On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:14:44 -0800, Telamon wrote:

In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article
,
Wingdingaling6 wrote:

No they are not the same. The old bulbs operated at 60 Hz and the new
smaller bulbs operate in the kilohertz range. The other problem is
these smaller bulbs are used closer to people increasing the UV
damage.

And just how much UV do you think is actually escaping from the bulb?
You'd get way more UV from being outside on a clear day than from being
close to a CFL. If they can make CFLs to be used in a photographic lab
you know the UV light actually being emitted has to be extremely low.

The mercury plasma in the bulb emits only UV light. The phosphors on the
inside of the bulb emit visible light when struck by the UV light waves.
This is why florescent lights are biased biased toward the blue.

The light falls off as an inverse square of the distance so the smaller
bulbs closer to you give you UV light at a higher rate.

UV is not a problem with fluorescents. True, the plasma generates UV. But
UV won't go thru ordinary glass. The glass used in those fluorescent
tubes that are used as day-glo lamps is a very special mix. It is usually
produced in an ordinary glass kiln at the end of a several-year run.
After making the special batch the kiln is relined.

Richard Feynmann was the only person to see the first atomic bomb blast
without using goggles. He did it by sitting in a pickup, looking thru the
windscreen, because he knew ordinary glass doesn't conduct UV. Source:
"Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynmann!", pgs.116-117.

That's also why you can't get a suntan if you're in a car with the
windows rolled up.

I probably messed up the attributions above my response. Whatever.