Health concerns re CFL bulbs - Dr. Magda Havas

The EU has a Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health
Risks (SCENIHR) and they are looking into "light sensitivity" since so many
people are complaining about feeling ill when they use energy-efficient compact
fluorescent lights.

Below is Dr. Magda Havas' submission to the� secretariat. It is the
electromagnetic freqiencies the lights produce that is the problem. These
frequencies are broadcast from the bulbs themselves and also passed along on building
wiring, from building to building.

I am sending the original pdf file in a separate e-mail, as some people's
computers reject attached files in blind-copy mailings. It is much easier to
read, and contains the illuminating graphs and charts.

Shivani Arjuna
www.LifeEnergies.com


Health Concerns associated with Energy Efficient
Lighting and their Electromagnetic Emissions
Dr. Magda Havas
Associate Professor, Environmental and Resource Studies
Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada
[hidden email]

Table of Contents
Introduction page 1
UV Radiation 3
Radio Frequency Radiation 4
ElectroHyperSensitivity (EHS) 6
Conclusions 8
References Cited 9
Appendix A: Biographical Sketch of the Author 10
Appendix B: Health Canada and UV Radiation 11

Tables & Figures
Table 1. Symptoms of Electrohypersensitivity or Radio Wave Sickness (7). 6
Figure 1. Electromagnetic frequencies generated by various types of light
bulbs. 3
Figure 2. Intermediate frequencies generated by an incandescent light bulb
and 5
a compact fluorescent light bulb. Input A: 0.5 meters from bulb. Input B:
on wire after passing through a ubiquitous filter that removes the 60-Hz
cycle.
Figure 3. Responses to an electronic survey on self-proclaimed 7
electrohypersensitivity and to various types of lighting (n=168).
SCENIHR & Light Sensitivity
[hidden email] page 2/11
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)
Request for an opinion on “Light Sensitivity”
June 2008
Health Concerns associated with Energy Efficient Lighting and their
Electromagnetic Emissions
Dr. Magda Havas1
Associate Professor, Environmental and Resource Studies
Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada
[hidden email]
I write this mini report in response to your request for information about
Light Sensitivity
as it relates to energy efficient light bulbs. It is based on research we are
currently
conducting that has not yet been peer-reviewed. For this reason I am able to
share only a
small portion of our results with you at this time.
Governments around the world are banning energy inefficient light bulbs in an
attempt to
reduce consumption of fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases.
However, the
energy efficient light bulbs that are currently available may be harming both
the
environment (mercury content of bulbs is high) and human health
(electromagnetic
pollution).
The main function of light bulbs is to generate light, which is part of the
electromagnetic
spectrum (see Figure 1). The original incandescent light bulbs also generate
heat
(infrared radiation, also part of the EM2 spectrum), which makes them energy
inefficient.
The newer compact fluorescent light bulbs generate radio frequency radiation
as well as
ultraviolet radiation (see Figure 1) and many still generate heat although
less of it.
These frequencies (RF3 and UV4) have been associated with adverse health in
numerous
peer-reviewed scientific studies and a growing number of people are
complaining that
these bulbs make them ill.
Instead of promoting compact fluorescent light bulbs, governments should be
insisting
that manufacturers produce light bulbs that do not produce radio frequency or
UV
radiation and that are safe for the environment and for human health.
Alternative light
bulbs are available that are much more energy efficient than CFL, do not
contain
mercury, do not produce radio frequencies or UV radiation, and do not make
people sick.
Unfortunately these bulbs are still too expensive for residential use (CLED
lights
produced by www.realuvcorp.com).
1 For a biographical sketch of the author please refer to Appendix A.
2 EM: electromagnetic
3 RF: radio frequency
4 UV: ultraviolet

Figure 1. Electromagnetic frequencies generated by various types of light
bulbs.

UV Radiation:
Fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury, which emits UV radiation when it is
electrically
excited. This UV radiation then interacts with the chemicals on the inside of
the bulb to
generate light. Tube fluorescent bulbs have diffusers that filter the UV
radiation. The
new compact fluorescent light bulbs do not have these diffusers and hence
people using
CFL are exposed to UV radiation. UV radiation has been linked to skin cancer
and
various skin disorders. Those who have skin problems may be particularly
sensitive to
this radiation.
Global News in Canada did a Special Report in April 2008 on energy efficient
light
bulbs. Health Canada provided them with some information about these bulbs
(see
Appendix 2). According to Philippe Laroche, Media Relations Officer for
Health
Canada, compact fluorescent light bulbs, unlike tube fluorescent bulbs, do
not have
prismatic diffusers to filter UV radiation. “Therefore, there may be skin
sensitivity issues,
especially in people with certain skin diseases.”
Health Canada and other government agencies responsible for ensuring that
products sold
have no adverse health effects need to make this information readily
available to the
public.

Radio Frequency Radiation:
According to General Electric (GE) their typical electronically-ballasted CFL
operate in
the 24-100 kHz frequency range. This range is within the radio frequency band
of the
electromagnetic spectrum (Figure 1) and is classified as Intermediate
Frequency (IF5) by
the World Health Organization. There is concern about electromagnetic
interference
(EMI) associated with IF and recently studies have shown that IF are
biologically active
and can have adverse health effects (1,2).
We used a Fluke Scope meter to measure the waveform generated by light bulbs
through
the air (at a distance of 0.5 meters) and on the wire (after it had passed
through a
ubiquitous filter to remove the 60 Hz cycle). We also measured power quality
using a
microsurge meter, which measure the frequency range between 4 and 100 kHz.
Figure 2 shows the waveform through the air (blue) and on the wire (red) for
a Sylvania
60 watt incandescent light bulb and for a 15 watt CFL produced by General
Electric.
The GE bulb emits radio frequencies directly through the air (blue) and
generates IF on
wires which causes dirty electricity. Background values for power quality
(dirty
electricity) were between 63 and 67 GS units. The incandescent bulb did not
contribute
to dirty electricity but the CFL did and raised the readings to 298 GS units.
This was not
the “dirtiest” light bulb we tested. Several gave readings above 1000 GS
units.
A recent study of cancer clusters in a school in California associated the
increased risk of
cancer among teachers to dirty electricity (2). Teachers who taught in
classrooms where
the dirty electricity was above 2000 GS units had a 5-fold increase risk of
cancer (risk
ratio 5.1) that was statistically significant. Teachers who never taught in
those
classrooms had a risk ratio of 1.8.
5 IF: Intermediate Frequencies within the Radio Frequency band of the
electromagnetic
spectrum. Generally in the kHz range (thousands of cycles per second).
In a different school study in Toronto, improvement in power quality was
associated with
improved health among teachers and improved behaviour among their students
(3). This
study has been repeated at 3 Minnesota schools with similar results (4).
Dirty electricity
in schools contributes to ill health of teachers and behavioural problems
among students.
We have conducted studies with diabetics and people who have multiple
sclerosis and
found that when the dirty electricity in their home is reduced their symptoms
diminish.
Both type 1 and type 2 diabetics have lower blood sugar and type 1 diabetics
require less
insulin when they are in an electromagnetically clean environment. People
with MS have
fewer tremors, improved balance, less fatigue, and several have been able to
walk
unassisted after the dirty electricity in their home was reduced (5).
Figure 2. Intermediate frequencies generated by an incandescent light bulb
and a
compact fluorescent light bulb. Input A: 0.5 meters from bulb. Input B: on
wire after
passing through a ubiquitous filter that removes the 60-Hz cycle.

ElectroHyperSensitivity (EHS)
According to the Swedish Association for the ElectroSensitive (www.feb.se)
approximately 3% of the population have severe symptoms of
electrohypersensitivity.
These symptoms include sleep disorders, chronic fatigue, chronic pain,
cognitive
dysfunction, dizziness, skin disorders, among others (see Table 1). The
Swedish
government recognizes EHS as a functional impairment rather than a disease
(6).
Table 1. Symptoms of Electrohypersensitivity or Radio Wave Sickness (7).
Neurological: headaches, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating, memory
loss,
irritability, depression, anxiety, insomnia, fatigue, weakness, tremors,
muscle spasms,
numbness, tingling, altered reflexes, muscle and joint paint, leg/foot pain,
flu-like
symptoms, fever. More severe reactions can include seizures, paralysis,
psychosis and
stroke.
Cardiac: palpitations, arrhythmias, pain or pressure in the chest, low or
high blood
pressure, slow or fast heart rate, shortness of breath
Respiratory: sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma
Dermatological: skin rash, itching, burning, and facial flushing
Ophthalmologic: pain or burning in the eyes, pressure in/behind the eyes,
deteriorating
vision, floaters, and cataracts
Others: digestive problems; abdominal pain; enlarged thyroid,
testicular/ovarian pain;
dryness of lips, tongue, mouth, eyes; great thirst; dehydration; nosebleeds;
internal
bleeding; altered sugar metabolism; immune abnormalities; redistribution of
metals
within the body; hair loss; pain in the teeth; deteriorating fillings;
impaired sense of
smell; ringing in the ears.
We conducted a survey on line to determine how electrically sensitive people
respond to
different types of lighting. This survey was circulated among different
groups include
those with electrohypersensitivity, migraines, lupus and other health
concerns. Since
migraine sufferers respond to bright light we eliminated them from this part
of the
analysis.
We asked participants to identify their degree of electrohypersensitivity and
to identify
their symptoms when they were exposed to various types of lighting. Figure 3
shows
their results for headaches. The highest percentage of headaches was reported
for
exposure to both tube and compact fluorescent light bulbs among those who
classify
themselves as either moderate sensitive to extremely sensitive. Results for
other
symptoms were similar.

Figure 3. Responses to an electronic survey on self-proclaimed
electrohypersensitivity
and to various types of lighting n=168.
The World Health Organization held an international seminar on EHS in Prague,
October
25-27, 2004 and at that seminar they defined EHS as follows:
“. . . a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects
while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric,
magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs). . . . Whatever its cause, EHS
is a real and sometimes a debilitating problem for the affected persons . . .
Their exposures are generally several orders of magnitude under the
limits in internationally accepted standards.”
Medical doctors and scientists around the world are asking governments to
establish
stricter guidelines for electromagnetic exposure. These guidelines are for
both extremely
low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields and for radio frequency radiation
(RFR) (8).
We also need stricter guidelines for Intermediate Frequencies.
These appeals include:
2002: Freiburger Appeal: German Physicians request tougher guidelines for
radio
frequency exposure, endorsed by 6,500 practioners.
2004: World Health Organization, EHS Workshop, Czech Republic, Oct 2004.
2005: Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association (IDEA): EHS increasing.
2005: Helsinki Appeal: Finland, call for new safety standards, reject ICNIRP,
apply
Precautionary Principle to EMFs.
2006: Benevento Resolution: International Commission for Electromagnetic
Safety
(ICEMS), Italy, Precautionary Approach.
2007: Bioinitiatives Report: reviewed 2000 studies, calling for biologically
based
exposure guidelines. www.bioinitiative.org
While 3% of the population may be severely affected by EHS, another 35% of
the
population in developed countries has many of the symptoms of EHS (5). With
continued exposure this number is likely to increase.
If we extend these percentages to the population of Europe (728 million as of
2005), then
approximately 21.8 million people in the EU are severely affect by EHS and
another 254
million have moderate symptoms of EHS. Even if these values are in error by
more than
50% we have a serious emerging and newly identified health risk that requires
immediate
attention.

Conclusion
The energy efficient compact fluorescent lights that are commercial available
generate
radio frequency radiation and ultraviolet radiation, they contain mercury-a
known
neurotoxin, and they are making some people ill. Instead of promoting these
light bulbs
governments around the world should be insisting that manufactures produces
light bulbs
that are electromagnetically clean and contain no toxic chemicals. Some of
these are
already available (CLED) but are too expensive for regular use. With a
growing number
of people developing electrohypersensitivity we have a serious emerging and
newly
identified health risk that is likely to get worse until regulations
restricting our exposure
to electromagnetic pollutants are enforced. Since everyone uses light bulbs
and since the
incandescent light bulbs are being phased out this is an area that requires
immediate
attention.

References Cited:
1. Havas, M. and D. Stetzer. 2004. Dirty electricity and electrical
hypersensitivity: Five
case studies. World Health Organization Workshop on Electricity
Hypersensitivity,
WHO, Prague, Czech Republic, 25-26 October, 2004.
2. Milham, S. and L.L. Morgan. 2008. A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric:
High
Frequency Voltage Transients Associated With Increased Cancer Incidence in
Teachers in a California School. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 8
pp.
3. Havas, M., M. Illiatovitch, and C. Proctor. 2004. Teacher and student
response to the
removal of dirty electricity by the Graham/Stetzer filter at Willow Wood
School in
Toronto, Canada. Biological Effects of EMFs, 3rd International Workshop, Kos,
Greece, 4-8 October, 2004, pp. 311-317.
4. Havas, M. and A. Olstad. 2008. Power quality affects teacher wellbeing and
student
behavior in three Minnesota Schools. Science of the Total Environment, in
press.
5. Havas, M. 2006. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological effects of
dirty electricity
with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagnetic Biology and
Medicine, 25:
259-268, 2006
6. Johansson, O. 2006. Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-Art of a
Functional
Impairment. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25: 245–258, 2006
7. Firstenberg, A. (Editor). 2001. “No Place To Hide” vol. 3, no. 1, April
2001,
“Special Issue on Russian and Ukrainian Research”, The Cellular Phone
Taskforce.
8. Havas, M. 2007. Analysis of Health and Environmental Effects of Proposed
San
Francisco Earthlink Wi-Fi Network, Commissioned by SNAFU (San Francisco
Neighborhood Antenna Free Union) and presented to Board of Supervisors, City
and
Country of San Francisco, 51 pp.

Appendix A: Biographical Sketch of Author
Magda Havas is Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at
Trent
University where she teaches and does research on the biological effects of
electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity, ground current, radio frequency
radiation and
electrical hypersensitivity. She is working with diabetics and those with
multiple
sclerosis who are responding adversely to power quality issues in their
homes. Dr. Havas
received her B.Sc. and Ph.D. from the University of Toronto and did
Post-Doctoral
Research at Cornell University before returning to Canada. She has co-edited
3 books
and has more than 100 publications.
Dr. Havas provides advice to the public and expert testimony on radio
frequency
radiation from wireless telecommunication antennas and electromagnetic fields
from
power lines in the United States and Canada. She helped draft Resolution 15
for the
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) cell phone antennas on fire
halls. She
also helped draft the Private Member’s Bill on Ground Current Pollution in
Ontario that
received unanimous approval at its Second Reading in the House. The Ontario
Energy
Board is currently reviewing that Bill.
Magda Havas is science advisor on EMF-related issues to non-profit
organizations
including: WEEP Initiative in Canada; the Council on Wireless Technology
Impacts and
the EMR Policy Institute in the US; HESE and the EM Radiation Trust in the
UK; and
the Nationaal Platform Stralingscrisico’s in the Netherlands.

Appendix 2: Health Canada and UV Radiation
Here are Health Canada's answers given to Allison Vuchnich
([hidden email]) of Global TV:
What enquiries has Health Canada received regarding the bulbs?
On 08-04-11, at 15:10, Philippe Laroche [hidden email] wrote:
Since 2002, the Department has received 31 consumer complaints surrounding
CFLs. The majority of
these complaints are with regards to the bulbs’ end-of-life failure, which
can include flickering, a bright
orange or red glow, popping sounds, an odour or browning of the ballast
enclosure.
The following Web sites include additional information on this process:
http://www.esainspection.net/pdf/Safety_Alerts/07-03-AL.pdf
http://www.esainspection.net/pdf/Safety_Alerts/06-03-AL.pdf
As well, Health Canada’s Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau
has received questions about
increased UV and colour rendering from CFLs use in the Canadian household
environment. Contrary to
ordinary fluorescent tubes used in luminaires, the CFLs are not provided with
a prismatic diffuser that
filters ultraviolet radiation out. Therefore, there may be skin sensitivity
issues, especially in people with
certain skin diseases.
According to the Canadian Electrical Code, CFLs are required to be certified
by testing and certification
organizations such as Underwriters’ Laboratories Canada (ULC) or the Canadian
Standards Association
(CSA) to ensure they meet their requirements for safety. If consumers have a
safety-related concern with a
CFL, that is marked by a certification body such as ULC or CSA, they can
report the details directly to
these bodies by contacting them at the following:
Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada: Tel: 1-866-937-3852
Email: [hidden email]
Canadian Standards Association: Tel: 1-800-463-6727
The Canadian Advisory Council on Electrical Safety also notes that Regional
Electrical Safety Associations
are able to follow up on any incidents where there is no information on the
certifying body.
Je vais recommuniquer sous peu avec vous concernant votre requête pour une
entrevue avec un expert.
Merci.
Philippe Laroche
Media Relations Officer/Conseiller, Relations avec les médias
Health Canada/Santé Canada
Tel.: (613) 946-4250
Fax.: (613) 952-7747
[hidden email]
www.healthcanada.gc.ca/www.santecanada.gc.ca
Gouvernment of Canada/Gouvernement du Canada

> I am sending the original pdf file in a separate e-mail, as some people's
> computers reject attached files in blind-copy mailings.

This group automatically rejects file attachments, but
you are certainly free to upload a PDF file to the
eSens "Files" area...

Marc

> governments should be insisting that manufacturers produce
> light bulbs that do not produce radio frequency or UV
> radiation and that are safe for the environment and for
> human health. Alternative light bulbs are available that
> are much more energy efficient than CFL, do not contain
> mercury, do not produce radio frequencies or UV radiation,
> and do not make people sick. Unfortunately these bulbs are
> still too expensive for residential use (CLED lights
> produced by www.realuvcorp.com).

So, is this paper saying that the only good LED lights
on the market (from an ES/health standpoint) are those
sold by www.realuvcorp.com? Are these significantly
better than all the other LED lights on the market?

Marc