A Dutch View: "The Unholy Alliance between Philips and the Greens"

Updated August 1

Having covered South African and Hong Kong criticism of the ban and of the replacement bulbs, it is worth remembering that there have been similar good articles originating in the EU.
Naturally, most English language articles have a UK source, but some others have appeared that don't need translation tools (or manual work!).
This article by Dutch researchers has been mentioned in a previous post, but deserves its own.
Written in 2010, it remains valid today.

From University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke Sr Climate Science Site:
Both Professor Roger Pielke Sr and Professor Roger Pielke Jr (blog) are something as unusual as institutional, renowned climate scientists that are not afraid to make their own judgements on climate change.
Note how criticism is otherwise something such scientists tend to do once they leave office!
(and - whatever the rights and wrongs - the notion that "most scientists agree with current climate change policies" should be taken with that knowledge, that few would go against established governmental and institutional opinion anyway, for fear of not receiving continued funding etc)

The below article post has this source.


About the authors

Henk Tennekes is an aeronautical engineer. From 1965 to 1977 he was a professor of Aerospace Engineering at Penn State. He is co-author of A First Course in Turbulence (MIT Press, 1972 – still in print) and author of The Simple Science of Flight, recently (2009) released revised and expanded.


Joost van Kasteren [website] is a senior writer on technology and science in Holland, having also been a science journal editor.
He covers energy, housing, water management, agriculture, food technology, innovation, science policy, and related issues.

Typically straight-talking Dutchmen, they don't spare the rhetoric as they conclude the article...

In 2006, Dutch legislators caved in under the combined lobbying pressure by Philips and Greenpeace. A parliamentary majority in The Hague embraced the idea of banning incandescent bulbs and ordered the Dutch Environment Minister, Jacqueline Cramer, to lobby for an extension of the ban to all states in the European Union.

That task proved simple enough.
Top politicians in Europe, Germany’s Angela Merkel up front, deeply impressed by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, were only too eager to project an image of strength and will power concerning imagined threats to the planet. ”Save the Earth, ban the bulb” was an effective campaign strategy.

To make a long story short, it took less than one year to issue a binding European Union Edict ordering the phasing out of incandescent bulbs, starting with a ban on bulbs of 100 watts and more effective March 1, 2009, and leading to a complete ban of all incandescent lighting on September 1, 2012.

The spin doctors at Philips headquarters have got it made.
And if this scam backfires on them in consumer protests all over Europe, they can cover their backsides by claiming that politicians and the green movement are responsible, not they.
Backfire it will. There exist no decent alternatives to incandescent light. None.

The history of the EU ban is extensively covered with documentation and communication copies on the Ceolas site, here: http://ceolas.net/#euban.





 

And a Critical View from Hong Kong...

 
Having just considered a South African criticism of what is going on, consider another good article, this time from Hong Kong, again highlighting the problems of fluorescent or LED bulb replacements, as well as the questionable need and legitimacy of the product regulation itself.

It comes from Dr Robert Hanson:

Dr Hanson holds a PhD in the Built Environment from The Bartlett University College London. He worked in the energy industry in England where he was involved in calculating energy prices and setting tariff s under both competitive and nationalized conditions.

From the Capitalism.HK magazine.
Embedded article below: source.





 

An Enlightened View from South Africa

Updated July 27

Regarding the last post here "New study on CFL UV Radiation", an interesting South African article putting it in a greater perspective.

As the article says, South Africa, and indeed all the other BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) have recently announced incandescent light bulb bans or "phase-outs", as have many smaller developing countries.
The United Nations (UNEP) switchover policy supported by the World Bank and other big sponsors is playing a part in this, a policy pushed at the recent RIO environmental summit also by General Secretary Ban-Ki Moon himself... I will do a post on this later.
The UNEP en.lighten initiative itself, and how Philips and Osram benefit from offloading otherwise unwanted bulbs, has been covered in an earlier post "Philips, Osram, the UN and the World Bank: How we will en.lighten the World in 2012".

The author Ivo Vegter, as the blurb says, is no stranger to controversy - but hardly controversial what he says here - at least for supporters of this blog!
Embedded Daily Maverick article source here.
His own website: ivo.co.za
Notice the book coming out in September... might rustle a few feathers alright!

My book, which has kept be very occupied in recent months, is at the printers. In September 2012, Zebra Press, an imprint of Random House Struik, will inflict upon an unsuspecting world “Extreme Environment”.
It documents how environmental exaggeration harms emerging economies like South Africa, and I expect it will result in a few entertaining debates...

 

New Study on CFL UV Radiation

 
Updated July 26 with comparative spectra also for LED replacement bulbs

The team of Stony Brook researchers reviews the findings of their research. Pictured from left to right (standing) are Marcia Simon, Michael Hadjiargyrou, (sitting) Tatsiana Mironava and Miriam Rafailovich. The images displayed on the screen are of keratinocytes via confocal microscopy which show the results of human skin cells with and without exposure to CFL.

From: Stony Brook University News, July 18


As has widely been reported, a recent study highlights the problem of UV radiation from compact fluorescent bulbs, albeit only at close quarters.
It is therefore recommended that the squiggly tubes are enclosed in capsules for such use, as with the pear shaped CFLs that are available.


From the Daily Mail article 20 July   Edited extracts, highlights

Energy-saving light bulbs can fry your skin, study claims
Energy-saving light bulbs can fry your skin, a new study claims.
Researchers at Stony Brook University in New York State examined the impact of the compact fluorescent bulbs - or CFL bulbs - on human skin cells prompted by a similar study undertaken in Europe.
They discovered that healthy skin exposed to light from the CFLs experienced damage found with ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

'Consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs... our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover' Stony Brook University Professor of Materials Science and Engineering Miriam Rafailovich said.

The scientists tested a number of CFL bulbs from across New York State to determine their UV emissions and the integrity of each bulb’s phosphor coatings.
Results revealed significant levels of UV, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings that were present in all CFL bulbs studied.

They also tested the impact on collagen-producing skin cells and the epidermal cell that generated keratin from the light.
Comparing skin cells exposed to the CFLs with those exposed to incandescent light bulbs, they discovered that only the CFLs damaged skin, the same trauma as sun burnt skin, they found. Incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells at all.

The study itself:

The Effects of UV Emission from Compact Fluorescent Light Exposure on
Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes
Tatsiana Mironava, Michael Hadjiargyrou, Marcia Simon, Miriam H. Rafailovich
Article first published online: 20 jul 2012

Abstract
Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs can provide the same amount of lumens as incandescent light bulbs, using one quarter of the energy.
Recently, CFL exposure was found to exacerbate existing skin conditions; however, the effects of CFL exposure on healthy skin tissue have not been thoroughly investigated.

In this study, we studied the effects of exposure to CFL illumination on healthy human skin tissue cells (fibroblasts and keratinocytes).
Cells exposed to CFLs exhibited a decrease in the proliferation rate, a significant increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in their ability to contract collagen.
Measurements of UV emissions from these bulbs found significant levels of UVC and UVA (mercury [Hg]
emission lines), which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all bulbs studied.

The response of the cells to the CFLs was consistent with damage from UV radiation, which was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs), normally used for UV absorption, were added prior to exposure.
No effect on cells, with or without TiO2 NPs, was observed when they were exposed to incandescent light of the same intensity.

Scotland based lighting designer Kevan Shaw of Savethebulb.org has a particular interest on the effects of CFLs on people with light sensitivity disorders, as he points out in the introduction to his post on this research, extracts:

Frying tonight?
As previously blogged I am assisting the Spectrum Alliance with their campaign to retain incandescent lamps for people with specific photosensitive disorders.
In the course of this I have learned a lot about skin problems caused by CFLs. It seems that such problems are not just confined to specifically photosensitive people. The Daily Mail ran an article on 20 July this year following up on recently published research in the USA. It seems that the light from CFLs has a significantly greater damaging effect on skin than incandescent lamps.

As previously experienced, CFLs do emit UV despite the claims of manufacturers.
Double envelope CFLs do reduce UV emissions considerably and should be used in any situation where lamps are at all close to people like task lighting, table lamps and bedside lights, particularly for the very young and very old whose skin tends to be more sensitive.

Kevan Shaw July 20 , 2012

Comment

Some comments elsewhere are taking this quite lightly, even welcoming a bit of sunburn and vitamin D formation.
However, an important point not mentioned is that UVC, one of the UV types emitted, is the most damaging UV source and happens to be blocked by the atmosphere ozone layer when coming from the sun.

An interesting runthrough of UV light can be seen on Digplanet.com, here.

The same source on Fluorescent lamp UV radiation

Fluorescent lamps

Fluorescent lamps produce UV radiation by ionising low-pressure mercury vapour. A phosphorescent coating on the inside of the tubes absorbs the UV and converts it to visible light.

The main mercury emission wavelength is in the UVC range. Unshielded exposure of the skin or eyes to mercury arc lamps that do not have a conversion phosphor is quite dangerous.

The light from a mercury lamp is predominantly at discrete wavelengths. Other practical UV sources with more continuous emission spectra include xenon arc lamps (commonly used as sunlight simulators), deuterium arc lamps, mercury-xenon arc lamps, metal-halide arc lamps, and tungsten-halogen incandescent lamps.

Incandescents have a red shift and relatively low UV output

unknown source

CFL lamp spectrum

Source Bealecorner.org

A comparison between light sources
(a CFL is of course a type of mercury vapor lamp)

Source Olympusmicro.com

The sourced Olympusmicro.com site for the last diagram has a good account of lamp technologies and spectra.


Notice how the today's much-hyped LED replacement bulbs ("white LEDs") also have light quality issues, irregular spectrum with blue peaking.. (from http://www.luminousdiy.com/):





As do the alternative modular Red Green Blue LED bulbs, as seen from the excellent lighting comparative study diagrams on Gluehbirne.ist.org/






As for the issue at hand here,
there is more coverage of UV radiation and other health concerns, with research references and information on related skin and other disorders, on http://ceolas.net/#li18rx

Note that the double envelope CFL recommendation dates back several years from other studies...


BBC article extract, 9 October 2008:

UV light fear over 'green' bulbs
Being too close to energy-saving light bulbs could cause skin reddening because of ultraviolet light emissions, health experts have warned.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA) cautions against being closer than 30cm (1ft) to some compact fluorescent (cfl) bulbs for long.

As a result of testing which revealed the potentially high levels of UV light, the HPA has issued guidelines against people using unencapsulated light bulbs - where the light coil is visible - closer than 30cms to the body for more than one hour a day.

Professor Harry Moseley, Consultant Clinical Scientist at the University of Dundee, said: "We are concerned about risks to patients who have severe light-sensitive skin disorders.
"The small levels of ultra-violet emitted by some low energy light bulbs could be harmful to these patients. I recommend use of lights with a protective shield to absorb the UV."
Experts stress that healthy people are at no risk providing the HPAs advice (above) is followed.

Also a similar EU Commission study 2008, albeit a typically poorly written EU report, seemingly drawing on other studies, and full of conclusions without presenting underlying data evidence (surprise, not).

In December 2009 The Canadian Federal Government Health Department finished a review of CFLs, again mainly relating to UV radiation, but other electromagnetic radiation was also studied.
The report mirrored the UK HPA findings:
"It is recommended that single envelope CFLs [classic tubular type lights] not be used at distances less than 30 cm to avoid any long-term health effects in the general population"


Note a certain irony here...
Double envelope CFLs protecting from UV light also means reducing their ordinary light output still more
There is other irony about CFLs already, eg leave them on, waste energy, switch them on-off, shorten their life...

Basically, bulbs are the wrong format for fluorescent lighting technology, best in long tube form, just like LEDs have natural lighting advantages in sheet form.
The CFL and LED natural advantages are compromised in offering politically pushed incandescent-copying lighting.