Health risk: energy-saving lamp
By the way: only in our country we call them energy-saving lamp, in other countries it’s a “compact fluorescent lamp” what, in fact, it is.
The disadvantages are various. Here are some samples:
- They are producing huge electromagnetic fields, much more than a CRT display. The department of ecology refers to keeping enough distance. Especially in rooms where you’re staying for longer time, the lamps should be far away from the body – at minimum 2 metres and more. This appears to be difficult when talking about your writing desk or bedside table. Here you should switch to halogen or LED.
- There is much more jittering than it is in electric-bulbs. And it’s not depending on distance. The entire room is jittering. The reason why electric bulbs do have a constant, natural and non-flittering light is that they’re working with 50 hertz. The filament within the bulb is too much languid to be able to reacting to net-frequency. Because of the afterglow any flittering is excluded. Not so with energy-saving bulbs which follow the plan of fluorescent lamps: Because of being non-languid, the fluorescent substance permanently switches on and off, flutters, flickers, clocks and it’s pulsing. It’s like the stroboscope-light in discotheques. These annoying periodical clocks don’t exist in nature. They’re considered being critical.
- Denaturalised light: The light spectrum in mini-fluorescent lamps called “saving lamps” is much more worth than in all other artificial illuminations. It’s very inhomogeneous, exceedingly denatured and is tearing red and blue colour parts to the foreground. Instead it’s neglecting the others, which are giving a harmonic healthy light.
- Ecologically critical fabrication and critical removal. In spite to fabrication the compact fluorescent lamp is exceeding more than 10 x of energy-rate than the electric-lamp. The electric lamp consists of only glass, wire, filament, clamp and blank sheet, the saving lamp has some more contents, which are micropollutants and high-energy like: cut-in unit, plate, condenser, generator, detonator, electrode, thermal fuse, connector, adhesive, chemical luminescent substances and –coatings, solder, plastic housing … and quicksilver.
The average content of quicksilver in each spar-bulb is about 5 mg. To trivialize this fact some people call it “trails”. Quicksilver is one of the most toxic and micropollutants heavy metals, behaving like nerve poison for human beings and animals. Because of this quicksilver the bulb is to be handled as toxic waste. But in 90 % the bulb is put into the normal waste (where else) and then it’s going to the regular sanitary landfill, in the earth, in ground-water, in the air …
The negative reactions are various, starting with headache, malaise, dizziness, faintness, nausea, shiver, nervousness, fear, feeling cold and is ending with neurological diseases, symptoms corresponding to hypoglycaemia and other fatal problems.
The negative reactions seem to be eminently distinctive when more than one of these factors occur at the same time – like contamination because of the distance, plus flickering frequency, plus bad light-spectrum.
The price for an energy-saving-bulb is tenth the height of the normal electric bulb. In comparison with the electric bulb and according to the energy-saving the saving bulb might be in first place, but only here, not so in fabrication and least of all in waste disposal. From a biological standpoint she’s obviously producing lots of side effects and justified anxieties.
Sounds good to hear: By changing a bulb you’ve done something for respectively against CO2. There’s no better way to salve your conscience. Is it that easy? Where there is less than 1 % of power consumption for lightening in a household? Or is it because more important problems are to be hided?
Information from:
Wolfgang Maes, Baubiologe IBN / Journalist DJV
Presse Anzeiger – Das freie Presse & Medien Portal
Report from 30.12.2008
To adequate replacing an electric bulb, presently the halogen-bulb with an infrared-coating is the only alternative low cost solution. There is none of the above mentioned disadvantages and given a more than 2000 hours function there is an effective power-saving.
A more efficient use would be the LED-bulb, which actually still is too expensive. Where energy-efficiency and durability (approx. 45000 hours) are concerned the LED-bulbs are unbeatable.
