So let’s investigate the details of…

Threat 1: Compact Flourescent Lights Emitting Ultraviolet Radiation

To begin, early in October 2008, only months before Health Canada announced an investigation into CFLs, the British Health Protection Agency (HPA) cautioned CFLs sometimes emit UV radiation that is beyond acceptable safety levels.

Nine out of 53 CFL bulbs the HPA investigated emitted unacceptable levels of UV radiation.

The thing is you should only be concerned if you are a distance of 30 centimeters (about one foot) or less from the bulbs for an hour or more. The HPA stated there is no evidence that CFLs pose a cancer risk. True there may not be any scientific evidence… yet! But tell that to the people suffering from mild to sever skin reactions like red skin and burning sensations.

To be fair, I believe those suffering from skin reactions are effected by the electromagnetic radiation not the UV but we’ll get into that in Part 4 of this series of posts.

Getting back to UV radiation emitted by CFLs…

An Australian spokesperson from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts said “these emissions should not be significant when the CFLs are installed in ceiling fittings and, if necessary, could be absorbed easily by appropriate filters in desk or bed lamp fittings”.  This implies the light’s U.V. radiation is not harmful if you are a safe distance away or if they’re equipped with U.V. filters. Unfortunately, CFLs don’t have UV filters.

So if you spend a lot of time near reading or desktop CFL lamps, or if your work requires a lot of lighting, like jewelers, students, and auto mechanics, then you should be cautious. After all we know too much UV rays form the sun can seriously damage your skin. Especially, for sensitive skin that is prone to burning. Guess what? UV rays from CFLs are no different.

Are you starting to wonder how harmful CFL emitted UV rays are to your skin? You see, there’s many people reporting CFL bulbs are making them sick (although as stated earlier its probably electromagnetic radiation behind it most of this).

Nevertheless Experts Warn UV Radiation Emitted by CFLs May Cause Skin Problems

“There may be skin sensitivity issues, especially in people with certain skin diseases.”
Philippe Laroche, Media Relations Officer for Health Canada, April 2008

“Tube fluorescent bulbs have diffusers that filter the UV radiation. Compact fluorescent light bulbs do not have these diffusers and hence people using CFL are exposed to UV radiation. UV radiation has been linked to skin cancer and various skin disorders. Those who have skin problems may be particularly sensitive to this radiation.”
Dr. Magda Havas, associate professor environmental and resource studies, Trent University Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, June 2008.

Even the British Association of Dermatologists has raised concern because many patients are reporting skin conditions associated with these energy-saving bulbs.

Here in my country the Canadian Dermatology Association (CDA) anxiously awaits the results of the Health Canada study into CFLs launched earlier this year (2009):

“The CDA is watching with great interest. We would like to know if these light bulbs could be dangerous.” Michelle Albagli, executive director of the CDA, in an interview with Maclean’s.

Health Canada, the British Health Protection Agency, the British Association of Dermatologists, the Canadian Dermatology Association, and respected scientists are concerned about UV radiation emitted by CFLs.

So do you blame me for thinking these lights might be dangerous?

Want scientific proof?

True there isn’t very much scientific proof that UV radiation emitted from CFLs is causing or NOT causing skin problems.

However, some people are certain that their mild to severe skin reactions are caused by CFLs. That’s because when they removed the bulbs from their homes, their skin problems went away! (I’ll show you video clips in Part 4 of this series of posts that shows this).

Since, we have leading researchers, medical experts, and governments seriously taking into consideration UV rays emitted by CFLs. Then as far as I’m concerned more scientific studies need be done so we can understand this more and figure out solutions.

Mark my word, evidence is mounting against CFLs. Dr. Hava’s specific research on CFLs will be made public later in 2009 and I’m sure it will be an eye opener.

Side note: Dr. Magda Havas is a leading researcher on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields. She recently completed a study on the frequencies created by several brands of CFL light bulbs.  Once the study is peer reviewed it will be published. Through email, Dr. Havas told me, “The report is coming out later this year (2009).  Don’t know exactly when but hopefully before December.”

I’m Not Too Concerned About Ultraviolet Radiation from Energy Saving Light Bulbs (CFLs)

In all honesty, I don’t believe the UV radiation is something to worry about for most of us. In fact, I believe few individuals will have problems from UV radiation emitted by CFLs. And those will be the ones with sensitive skin who spend hours at a time next to the bulbs (for example when reading next to desktop lamps).

Bottom line, in my humble opinion, UV radiation emitted from CFLs is responsible for mild to severe skin problems (possibly skin cancer) in an extremely small group of individuals.

But it does get worse…

And in Part 3 we’ll see how your health and the environment are impacted by one of the most potent toxins on earth mercury. Mercury, you guessed it, is found inside CFLs. Then Part 4 will get into EMF (electromagnetic fields) and that’s the scary part.

And if you’re fed up with skyrocketing energy bills or the damage inflicted on our environment, I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of hype for these light bulbs.

These “energy efficient light bulbs” are supposed to drastically reduce your power bills and green house gas emissions that are linked with “global warming”.

Don’t get me wrong. I do like lower power bills and a sustainable planet for my children and future generations.

But the simple fact is…

There’s a dark shadow cast by compact fluorescent light bulbs on your health and the environment that you should know about!

Before I tell you all about it let’s quickly go over the benefits of CFLs that we’ve been force fed by the media, industry, and governments.

By now you and I have been led to believe compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs are great! After all, they use 75% less electricity. They’re four times more efficient than incandescent light bulbs, meaning a 13 Watt CFL would give off as much light as a 60 Watt incandescent. Prices have dropped so much over the last few years that CFL bulbs are a bargain compared to the cost of incandescent bulbs. Heck they even last up to ten times longer than incandescent bulbs.

This is great for the environment because it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants created by fossil-fuel power plants. As an added bonus you save money by having to purchase less CFL bulbs compared to incandescent bulbs. Plus, your electric bill is reduced too!

Governments are mandating CFL use and banning incandescent light bulbs. Media, industry, and governments have “screwed” the benefits of CFL bulbs into the deepest sockets of our mind.

In a nutshell, we have been led to believe CFL bulbs are good for the environment, the energy crisis, our bank account, and global warming, right?

I thought so until I heard this…

Investigation Announced into Potential Dangers of Compact Florescent Lights

Always believing CFLs were a good thing, I was surprised to hear my local radio station, AM800 CKLW in Windsor Ontario, announce Health Canada was measuring exposure levels of CFL bulb’s potentially harmful electromagnetic-field and ultraviolet radiation levels.

I decided to investigate energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs to uncover the truth.

My Research Into Energy Efficient Light Bulbs Was Shocking

In the end I discovered there’s a dark side to compact fluorescent light bulbs.

You will soon see three areas of concern to your health and the environment. The question is have they been downplayed. They include toxic mercury, ultraviolet radiation, and electromagnetic fields. These are what I call “CFLs Triple Threat”.

As you continue reading, I’ll explain what I found about each threat in more detail. But before doing so you should know…

Lots of people are reporting serious health problems they are convinced come from compact fluorescent light bulbs

Some symptoms they complain about include…

Mild to severe Headaches (Migraines)

Skin Irritation, redness, burning sensations, and or itchiness

Dizziness and Nausea

Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) and Earaches

Numbness and Tingling sensations

Tired, Weak and Fatigued

Difficulty Sleeping / Restlessness

Chest Pains / Heart Problems

Poor Memory and Concentration

Irritability

Feelings of Stress and Anxiety

Depression and Mood Swings

Difficulty breathing

Muscle and joint pain

Pain and pressure in the eyes

The big question: Are Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs really responsible for causing these health problems?

I suspect the CFL Triple Threats are a major part of what’s behind it all. So in the next several blog posts I’ll examine the details of toxic mercury, U.V. radiation, and electromagnetic fields and how this ties into energy efficient light bulbs, the environment and the potential danger to your health.

In the mean time here’s proof that compact fluorescent light bulbs can be dangerous to your health. Go ahead and watch this video and you’ll be shocked!

Thanks for reading Part 1 in this series of  posts. Part 2 will get into more of the hushed up truth about the dangers of energy efficient light bulbs.

Please leave your thought and comments below. Thanks so much!

Have you heard that the NFL will utilize renewable energy to power this year’s Super Bowl on February 1, 2009?

As a matter of fact, the last two Super Bowls did the same. Can you believe Super Bowl XLI back in 2007 was completely powered by renewable energy?

For the last thirteen years the NFL Environmental Program has made an effort to address the environmental impact of the Super Bowl. It all began with recycling trash, donating unused food to charity, and planting trees. The program has expanded and in the last few years has seen the event powered by Alternative Energy with this year’s sources including solar and biomass sources.

According to the Tampa Bay Super Bowl Host Committee, “The objective of the NFL Environmental Program is to evaluate the environmental impacts of Super Bowl activities and then work with the local community to develop and implement cost-effective and sustainable projects to address them.”

One of the initiatives the NFL takes is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This year the NFL will purchase renewable energy from local supplier TECO. TECO provides power through solar panels in the Tampa Bay area and a biomass facility in Southern Florida.

You see, less energy will be supplied from coal burning and natural gas plants. Those energy sources emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is one of the culprits behind global warming because it absorbs the sun’s heat trapping it in the atmosphere.

How Much Renewable Energy is needed and what is the Carbon Dioxide Savings?

By using solar power and biomass there will be a reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide created. In fact, TECO spokesman Rick Morera stated the amount of carbon savings is roughly equivalent to “pulling 20 cars off the road for a year.” That’s more than 310,000 pounds of carbon dioxide.

Stop and think about it: Massive amounts of energy are required to power the bright lights, TV cameras, and jumbotrons at the five day NFL Experience theme park and game day event. Want exact figures? It is estimated 187,000 kilowatt hours will be used, as reported by the St. Petersburg Times in Florida on December 22, 2008.

That’s more than twelve times a typical house uses in one year!

Super Bowl’s Environmental Efforts Insignificant

Preventing 310,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions and utilizing 187,000 kilowatt hours of energy to power the Super Bowl seems like a lot. However, when you step back and look at the big picture it really is insignificant. Truth is, the amount of CO2 emissions and electricity usage occurring globally is huge in comparison.

How much carbon dioxide is really in the atmosphere?

According to a study by the U.S.A.’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the world spewed out 19 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2007 alone.

Do you know how many pounds that is? A U.S. short ton equals 2000 pounds, so 19 billion tons works out to 38 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. To emphasize my point that is a 38 followed by twelve zeros. Now that’s huge!

38,000,000,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in 2007

VS

310,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions prevented by Super Bowl XLIII

As you can see the value the NFL brings to the environment with renewable energy is not really significant on a global scale. But before getting depressed you should understand this is potentially good for the world over the long run.

Here’s the true value the NFL’s renewable energy powered Super Bowl offers.

You see, the Super Bowl is a huge event, especially in North America. In fact, Nielsen Media Research stated 97.5 million viewers watched the event last year. Any media coverage highlighting renewable energy powering the Super Bowl will bring awareness to the public. Hopefully, this will provide some education about the environmental impact of renewable v.s. non-renewable energy.

More importantly, the NFL is inspiring to many individuals!

Hopefully, this awareness and education will inspire organizations, companies, and fans to follow in the NFL’s footsteps. Just imagine the environmental impact of reduced carbon emissions multiplied hundreds or thousands of times. For example, 200,000 times 310,000 pounds of reduced carbon emissions works out to 62 billion pounds!

So you can see now, there really is a potentially beneficial impact to the NFL’s Environmental Program over the long run.

Thanks for reading and I invite you to leave your thoughts and comments below.

As you probably know, the world is learning to harness the power of renewable energy to combat global warning. The solar industry is rapidly leading our clean energy revolution.

But consider this: You’ve seen solar panels installed on rooftops helping to save money on power bills and keep the environment safe. So if I told you solar panels are bad for your health would you believe me?

Quite simply, you probably haven’t heard the hushed up truth about the health hazards associated with solar panels. Before getting into the details you should know that installing solar panels on your roof top probably won’t kill you.

After all, it’s the dangerous chemicals and toxic materials used to manufacture solar panels and their disposal when being replaced, that are the major health concerns.

The Risks to Workers Manufacturing Solar Panels

Fact is, fifty different cancer-causing chemicals are used to manufacture solar panels. Examples of these chemicals, include cadmium and arsenic.  Without doubt, workers in the solar industry making and disposing solar panels are at highest risk for health issues.

The Risks You Face When Solar Panels Reach the End of Their Lifecycle

Here’s the thing — solar panels will reach the end of their lifecycle (after 15 to 25 years) and pile up in your local garbage dump, along with toxins leaking from them. How safe will your health be then?

Not enough research is available yet to know for sure but it’s a fact that the air you breathe, water you drink, the preservatives and pesticides in the food you eat — just to name a few — are already loaded with toxins. Even your body’s natural metabolism produces toxins.

Toxins are making you sick. Want proof?

Even the World Health Organization reported in June 2006 that almost one quarter of all diseases are a direct result of exposure to toxins. Evidence is mounting daily that your health is being compromised by the toxins, pollution and chemicals growing in the environment around you. So you probably don’t want the solar industry to become another source of toxins polluting the planet and increasing your body’s toxic burden, do you?

What is the Solar Panel Industry and Government Doing About it?

Obviously, solar panels are not the only culprit poisoning your world with toxins but it’s one of the many you should be aware of. Awareness is the first small step that will help you and I demand the solar industry and governments be held accountable.

So, how can the solar industry be more responsible?

For starters, they should responsibly dispose of toxic waste resulting from the manufacturing process and end of solar panel life disposal.

Secondly, safely handle toxic materials while manufacturing solar panels through standard guidelines and procedures.

After all, what good is using nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) to manufacture thin cell photovoltaics (a type of solar panel) if there’s a chance it could escape into the atmosphere undermining the benefits solar energy is supposed to offer in the fight against global warming?

By the way research results from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography indicate NF3 gas has 17,000 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide and is rapidly increasing in the atmosphere (historically from the electronics industry but the young growing solar industry may be the next tyrant involved).

Before getting too far off topic let me suggest another way the solar industry can be responsible. My final suggestion is to conduct research into safer materials that could be used in manufacturing. To be fair, some manufacturers have acknowledged the health and environmental issues associated with solar panels and are taking steps to become more responsible.

Of course, these are not the only answers. More research and discussion are needed to provide better solutions. Hopefully, this will surface as solar panel health and environment issues come into public consciousness. 

As you can see, modern day solar panels have heath issues associated with them. In an ideal world, the clean energy produced by solar panels would come from solar panels that are “cleanly manufactured,” contain “clean materials,” and are “cleanly disposed” of at the end of their lifecycle. Obviously, there is a lot of room for improvement which you can view as a good thing. After all, there’s no question that we desperately need to change to clean renewable power for the world’s source of energy both for the world you live in and your health.

Side note 1: The idea for this article came to me after reading about a report released mid January 2009 by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition called “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry”. I will be posting a few other articles here that sprung to mind after looking over the report.

Side note 2: You’ll be glad to know that your body has the natural ability to eliminate toxins that would make you sick if they accumulated in your body. I’ve placed a little more information about this on the right sidebar of this webpage if you would like to read more.

Thanks for reading and I hope you will leave your comments below.