In article
,
Wingdingaling6 wrote:

On Jan 26, 11:21*am, Drifter wrote:
http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/glo...01.04.topStory...

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/glo...01.04.segment0...

And you thought it only put crap in your radio. turns out
these un-researched lights can kill you. 16X9 is a 20X20
north of us. you might want to read the story and watch
the videos. and, keep your kids away from them. once again,
Big Gov goes with Big Biz, and screw the people.

Drifter...

CFL's are nothing more than screw-in fluroescent lamps loke the types
we've had since the 1930's. Remember that fluroescent tube lighting
over your head in grade school and at Woolworths store when you were a
kid? It's exactly the same thing in a CFL except the tube is a curly-
cue shape instead of a long tube. CFL's ane not dangerous same
technology we've had since the late 1930's.

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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:
In article
,
Wingdingaling6 wrote:

On Jan 26, 11:21 am, Drifter wrote:
http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/glo...01.04.topStory...

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/glo...01.04.segment0...

And you thought it only put crap in your radio. turns out
these un-researched lights can kill you. 16X9 is a 20X20
north of us. you might want to read the story and watch
the videos. and, keep your kids away from them. once again,
Big Gov goes with Big Biz, and screw the people.

Drifter...
CFL's are nothing more than screw-in fluroescent lamps loke the types
we've had since the 1930's. Remember that fluroescent tube lighting
over your head in grade school and at Woolworths store when you were a
kid? It's exactly the same thing in a CFL except the tube is a curly-
cue shape instead of a long tube. CFL's ane not dangerous same
technology we've had since the late 1930's.

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.

JB

In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article
,
Wingdingaling6 wrote:

On Jan 26, 11:21 am, Drifter wrote:
http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/glo...01.04.topStory...

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/glo...01.04.segment0...

And you thought it only put crap in your radio. turns out
these un-researched lights can kill you. 16X9 is a 20X20
north of us. you might want to read the story and watch
the videos. and, keep your kids away from them. once again,
Big Gov goes with Big Biz, and screw the people.

Drifter...
CFL's are nothing more than screw-in fluroescent lamps loke the types
we've had since the 1930's. Remember that fluroescent tube lighting
over your head in grade school and at Woolworths store when you were a
kid? It's exactly the same thing in a CFL except the tube is a curly-
cue shape instead of a long tube. CFL's ane not dangerous same
technology we've had since the late 1930's.

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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article
,
Wingdingaling6 wrote:

On Jan 26, 11:21 am, Drifter wrote:
http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/glo...01.04.topStory...

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/glo...01.04.segment0...

And you thought it only put crap in your radio. turns out
these un-researched lights can kill you. 16X9 is a 20X20
north of us. you might want to read the story and watch
the videos. and, keep your kids away from them. once again,
Big Gov goes with Big Biz, and screw the people.

Drifter...
CFL's are nothing more than screw-in fluroescent lamps loke the types
we've had since the 1930's. Remember that fluroescent tube lighting
over your head in grade school and at Woolworths store when you were a
kid? It's exactly the same thing in a CFL except the tube is a curly-
cue shape instead of a long tube. CFL's ane not dangerous same
technology we've had since the late 1930's.

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.

Myself, I've never liked the light emitted by a fluorescent bulb. Give me good old
incandescents any day.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:


Myself, I've never liked the light emitted by a fluorescent bulb. Give me good old
incandescents any day.

You say "the light" like there's only one kind.

I quit using incandescents over 20 years ago, before CFLs. I'd get
the LOA under cabinet 15 Watters at Homer's and put them everywhere.
Left a lot of them on 24/7. When CFLs started happening I was a kid in
a candy shop.

dave wrote:

dxAce wrote:


Myself, I've never liked the light emitted by a fluorescent bulb. Give me good old
incandescents any day.

You say "the light" like there's only one kind.

I quit using incandescents over 20 years ago, before CFLs. I'd get
the LOA under cabinet 15 Watters at Homer's and put them everywhere.
Left a lot of them on 24/7. When CFLs started happening I was a kid in
a candy shop.

'Cause you're a dumbass retard, just like I figured long ago, boy!

dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:

Myself, I've never liked the light emitted by a fluorescent bulb. Give me good old
incandescents any day.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


I'm with Ace and Telamon on this. i still think this is a bunch
of crap. if you read the story or watched the video, you see what
can happen. i may be 9th generation American, but, i still have that
fair skin germen look. i love the sun, but i have to be careful,
lots of skin cancer in the family. i have no idea who the real
experts are on this. and, i will not trust the bulb industry's.
if i remember, walmart started the big push on this. and, as with
Ace, i got a bunch of the incans stored up. maybe i'll take a
look at the led lights. got an LED flashlight, and it works real
good.

Drifter...

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.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:14:41 UTC, Roland Latour
wrote:

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.

My wife gets sunburned from sunlight coming through the side glass on
her arm. I also get the "farmer tan" if I have my arm on the armrest,
with the windows closed and the a/c going, if the sun is streaming in
throught the window. What are you talking about?
--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article
,
Wingdingaling6 wrote:

On Jan 26, 11:21 am, Drifter wrote:
http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/glo...01.04.topStory...

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/glo...01.04.segment0...

And you thought it only put crap in your radio. turns out
these un-researched lights can kill you. 16X9 is a 20X20
north of us. you might want to read the story and watch
the videos. and, keep your kids away from them. once again,
Big Gov goes with Big Biz, and screw the people.

Drifter...
CFL's are nothing more than screw-in fluroescent lamps loke the types
we've had since the 1930's. Remember that fluroescent tube lighting
over your head in grade school and at Woolworths store when you were a
kid? It's exactly the same thing in a CFL except the tube is a curly-
cue shape instead of a long tube. CFL's ane not dangerous same
technology we've had since the late 1930's.
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.

Yep, I know those particular factoids. The thing is that the phosphors
are designed to absorb the UV light and re-radiate it in the visible
range. Unless there is a problem with a section of the bulb not having
sufficient phosphor coating, the UV light getting through should be very
low.

JB