Talk:Fluorescent lamps and health

Another reference

Might be useful material in Walls, Helen L; et al. (December 2011). "Eye Disease Resulting from Increased Use of Fluorescent Lighting as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy". American Journal of Public Health. 101 (12): 2222 - 2225. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

UV radiation of cool white and daylight color CFLs

Did the studies mentioned in the article also include CFLs with cool white (color temperature around 4000 K) or daylight white (>5000 K) CFLs, or are they restricted to "warm white" ones which emit light of similar color as incandescent lamps? CFLs with a high color temperature are frequently used as desk lamps, thus in quite short distance to the face, albeit typically have the direct light shielded by the fixture.--SiriusB (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

EMR risks

The deletion on July 7th 2012 of the section on Electromagnetic Radiation Risk is illogical, reflecting the personal view of the person removing it. Since this Wiki entry is headed ”Fluorescent Lamps and Health”, it essential that it presents the main concerns about health in relation to these lamps, not an arbitrary selection which one individual considers relevant [WP: NPOV]. Over the last few years attention in this issue has begun to shift from UVR to EMR, whereas much of this entry refers to research before 2010. The World Health Organization has been discussing the problem of EMR from CFLs since at least 2009. The Seletun scientific panel published its review of EMR limits in 2010 and recommended that all new CFLs should have built-in filters to prevent the induction of RF on wiring. In 2001 and 2011 the World Health Organization’s IARC classified ELF and RF radiation as 2B, and specifically did not limit its classification to just cellphones. In contrast the World Health Organization has not commented in its factsheet on UVR and human health about, or against, CFLs. If any section is to be removed, therefore, according to this analysis, it should be the UVR section, not the EMR section, since this has the least consensus among regulators [WP: UNDUE]. UVR, of course, is a subset of EMR, so an alternative would be to make the UVR section a sub-section of EMR risks. It is also illogical to argue that EMR risks should be covered only elsewhere in Wiki. On these grounds, the same would apply to all the other sections (UVR, Time and Mercury), leaving the entry either unbalanced or without content [WP: WEIGHT]. It is quite reasonable for users of an encyclopedia like Wiki to expect a broad spectrum of issues in an entry like this, and not one biased in any particular direction. The EMR section should therefore remain, as should the reference to the updated SCENIHR opinion. If the section needs re-phrasing, that is a different point.DMAch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the section again. Though cited, it is controversial at best, but certainly dubious. It is definitely not accepted in the mainstream. The material was presented as though it is established fact. This is an encyclopedia not a forum for dubious claims that have little evidence to support them. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely wrong and arbitrary to claim that this issue is not “mainstream”. A leading mainstream professor of photo-dermatology, for instance, on a national main-channel discussion program on health problems from CFLs broadcast earlier this year, stated that UVR and EMR are possible causes of CFL health problems and treated them equally without distinction as to whether one or both is responsible. The EMR issue, of course, has been recognized in eastern countries for many decades and in 2008 the western scientific press reported that the majority of involved scientists now accept it as a cause of adverse health outcomes, so it is absurd not to accept it as mainstream. The EMR section makes no more attempt than similar studies to present the material as an established fact and I have edited it further to take your worries into account. In fact the articles cited for this section have a higher proportion of studies from peer-reviewed journals than the rest of this Wiki entry and, as in common with similar Wiki entries where there is still much scientific uncertainty, we often use news and similar citations to give the reader an idea of uncertainties. This is a particular virtue of Wiki and it works well for most readers and entries. It is, however, quite unreasonable for one person to use their particular beliefs to censor a key area of contemporary research and as such deletion of this section can be seen not only as WP: NPOV and WP: WEIGHT but also it appears to be WP: VANDAL. I have therefore restored the section but with appropriate edits and also kept the reference to the updated SCENIHR opinion.DMAch (talk) 07.10.2012 —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Some Scientists ..."; "A few studies ...";"... possible causes ...". Its vague beyond belief. And of course some anonymous scientist appearing on some unsepecified TV programme is solid evidence - NOT. As for "... studies from peer-reviewed journals ...": unless you state what those journals are and who peer reviewed them, then the statement is totally empty. The journals could easily be some environmentalist rag peer viewed by (wholly unreliable) environmentalists. Whatever, any claim that it is widely accepted has still not been backed up by adequate references as demanded by WP:VERIFY. Even just a minor investigation has failed to turn up any evidence of widespread acceptance, but rather of considerable misgivings. But as you are the one inserting the material, it is your responsibility to provide evidence that it is accepted, not mine to prove that it is not (WP:BURDEN). Until adequate evidence is provided (and I am fairly confident that it never will be), your contribution has once again be deleted as inadequately sourced. This is an encyclopedia, not some organ to carry of beat material being included to support some radical viewpoint (WP:POINT).

You appear to be a new editor, so assuming that you are including the material in good faith, it might assist you if you were to review the rules that I have linked to above. I might also point out that two fellow editors (myself and Wtshymanski) have determined that it does not belong. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to add my support to DieSwartzPunkt here (now there's a first!). The vague phrases refered to above are what is deemed to be weasel words. By claiming that "Some scientists ..." (etc.) without specifying who they are that support some point or other, it would be possible to include virtually any old mumbo jumbo in Wikipedia. Weasel words are not permitted because the claim cannot be verified (since we don't know where to check). This is an encyclopedia and either some point is an established fact or it isn't. In the latter case it doesn't belong. If the scientists exist, then they have to be identified. And if their research is accepted, and this can be proven, then it may warrant a place here. But a lot depends on how accepted it is. One or two "eastern countries" having a belief is not good enough. Many countries believe all sorts of things that others find unacceptable or even just plain stupid.

I am diabetic myself, but none of the diabetic authorities that I am familiar with accept the claims made for the effects on diabetics. At any moment in time there are always scientists and research institutes making all sorts of whacky claims. Some get accepted, but most get debunked at some point after they are made. Some (particularly those from environmental sources) get accepted even though they have been debunked, usually because environmentalists know that if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough, people will ultimately believe it (a priciple that one Dr Goebels of the Third Reich knew well and repeatedly proved). 86.150.65.44 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The professor you categorise so dismissively has over 100 studies listed on PubMed as author or co-author. Since you have put yourselves forward as the experts on this issue I await your evidence supporting your view that such scientists are not mainstream and instead are “making all sorts of whacky claims”. Your diatribe with reference to Dr Goebels against researchers on the health effects of FL does not ring true for the scientists I am aware of who are studying the interface of photoreception and magnetoreception within the EM spectrum, whether for visible UV or invisible EM radiation. Unverified comments like “some environmentalist rag” remain WP: NPOV, as do assertions that “most get debunked at some point”. They are irrelevant to this medical section and its peer-reviewed citations. This whole Wiki entry is supposed to be about biological responses to UVR/EMR, not environmentalist pressure groups and your personal views on them. I hope that Wiki medical editors can raise the level of discourse a little higher than this in future. Even my understanding of the word “some” is quantitative, not qualitative or pejorative. I accept, however, that you think the wording is not clear-cut enough so I’ll move the WHO/IARC class 2B nearer the front. I’m sorry to hear that your type of diabetes does not respond to removal of EMF exposure, but the literature includes references to different types of diabetes and differences in windows of frequency and intensity along with other medical parameters.DMAch (talk). 07.12.2012. —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to anyone else to prove any of the critisisms made with regard to your edit. The burden (WP:BURDEN) is solely upon yourself to answer the points with the evidence requested. That said: what you have now added is now better written and cited (although I still contend that it is contoversial - but let's see what others say). However, I have had to remove one phrase. A single anecdote does not constitute 'anecdotal evidence'. In any case, anecdotal evidence is not a verifiable reference for factual accuracy. Single newspaper articles on any subject are seldom trustworthy sources (much like TV documentaries). Even more so given that the newspaper in question has a long history of publishing porkies. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

new sections on flicker effects and blue/UV sensitivity

These 2 new sections, along with the "Time" section preceding these two sections could all be grouped as sub-headings under the heading "Neurological Effects". Editorial issues are that: 1. these effects are integrated with the optic nerve, and 2. the article leads with these 3 sections.

Perhaps the caption "Optical Neuorlogical Effects" along with the 3 sections as subheadings will work. As to the article leading off with these sections, this would be cured by a short introductory section.

There are additional effects indicating that people are affected by blue/ultraviolet sensitivity separate from flicker, based on response to CFL blacklights, which cannot cause red/blue pupillary flicker (blacklights do not have a red component). So-far, I have primary research, but I should find citable publications on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitacx (talk • contribs) 03:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone please find a discussion of fluorescent lamps and pupillary flicker? The cited references had nothing to do with bulbs and it's an enormous leap to go from an effect demostrated in a lab experiement to saying this is why bulbs give people headaches. As you may have noticed, bulbs don't change from red to blue at a 12 Hz rate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What wavelength range of UV is being talked about here?

It isn't stated in the article here, but I tend to think it's UVA. UVB is more dangerous, leading to sun-burn (erethema) and skin cancer. UVC is even more dangerous, as it can lead to cancer but less likely a sun-burn. UVC is absorbed by ordinary glass, and by the fluorescent coating on the inside of the tube (which then responds by emitting visible light). UVB is not necessarily absorbed by the coating (depends on the chemical composition of the fluorescent coating), but is probably mostly absorbed by the glass tube. UVA may be absorbed by the fluorescent coating (again, it depends on the chemical used in the coating) but if not absorbed by the coating, will make it through the glass, with hardly any of it being absorbed by the glass. UVA is very unlikely to cause skin cancer, which is why it it is used in black-lights used at parties and rave clubs. It will make many types of white fabric fluoresce (absorb the UVA radiation, and emit visible light in response) in a blue color. Also some colored dyes (usually bright greens, yellows, and oranges) used in clothes are fluorescent. While it being used as a form of entertainment at parties is not proof it is safe (like loud music playing can be dangerous to your ears), it obviously is much less dangerous than shorter wavelengths of UV, which is why party black-lights don't carry a UV radiation warning label, and why you don't hear news stories about party goers having eye or skin injuries from black-lights, while you willl often hear about party goers getting hearing damage from loud music. If UVA does leak through a CFL bulb, it obviously will be much weaker than black-lights, because black-lights actually are designed to be UVA emitters, and as such are even coated with a fluorescent coating that absorbs UVC and emits UVA in response, to maximize the UVA output of the tube. CFL bulbs are not designed to maximize the output of UVA, so they are much safer even than black-lights commonly used at parties).

So UVA is most likely what's being talked about in the article here, as it's most likely the only wavelength of UV that will even exit the tube into the room. However it should be noted in the article that UVA is the least dangerous wavelength range of UV radiation. Benhut1 (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fluorescent lamps and health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130910012053/http://www.jan.wvu.edu:80/enews/2004/Enews_V2-I1.htm to http://www.jan.wvu.edu/enews/2004/Enews_V2-I1.htm#four
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421181151/http:/www.christianitytoday.com/music/reviews/2004/dichotomyb.html to //http

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What?

>Ordinary people have better reading performance using frequency (50–60 Hz) electromagnetic ballasts than electronic ballasts Wikipedia is such a joke. Come on, goys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.6.178 (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)