Go slow with CFLs — Get all of the facts first
Thank you for visiting this site. The many people who are impacted by CFLs, their flicker and their emissions, appreciate the fact that you are informing yourself on these issues. There are critical health and safety issues as you will see in the videos below and under the “Videos” tab, above.
The week of 14 April 2013 has brought some interesting developments to the CFL situation:
- Congratulations to Burger King. They are using non-CFL energy-efficient lighting in their new and remodeled facilities. That is a very encouraging move which is indicative of their sensitivity to people with hidden disabilities. Please do show your gratitude by patronizing their fine establishments.
- Have been informed by Consumers Energy that they are no longer promoting CFLs, but rather are giving LED bulbs to restaurants. It is hoped that this is being implemented. (Now they have to determine how best to “round up” the toxic bulbs which they have sent home with unsuspecting school children).
If this is confirmed, that would be a favorable response to the criticism below.
Now, the school districts involved need to evaluate their priorities. The three R’s are what children need to succeed — do away with the light bulb “guilt trip” put on the children and settle down to genuine education.
Once again, in March 2013, Consumers Energy (Michigan) is using children and teachers to promote CFLs. The Michigan Department of Education is a co-sponsor. Elementary school children are being sent home with an energy-saving package which contains, among other things, toxin-laden CFL bulbs. Consumers Energy is shamelessly using children, and rewarding their teachers, to “push” a product which is harmful to many with a wide array of maladies/injuries. This was reported by another Mom who cares about her family’s health. (It is happening in the Grass Lake, Michigan School District). Who will take responsibility when a child drops one of these CFLs and contaminates their home? Who will pay for the cleanup of the toxic mercury? Is this the education which children need to succeed in life? Or are the kids simply pawns of an over-zealous school district and public utility?
Here’s another very disturbing report on the health dangers of CFL’s:
Businesses frequently tell us that Consumers Energy people are pushing them to convert to CFLs. Do you want your business subjected to that kind of liability, when the mercury vapor spews out, or when people are injured by UV, RFI, or EMI?
Several restaurants, who have refused to accept the CFLs, tell us that Consumers Energy has provided LED bulbs instead. (For many folks, LEDs are a safer alternative).
What restaurant will destroy their entire inventory of foodstuffs when a CFL is broken or burns out? Please see the photo of a burned CFL from a home in Louisville.
When will insurers refuse to cover the liability incurred by businesses who subject their patrons to the deleterious impacts of CFLs?
Please review the article on Consumers Energy (Michigan) using children and teachers to promote CFLs. The Michigan Department of Education is a co-sponsor. Are they teaching CFLs or the three Rs? Children are being used to push a product which is harmful to many with a wide array of maladies/injuries. This was reported by a Mom who cares about her family’s health. (Please see link under Recent Articles).
Folks in Washington seem inclined to frame the incandescent “ban” as a political issue. But to the many with hidden disabilities, it not only impacts their health in very serious ways, as you can see in the articles and Videos below, but it also severely restricts their access to public buildings and places of public accommodation.
To many with an array of maladies, the right to light is a critical issue.
The quality of the light impacts their quality of life.
Go slow with CFLs — Get all of the facts first
If you haven’t checked lately, the price on a CFL 100-watt equivalent is just $6.77 ($20.32 for a pack of three). And BTW the last of the 100-watt incandescent bulbs on the shelves are going for 25¢ ($1.00 for a pack of four). Why the high price on CFLs? Because they can! (They did it in Europe last year.) But, you are not charged extra for the toxic poison in the CFLs. But if you dispose of them properly, you will pay dearly. And if you don’t, you will pay even more dearly — down the road when the Hg contaminates our water resources. How much it is worth to buy something that pollutes the planet and impacts people with hidden disabilities?
From the Physicists Newsletter which was rec’d in the email of 28 December 2011:
“China will build the largest coal-fired power station in Asia the official Xinhua news agency said Tuesday (27 December 2011). China relies on coal for nearly 70 percent of its energy needs, which have soared in recent years as the country’s economy grew at a blistering pace. China is the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter with many of its cities cloaked in a polluted haze.” But, wait. Didn’t our government regulations have the effect of sending the light bulb plants over to China? Yes, and weren’t the CFLs supposed to reduce power plant emissions? It seems that “our” EPA has succeeded very well. They exported jobs to China and increased pollution there as well. Apparently they don’t understand that the atmosphere surrounds the entire planet – not just our part of it. Yes, there is somewhat of a reprieve in the fact that the enforcement funds were held back until September. But now, according to reports, the clever folks in Washington are encouraging states’ Attorneys General to enforce these federal regulations. The famous quote “I love my Country, but fear my government” certainly applies today – more than ever. Under the guise of “protecting” our environment, the government is destroying the quality of life for millions of Americans who have one of the many “hidden” disabilities. The Washington Times reported, at 10:15 AM on Friday, 16 December 2011: “The spending bill doesn’t actually amend the 2007 law, but does prohibit the administration from spending any money to carry out the light bulb standards — which amounts to at least a temporary reprieve.” For the complete story, please see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-overturns-incandescent-light-bulb-ban/#disqus_thread
Irlen Institute Study on Lighting
Under the STUDIES tab, and at the link below, there is a synopsis of the Irlen Institute Study on lighting and the devastating effects of fluorescent lighting on people with a broad array of injuries/maladies. This reinforces Dr. Owen Perlman’s statement and validates the observations of the many who are so horribly impacted. This report states that approximately 26% of the population is negatively impacted. Wake up Washington! Isn’t the EPA supposed to protect the citizens? Who is watching the EPA? Click here to go to the study
Go slow with CFLs. Get all of the facts first.
Dr. Magda Havas was interviewed by John McCulloch, on WJR – Radio 760, on Tuesday, 25 October, on the Frank Beckmann Show. To hear this superb interview, just click on the link, above.
Good News from Canada:
Here is Dr. Havas’ letter to Natural Resources Canada in response to their re-consideration of the incandescent ban. As you may know, the ban was extended to 2014. For this I thank Dr. Havas. Havas – Canada Gazette, Part I, Regulations Amending the Energy Efficiency Regulations The second document is the study which Drs. Havas and Hutchinson co-authored on the Environmental and Health Concerns Associated with Compact Fluorescent Lights, to which her letter referred. Havas & Hutchinson EP CFL-1
Some CFLs look different – but they can still harm you
(Please click on the image to enlarge). The ballast, at the base of the bulb, is a clue.
For the devastating effects of CFLs on the Central Nervous System, please do scroll down and watch the first video.
Gemini Award winning telejournalist Allison Vuchnich’s superb documentary on the Swiss research on the emissions from CFLs is quite interesting. Ms. Vuchnich is to be congratulated for some real journalism which presents the facts about which the public needs to be informed. When you view the video, you will see why she earned the Gemini Award. She did a superb job on this video which demonstrates the impact of the emissions from CFLs on the human Central Nervous System. Before you use a CFL in your home or office, for your health and safety take a few moments to watch this video. Can anyone watch this video and think the EPA is protecting them from serious neurological damage? The Adrian Daily Telegram Mark Lenz, Editor of the Adrian (MI) Daily Telegram has an excellent editorial in the September 25, 2011 Daily Telegram: Ban on sale of normal light bulbs leading to higher costs
July 15, 2011 WASHINGTON, DC: Rep. Joe Barton (R-Arlington/Ennis) released the following statement after the House of Representative approved HR 2354 – Energy and Water Appropriations – on Friday afternoon. It included an amendment, presented by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Lewisville), that will delay the de facto ban on the traditional incandescent light bulb for at least a year. “The House has voted to delay the de facto ban on incandescent light bulbs for at least a year. It is the first step in restoring consumer choice and ending government intrusion into our homes. “If the Senate and President sign off on H.R. 2354 then the old fashioned light bulb lives – meaning Americans (especially low and middle income people) can continue to flip the switch on a reliable product, instead of turning to one that costs 5 times more and may not live up to manufacturers’ promises.” “I will continue to fight until the de facto ban is permanently lifted.”
Thank you to Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tx) for working so diligently for the many who have medical problems with CFLs. Thank you, also, to Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Tx) for introducing the amendment and also Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mi) and all of the Representatives who voted for HR 2354. It is great to see people of conviction act courageously in the face of mis-information put out by the groups who have exported U.S. jobs to China.
HR 2417 passed the House. It is the Energy & Water Development Appropriations Bill of 2012. As of November 10, 2011 it is “hanging out” in the Senate. It appears that the Senate wont consider it until the end of the year, and then be subject to negotiation. The voters should show the Senate what is really going on with CFLs and the impact of them. If you are one of the many who are concerned , please communicate with Senators and their staffers.
Virginia Postrel, of Bloomberg View, has an excellent article Need a Light Bulb? Uncle Sam Gets to Choose
Interesting reading. The American public is tired of the government continuing to perpetuate a bi-partisan blunder which has cost us (the U. S.) even more jobs. Hopefully, the Senate and the President will correct this before the unintended consequences of their predecessors’ ill-conceived actions have even more devastating medical, economic, and environmental impacts. There is an empty argument, by the CFL industry and their media sycophants, that this is not a ban. But, in fact, it is exactly that and effectively mandates CFLs — thereby exporting U.S. jobs to China while endangering people with medical issues.
As mentioned above, the Canadian government, our good neighbor to the North, has rolled back their incandescent ban, to give scientists time to study the deleterious effects of CFLs and their impact upon the lives of so many people.
For a frightening photo, please see “A burned (out) CFL” (post to the right).
Medical Facilities and Places of Public Accommodation
Owners or operators of Medical Facilities and other Places of Public Accommodation, should consider their policy on lighting, particularly in the context of the statement by Owen Z. Perlman, M.D., a prominent Physiatrist affiliated with Associates in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. He is confident that there are more people impacted by exposure to CFLs than are in wheelchairs. As you can see, on the right, Dr. Pelman has been named One of the Best Doctors in America.
How can a place of public accommodation afford this risk? Do you want to patronize such a place?
Health concerns trump politics, or should. Hopefully, common sense will cross political boundaries and result in the reversal of the ban on incandescent bulbs which has resulted in the de facto CFL mandate. Thank you to Congressman Joe Barton, from Texas, for his continuing support in this noble cause.
Go slow with CFLs. Get all of the facts first.
Under the “Studies” tab you will find a sampling of the many medical studies on the deleterious effects of CFLs, including RFI, EMI, Dirty Electricity, and Critical Flicker Frequency. Some of these have been recognized for over thirty years. Under the “Recent Articles” tab, to the right, please take a moment to read about the CFL which burst into flames. It is from an email which was received the morning of 19 October 2010. A while back, we received a report of a similar incident at a restaurant on St. Joseph Island in Northern Ontario. Even if you don’t have health issues with them, this ought to cause one to re-evaluate the use of CFLs. Under the POSTS pull-down, you will find a recent email from Dr. Magda Havas. This features an illustration which explains “Dirty Electricity”. While this site is definitely apolitical, the issue of the incandescent ban is (finally) meeting political as well as medical resistance. The article “The Light Bulb Switchover: In The Dark”, which can be accessed from the right column, is important to everyone with medical issues. Health concerns trump politics, or should. The three sponsors of H.R. 6144 are Rep. Joe Barton, Rep. Michael Burgess M.D., and Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Hopefully, common sense will cross political boundaries and result in the reversal of the ban on incandescent bulbs which has resulted in the de facto CFL mandate. In this political season, your encouragement to the sponsors and supporters of this bill could make a difference. It is interesting to note that one of the sponsors is a Medical Doctor. The Conservator of Art, at a major Midwestern University, recently pointed out that museums should not be using CFLs as the UV is damaging to the works of art. This being understood, why would anyone ignore the fact that the UV emitted by CFL bulbs would also be damaging to the eyes of humans and household pets, as UV-blocker glasses are not usually worn in our homes or offices? Where is the EPA whose job it is to protect us? The fourth Video, on this Home page, is of particular interest to folks with migraine issues. It has a segment in which Lawrence C. Newman, M.D., a New York neurologist, discusses his experiences concerning the relationship between CFLs and migraines. You may find the EPA Instructions on CFL Cleanup to be enlightening, under the Recent Articles tab to the right. Owners of places of public accommodation may find that paper to be somewhat frightening in terms of their potential liability to their patrons. Imagine what the mercury contained in a CFL would do to the food supply of a restaurant. Should the restaurant be evacuated so that the patrons do not get a dose of this toxic material? If you read the E.P.A. “recommendations”, that is what the prudent proprietor would do. One would hope that business people would be concerned about the risk of having a Hazardous Waste cleanup problem should a CFL be broken as well as the potential for further injury to folks who have an Acquired Brain Injury, epilepsy, seizures, etc. (the “Medical” page enumerates some of the maladies). Traumatic Brain Injury survivors may find interesting information in Dr. Glen Johnson’s study, in the “Links” to the right. TBI folks may have yet to relate the cause and effect. They just know that they do not feel “right”. On the topic of Traumatic Brain Injury, Jan Hansen, Ph. D., a neuropsychologist, documented her personal observation, of the impact of exposure to CFLs, which was experienced by one of her TBI-survivor patients. It is posted under “Recent Articles” just to the right on this page. It is an excellent, detailed report of an extremely serious unintended, inadvertent encounter with CFLs. You will be amazed at the severity of the incident. Also, since Acquired Brain Injury is frequently associated with medical issues caused/exacerbated by CFLs, it would be reasonable to expect that returning heroes, with IED injuries, may well experience these problems, but have yet to associate the cause and effect. If you know one, you may want to bring this to their attention. The Irlen Institute is studying this issue. In short, the indiscriminate use of CFLs could pose a serious liability issue for merchants who choose to use CFLs, particularly since the alternative is available in the form of LED lights, which do not have the deleterious effects. If you have experiences you wish to share or “Safe” places of public accommodation which you would like to list, please drop us a line or a post. A new feature is the Hall of Shame , a list of UNSAFE Places which use CFLs thereby causing serious health problems. You may be amazed that two hospitals head up that list. As you find places that should be on that list, please send in a comment or email. Thankfully, our good Canadian neighbors are much more engaged with the CFL issues than academics and the mainstream (???) media in the States. Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, Allison Vuchnich of 16X9 Global Television, and others are doing a superb job of researching CFLs and the consequences of the “explosion” of their use. They are working to get Health Canada to investigate theses issues. In Switzerland, Allison Vuchnich found that researchers there have determined that the standards for spurious emissions may not be sufficient to protect us from the harm of CFLs. Check out this Video. Allison Vuchnich’s 16×9 Video on the impact of CFLs on the Central Nervous System.
Video 2 – Rays of Rash by Allison Vuchnich of 16:9 TV
Video 3 – Dirty Electricity/Migraines by Allison Vuchnich of 16:9 TV
Video 4 – Reaction to Rays (Headaches, body aches, skin problems) by Allison Vuchnich of 16:9 TV
Video 5 – Electric Shock (Dirty Electricity) by Allison Vuchnich of 16:9 TV