CFL's admiting Harmful Radiation?!???

I'm ready and willing to die when It's my time. I'm not going to let a CFL scare me =)

But I still think there will have to be another breakthrough in LED technology before they are even close to being worth the investment.
[/quote]

Judging by the figures and charts, LEDs should be efficient:

http://www.ledgrowlights.com/led_grow_lights_v_hid_lights_.htm#veggrowth
http://www.homegrownlights.com/testing.html

and already produce as many lum as a HID lamp:

http://www.unilumin.com/en/product/a1.asp?id=393&bid=156&cid=235&bn=LED Lighting&sn=LED Outdoor Lighting&title=120 LED Street Light

I've never used LEDs for growing, I'm just using the testemonies and the figures that are out there. All I am saying is give LEDs a chance ... and don't dismiss the possibility that they may actually be worth something...

Doctor Cannabis said:

I must've said something wrong around here, otherwise I don't get why I'm getting all the criticism.

LED panels have been used by some growers who have said that they provide good results. It's just like SOG, ScrOG, cfl grows, HID grows, micro grows or what not, some growers are for them, some against. But if you like the idea and it suits your needs and conditions, you might want to look into it. No one's putting a gun to anyone's head here...

Click to expand...

The heat is just because all the hype about LED's is just that, HYPE. In real life they fail to perform. A lot of scammers and salesmen have posted video's showing and claiming they do as well as HID's but the truth is far from that.

They only work for vegging, plants that are flowered under only LED's look sickly and scrawny even when a crazy amount of money is dropped on the latest and greatest stuff and even if you use double the led's they say you need per sf.

They're just bad bad bad still...

OregonMeds said:

In real life they fail to perform. A lot of scammers and salesmen have posted video's showing and claiming they do as well as HID's but the truth is far from that.

They only work for vegging, plants that are flowered under only LED's look sickly and scrawny even when a crazy amount of money is dropped on the latest and greatest stuff and even if you use double the led's they say you need per sf.

Click to expand...

Oh... well, if you say you've tried them and that they don't deliver, I'm willing to believe. It's not that I'm a loony, it's just that I like to keep an open mind to things like these. Thanks for the info, in that case... I'll make sure not to get any LEDs for growing too soon...

OregonMeds said:

The heat is just because all the hype about LED's is just that, HYPE. In real life they fail to perform. A lot of scammers and salesmen have posted video's showing and claiming they do as well as HID's but the truth is far from that.

They only work for vegging, plants that are flowered under only LED's look sickly and scrawny even when a crazy amount of money is dropped on the latest and greatest stuff and even if you use double the led's they say you need per sf.

They're just bad bad bad still...

Click to expand...

Exactly. Every LED grow I have seen here was weak, and only used LED for veg, Even when just used to veg the plants dont produce as many leafs or shoots and the node spacing is stretched.

And all the "Good" or "Amazing" LED grows turn out to be BS. Someone puts a UFO over an HID grow and takes some pics and then everyone gets all excited.....but its all hype and nothing more.

Theres been multiple LED threads on this site and the final outcome is always that LEDs are pretty much useless, if they are going to be used, they're only really good for veg.

I wouldnt recomend that anyone spend any money on LED panels if your trying to produce max amount of good product in minimal space.

And I've seen real LED UFO grows first hand, all the growers say it was a waste of time. As far as the testimonies of people saying how great they are....well you can find testimonies like that for all those "Get Rich Quick" programs and we all know they are BS.


I also want to point out, LEDs might be great for growing other stuff, like leafy vegetables, Lettuce, who knows what else. Just not Marijuana, not now anyway.

Guess I've just been schooled...

Well, thanks for putting up with me and setting me straight, guys.

Getting back on the subject of the dangers of cfls... is there any other good light source for small spaces (pc case, cupboard, etc) that you could think of. Some have used incandescent bulbs, but did burn some leaves eventually...

Doctor Cannabis said:

Guess I've just been schooled...

Well, thanks for putting up with me and setting me straight, guys.

Getting back on the subject of the dangers of cfls... is there any other good light source for small spaces (pc case, cupboard, etc) that you could think of. Some have used incandescent bulbs, but did burn some leaves eventually...

Click to expand...

I have seen incandescent grows, probably a major waste of time.

IMO CFLs are great alternatives for growing, especially in a small space like a PC grow. I just dont see any point in running multiple CFLs (5 or 6 instead of a single HID)

You could even run a 150 HPS in a mini cooltube in a PC case. That would be a sweet grow. Or even get a 75w or 50w HPS.


Just be careful, and dont break any.

Haha, Just to throw some more fuel on the fire. Anyone who thinks CFLs are better for the environment by being more "energy efficient" are completely overlooking how much more energy it takes to make a CFL vs an Incandescent.

And of coarse theres the mercury and all the other crap.


Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Yeah i was thinki a lil bonsai in a 1x1x1 foot cube with a 50-75 hps

BCtrippin said:

Haha, Just to throw some more fuel on the fire. Anyone who thinks CFLs are better for the environment by being more "energy efficient" are completely overlooking how much more energy it takes to make a CFL vs an Incandescent.

And of coarse theres the mercury and all the other crap.


Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Click to expand...

Good point. But if we boil it down, who knows how much mercury and co2 we're throwing into the atmosphere by simply using our computers and being on this forum...

Eventually, we'll this figure out: If you care about the environment, shoot your family, friends, neighbors and yourself. that should cut down on some co2 production...

Wait...how much co2 was produced just to make the gun?... How much co2 did you exhale just thinking about this?... How much co2 will be produced for you to be locked up in a nut house cause you wonder how much methane is in your farts...?

So, what I'm saying is that it's come to this: humanity vs environment... maybe we'll survive...

Doctor Cannabis said:

Good point. But if we boil it down, who knows how much mercury and co2 we're throwing into the atmosphere by simply using our computers and being on this forum...

Eventually, we'll this figure out: If you care about the environment, shoot your family, friends, neighbors and yourself. that should cut down on some co2 production...

Wait...how much co2 was produced just to make the gun?... How much co2 did you exhale just thinking about this?... How much co2 will be produced for you to be locked up in a nut house cause you wonder how much methane is in your farts...?

So, what I'm saying is that it's come to this: humanity vs environment... maybe we'll survive...

Click to expand...

Well I think most of that is totally irrelevant. Its more about the cost of making something that is suppose to be "good" for the environment. All the hype says that CFLs are the 'Environmentally Friendly' Solution for lighting.

Yes theres all kinds of other sources of mercury, so why bring it into our homes and hang it over our heads in every room?

The argument has always been to save power, they are the environmental friendly choice. But if it takes more energy to make a CFL, and they use more hazardous materials how is that the environmental choice? Its all hype. Thats all Im saying.


I have some CFLs around my house, Im not saying Dont use them because they will kill you. Im just saying its a lot of Hype and its not really the environmentally friendly choice people think it is.

Doctor Cannabis said:

Good point. But if we boil it down, who knows how much mercury and co2 we're throwing into the atmosphere by simply using our computers and being on this forum...

Eventually, we'll this figure out: If you care about the environment, shoot your family, friends, neighbors and yourself. that should cut down on some co2 production...

Wait...how much co2 was produced just to make the gun?... How much co2 did you exhale just thinking about this?... How much co2 will be produced for you to be locked up in a nut house cause you wonder how much methane is in your farts...?

So, what I'm saying is that it's come to this: humanity vs environment... maybe we'll survive...

Click to expand...

Grow more pot. They love CO2!!!!!

Hahaha, Yeah, I think all us growers are already doing our part to lower Co2 levels.

Glad i brought this up. Good discussion. People shouldnt just take it as nothing. But im sure its not all that serious. i guess we just have to wait for the tests.

Unitus77 said:

Glad i brought this up. Good discussion. People shouldnt just take it as nothing. But im sure its not all that serious. i guess we just have to wait for the tests.

Click to expand...

Well IMO the mercury is a pretty serious issue. If you break a bulb just be careful though.

BCtrippin said:

Well IMO the mercury is a pretty serious issue. If you break a bulb just be careful though.

Click to expand...

Which of my chronic medical conditions would mercury poisoning cause, if we used to toss them around at work etc for a few years? Do flouro tubes count too? Regular 8' flouro tubes we always threw in the dumpster, breaking them, probably getting some amount of fumes sometimes...Never cleaning them up properly...

Fuck...

IMO its an issue because the symptoms are things that affect a lot of people who never suspect any type of mercury poisoning, or over exposure to mercury.

I was diagnosed with general anxiety disorder when I was 17, nothing major but I still take meds to level me out. All the symptoms are literally the same as exposure to mercury. I didnt know this till recently, and honestly it makes me wonder what the real problems are.

I have been around broken CFLs, fluoro tubes, broken fluoro tubes over each other when we were kids, just doing dumb shit. But this was all before I had any idea about the health hazards.


Im not saying anyone should be paranoid or not use CFLs. I would just be a bit more careful then just ignoring it.

The EPA doesnt set out an 11 step guide to clean CFLs for nothing, Its not like you have to follow it step by step, but its definitely something to consider.

http://homerepair.about.com/od/elect...pa_cleanup.htm




CFLs really havent been around that long, so we, the people who buy and use them are the long term test subjects. Look how long it took them to realize Asbestos is a bad for you.




These are the health risks associated with mercury, and CFLs.

CFL's depend upon mercury vapor to work. According to the EPA, the following are some health risks of exposure to mercury and mercury vapor depending upon levels of exposure.

BCtrippin, hope you didn't get offended by my remarks. I'm just saying that in order to effectively "save the environment" it's not enough to just get different light bulbs when the whole structure of society is based on dumping waste in rivers and polluting the air.

Mercury poisoning is really nasty. The thing about it is, it has no real 100% exact symptoms. Mercury primarily affects neurons in an undifferentiated way. You can't know which nervous cells are affected more or less by mercury. This is why symptoms are so diverse.
Treatment for mercury poisoning is also nasty because it will cause major mineral deficiencies.

All this is mind, I can hardly wait for the gov to put mercury in our water due to some bull-crap argument like "it makes nails stronger"... oh wait, I forgot... it's already in our water supply!

EDIT: I always knew that newer fluros don't rely on mercury, but on phosphor... may be wrong thou...

346ss said:

hold on.. you guys are worrying about these little itty bitty CFL lights, and how they "can cause radiation" or whatever..

But did you happen to think about what smoking does to your body? and your lungs?

Click to expand...

are you looking for a debate? ill challenge that question anyday but in the meantime maybe you should do some research

Here is some more info. If a cfl is farther than a foot away from you, you should be golden. Any barrier such as a lamp shade or glass in between the light acts as an additional UV barrier. Seems interesting though.. Shows the potential of CFL's considering the rays they emit.. They could be great for our plants!


This is from: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhealth/products/cfl.html



Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) – Fact Sheet/FAQ
What are compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)?

CFLs are a type of fluorescent lamp. Many models of CFLs are available that are designed to replace traditional incandescent bulbs. The compact size of these CFLs allows them to fit into many existing incandescent light fixtures, including table and floor lamps commonly found in households. CFLs are very energy efficient, using approximately one quarter of the energy compared to traditional incandescent bulbs. CFLs also have a very long lifespan, typically 6000- 15,000 hours compared to the 750-1,000 hours for a normal incandescent bulb.
Does FDA regulate compact fluorescent lamps?

Fluorescent lamps, including CFLs, are electronic products subject to Section 532 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Section 532 of the Act authorizes FDA to establish and carry out an electronic product radiation control program designed to protect the public health and safety from radiation that may be emitted from electronic products, such as the UV that may be emitted from CFLs.
Although FDA regulates CFLs under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 21 Part 1000, there are currently no specific standards or annual reporting requirements for CFLs. Manufacturers of CFLs are subject to CFR 21 part 1002.20, which requires CFL manufacturers to report accidental radiation incidents should any occur. In addition, CFR part 1003.10 requires manufacturers to notify FDA in the event of a product defect or failure which would result in an accidental exposure incident.
The vast majority of products of concern to the FDA are capable of emitting significant levels of radiation, such as X-ray equipment or skin tanning lamps but CFLs do not fall into this area.
Do CFLs emit UV?

All fluorescent lamps emit some UV. Typical fluorescent lamps, including CFLs, which consumers would encounter, emit very low levels of UV. In order to measure any UV radiation from these lamps, very sensitive measuring equipment must be used.
What is the wavelength range of the light radiation that is emitted by CFLs?

Since CFLs are designed to provide general illumination, the majority of the light emitted by CFLs is localized to the visible region of the spectrum (approximately 400-700 nm in wavelength). In addition, typical CFLs emit a small amount of UVB (280-315 nm), UVA (315-400 nm) and infrared (> 700 nm) radiation.
How do I know that the level of UV is acceptably low from a CFL?

The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) has published a series of standards relating to radiation emissions from general purpose lighting. If a CFL were to exceed allowable levels of UV (according to IESNA RP 27.3), its packaging would be required to be labeled with a caution label. This standard, which was developed with the assistance of the FDA, requires lamp manufacturers to provide a suitable caution if one is needed. At typical use distances, UV levels from CFLs fall below the level of general concern for normal, healthy individuals and therefore carry no such warning.
How close can we safely get to an operating CFL?

Unless you are one of the few individuals who have a medical condition (such as some forms of Lupus) that makes you particularly sensitive to either UV or even visible light, you should be able to use these lamps at the same distance as you would use traditional incandescent lamps. However, a recent study from the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency has found that there are measureable levels of UV from single envelope CFLs when used at distances closer than 1 foot. As a precaution, it is recommended that these types of CFLs not be used at distances closer than 1 foot, for more than one hour per day.
How do I know if I am particularly sensitive to either UV or visible light?

Only your physician can make such a diagnosis. The vast majority of people do not suffer from such UV or visible light sensitivities.
Are there precautions I can take to reduce the small levels of UV from CFLs still further if I should wish to do so?

The glass used in CFLs already provides a UV filtering effect. In addition, any additional glass, or plastic, or fabric used in lighting fixtures that is between you and the CFL will further reduce the already low levels to still lower levels since these materials act as additional UV filters. Increasing the distance between you and any radiation source, including CFLs, will also reduce the small level to a lower level.
However, if you still wish to take additional steps then you might wish to purchase the type of CFL that has an additional glass or plastic cover that enclosed the CFL to make it appear more like a traditional incandescent lamp. These covers provide an additional reduction of the low level of UV to a lower level.
Any other safety concerns? I have heard CFLs contain mercury. Should I be concerned?

Like traditional tube-style fluorescent lamps, CFLs contain a small amount of mercury. It is the use of this small amount of mercury that allows any fluorescent lamp to produce visible illumination at much higher efficiency levels than incandescent lighting. Typical household CFLs contain less than 5 mg of mercury, which is a sphere about the size of the tip of a pen. CFLs do not emit mercury as they operate. The only way mercury could be emitted from a CFL would be if the outer glass tubing that contains the mercury were to break.
Care should be taken not to break a CFL. If you break one, you should carefully clean up the entire residue according to EPA instructions that you can find at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/cflcleanup.pdf
What about other potential adverse health effects from CFLs? I have seen some claims that CFLs cause headaches in some people. Is this true?
The vast majority of CFL users, both in households and in commercial buildings, report no issues regarding CFL usage, including headaches. There are some anecdotal reports, however, and, although there is yet no research to directly explain any plausible causative mechanism, it may be possible that some people are susceptible to such headache effects just as some people claim to be annoyed by normal fluorescent lighting. However, the overwhelming numbers of people that use CFLs report no such negative effects. FDA expects that research in this area will continue, and, as any new information develops, it will be included in a updated FAQ.