increases the risk of decreased health to another. In this situation, if we used a less efficient bulb (like an incandescent - which has neither the mercury or UV radiation concerns), we would eliminate the risk to us, but would increase the need for electricity generation (by as much as triple that needed for CFL). Currently, the largest portion of our electricity generation comes from nuclear, natural gas, and coal, so increased use of either will mean either more coal emissions/mining, natural gas drilling, or more nuclear waste...all of which have serious implications for those living near those operations. Our goal as a country (even without formal policy) should be to limit those types of generation in favor of ones less damaging. If we have to keep these life-harming plants on and available, then we threaten other people's quality of life to the benefit of our own. Having the "risk" in our immediate life puts us in a position where we have to think about taking responsibility for our actions in such a way as to limit both our risk, and that of others.
What should you do?
First, do an inventory of each bulb in your apartment. In that, note the type of bulb, the application (general lighting vs. specific task lighting, such as for reading), the lumens (if you can find it...lumens is a measure of the light output), color temperature (warm or cold...usually available on most packaging for bulbs), and Watts. As a last column, if the package does not have it, compute the lumens per Watt for the bulb; this is important, because when considering to replace a bulb, you will want to keep the lumens per Watt the same or at least close.
Second, look to replace every incandescent bulb with another technology, if you already have not. Halogen provides the same type of light quality as incandescent for reading, but uses energy at higher levels than CFL. LED make good task lighting, such as for under-cabinet lighting in kitchens or above sinks in bathrooms. CFL have a wide range of applications, and are usually the best overall bang for the buck.
Third, make sure that where you use CFL, you have either a diffuser (such as the glass bowl under a ceiling fan), shade, or other layer of protection from the coiled bulb. If there is a situation where you absolutely cannot avoid a bare bulb, and the bulb will be within two feet of an occupant, consider the Phillips or Sylvania LED bulb. They do cost significantly more, but they last three times as long. Be careful to compare the lumen per Watt rating to make sure you maintain the energy savings as the reduced cost of owning the bulb helps to offset the first cost of buying it.
Lastly, consider looking into purchasing renewable energy for the electricity supply in your home. We will have nuclear and natural gas generated electricity for the near future, but we can accelerate the installation of renewable, less damaging resources if we make a concerted effort. Take some of the money saved by using less energy, and use it to purchase better energy in the form of a direct purchase from a generator (depending on where you live), negotiating the purchase through a broker, or through renewable energy certificates. If you choose renewable energy certificates, make sure they are certified by someone like Green-e, and that they are for "new generation". This will mitigate the "transference of risk", while keeping your future plenty bright.
No comments:
Post a Comment