|
Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
|
|
02-25-2012, 04:39 PM
Post: #1
|
|||
|
|||
|
... nuff said?? There are no others, there is only us. http://FastTadpole.com/ |
|||
|
02-25-2012, 04:58 PM
Post: #2
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
Hz is frequency, which has nothing to do with amplitude (amount). Therefore this information is deceptive, probably intentionally, which is a shame.
CFL bulbs are no different than regular fluorescent lighting, which we have been living with for many decades. The main problem I have with CFL is that they contain mercury which the bulbs they are replacing don't, and they cost a lot more than regular bulbs. They don't last anywhere near as long as the manufacturers claim they do.
|
|||
|
02-25-2012, 11:04 PM
Post: #3
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
Not nearly enuff said...
If we want to look at what is being given off by the bulbs, we have to look at the magnetic field strength (H-Field in Teslas or Gauss and B-Field in ampere-turn per metre (A/m) or oersteds (Oe)) and the amount of Radio Frequencies output and strength (Amplitude in dBm or uV). As yeti said, Hertz is only a measure of the frequency of a Hertzian wave and does not take into account any associated transverse waves or scalar wave potentials that may result from having more than one magnetic or RF source and their constructive or deconstructive interference. You have to also take into account the resonant frequencies of the human body at the various power levels of the various EM radiations. It is a very complex issue and most definitely cannot be summed up in the Epic Fail of that picture. Sorry, FT. “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ” -Nikola Tesla "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -Jimi Hendrix |
|||
|
02-26-2012, 12:42 AM
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
![]() We'll have to let Mr. Dee know as he is propagating fallacy. Quote:Not nearly enuff said... Updated initial post appropriately. There are no others, there is only us. http://FastTadpole.com/ |
|||
|
02-26-2012, 03:13 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-26-2012 03:14 AM by nwo2012.)
Post: #5
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
I know that CFL or any form of fluorescent lighting most often gives me a headache within about 20 mins. I can see the flicker consciously. I have this issue at work so no escape.
And halogen are just plain dangerous due to the heat produced so I got the whole house fitted to LED. |
|||
|
02-27-2012, 03:05 AM
Post: #6
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
The mercury in CFL Bulbs (as yeti pointed out) has always been a concern for me.
The Canadian Centre Occupational Health and Safety has the following stance on the Hz of bulbs, but only in relation to flicker. Quote:Can you actually see lights flicker?Full Text: http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomic...icker.html So CFLs act as a ballast to hide flicker rates, whether they are perceptible (sub)consciously is not disclosed. I don't use them for the risk of creating a mercury spill hazard if it breaks (or evaporates**)? Not that I think there would be much of a health risk (mercury in a CFL Bulb but cleanup can be costly if mandated and/or necessary. Best practice is to vacate the room immediately and open the windows for a 8-24 hours. Carpeting may present a different challenge. US EPA Guidelines http://www.treehugger.com/culture/www.ne...et-cfl.pdf EPA estimates that 4-5 milligrams (mg) of Mercury are present in a typical CFL. ** Breathing elemental mercury into your lungs is generally more dangerous than if you ate the mercury or absorbed it through your skin. Once inhaled, the mercury vapour can damage the central nervous system, kidneys, and liver. (ref) Aside from mercury and flicker rate (maybe), another potential property of compact fluorescent lamps is that they could pose an added health risk is the ultraviolet and blue light emitted for people with high UV sensitivity (ref). A lot of cities (like Calgary on the advice of ENMAX Energy) are still recommending saving energy by using CFL light bulbs instead of incandescent lighting. As far as LED lighting the only issue I have found with it so far is that they are all made in China. I was going to enter in a partnership to sell them online but they wouldn't provide me photos of the working conditions so that was a deal killer for me. David Dees' Original Image available here: http://www.sl-webs.com/deesillustration/...t=politics I'd be remiss if I didn't mention a great related documentary. The Lightbulb Conspiracy (2010) http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=43402 http://concen.org/tracker/torrents-details.php?id=26223 There are no others, there is only us. http://FastTadpole.com/ |
|||
|
02-27-2012, 11:35 AM
Post: #7
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
An additional issue with the flourescent lights is the release of electrical smog.
"NEW LIGHTBULBS IN CANCER SCARE - THE EU ENERGY SAVERS RELEASE KILLER VAPOURS” Health fears were raised last night over the use of energy saving light bulbs after a report claimed they CONTAIN CANCER CAUSING CHEMICALS. These include phenol - A POISON USED BY THE NAZIS TO KILL CONCENTRATION CAMP VICTIMS - and the toxins naphthalene and styrene which is released as a form of steam when the bulb is switched on. The German scientists behind the report advise that the bulbs should not be left on for extended periods, especially near a person’s head. Researcher Peter Braun, who carried the tests at the independent Berlin Alab Laboratory said: "For such carcinogenic substances it is important that they are kept as far away as possible from the human environment" He said the bulbs could be especially harmful if left on near a child’s head all night or used to read by for long periods by an adult. Andreas Kirchner of the Federation of German Engineers, said: "Electrical smog develops around these lamps. I, therefore use them only very economically. They should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head" Daily Express, April 20th, 2011, P1, P4 |
|||
|
02-27-2012, 08:29 PM
Post: #8
|
|||
|
|||
| RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent | |||
|
02-27-2012, 10:11 PM
Post: #9
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
For your information Zappa smoked mountains of tobbaco, not weed and yes I forgot how wonderful the Nazis were, and how insightful
you appear with your pathetic emoticons - who is smoking what? How on earth can you expect yourself to be taken seriously with your silly little stickmen cartoons next to every sentence? How old are you? Have you read Antony Sutton's 'Wall St and the rise of Hitler' or was he another jew lover? Or is it more the case that you are happy to accept Suttons study regarding Sovietism but wish to reject the study regarding Naziism or (more likely) that you are completely ignorant of both? Have you examined the propaganda campaigns of the Nazis and compared them with the identical propaganda campaigns of the Soviet Jews? Why would the same Masonic finance group put into power the Soviet Jews then a few decades later the Aryan Nazis? Have you even the slightest clue of the involvemet of American finance capital with Nazi-ism, the pioneering work conducted by IBM in marking concentration camp victims (Jews or otherwise) the german Masons who developed the system of Nazi Masonry etc etc etc.. In short all the pro-german nazi arguments fall to pieces when we understand the machinations of the group which put them into power and the nietzschean promethean 'superman' BS which is at the heart of both Nazi-ism and Sovietism. It was not my intention to adress these issues here as I was primarily interested in informing the reader about lightbulbs but if you wish to push the Nazi's were wonderful lunacy I suggest you take it up with some of the other posters who obviously never read a word on the subject. |
|||
|
02-27-2012, 11:23 PM
Post: #10
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
Quote:What is Electronic Smog?http://www.huelsta.com/int_en/service/in...index.html Electronic Smog Defined http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php?titl...ronic_Smog http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Electronic+smog Compact Fluorescent Lighting (CFL) Downsides http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:C..._Downsides CFL Autopsy "8 grammes of waste are produced in the manufacture of the incandescent, but 128 grammes are produced in the manufacture of a Compact fluorescent of which 78 grammes are hazardous." (Save the Bulb CFL Autopsy) (Original information derived from spreadsheets prepared for the European Parliament Energy savings committee.) http://savethebulb.org/CFL%20Autopsy.html (cited by PESWiki, 404) Code: What we are throwing away. . .Quote:...Bulbs could be especially harmful if left on near a child’s head all night or used to read by for long periods by an adult. ... Interesting point. I wasn't going to mention this but considering that point was brought up. The larger health risk with any fluorescent tube beyond mercury, is found in the phosphors - they are rich in beryllium (a known carcinogen), europium, terbium and heavy metals like bismuth, cadmium and strontium found in the electronics. Also found in CFL phosphors and electronics - Antimony (known toxin), lanthanum, manganese, tin salts, yttrium. (ref) Dimmer switches are brilliant and if you can get your hands on any long lasting light bulbs* you're saving not only the cost of electricity but on the bulbs themselves. Mirrors can work wonders too utilizing natural lighting from the sun and moon. There are no others, there is only us. http://FastTadpole.com/ |
|||
|
02-28-2012, 12:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-28-2012 02:46 AM by nwo2012.)
Post: #11
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
(02-27-2012 10:11 PM)frankzappa Wrote: For your information Zappa smoked mountains of tobbaco, not weed and yes I forgot how wonderful the Nazis were, and how insightful Sorry Mr Mature, I'm 12 years old. The funding makes no difference, the gassings are invented. Yes I've done research and have an eyewitness to the stories. No honest Jew who was there saw any mass holocaust. No more off topic posting for me. |
|||
|
02-28-2012, 12:15 AM
Post: #12
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
Quote:...I'm 12 years old. I wish I were 12 again. Much clearer head. I think I have dumbed down since those days with limited responsibilities and absent of the drama of jr/high school and descendants, just pure exploration to feed the curiosity and the time to enable that addiction. So what of Halogens, LEDs.. may as well cover our bases on this one. I haven't gone there .. yet. Feel free to take the first foray, I'll be right behind you, but not in a creepy way. There are no others, there is only us. http://FastTadpole.com/ |
|||
|
02-28-2012, 09:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-28-2012 09:20 AM by nwo2012.)
Post: #13
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
Without looking into it much halogens get very hot and hence a fire hazard. Also I would not want that highly reactive bromine or fluorine, even if it is a small amount, in the event of a cracked bulb.
As for the age thing, it is sad when an internet warrior has no sense of humour or decides on ones age due to the use of smilies when I only add them when I post tong-in-cheek answers and in an effort not to offend. But these internet warriors tend to show hostility hiding behind their computer monitor but in real life not so. Oh lets start a war. Here you go Mr Smack Smoking Frank Zappa ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() So now I must be retarded, eh? Shame about the 20 image limit per post as was going to use every emoticon possible. Oh no I just got younger again. SHIT! Ive just discovered the secret of youth! Your age is inversely proportional to the number of emoticons you post. I will be back in the womb by tomorrow. |
|||
|
02-28-2012, 11:32 AM
Post: #14
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
Why dont you go re-edit another of your posts to try and make yourself
look better - retrospectively! That or go and type another of your two sentence replies with 'lol' in or whatever you do. If you need to try and make personal threats to make your point you just proved you arnt adult enough to even enter into the debate. What was your response to my 'Freemasonry and October 1917' thread "It was the Jews", a trite unsubstantiated statement if ever I heard one. Internet Warrior indeed. A large proportion of the time Ive spent on here is in attempting to state the internet is a waste of time! Have your five minutes of fame over the gassing issue! They were the Newspapers words not mine! It is only someone who is seriously unbalanced who would want to waste ther time standing up for Nazis or believe they were somehow any less barbarous than the Soviets. Thinking the funding has nothing to do with it - again lunacy the Nazis would never have existed were it not for this Masonic funding clique, and neither would the soviets! Nazis, Soviets, Jews, Muslims, WASP's and every other group is simply a pawn in the game, that is used and manipulated to further a very ancient agenda. |
|||
|
02-28-2012, 11:49 AM
Post: #15
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
(02-28-2012 11:32 AM)frankzappa Wrote: Why dont you go re-edit another of your posts to try and make yourself Care to show me which post I edited? Internet is a waste of time which makes you a time waster attempting to show time wasting? A bit sad if you don't see the irony in your infinitely mature wisdom. Not standing up for anyone, fact is fact. Mass organized gassings did not happen, which is what I meant by it does not matter who funded who. I am not in disagreement about the funding or all groups being pawns, that is obvious. Maybe I am unbalanced but I do not spend that much time, no more than you do to post the opposite of me. But then again you are obviously more unbalanced by your own definition of internet 'time wasting'. Oh and if you could not see the sarcasm of my 'it was the Jews' statement on that other thread then perhaps you take everything too seriously and would be better off smoking what FZ did not? |
|||
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)























