View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 27th 09, 08:26 AM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
John Barnard John Barnard is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 602
Default "CFL"? Dirty electric?

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