No. of Recommendations: 0
Over the years I've seen this topic raised on this board, but I haven't seen anything lately.

So far as I can tell, 100 watt incandescent bulbs are no longer available. And all the local stores now carry compact fluorescents, the vast majority of which promise light equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent.

Well, I don't mind using a CFL, but I want light equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent. (By which I mean I want something in the neighborhood of 1700 lumens.)

I've seen a few here and there, but they tend to be physically very large (won't fit my fixtures) and very expensive ($12 - $15 for a single bulb).

To be honest, I wouldn't mind paying $10/bulb for lights that were bright and small, but I just can't find any.

Any brand/model recommendations?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No recommendations. But a Google search:

http://www.1000bulbs.com/category/100-watt-standard-shape-li...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks. I looked at that site, and see only a single model with 1600 lumens, and nothing over that.

But (much to my surprise) I found 100 watt incandescents on Amazon, even though I thought these were no longer available.

I found a 48-pack of GE soft-white 100 watt bulbs rated for 1690 lumens. $58 with free shipping: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0055T5VW8/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

I'd prefer a lower-wattage but similarly bright CFL, but I'll take what I can get.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

I'd prefer a lower-wattage but similarly bright CFL, but I'll take what I can get.


I have some 100-watt equivalent CFL bulbs which I bought at Home Depot a few years ago. The brand is n-vision, which I think is Home Depot's house brand. They've slightly larger than the 60-watt equivalent CFL bulbs, but they seem to be about the same size as a standard bulb. They've been fairly reliable for me.

However, I find that CFL's do not match the light output of a standard bulb. I've compared them head to head and to my eyes, a 60-watt "equivalent" CFL bulb is dimmer than a 60 watt incandecent bulb, and the same with a 100 watt equivalent bulb. Other people don't see the difference, but it seems very obvious to me. There's just less light from the CFL. I have poor eyesight so clear, bright light is very important to me. If I want the maximum light, I use a 100-watt equivalent CFL to replace a 60 watt incandecent.

Karen
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I have no problem finding 100, 60, and 40 watt compact florescent equivalent bulbs at Home Depot. They seem dirt cheap too, as I recall $2.99 for a package of four.

One thing I have noticed about compact florescent bulbs, they take a minute or two to warm up to full brightness, they are always dimmer when you first turn them on. I find the 60's (14 watt) a bit too bright for table lamps and such and have started using more of the the 40's (10 watt) size.


http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/catalog/servlet/Search?store...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But (much to my surprise) I found 100 watt incandescents on Amazon, even though I thought these were no longer available.

Just before the end of 2011 (I think that was the right year) Congress pushed through a law saying it was okay to continue making incandescent light bulbs, thus annoying the makers of light bulbs who had already refitted various factories.

I'd been stockpiling for a couple of years: I hadn't been able to find CFLs that worked in a three-way socket, and I have some lamps where the shade fitted on the lamp, and I didn't want to struggle with putting the shade on one of those rings. I've since been assured that these styles were indeed available in CFL bulbs, but apparently not in supermarkets.

But yes, incandescent bulbs are still available.

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
CFLs, LEDs, and incandescents may all soon be obsolete. Production on a new type of light bulb based on bio luminescence will begin this year. It has all the benefits of CFLs and LEDs, but can be produced at a fraction of their cost. It's plastic, flexible, and has a sun-like spectrum.

"New plastic light bulbs are cheap, bright, shatterproof, and flicker-free"
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/142086-new-plastic-light-...

"New light bulb could 'revolutionize' industry, cut emissions significantly"
http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/new-light-bulb-could-rev...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'll believe it when I see it in stores. Otherwise, it is just an experiment sitting on a lab table. From the photos in the stories, I wouldn't want the new lights. I prefer a soft yellow light in the 2700K temperature range. The lights in the photos are a harsher white.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I have some 100-watt equivalent CFL bulbs …

What does "100-watt equivalent" mean?

I'm not picking on you, but I think phrases like "100 watt equivalent" should be banned, since they convey no information whatsoever.

The important metric isn't wattage but lumens, which are the units used to describe the total amount of visible light emitted by a source.

Watts are a unit of power, but only some of the power used by a bulb produces light. For incandescents, most of the power gets emitted as heat, as anyone who's ever used an easy-bake oven can tell you.

Two different 100 watt incandescent bulbs can put out significantly different amounts of light.

So when a bulb manufacturer says their CFL is a "100-watt equivalent," do they mean it puts out 880 lumens like this 100 watt bulb?: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0030AYFEY/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

Or 2,850 lumens, like this bulb?: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002OMFMSM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

I'm a (small-L) libertarian, and I'm usually happy to let the market decide what bulbs to buy. But as a consumer, I need information to make my buying decisions, and I'd happily endorse a law that required bulb packaging to display lumens in a font larger than any other text on the package, and provide stiff penalties for using meaningless phrases like "100 watt equivalent."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I'm a (small-L) libertarian, and I'm usually happy to let the market decide what bulbs to buy. But as a consumer, I need information to make my buying decisions, and I'd happily endorse a law that required bulb packaging to display lumens in a font larger than any other text on the package, and provide stiff penalties for using meaningless phrases like "100 watt equivalent."

I really doubt you are a true libertarian. Otherwise you wouldn't be endorsing a different product requirement. From the people I know who claim to be libertarians, the market would decide the packaging details. If consumers really were demanding that information, the manufacturers that didn't supply it would lose to the ones that did provide it. Either they would change their packaging to present the information or risk going out of business. If you want usable data, you would want lumens/watt and watts since that would provide both the brightness of the bulb and how efficient it provides the light for power used.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just before the end of 2011 (I think that was the right year) Congress pushed through a law saying it was okay to continue making incandescent light bulbs…

Such legislation was introduced, but so far as I can tell, it didn't pass.

From Wikipedia (edited by me for brevity):
The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (BULB Act) would have repealed provisions from EISA 2007 regarding lighting energy efficiency… 

After winding its way thorugh committee, it came to a vote of the full house on July 12, 2011, and failed to pass.

Even having written that, our national light bulb laws are so confusing that I'm not even sure what is or is not permitted. Consider, for example, that in December of 2011, Congress defunded enforcement of the new regulations. So, if a regulation bans making product X, but there's no enforcement of the ban, is there really a ban?

All the confusing details are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Lighting_Energy_Policy#cit...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
After winding its way thorugh committee, it came to a vote of the full house on July 12, 2011, and failed to pass.

Sometimes Wikipedia gets it wrong.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-ove...

When I said "just before the end," I meant it.

HTH

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I really doubt you are a true libertarian.

So call me a "weak" libertarian.

Otherwise you wouldn't be endorsing a different product requirement.

I don't endorse the government banning incandescents, nor do I endorse CAFE fuel economy requirements for cars, nor do I endorse any other kind of laws telling private people what they may or may not do or buy. (I don't even think cigarette packs should have warnings, even though I've never been a smoker.)

The one place where I part ways with strict libertarians is when it comes to product information. It's purely selfish, but it comes down to this: I want that information, but the average consumer doesn't care. The only way to get that info on package labels is to require it. Unfortunately, the free market just doesn't work for this particular problem.

(I'm not saying the free market can't do this; libertarians point to kosher food certification as a successful private regulatory scheme: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/food-fight-actua...
But that's a case where religious people believe they have a holy obligation to follow certain rules. That's just not true for things like buying light bulbs.)

If you want usable data, you would want lumens/watt and watts since that would provide both the brightness of the bulb and how efficient it provides the light for power used.

Ah, but I don't really care about efficiency that much when it comes to light bulbs. I could turn on a hundred watt bulb today, leave it on 24/7, and probably not see any noticeable difference in my electric bill.

It seems to be that the only devices and appliances in my house for which efficiency is an essential consideration are those that make things hot (ovens, clothes dryers, space heaters, etc.) and those that make things cold (freezers, refrigerators, air conditioners). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Actually, that article is about a budget compromise which prevented funds from being used to enforce the new rules.

(I had thought I mentioned that in my post. Didn't I?)

From the article:
"The spending bill doesn’t actually amend the 2007 law, but does prohibit the administration from spending any money to carry out the light bulb standards… "

So they didn't really change the rules. They just decided not to enforce them.

(Passing a regulation, but then declining to enforce it strikes me as the legislative equivalent of a tree falling in the forrest when no one is there to hear it.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Actually, that article is about a budget compromise which prevented funds from being used to enforce the new rules.

Yes, but the point is still the same. Congress passed a law that made incandescent bulbs still available. And then they ran into a stream of complaints from light bulb manufacturers who had already retooled factories, and who were making a better profit on CFLs than they had on incandescents. And that is why incandescents are still available when you thought they were all gone. (Which was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post).

Nancy
but I stockpiled enough to last for years.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 70
Ah, but I don't really care about efficiency that much when it comes to light bulbs. I could turn on a hundred watt bulb today, leave it on 24/7, and probably not see any noticeable difference in my electric bill.

Convert your 100 watt bulb to kilowatts. 100/1000 or 0.1 kW. Now multiply by hours of usage. For your example, there are 8760 hrs in a year. So the bulb would use 876 kWh of electricity. Since I don't know your electricity rate, I took the average for Michigan power companies. That our be 12.86 cents per kWh. Your annual cost would be $112.65. Your monthly cost would be $9.39. For that monthly savings, you could buy your own children's Tylenol instead of going to the ER to get it.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I've found the GE Reveal 26W CFLs output light that is almost identicle to GE Reveal 100 watt incandescent. I have 1 of each in 2 separate lamps on either side of my livingroom sofa, and can barely see a difference in the light between them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What does "100-watt equivalent" mean?

I'm not picking on you, but I think phrases like "100 watt equivalent" should be banned, since they convey no information whatsoever.



Most of us who have been around for awhile are accustom to comparing incandescent bulbs by their wattage. It is just an off-the-cuff comparison to give people an idea of the relative light output of the bulb. All the new compact florescent bulbs that I have seen have lumens and even color values on the package for those who are interested in these numbers. A well stocked store such as Home Depot usually gives you many choices.

Just a curious observation, start talking about light bulbs and some people get their hackles up almost as if we were talking about gun control or such. If you want to burn your hard earned dollars using inefficient incandescent bulbs, be my guest. I have seen a big drop in my electric bill by paying attention to the new and more efficient technologies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That our be 12.86 cents per kWh.

OCD: That would be....

I should make a resolution to read my replies carefully before hitting submit.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Just a curious observation, start talking about light bulbs and some people get their hackles up almost as if we were talking about gun control or such. If you want to burn your hard earned dollars using inefficient incandescent bulbs, be my guest. I have seen a big drop in my electric bill by paying attention to the new and more efficient technologies.

With the exception of the lamps I mentioned before, the 3-way and those where the shade fits over the bulb, I've been using the cfls and they're fine.

I think the argument is centered more on being allowed choices; there are many people who don't care which they use, but they prefer to make up their own minds, and resent having the government make the choice for them.

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you want to burn your hard earned dollars using inefficient incandescent bulbs, be my guest…

I don't know if that comment was aimed at me, but I'm pretty sure I wrote (earlier in this thread) that I preferred a CFL.

It's not the efficiency that bothers me—I actually desire more efficient bulbs. It's my inability to find a CFL that's similar in both size and light output to my existing 100 watt incandescents.

I have found bright CFLs, but they are physically huge, and won't fit in my fixtures.

(Perhaps the problem is one of physics, and it simply isn't possible to make a small bright CFL?)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ah, but I don't really care about efficiency that much when it comes to light bulbs. I could turn on a hundred watt bulb today, leave it on 24/7, and probably not see any noticeable difference in my electric bill.


That would cost me about 11% per year in electrical costs. I'd hope I'd notice that, all else being equal.


It seems to be that the only devices and appliances in my house for which efficiency is an essential consideration are those that make things hot (ovens, clothes dryers, space heaters, etc.) and those that make things cold (freezers, refrigerators, air conditioners). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


Cable TV boxes use more energy over a year than a fridge does, because the cable TV box draws 35-40 watts 24/7. There has been some discussion about making them more energy effiecent, but because consumers are stuck using the box our provider gives us, its tough for us vote with our wallets. Compare that to Apple TV or Roku boxes, with use less than 5watts when active, and even less when idle. I'm sure that both Apple and Roku take energy into consideration when designing their devices, since people have many options for streaming media boxes, unlike cable boxes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 34
Just a curious observation, start talking about light bulbs and some people get their hackles up almost as if we were talking about gun control or such. If you want to burn your hard earned dollars using inefficient incandescent bulbs, be my guest. I have seen a big drop in my electric bill by paying attention to the new and more efficient technologies.

I think the argument is centered more on being allowed choices; there are many people who don't care which they use, but they prefer to make up their own minds, and resent having the government make the choice for them.

I get that argument and even agree with it to a certain extent, but the problem is that your lighting choices affect people other than you, albeit sometimes in indirect ways. For example, as population grows utility companies need to add new capacity, which they pay for by increasing rates. And sometimes rate payers pay years in advance for capacity that hasn't been installed yet:

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/progress-energy-gets-...

And a very large fraction of our electricity comes from coal. Coal plants, while much cleaner than they used to be, are by nature dirty. Somebody has breathe what comes out of the stack, which isn't much fun. And the stuff in the air eventually gets washed out, which isn't good for surface water or concrete structures. There are also unpleasant side issues like mountain top removal, black lung, and green house gases. There are similar problems with natural gas plants. Much cleaner, but not entirely clean and we're now discovering groundwater problems caused by fracking, etc. Nuclear plants are fairly clean, but expensive and after a few decades and many ten billions of dollars later we still don't have a permanent waste repository. How much is it going to cost to get that one solved? These are real, non-trivial problems that cost a lot of money to fix and I've only mentioned a few.

One partial solution is use less electricity. It doesn't make those problems go away entirely, but it makes smaller, easier and less costly to manage. And switching to CFLs is about a painless way to do that a there is. It saves money on the consumer end, so there's a direct benefit there. And requires no sacrifice. The lights still come whenever you want. Win-win, right?

Except in some people's minds the theoretical right to a broad light bulb selection trumps any kind of public benefit and even trumps personal financial concerns. Win-win be damned. They want the right to use incandescents and so every else can go pound sand.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Except in some people's minds the theoretical right to a broad light bulb selection trumps any kind of public benefit and even trumps personal financial concerns. Win-win be damned. They want the right to use incandescents and so every else can go pound sand.

So everything you said about electrical generation and transmission costs is all true. But.

Lighting is not one-size-fits-all. We use CFLs around the house where it makes sense, primarily on lights that are left on. But there are several places that demand incandescents:

1. The kids' rooms, especially DS's room. I don't want mercury and other heavy metals in a breakable container in his room.
2. The closets, where the light is only on for a moment at a time. It's not cost effective to use CFLs there.
3. Outdoor security lights. Those need to be 100% brightness on demand. We may replace those with LED lights once costs come down.

I don't expect anyone to go pound sand. I only expect to be treated light an adult capable of making my own informed choices.

Regards,

- HCF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I'm just so grateful that we have such a benevolent government telling us what kind of light bulbs, toilets, showerheads, faucet pressure requirements, gas can lids and nozzles we should be have and be using. Thank God for the anointed liberal elites who take such good care of all of us unwashed masses who are not as smart as they are and who need to be told how to live their lives. Hail big government. We bow down and worship you. We are not worthy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The best way to dodge the liberal meddlers and tinkerers is the black market.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And a very large fraction of our electricity comes from coal. Coal plants, while much cleaner than they used to be, are by nature dirty. Somebody has breathe what comes out of the stack, which isn't much fun.

Let's build more electric cars to save the environment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
I'm just so grateful that we have such a benevolent government telling us what kind of light bulbs, toilets, showerheads, faucet pressure requirements, gas can lids and nozzles we should be have and be using.

I agree wholeheartedly. Big buiness has shown repeatedly that it only cares for profits and people are expendable. Thank goodness we had the government to look out for our interests also in these areas:

Seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, safety glass, collision standards, removing lead from gasoline and paint, smoke detectors, wheelchair ramps on sidewalks, food and water standards, and asbestos restrictions to name a few.

It's a thankless job but someone has to do it, and I appreciate their efforts. Someone has to look at the big picture instead of focusing solely on selfish individual interests.

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
but because consumers are stuck using the box our provider gives us…

No, you're not. You can get a Cable Card from your provider and then use whatever box you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_card
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We use CFLs around the house where it makes sense, primarily on lights that are left on. But there are several places that demand incandescents:

1. The kids' rooms, especially DS's room. I don't want mercury and other heavy metals in a breakable container in his room.


Meh. We have a CFL out (as in non-operable) in the garage. First one I've ever seen that expired. So I'm going to take it, and break it open. I have fond memories of playing with mercury from broken thermometers as a kid. It was a family activity, one which my kids are being deprived of.

Personally, I think I'm going to be disappointed in the amount I find in there, but I'm going to give it the old college try.

v/r
Tom
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
look for lumens, not wattage.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
look for lumens, not wattage.

Look for lumens per watt if you want to reduce your electric bill.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The whole issue of the government forcing people to use CFLs was completely unnecessary.

CFL's had been chewing up market share on incandescents for years, and plants that made incandescents were closing BEFORE the government ban.

CFL's had reached a price and performance level that people were using them by CHOICE. There was no need for the government to force the issue.

About all the geniuses in the government did by "banning" the old bulbs was drive up sales for incandescents as people hoarded the damned things.

BTW, the "shower head" thing was another bit of stupidity by the government.

Give me a government approved (non functional) low flow shower head and I'll make it "high flow" in about 2 minutes, by either removing or puncturing the regulator. Anyone can do it, and if you don't know how, a quick Google search will show you how to beat big brother.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
but because consumers are stuck using the box our provider gives us…

No, you're not. You can get a Cable Card from your provider and then use whatever box you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_card


That's true, there is some choice. But that has an additional cost - I need to purchase an additional device (or a TV that has a cablecard slot). And I can't get on demand programing from a cablecard.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I have a serious answer to OP's question. Like many of my schemes it technically works but there are gotcha's.

Months ago, I bought an e-reader. I wanted to use it in bed, by the light of a table lamp. With a CFL, the light was inadequate. Based on my market research, higher output CFL are not available. Ah, but wait, there is something that does put out more light...a metal halide bulb.

If you do some comparisons, the efficiency of a halide and a CFL are similar. However, a halide can put out about 300 "tunsten equivalent" lumens.

The gotcha is a big one: metal halides are not a screw-in replacement for the normal incandescent or CFL. They require a special ballast, similar to flourescent bulbs (or CFL for that matter -- which have it build-in to the base). Most halides are sold with a fixture and are designed for use in ceiling, outside, etc.

My solution was to find a bulb size that would work in my beside lamp. Then I purchased a ceiling mount unit that includes the bulb and the ballast. I took an old extension cord and wired the fixture so that it can plug into outlet and the table lamp. It is switched by a wall switch. Based on limited tests you do NOT want to use the lamp's switch!!!

One downside is cost. All the above will cost you $70 or more. Also there are risks if you plug things in wrong. But the end result is very bright, pleasant white light.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Fascinating story. I do have one question:

Based on limited tests you do NOT want to use the lamp's switch!!!

Why not?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've found the GE Reveal 26W CFLs output light that is almost identicle to GE Reveal 100 watt incandescent. I have 1 of each in 2 separate lamps on either side of my livingroom sofa, and can barely see a difference in the light between them.

I love love love my GE Reveal lamps. My favorite incandescent lamps I've ever used ever ever ever. I'll have to try one of the CFL versions soon.

xtn
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm just so grateful that we have such a benevolent government telling us what kind of light bulbs, toilets, showerheads, faucet pressure requirements, gas can lids and nozzles we should be have and be using. Thank God for the anointed liberal elites who take such good care of all of us unwashed masses who are not as smart as they are and who need to be told how to live their lives. Hail big government. We bow down and worship you. We are not worthy.

I'm especially not worthy. The first thing I've done upon buying a new house - three times now, by the way - is remove or modify the water saving restriction found in the shower heads, or if not accessible for me to remove or modify replace the head with one that is. I like my showers.

Hope the government isn't tracing the IP addresses on the keywords "modify" and "shower."

xtn
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thre will always be ways to stick it to the liberal busibodies who are hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives. Good for you!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thre will always be ways to stick it to the liberal busibodies who are hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives.

Oh that's good to know. Will most of them involve power tools?

xtn
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh that's good to know. Will most of them involve power tools?

Whatever works under the circumstances. The more liberty they take away the bigger the tool to stop them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The more liberty they take away the bigger the tool to stop them.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

That's unexpected. I looked it up at think he's using it correctly.

xtn
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Meh. We have a CFL out (as in non-operable) in the garage. First one I've ever seen that expired. So I'm going to take it, and break it open. I have fond memories of playing with mercury from broken thermometers as a kid. It was a family activity, one which my kids are being deprived of.

Personally, I think I'm going to be disappointed in the amount I find in there, but I'm going to give it the old college try.

v/r
Tom


I expect you will be disappointed.

http://www.nvisioncfl.com/mercury.aspx

How much mercury does one CFL bulb contain?

The amount of mercury in the most popular and widely used n:vision CFLs is minimal, ranging between 2.3 mg and 3.5 mg. That is lower than other CFLs on the market, which generally contain approximately 5 mg, roughly the equivalent of the tip of a ballpoint pen.

By comparison, older home thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury and many manual thermostats contain up to 3000 milligrams. It would take between 100 and 665 CFLs to equal those amounts.


Given that your bulb has died, its likely that the mercury it once contained is in vapor form, and once you break it open that will be released. Be sure to take a nice deep breath, it helps keep evil spirits away.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
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.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2012....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-compact...
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement