Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
02-25-2012, 04:39 PM,
#1
Photo  Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
   

... nuff said??
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
02-25-2012, 04:58 PM,
#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.
[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
02-25-2012, 11:04 PM,
#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
Reply
02-26-2012, 12:42 AM,
#4
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
Idea

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/
Reply
02-26-2012, 03:13 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-26-2012, 03:14 AM by nwo2012.)
#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.
Reply
02-27-2012, 03:05 AM,
#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?

It depends on the frequency of the flicker. People can see lights flashing on and off up to about 50 flashes per second (50 Hz) - they are most sensitive to time-varying illumination in the 10-25 Hz range. The actual critical flicker frequency increases as the light intensity increases up to a maximum value, after which it starts to decrease. When a light is flickering at a frequency greater than 50 or so Hertz, most people can no longer distinguish between the individual flickers. At this frequency - the critical flicker frequency or flicker fusion threshold - the flashes appear to fuse into a steady, continuous source of light. This happens because the response to the light stimulus lasts longer than the flash itself.

People cannot notice the flicker in fluorescent lights that have a flicker rate of 120 cycles per second (or 120 Hz).

The light flicker may be detected by its stroboscopic effect.

Are there any health effects associated with light flicker?

Although humans cannot see fluorescent lights flicker, the sensory system in some individuals can somehow detect the flicker. Ever since fluorescent lighting was introduced in workplaces, there have been complaints about headaches, eye strain and general eye discomfort. These complaints have been associated with the light flicker from fluorescent lights. When compared to regular fluorescent lights with magnetic ballasts, the use of high frequency electronic ballasts (20,000 Hz or higher) in fluorescent lights resulted in more than a 50% drop in complaints of eye strain and headaches. There tended to be fewer complaints of headaches among workers on higher floors compared to those closer to ground level; that is, workers exposed to more natural light experienced fewer health effects. [Wilkins, A. J., Nimmo-Smith, I., Slater, A. & Bedocs, L. (1989). Fluorescent lighting, headaches and eye-strain. Lighting Research and Technology, vol. 21, 11-18]

What can be done to reduce or eliminate light flicker?

Some types of ballasts can reduce flicker considerably. New, energy-efficient electronic ballasts take the 60 Hz power and convert it to voltages at a much higher frequency (20,000 - 60,000 Hz). The resulting flicker frequency (twice the supplied power frequency, 40 -120 kHz) is so high that the human eye cannot detect any fluctuation in the light intensity - essentially flicker-free.
Full Text: http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/lighting_flicker.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.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-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/artwork.asp?item=386&cat=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/
Reply
02-27-2012, 11:35 AM,
#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
Reply
02-27-2012, 08:29 PM,
#8
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
(02-27-2012, 11:35 AM)frankzappa Wrote: These include phenol - A POISON USED BY THE NAZIS TO KILL CONCENTRATION CAMP VICTIMS

Oh really along with Zyclone B and exhaust fumes from burning diesel?
Care for some human soap or lampshades? :p

Yes you smoke the same shit the real FZ did. LOL
Reply
02-27-2012, 10:11 PM,
#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.

Reply
02-27-2012, 11:23 PM,
#10
RE: Elecromagnetic Radiation: CFL vs LED vs Incandescent
Quote:What is Electronic Smog?

There is hardly any place on earth without electric smog. The terminology covers different forms of radiation of fields and waves, which is why we need to differentiate. In the case of alternating current, which in the public power supply for instance changes direction 50 times a second, the frequency, i.e. the number of direction changes per second, is measured in Hertz (Hz). Up to 30,000 Hz (30 kHz) is considered as low frequency, over and above is considered high frequency.

When electric and magnetic fields are coupled, these are known as electro-magnetic fields. If energy breaks away from the conductor, radiation is produced, for instance in the case of radio, TV and mobile phone waves. Electric and magnetic fields have an effect on the human body: Up to 30 kHz, they stimulate nerve and muscle cells. Furthermore they heat the areas they enter. The best example is a microwave, where a thermal reaction takes place.

As to whether or not this is harmful depends on the radiation tolerance of each individual person and the specific radiation situation in the house. Should you suspect an increased or harmful exposure, we recommend that you consult an expert.
http://www.huelsta.com/int_en/service/inspiration/all-about-living/what-is-electric-smog/index.html

Electronic Smog Defined
http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php?title=Electronic_Smog
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Electronic+smog

Compact Fluorescent Lighting (CFL) Downsides
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Lighting_%28CFL%29_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. . .

[photo of CFL Bulbs]

This is an Osram CFL from a few years ago that has stopped working. I cut the base in half with an angle grinder as a hacksaw would not cut the black insulating material in the bayonet connector. This rather brutal approach destroyed quite a few components on the board. This is basically a pretty crude electronic fluorescent gear that is not nearly as efficient as it could be as evidenced by the rather large choke, the thing that looks like a transformer with an iron core and copper windings at the back. This lamp (when it was working!) started with a brief flicker. One of the broken bits was a neon lamp as are found in old fashioned starters so I suspect this was part of a crude and inefficient capacitor start, these are also likely to fail before other parts of the lamp.

The weight of this lamp was 82 grammes, 20 grammes was the circuit board that may well have been working and certainly is in many lamps that are thrown away. The glass tube is 40 grammes, the metal lamp cap 6 grammes therefore 16 grammes of plastics derived from fossil fuels makes the remainder. The mercury content will be anything between 2mg and 5mg depending on the age and manufacturer of the lamp.

The construction of this lamp allows the electronics module to be easily separated from the tube however the plastic base is fixed to the tube with expanded foam so it would be difficult to separate the plastic and glass for recycling.

A typical equivalent Incandescent lamp weighs 34 grammes approximately 27 grammes of this being the glass envelope, cap approximately 6 grammes and approximately 1 gramme of metals including the filament.

If anyone can provide some good information on the embodied energy in these materials please let us know so we can do some arithmetic on the waste disposal issues.
Archive Found Here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080215141621/http://www.savethebulb.org/CFL%20Autopsy.html (no text match)

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/
Reply
02-28-2012, 12:03 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-28-2012, 02:46 AM by nwo2012.)
#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
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.

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.
Reply
02-28-2012, 12:15 AM,
#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/
Reply
02-28-2012, 09:12 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-28-2012, 09:20 AM by nwo2012.)
#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
LOLClapEatdrink007Love005Icon_biggrinSuspiciousBoredIcon_arrowBarfSleepyIdeaConfusedDodgyBlushHuhLoveUndecidedExclamationAngryIcon_sad

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.
Reply
02-28-2012, 11:32 AM,
#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.
Reply
02-28-2012, 11:49 AM,
#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
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.

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?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Obama calms fears over Fukushima radiation leak stiffy 0 584 05-07-2014, 05:21 PM
Last Post: stiffy
Information Mobile phone radiation leads to oxidation in cells bristopen 0 602 04-25-2014, 10:50 AM
Last Post: bristopen
  Fukushima radiation hits San Francisco! (Dec 2013) datars 3 815 01-10-2014, 12:47 AM
Last Post: thokling
  Ipod Radiation? nobjockey 4 3,159 09-14-2013, 03:00 PM
Last Post: JFK
  Highest radiation found at Fukushima No.1 reactor yeti 1 904 07-27-2012, 12:30 AM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Fukushima radiation in Canada was worse than Canadian officials ever let on yeti 0 958 10-21-2011, 05:44 PM
Last Post: yeti
  Any updates on mobile phone radiation danger and iphone always on? poulhansen 1 857 09-23-2011, 02:06 PM
Last Post: IanPotter
  Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe brings big radiation spikes to B.C. yeti 1 931 08-05-2011, 05:23 AM
Last Post: icosaface
  Baby death spike in W. Canada blamed on parents not radiation yeti 1 1,317 07-08-2011, 01:21 AM
Last Post: icosaface
  Radiation levels from airport full body scans 'safe' TriWooOx 0 1,116 04-02-2011, 11:12 AM
Last Post: TriWooOx

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)