Energy efficient scare stories - 13 Jan 2008How many people here use energy efficient light bulbs? You know those oddly shaped things that take a little longer to warm up than your standard bulb but last for years. Well did you know they can give you MIGRAiNES! EPILEPSY! SKIN CANCER! And also contain MERCURY!?
Not even a week into the New Year and the media has latched onto yet another scare story, and I'm ashamed to say it starts with the BBC who after national hangover day published this on the 2/1/07.
The language used in this article is typical of media scare stories, you will notice that nowhere does the reporter actually state that the bulbs cause migraines or epilepsy (choosing instead to quote), but he sure as hell gives the impression that they do, only tacking on the "well we have to appear to give a balanced viewpoint so hers a contrary argument, but he's from the evil industry so obviously bias" section at the end.
Only two days later the BBC (again) followed up with Low-energy bulbs 'worsen rashes' using similar scare language backed up with zero evidence and may I just state, for the record that anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
The prize for the most sensationalist headline has to go to the daily mail though, for recycling the BBC stories into the headline Environmentally friendly light bulbs ‘can give you skin cancer’ as part of their quest to sort objects into those that either cause or cure cancer. Notice how the article doesn't give any mention of skin cancer by anyone.
Now this really gets to me, how difficult could it be to test the effect of energy efficient bulbs on skin conditions, epilepsy or migraine compared to your bog standard bulb? I asked some of my pupils; a class of 14-15 year olds managed to describe a crude double blind trial....
"Get some people with the skin disease and put them in a room with an energy efficient bulb and see what happens, then try the same with a normal bulb. Oh and they shouldn't be allowed to see the bulb"
If a 14-15 year old child can think of a crude way to test some of these claims then I fail to see why Andrew Langford, chief executive officer of the Skin Care Campaign hasn't given this a try instead of using anecdote.
Let's play a game with this story, try to predict some claims that will eventually make it as headlines. I'll go first.
Mercury in energy efficient bulbs 'linked to autism'!
Be good
Justin
Here are a couple of references you may find handy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/499117
This was a study similar to the one suggested by my students (although not as crude).
The second (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/499117 )
is a study into triggers of acute migrane which asked subjects to state what they thought triggered their migranes. (38.1% answered "light").
Do you think it may be possible that a normally functioning tube, which flickers outside the flicker fusion threshold and has been shown to have no effect on photosensitive subjects, may not physically trigger an attack but instead psychologically trigger an attack due to perceived danger?
Posted by: Justin - 2008-02-12 - 15:15 GMT
Justin an unwilling response... Mercury Fillings?!? No i agree 100% with that point =) As you say there is no evidence to support any of these claims, but i am in the process of trying to substantiate more about the effects on epilepsy, for the welfare of our service!
It was also highlighted again today on a BBC media news service, (but only the mercury issue). Having worked in journalism previously in my early career i can understand that facts are often muddled up with myth.
My main concern is the "flicker" aspect and i would like to stress that ANYTHING can act as a trigger and i'm sure we both hope that lightbulbs will not be another.
Dylan
P.S. I think the test your class suggested may be a little harsh, in regards to proving effects, especially as some who are under our care with epilepsy can't even communicate. Technically it would be abuse!
Posted by: guest - 2008-02-04 - 13:25 GMT
Hi Dylan,
Two points. The amount of mercury used in energy efficient bulbs is trivial compared to the amount released into the atmosphere by coal burning power stations. Considering that the mercury released by coal burning powerstations ends up in our oceans, and (thanks to bioaccumulation) makes it's way into our foodchain in fish such as tuna, I would rather have an energy efficient bulb which reduces overall mercury pollution. Take a look at guidelines on fish consumption and mercury toxicity if you need convincing.
Secondly, you've just listed a couple of triggers for epilepsy, admitting a fit can be triggered by "anything", so why and how are the media placing the blame for attacks on CFL without any controled studies to back their claims up? are they any worse than a standard bulb or barking dog?
Posted by: Justin - 2008-01-20 - 14:19 GMT
Please copy the 5 symbols from this security code image into the box below to submit comment.
About | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions
© 1995-2008 All rights reserved
