Compact fluorescent bulbs and EMF.

[garybeck]

EMF (EMF Electro Magnetic Radiation) is pretty much proven to cause several types of health problems. Just google it.

In a nutshell, almost all appliances emit some amount of EMF. The key is that long term exposure is the real problem.

I have a meter that measures EMF and it never occured to me to measure the radiation coming from a compact fluorscent bulb, until just now.

(for those interested, my meter measures both electric and magnetic radiation - electric is in kilovolts/meter and the magnetic is in milligauss). From my limited understanding of the subject, I believe that the low frequency magnetic radiation is the stuff you particularly want to stay away from, especially if it's something that you sit next to for long periods of time (like at work, or while sleeping). Anything above 1 milligauss is considered "not good" for prolonged exposure.

I found that a regular incandescent bulb emits almost zero EMF. On the magnetic field meter it barely moved when the meter was almost touching the bulb.

On the CFL, I noticed that at about one foot distance, the field was 1 milligauss.

The bottom line is, try not to have CFL lights one foot or less from your body for long periods of time. Check out your workplace. Chances are most of us don't have a light bulb that close, but this is something people should be aware of, and I haven't seen it mentioned in all the recent promotion of CFLs.

Don't get me wrong. I still think CFLs are good. Just remember, dispose of them properly and don't have one too close to you in your workplace, or any place where you remain for extended periods of time.

Also please consider these facts... I only tested one bulb and other manufacturer's EMF ratings are probably not the same. And I did not measure EMF on standard "straight tube" fluorescents which are probably more common in the workplace.

[Ian David]

1. As long as you don't insert a CFL into your body cavities, you'll be okay. Geesh. n/t

[garybeck]

2. one foot away, for prolonged periods of time

you don't have to insert it anywhere. There is enough EMF at one foot distance to cause health effects.

[Trillo]

3. Another name for "fluorescent tube" is "plasma tube"

Scientists at the Australian National University, have recently joined forces with the DSTO to produce a radically new type of radio antenna based on a plasma discharge. Conventional metal antennas radiate electromagnetic (radio) waves when high frequencies are applied to them. The plasma antenna concept, is based around a sealed glass tube containing a gas. When an RF pulse is applied to one end of the tube through a capacitive coupler, the energy from the pulse ionises the gas inside to produce a plasma. The high density of electrons within this plasma make it an excellent conductor of electricity, just like metal. However unlike metal, once the voltage that creates the plasma is switched off, the plasma rapidly returns to a neutral gas and the antenna in effect, disappears.

http://wwwrsphysse.anu.edu.au/~ggb112/docs/radio_club.html

[gizmonic]

4. What kind of EMF? Gamma rays?

:shrug:

[garybeck]

7. not gamma rays.

there are electric fields and magnetic fields that can be measured around most electronic devices. Most of the studies point to a problem with the "ELF" or Extra Low Frequency magnetic fields, because it is believed that the same type of fields are used by the body (recall, when energy is passed through a neuron to another neuron, an electrical charge is involved). One study found a correlation between young children who sleep in higher ELF fields and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. There are other studies for adults too.

here is some reference info

Effects of Low ELF Exposures on Mammary Tumor Expression In Mice
Key words: ELF, mammary tumor expression, breast cancer

from the FDA

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ost/reports/fy95/radiation_biology.html
Recent epidemiological findings suggest that workers subjected to prolonged exposures to ELF may have a higher risk of developing breast cancer, in addition to other cancers. These findings may have some experimental supports in a rodent model reported in the literature. Breast cancer was found to be higher in rats simultaneously exposed to a mammary tumor carcinogen and chronic ELF fields as compared to those exposed to the mammary tumor carcinogen alone. If these findings can be substantiated, the following questions, among others, need to be addressed concerning ELF exposure: can ELF exposures at the range of field intensities that can occur in the home and in the working environments also enhance breast cancer development? If so, would intermittent or occasional exposures also enhance it? A pilot study is being initiated in the Division of Life Sciences of OST using a mouse model to obtain some answers to these questions. Results from this pilot study will enable OST to design future experiments to address these questions more definitively.



http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ost/reports/fy95/radiation_biology.html
Melatonin production alteration in the pineal gland is a suspected route by which ELF fields might affect physiological functions as diverse as mood, work behavior, reproduction, and cancer development. Melatonin has been demonstrated to slow the growth of cancer cells in vitro. In addition, magnetic field exposure has been shown to affect the release of melatonin in rats and other animals. Calcium signalling is a critical process which modulates melatonin production in pinealocytes. OST has demonstrated that cells taken from the pineal gland of the neonatal rat and stimulated with norepinephrine produce large amounts of melatonin in vitro. These cells have been exposed to 1- and 0.5-Gauss, 60-Hz magnetic fields. Preliminary results suggest a decrease of the melatonin production in both fields. If this data is borne out by subsequent experimentation, it might be a route by which exposure to magnetic fields could possibly result in hazardous health outcomes.

[AndyTiedye]

5. If You're That Worried About EMF, Stay Away From Cellphones or a Computers or PDAs with WiFi

The only problem I have had with EMF and fluorescents is that some of them cause RF interferance on the 40 meter ham band.

[garybeck]

6. There are many types of EMF.

this is a very complicated subject.

comparing cellphones to computers is sort of like apples and oranges.

the most convincing studies are on ELF (extra low frequency) magnetic radiation. The standing theory is that it interferes with thy body's internal communication mechanisms.

the only concern really about computers is the monitors. the "tube" type of monitors do emit ELF. It is generally about 3 feet, or about an arm's length before you get to 1 milligauss. The evidence is pretty clear, if you look it up, that 1 milligauss or more is bad for prolonged exposure. So my advice is to sit back in your chair. Don't "dive in" and stare at your monitor at point blank range.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Will Probably be Switching from CFs to LEDs As Soon as it is Feasable Anyway

LEDs are about to pass CFs in efficiency.

As for the monitors, not too many CRTs left in use nowadays
(and I'm too farsighted to read them if I get too close anyway).

[garybeck]

11. the problem with LEDs

is cost. Efficiency is about the same as CFLs, but the cost is quite a bit higher. It would be great if they could get the cost down.

[AndyTiedye]

13. Efficiency is Still Going Up, And Cost is Coming DOWN

and they last a lot longer too.

[silverojo]

8. For many years, the dangers of fluroescents have been well-known

That's why it's insane that these should be touted as an alternative to incandescent bulbs.

Also, CFL's must be disposed of in an environmentally-safe manner...you can't just toss them in the trash, to end up on a landfill, as they're considered unsafe waste.

There are many ways to save energy besides CFL's. Put up a clothesline and stop using your clothes dryer during the warmer months. Combine trips and DON'T SPEED, to reduce emissions. Search the internet for frugal living sites, and use their suggestions for saving energy.

There's no need to expose yourself and your family to dangerous fluroescent bulbs, just because Al Gore doesn't realize their dangers.

[TheWraith]

9. It's highly unlikely you'd ever have a problem with something that low.

Only a very, very few people are EMF-sensitive enough to be affected by fluorescent lighting. Besides which, the levels are so low that you'd also have to avoid TVs, power lines, computers, and cell phones.

You might consider being a little more reluctant to use the word "radiation," as well. It makes people think of nuclear radiation, which EMF most emphatically is not.

[garybeck]

12. it's all about the strength of the field, and amount of exposre

as I have said, it is not a concern for most poeple, but if you have a CFL near your body where you work for say 8 hours a day, I would not recommend that.

for your listing of other appliances:

TVs,
usually not a problem because the strength of the field at the distance people usually sit from a TV is not harmful, even for prolonged use. A typical TV will read 1 milligauss at about 3-4 feet and most people are further from their TVs.


power lines,
this IS a very real concern. I would not live in close proximity to powerlines. there are several studies that show correlation between power lines and health problems


computers,
Keep an arm's distance from your monitor, or better yet, use LCDs which are much better on EMF.


and cell phones.
Cell phones emit a completely different type of EMF, compared to TVs and computers. I believe it is much higher frequency. I don't have a cell phone and I haven't looked into them that much but it's logical that hands free systems are safer.

[Kolesar]

15. You are going to have a hard time proving 60 Hz radiation is dangerous

...on the scale of being exposed to it through consumer appliances of any sort. I am even skeptical that living under power lines is dangerous.

In the 1990s, the US federal government endeavored to analyze every study that they could find that presented risks of 60 Hz power. None of the studys had statistically significant data to support that there is a health risk.

I would not advise putting one's head up to a color CRT on account of the Xray exposure (note that modern color monitors have a requirement to emit a lot less than 15 years ago). There is some risk of using a cellphone in high power mode. Don't stand next to a microwave oven when it is operating. Beyond that, there is about no radiation health risks from consumer products that would harm a human.

I think the big risks with consumer products is resource depletion, air pollution, and climate risks. Would be nice to turn all that stuff off and go outside.

[philb]

18. Adverse health effects of EMF are well documented- but there's also a mercury connection

Health Effects of EMF Exposure: the Mercury Connection (Gov’t studies)

In a long term comprehensive electromagnetic fields(EMF) risk assessment study by the California Dept. of Health Services, all reviewers concluded that it is highly likely that EMF causes some forms of cancer, along with chronic neurological conditions like ALS(Lou Gehrig’s’s disease) and depression. They also found a significant likelihood that EMF causes cardiovascular problems and increased suicide(1). People are commonly exposed to electromagnetic fields from computer monitors, microwaves, televisions, other appliances, and power lines.
Actually there is strong evidence in the medical literature already supporting these conclusions and documenting mechanisms by which the effects occur. The evidence is based on the fact that chronic mercury exposure has been documented to cause all of these conditions (12-16), and EMF exposure has been documented to cause significant release of mercury into the body, including the brain and Central Nervous System, from those who have amalgam(2). Studies have found persons with chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields(EMF) to have higher levels of mercury exposure and excretion(2,9). Electromagnetic fields are known to induce current in metals and would increase the documented effects of galvanism(9,12-16). Amalgam has also been documented to be the largest source of mercury exposure in most people who have amalgam fillings(12,16).
EMF is also documented in animal and human studies to cause cellular calcium efflux and affect calcium homeostasis(3,4), which may be a factor in the reduction of melatonin levels caused by EMF exposure in animal and human studies(4,5). In studies on chicks this had significant adverse effects on viability of embryos and chicks. Melatonin is known to be protective against mercury and free radical activity, as well as regulating the circadian rhythm cycle and sleep cycle. EMF exposure lowers melatonin production and disrupts the sleep cycle(5,8c). Another study provides evidence for an association between occupational electromagnetic fields and suicide(10). The authors indicate that a plausible mechanism related to melatonin and depression provides a direction for additional laboratory research as well as epidemiological evaluation. Occupational exposure to higher levels of EMF have also been found in many studies to result in much higher risk of chronic degenerative neurological conditions such as ALS(6), Alzheimer’s Disease(7), Depression(11), as well as Leukemia and Cancer(8,6e). Since EMF causes increased mercury exposure in those with amalgam, and mercury is also known to cause these conditions(13-16), again it is not clear the relative importance of the factors since the studies were not controlled for mercury levels or number of amalgam fillings.

references:
www.flcv.com/emfeff.html

[skids]

14. Do you have a LED bulb to test?

It's kind of a trade off -- LED bulbs should have lower EMF due to lower frequencies, but the lower frequencies also might come into the range where some people are "sensitive" to them. Though I do doubt that latter, it's still several KHz.

[phantom power]

16. Considering that "EMF" == "light," any bulb emits EMF. Is there some frequency range you measure?

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. I Milligause is trivial

1 Milligause is only 0.08 Amp/Meter
That is half of what a Cell Phone is allowed in Europe for continuous 24hr/day exposure.

[philb]

19. Got any scientific documentation supporting your statement?

see:
www.flcv.com/emfeff.html

[One_Life_To_Give]

20. 1999/519/EC Table 2

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
of 12 July 1999
on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)
Published in the Official Journal of the European union on 30 July 1999.
ec.europa.eu/enterprise/electr_equipment/lv/rec519.pdf

Magnetic Field Exposure Limits range from 32000A/m at DC to 0.16A/m at 2-300GHz


The reported 0.001 Gause at r=1ft equates to
approx. 0.1 uT or 0.08 A/m
Half the limit for a frequency of 2-300GHz. And proportionally less for a lower frequency signal.

Edit corrected decimal point on 0.08A/m

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Please keep the "inverse square law" in mind

In the first place, I'm really not that worried about the field level you measured. However, if you are, consider:

You measured at 1 foot. Following the "Inverse Square Law", if you're 2 feet away, you'll absorb 1/4 the energy. 4 feet away = 1/16 etc.

Now, compare this to a cell phone: a reasonably powerful transmitter, held right next to your brain...