Green Calgary

Taking the Heat Off CFLs

Reader Question

Dear Ashley,

I recently watch a clip on Global television that suggested that energy saving bulbs were unsafe. I can’t recall all of the details but I’m wondering what your take is on the whole issue. Should we be getting rid of the energy saving bulbs or is this just another scare tactic to keep everyone guessing?

Thank you.

Melanie

Ashley's Answer

Hello Melanie,

This news piece you speak of has certainly kept me busy. Over the past few weeks I’ve received dozens of e-mails and phone calls from well-intentioned people asking for CFL recycling solutions, as they’ve removed every CFL from their house because “some lady on Global television said they were bad for people’s health”. Most people have been mildly concerned but a few were downright mad at the “environmentalists” for “forcing” them to use these “dangerous” light bulbs. Don’t people take things with a grain of salt anymore?

The issues raised in Global Television’s 16:9 investigative report about CFLs pertained to two things: “dirty electricity” and ultraviolet (UV) light. Now, I just want to state for the record that “dirty electricity” is not unique to CFLs. Fortunately this was covered in a later 16:9 episode but I get the sense that fewer people caught this segment. The truth is, all electronics have the potential to produce “dirty electricity”! This includes hair dryers, dimmer switches, televisions, computer monitors, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, electric can openers, wireless routers, etc, etc. If we are to limit our exposure to the Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) that have been shown to affect hormone function, induce behavioural changes and impact our bodily systems, we will have to reduce our use of electronic gadgets altogether; plain and simple.

You may ask: if these EMFs are so dangerous why isn’t the government doing anything about them. Well, the truth is, some governments are doing something about them. In fact, the German government’s official radiation protection body has advised its citizens to use landlines instead of cellular phones and to select conventional wired connections over Wi-Fi devices until more research is conducted to ensure that the myriad electronic devices are safe to use. Several other European Union countries have taken similar precautionary approaches. The World Heath Organization (WHO) has established the International EMF Project to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMFs and the International Agency for Research on Cancer has recently classified EMFs at extremely low frequency (ELF) as "possibly carcinogenic" to humans based on studies of childhood cancer. Work is being done to address some of the concerns but most of the questionable technologies are advancing at a breakneck speed, making it very difficult for researchers and governments to keep up. So what is the Canadian government doing to protect its Citizens?

It appears not too much. Health Canada’s website on EMFs calmly states that “[individuals] do not need to take action regarding typical daily exposures to electric and magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies.” They also make it fairly clear that they are not ardent supporters of the precautionary principle, as their comments fly in the face of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s ruling on EMFs. Health Canada writes: “the evidence is not strong enough to conclude that EMFs definitely cause cancer in children. More studies are needed to draw firm conclusions.” My question is: does anything “definitely” cause cancer? Isn’t this why the whole tobacco fiasco was dragged out for so long? If you ask me, this argument isn’t very reassuring. I’m not suggesting you get rid of your electronics and assume the life of an Amish person, but I would suggest minimizing the number of electronics plugged in around the house, especially those that are in the bedroom. If there is one place in the home that has a minimum of dirty electricity it should be the bedroom, as this is the place where the body needs a minimum of interference to properly repair itself while you rest.

Now, before I forget, I should mention the second point of concern relating to CFLs – the UV light from some lamps. This has not been an issue for the majority of people but a number of individuals suffering from pre-existing skin conditions like Lupus, eczema and dermatitis have experienced problems. The United Kingdom’s (UK) Health Protection Agency (HPA) has issued some precautionary advice following these incidents, recommending that people should not be closer than 30 centimetres from the CFLs for more than one hour per day. These public health warnings have prompted Health Canada to launch its own investigation to measure for potentially harmful UV radiation, as well as EMF exposure levels. These results are expected to be released in the fall of 2009.

And just for the record, this advice only applies to the single enveloped lamps, as the models with a glass dome do not radiate any UV radiation. I also suspect that most people are not sitting closer than 30 centimetres to their bulbs for long periods of time but if you are, many I suggest following the UKs HPA and upgrade to a lamp with a glass dome. These are readily available at most home stores and will take care of the UV issue altogether.

Finally, I do not think CFLs are perfect and I look forward to the day when a mercury-free, low EMF bulb with no harmful side effects is introduced. But keep in mind that incandescent bulbs aren’t any better when you consider the amount of coal that is burned to keep them bright – not for your health and certainly not for the planet. So, until we have access to the perfect bulb, keep your CFLs but keep your distance. And for everyone’s sake, recycle your spent CFLs at Rona, Home Depot or Ikea. The last thing we need right now is more mercury pilling up in our landfills.

Transiently,
Ashley

Post to Twitter Share on Facebook