CFL's May Cause Cancer? - Granite Grok

CFL’s May Cause Cancer?

cfl-bulb-dangerousA study released last Summer by Stony Brook University – “The Effects of UV Emission from CFL Exposure on Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes in Vitro,”  (published in the June issue of the journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology)– suggests that compact fluorescent light bulbs release dangerous amounts of UV rays that create a serious health risk.

STONY BROOK, NY, July 18, 2012 – Inspired by a European study, a team of Stony Brook University researchers looked into the potential impact of healthy human skin tissue (in vitro) being exposed to ultraviolet rays emitted from compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs.

Two days ago I laid out a long list of problems with compact flourescents, some health related but mostly practical objections, but only touched on the implied health risks of simply turning them on.  This university report makes some startling observations.

CBS Miami (On the Stony Brook Research)

“… compact fluorescent light bulbs emit high levels of ultra violet radiation, according to a new study. Research at Long Island’s Stony Brook found that the bulbs emit rays so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells.

“The results were that you could actually initiate cell death,” said Marcia Simon, a Professor of Dermatology.

Exposure to the bulbs could lead to premature aging and skin cancer, according to doctors.

“It can also cause skin cancer in the deadliest for (sic), and that’s melanoma,” said Dr. Rebecca Tung.

So are Democrats and spineless Republicans intentionally putting you and your children at risk by mandating them?

If this research suggested that CFL’s cured erectile dysfunction and prevented unwanted pregnancy I suspect that we’d have heard about the report on July 18th 2012 when the press release hit the media universe. Instead it suggests serious health risks and yet here it is just four days after the incandescent bulb ban takes its first victim (almost six months after the report we’ve never heard of), and we’ve not see one Democrat parade a single victim of the right’s obsession with these dangerous bulbs across our television screens.

Would that be because it was mostly Democrats and RINO’s who pushed the Federal CFL mandate and the incandescent bulb ban?  We’ll save that for later.

I don’t think New Hampshire has to play along if it does not want to.

In “Watt The CFL Is Going On Here?” I suggested that…

Maybe New Hampshire should nullify the law in the Granite State until someone takes a more serious look at the negatives of CFL’s, and then pass a heat ball exception that will allow people to buy the bulb that is safer, creates more light, and is easier to dispose of without long term detriment to people, animals and our state.

How about that then Governor Hassan, Speaker Norelli, State Senator Peter ‘King Reggie’ Bragdon? CFL’s are not only inefficient, expensive, subsidy hogging,  job exporting, failures, their…wait for it- emissions may pose a serious health risk even if you do not break one.  What do we call that, second hand light?

(No one seemed to care that mercury is bad for your liver and causes birth defects so will this even matter to them?)

Maybe the plan is to tax them like cigarettes?  Progressives always say we should tax things that are bad for us, why not use Federal tax dollars on one side to lower the cost of the bulbs so people can afford to poison themselves and then tax them on the other side to create a new revenue stream to pay for the state?  That’s got genius-Democrat-revenue-scheme written all over it.  You won’t even have to pretend you actually want to stop it when all you really want to do is raise taxes.  Just say it’s to offset the growing health care costs created by the bulbs you forced us to use.

Or are you a brighter bulb than that–which wouldn’t take much considering how lousy CFL’s are.  Are you willing to challenge the federal mandate?  Would You be willing to let consumers decide if the benefits outweigh the risk?   Or are you all statist sheep without the wool to stand up to your masters in Washington DC?

I’m betting on the latter.  I’d be more than happy to be wrong.