Energy saving lighbulbs cause cancer even when not broken and switched on Watch

canimakeit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
Why do people keep telling us things that can cause cancer what doesn't cause cancer that's what I want to know.
1
reply
cttp_ngaf
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
(Original post by IPlayThePiccolo)
At one point coffee both caused and cured cancer.
At one point having children and not having children caused cancer.
There are different kinds of cancer and different kinds of people, it's hardly mind-blowing stuff.

(Original post by IPlayThePiccolo)
It seems we're all going to get cancer anyway, let's save the environment whilst we're at it shall we?
lol, as if these lightbulbs will help towards that. They're as ridiculous as the Prius.
0
reply
CoffeAddict
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
Sun causes cancer.

You better run!
1
reply
cttp_ngaf
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 years ago
#24
(Original post by coffeaddict)
sun causes cancer.

You better run!
lol
lol




lool
lololololololl!11111111111
0
reply
NaturalDisaster
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
Anything will give you cancer if you live long enough.
0
reply
cttp_ngaf
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report 7 years ago
#26
(Original post by JGR)
The idea is that the mercury stays inside the bulb.
This isn't about the mercury.

(Original post by JGR)
Frankly, the whole issue is a farce, as pretty much every office, car park, large public building, etc has been lit using strip fluorescent lights for the last few decades at least, and they also contain mercury. Last time I checked that wasn't an issue.
Really, and when was the last time you checked, and what did that consist of?
0
reply
Blueflare
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 years ago
#27
Basically everything in the world apparently gives us cancer, what's one more thing? I really don't care at this point.
Besides, just because the bulbs have stuff in them that can hypothetically cause cancer doesn't mean that people will actually be affected in the real world. Unless you break one open and drink the inside you're seriously going to be fine. :p:
0
reply
lonelykatana
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
(Original post by cttp_ngaf)
Penis.
0
reply
DarkWhite
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
It's not so much the case that "everything gives you cancer" so much as how the extent to which the risk of discovering cancer as a direct consequence of using such a device is overplayed by both scientists and the media.

In this case for example, one of the biggest cancer risks is by women using them close to their body for extended periods at night time, and breaking them, both of which are rare occurrences. Undoubtedly, using the computer monitor in front of me is putting me at risk of a number of health problems, quite probably including cancer, but unless you want to live in a sandstone house (which probably does lung damage) on the side of an animal-free hill, then you're simply not going to be able to avoid such medical risks.

Most people diagnosed with cancer now survive, and survival rates for every common cancer are on the rise. Of course I'm not saying it's something we can ignore and imagine that there's an instant fix for, but the odds of you losing your life to regular use of an energy efficient lightbulb are slim, very slim.
0
reply
JGR
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
(Original post by cttp_ngaf)
This isn't about the mercury.
I re-read the article and you're correct (makes a pleasant change from the mercury bleating).
Phenol, napthalene and styrene to me suggest plastics residue.
The article declines to mention concentrations. I for one am not going to worry.

(Original post by cttp_ngaf)
Really, and when was the last time you checked, and what did that consist of?
Are you aware of what the 'F' in CFL stands for?
These energy-saver bulbs are functionally the same as standard fluorescent-tube mercury-arc discharge strip-lighting but in a smaller package.
0
reply
cttp_ngaf
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
(Original post by JGR)
(Original post by me)
[Really, and when was the last time you checked, and what did that consist of?
Are you aware of what the 'F' in CFL stands for?
These energy-saver bulbs are functionally the same as standard fluorescent-tube mercury-arc discharge strip-lighting but in a smaller package.
Yes, but that in no way whatsoever answers my questions about what "checks" you conduct on fluorescent lighting and health.
0
reply
Sokka
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by cttp_ngaf)
Ridiculous false dichotomy.
was that a harry potter spell? :confused:
0
reply
JGR
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
(Original post by cttp_ngaf)
Yes, but that in no way whatsoever answers my questions about what "checks" you conduct on fluorescent lighting and health.
I am not conducting tests on CFLs or these preliminary results, and without a copy of the report, can't comment on whether the perceived risk is substantiated.
My point is not that CFLs are perfectly safe, for nothing is perfectly safe, but that CFLs are in no way new or novel, and indeed have been used in differing form-factors with no controversy at all for decades. It is therefore odd that great clouds of controversy and claims of carcinogenic effects are bandied about now, when if that is the case, should also be applied to strip-lighting, both now and in the past, which people seem to ignore.

It is fallacious to suggest that because I don't work in the field of checking gas-discharge tubes, I can't make any comment on the topic.


It'll be interesting to see what subsequent investigation into these preliminary reports suggests.
In the meantime, I am not going to avoid fluorescent lighting.
0
reply
cttp_ngaf
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
(Original post by JGR)
I am not conducting tests on CFLs or these preliminary results, and without a copy of the report, can't comment on whether the perceived risk is substantiated.
My point is not that CFLs are perfectly safe, for nothing is perfectly safe, but that CFLs are in no way new or novel, and indeed have been used in differing form-factors with no controversy at all for decades. It is therefore odd that great clouds of controversy and claims of carcinogenic effects are bandied about now, when if that is the case, should also be applied to strip-lighting, both now and in the past, which people seem to ignore.
Oh ok, you meant that last time you "checked", this wasn't considered an issue by the public, not that it was or was not a health problem.

But actually I've always been aware of public distrust towards fluorescent lighting, and certainly mercury-containing bulbs, strip or otherwise. Fluro lighting was even joked about in The Simpsons as having health implications, I recall. I think it's a pretty well known "thing".
The reason people are focussing on compact fluoros now is because they're new and are being forced upon us by the ban on filament bulbs, so they're a hot topic and people are interested.

(Original post by JGR)
It is fallacious to suggest that because I don't work in the field of checking gas-discharge tubes, I can't make any comment on the topic.
That would indeed be fallacious, good job no one's suggesting that, eh?
0
reply
Elwyn
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#35
Report 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by cttp_ngaf)
Classic stuff. People become overloaded with advice and so they react by denying all of it. This is the problem that scientists have when trying to communicate health issues with laypeople who have a completely different way of categorising nature and "things" than do the scientists. To you, I suppose, it seems that there are all these hundreds of different objects or activities that can just abstractly "cause cancer". It seems absurd and magical, LOL LIGHT BuLB GONNA FLY DOWN AND KILL ME WHEN I SLEEP.

Most people, and they would never know it, have a very limited perception of what this physical reality is made up of, how tiny amounts of matter can transfer between surfaces or move in air or water, and certainly they don't know what on Earth cancer is or how it comes about, just that it's a really **** illness which can't really be cured.

But to someone with an awareness of biology and chemistry it actually makes perfect sense, and I can't think of a single report of something being linked to cancer that was very far from the truth. Most are just reports of old, well-known cancer risks being connected with other behaviours or objects, as in this case:

> These lightbulbs contain chemicals which are very well known to "cause" cancer in certain situations.
> These chemicals leech out of the lightbulbs, into the air.
> You breathe in the air.
> The cancer-causing chemicals are now in your body.

This is all indisputable. So what remains is the matter of extent and dose, and then weighing that danger against the great convenience of having expensive, dim lightbulbs which don't even last as long as the old sort.
I didn't say they were wrong, all I was saying is that if you live your life hiding from all these potential carcinogens then there would be no real life to lead. It's like cars, there's a chance you will be involved in an accident when you are travelling in them, but does that mean people don't use them, no. It's a risk people take. Also, alot of people still smoke, do they really think that if people aren't afraid of the cancer caused by smoking they are going to suddenly throw away all their lightbulbs.
0
reply
04ayasin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
Look at the list of carcinegens. Its pretty much everything and that's not exagurating.
0
reply
Keckers
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
Meh, in a few years we should (if the world has any sense) be using LED lights instead. Far more energy efficient and powerful. (and probably easy to recycle too)
0
reply
cttp_ngaf
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
(Original post by Elwyn)
I didn't say they were wrong, all I was saying is that if you live your life hiding from all these potential carcinogens then there would be no real life to lead.
People have different interests in their health and consider different things to be worth doing. For example I use a glass bottle to carry water in - there are several benefits to that but primarily I do it to avoid the inevitable small doses of "chemicals" one receives when drinking from plastic bottles, especially ones you repeatedly re-use. To some people that would be a tremendous effort and absolutely not worth doing, but it's just normal to me and a simple habit. In fact it's kind of easier because I've used the same bottle for over 18 months.

Many others are just simple choices between products or types of products, most of which you didn't really need in the first place. I don't know, I never feel burdened by my efforts to minimise contamination by all our modern poisons - if anything it just makes life easier. You have to go out of your way to expose yourself to many, but people do because it gets sold to them.

do they really think that if people aren't afraid of the cancer caused by smoking they are going to suddenly throw away all their lightbulbs.
no, no one thinks that
0
reply
CitizensUnited
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 7 years ago
#39
And just how do they emit these chemicals? Glass is inert and the chemicals are inside the glass.

I reckon people should accept there is a risk of cancer associated with everything but no, everybody has to live until they're 120 and die of old age and any other cause of death must be investigated until somebody or something is to blame. Why can't people just accept that they'll die? [rant over]
0
reply
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by Elwyn)
Everything gives you cancer these days. If you live your life listening to all these stories you'd be living in a cave.
ahh but microbes that live off the air particles in caves will give you cancer, not to mention the bacteria in the rocks causing lung disease
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (264)
39.11%
No - but I will (46)
6.81%
No - I don't want to (50)
7.41%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (315)
46.67%

Watched Threads

View All