An Assessment of Benefits and Potential Health and Environmental Hazards from Compact Fluorescent Lights

Introduction

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to examine the benefits as well as potential health and environmental risks of compact fluorescent light bulbs. This is achieved by reviewing literature that has existing research and highlighting the areas with important gaps to allow future rounds of either qualitative or quantitative research. This paper presents a summary and reviews of existing studies and augmented with information from new research conducted.

As traditional light bulbs are soon to be phased out and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) become compulsory (Energy Saving Trust, 2009) concerns have been raised over the health and environmental risks CFLs pose. Some health risks that have been highlighted by concern groups, as will be shown in this paper, are headaches, epilepsy and skin conditions. The presence of mercury in CFLs could also be of concern to consumers. There have been claims that the mercury in them makes CFLs so dangerous that everyone must leave the room for at least 15 minutes if one falls to the floor and breaks (Delgado 2008). However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra, 2009) and the Energy Saving Trust (2009) contend that climate change is the biggest threat facing the Earth today and measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions are necessary. Defra (2009) argues that CFLs can play an important role in this regard as they are more efficient and use up less electricity than the traditional bulbs.

The rationale for this research project is that it is intended to explore the extent to which information of the benefits, hazards and policies on CFLs is shared with the general populace by manufacturers, retailers and government environmental and health agencies. It is hoped that after this research, manufacturers of CFLs, retailers, environmental agencies and local authorities would provide more information on CFLs. Studies like this one could help governments to make decisions on energy issues and the climate change problem based on research findings.

Aim and Objectives of the research

The aim of this study is to establish and critically assess the extent to which the knowledge of benefits and potential health and environmental risks of CFLs has been disseminated to the general public.

The objectives are to:

Critically review the benefits of CFLs.

Critically review the health and environmental risks of CFLs.

Assess the information provided on the packaging of CFLs from different manufacturers and distributed by major retailers such as ASDA, TESCO, B&Q, Morrison's and Homebase.

Explore the extent to which information on the hazards of CFLs has been disseminated by manufacturers, retailers, health and environmental agencies.

Critically assess the relationship between government health and environmental policies on CFLs.

Methodology

This study is mainly a desktop based evaluation research aimed at testing the effectiveness of information dissemination (Patton 1990). Literature reviews on CFLs were analysed using local and university library facilities (books, journals, research papers etc) and the internet. Websites of manufacturers and retailers of CFLs, government environmental agencies and other organizations were critically analysed. Packaging on CFLs from different manufacturers (see appendix 2) that included Philips, General Electric (GE) and TESCO were also critically assessed to note any information provided to consumers. Major retailers of CFLs that included ASDA, TESCO, B&Q, Morrison's and Homebase were surveyed in order to determine whether or not they provided any information on CFLs. This was achieved by talking to their respective customer and/or environmental services departments (where available) as well as noting for posters, notices or leaflets on the disposal and/or recycling of CFLs in or around the shops.

Results and discussion of the study

Benefits of CFLs

A review of literature revealed that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra, 2009) contends that climate change is the biggest threat facing the Earth today and everyone, including governments, businesses and individuals, needs to work together to tackle climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Defra, 2009). Defra (2009) further state that the UK Government has been working with all major retailers who sell light bulbs and UK energy suppliers to phase out traditional energy guzzling bulbs, replacing them with energy efficient light bulbs such as Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) which are up to 80% more efficient than incandescent lamps. Defra (2009) further suggests that phasing out traditional light bulbs will result in less energy being used and hence less electricity will be needed.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA, 2008) has indicated that CFLs are an integral part of UK Government policy to encourage more efficient lighting in homes and workplaces thus saving energy and reducing UK carbon dioxide emissions. The Energy Saving Trust (2009) advises that CFLs are also cost effective and will last up to 10 times longer than a traditional bulb and that just one energy saving bulb could save up to 3-6 a year and fitting all the lights in a house with energy saving bulbs could save around 37 a year and 590 over the lifetime of all of the bulbs. Estimates by the Energy Saving Trust (2009) also indicate that in a lifetime of a CFL, a household could reduce its CO2 emissions by 2.7 tonnes by changing to energy saving bulbs.

Furthermore, the Energy Saving Trust (2010) has pointed out that major UK retailers had ceased to replace their stock of incandescent bulbs over 75W since January 2009 under the voluntary initiative which expanded to 60W and over in January 2010. This voluntary initiative, according to the Energy Saving Trust (2010), was operating in advance of the EU-wide mandatory phase-out of incandescent bulbs that began on 1st September 2009 with the phasing out of 100W lamps, as agreed by EU Member states in December 2008. Under the regulations which have been implemented in the UK, it is illegal for retailers to import 100W incandescent light bulbs, or to sell them once their current stocks have run out (Gray and McWatt , 2009). The UK government has targeted January 2011 as the date by which all incandescent bulbs should be completely phased out and the EU has targeted September 2012 (Energy Saving Trust, 2009).

Health risks

UV radiation

Research by the Health Protection Agency (HPA, 2008) indicates that single envelope CFLs emit UV radiation at high levels and as such should not be used at close range (closer to the skin than 30cm (1 ft) for more than an hour a day). The research by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) scientists revealed that 20% of unencapsulated fluorescent light bulb (where the shape of the coil is clearly visible) emitted higher than guideline levels of UV radiation recommended by the International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The guidelines limit, according to the HPA (2008), is 30J m-2 for the eye and skin. In the same research by the HPA (2008), the scientists assessed that the time taken for 20% of CFLs to exceed the ICNIRP guidelines at close proximity (2cm) was 10 minutes and 30 minutes for 50% of CFLs. However, at distances larger than 20cm only 8% of the CFLs tested exceeded the guidelines after 8 hours. The HPA (2008) study concluded that encapsulated (double envelope) CFLs do not emit significant UV radiation and can be used without any special precautionary measures.

The researchers suggested that the UV can cause reddening of the skin if used for long periods of time at close range and that exposure to UV radiation can also cause problems for people suffering from some medical conditions such as Lumpus (HPA, 2008). There is also a small increased risk of skin cancer from the bulbs similar to that from sunburn. It could be argued that this could be especially a problem and could affect thousands of workers such as jewellery makers who work with their hands and use lamps at close quarters; and when they are used in desk lamps or reading lights. The research findings (Laurance, 2008) prompted the HPA to provide advice to the UK Government, the European Commission and the UK lighting industry bodies about the risks of CFLs.

Radio Frequency Radiation

Studies conducted by Dr Magda Havas, Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at the Trent University in Canada for the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) in 2008 identified another health risk posed by CFLs (Havas, 2008). The study according to Havas (2008) revealed that typical CFLs are electronically-ballasted and hence operate in the 24 -100kHz frequency range which is within the radio frequency band of the electromagnetic spectrum and is classified as Intermediate Frequency (IF) by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and that IF can have adverse health effects. Havas (2008) highlights studies conducted on CFLs produced by General Electric which indicate that they emit radio frequencies directly through the air and generate IF on wires which causes dirty electricity'. Havas (2008) states that a study of cancer clusters in a school conducted in California associated dirty electricity' with increased risk of cancer among teachers and that in a different study in Toronto, improved power quality was associated with improved health among teachers and improved behaviour among their students. Havas (2008) concludes that dirty electricity' caused by CFLs in schools contributes to ill health of teachers and behavioural problems among students.

Presence of mercury

Research findings (HPA, 2008 and EPA, 2008) indicate that CFLs contain up to 5mg of mecury. It is the mercury which emits UV radiation when electrically excited which in turn interacts with chemicals on the inside of the bulbs to generate light (Havas, 2008). The Health Protection Agency (HPA, 2009) has described mercury as a neurotoxin because it can damage the central nervous system, and in severe cases irreversible damage to areas of the brain can occur. Research findings by Medicinenet (2009) indicate that high levels of mercury in the blood stream of unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous system, making the child less capable of thinking and learning as well as having an increased chance of suffering from Autism.

However, Defra (2008) suggests that the mercury cannot escape from an intact lamp unless it breaks and further contends that CFLs are actually harder to break than traditional bulbs as they are often coated with plastic as a protector and that breakage rates are less than 1%.. However, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS, 2008) and supported by Fabiano (2008) indicated that studies at Brown University in the USA revealed that mercury vapour from broken CFLs is a major hazard. The research team (NIEHS, 2008) found that breakage of a CFL produces mercury vapour concentrations that exceed the limit of 0.2micrograms per cubic metre and that mercury vapour release is greatest at breakage and also that although the concentration is greatly reduced with time as it decays by the hour, it can still be detected in significant quantities even after 4 days in an enclosed room.

The presence of mercury is also confounded in the manufacturing process of CFLs (Nelson, 2009). Studies in China where most of the world's CFLs are produced and where factory conditions are poorly regulated (Nelson, 2009 and Joseph 2009)) have revealed that Chinese workers making CFLs for Western consumers have been sickened by the hundreds due to mercury poisoning. Nelson (2009) argues that while poor factory conditions in China shoulder most of the blame with many factory conditions being deplorable, hundreds of Chinese workers are exposed to mercury poisoning on a daily basis and that some tests had demonstrated concentrations of mercury in factory workers of up to 150 times the accepted standard leading to many being frequently hospitalized. Both Nelson (2009) and Joseph (2009) contend that the problems have escalated in recent years due to the increased demand as a result of the EU directive making CFLs compulsory by 2012. Whereas CFLs are necessary in combating climate change and energy consumption, it could be argued that it is equally important that consumers need to be aware of where and how their bulbs are produced and consider the costs to humans and the environment.

Migraines and Epilepsy

There have been concerns that CFLs cause headaches in migraine sufferers that have been highlighted by the HPA (2008; 2009) and the Migraine Action Association (MAA, 2009). The MAA (2009) has suggested that migraines could be adversely affected by a bulb if there was a detectable flicker rate and that headaches are sometimes linked with specific elements of the light spectrum, with some people being particularly sensitive to blue light which is present in many energy saving lamps. Studies have been conducted to determine how electrically sensitive people respond to different types of lighting (Havas, 2008). The researchers according to Havas (2008) asked participants to identify their symptoms when they were exposed to various types of lighting. The research findings were that the highest percentage of headaches was reported for exposure to both tube and compact fluorescent light bulbs.

However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2008) argue that the vast majority of CFL users, both in households and in commercial buildings, report no issues regarding CFL usage, including headaches. It further contends that though there are some anecdotal reports there is yet no research to directly explain any plausible causative mechanism. This stance is supported by the Migraine Association of Ireland (MAI, 2010) which has stated that it is not aware of any scientific evidence that CFLs cause migraines in non-sufferers and has requested that the link between migraines and CFLs be explored thoroughly.

Although flickering bulbs have been reported to precipitate epileptic seizures there is no published scientific studies demonstrating that compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) trigger seizures (Balbus, 2008). Furthermore, manufacturers say that the new models have been improved such that the average flicker rate is more than 20,000 times per second, which is well above that detectable by the human brain.

Brightness and eyesight problems

Research has been carried out to compare the brightness of equivalent traditional light bulbs and CFLs (Gray and McWatt, 2009). Table 4.2.1 shows equivalent wattages between traditional light bulbs and CFLs as provided by the Energy Saving Trust (2009).

Traditional bulbs

CFL equivalent

25W

5-7W

40W

8-9W

60W

11-14W

100W

20-23W

Table 4.2.1: Traditional bulbs and Compact Fluorescent Equivalent Wattages

The study according to Gray and McWatt (2009) measured and compared the illumination provided by a range of clear and frosted 60W incandescent bulbs, as well as 11W CFLs said on their labels to be equivalent. The results were that some makes of CFLs produced up to 40% less light than their equivalent incandescent bulbs. The research findings prove that CFLs are dim and do not produce as much light as the manufacturers indicate on their packaging. The research team concluded that claims made on the packaging about the light output of compact fluorescent lamps are exaggerated (see table 4.2.2).

Manufacturer

Incandescent (60W)

(lumens)

CFL (11W)

(Lumens)

Incandescent (60W)

(lux)

CFL (11W)

(lux)

Philips

700

610

114

77

General Electric

700

610

126

79

Tesco

700

640

122

70

Table 4.2.2: How the energy saving bulbs equivalent to 60W compared to 60W incandescent bulbs (Gray and McWatt, 2009).

Concerns have also been expressed by people with poor eyesight. Studies by optometrists in New Zealand indicate that CFLs could be too dim for visually impaired people (NZAO, 2008). The NZAO (2008) report further states that patients, especially the elderly, struggle to read after installing CFLs and that as the bulbs need to warm up before reaching full brightness they increase the risk of tripping and falling for people with poor sight.

Another research conducted by a German consumer group found CFLs lose much of their brightness over their lifetime and can end up emitting just 60 per cent as much light as their nearest equivalent traditional bulb (Dex, 2009). The concerns about the brightness of CFLs has resulted in many UK retailers having reported a huge increase in the number of consumers that were stockpiling standard 100 watt light bulbs just ahead of the new law that will ban manufacturing traditional light bulbs (Becks, 2009) so that they can carry on lighting their houses how they see fit. Studies carried out in Australia (Winton, 2005) also suggest that only around one-third of people believe that CFLs last as long as indicated on the packaging as many people experienced at least one CFL lasting a shorter time than expected.

Environmental risks

The biggest environmental risk posed by CFLs is the mercury in them (Defra, 2008). The disposal of the bulbs once they have come to the end of their life span is a major issue as the mercury in CFLs which are dumped in landfills can leach out into the ground and into water supplies (Kondro, 2007). Once in the water supply, it can enter the bodies of fish which will then end up being ingested by humans or other animals that may eat the fish (Krabbenhoft and Rickert, 2009) and can also result in ecological damage. Studies in USA (Skumatz & Howlett, 2005) and Ireland (Scott, 1998) indicate that most users put their bulbs in their household rubbish bins, which end up in landfills, due to lack of information on disposal and/or recycling of CFLs. It could therefore be debated that the biggest problem posed by the mercury in CFLs lies in their disposal once they have come to the end of their life span. Mercury is a unique environmental pollutant due to its apparent indestructibility (Mitra 1986) and like many environmental contaminants it undergoes bioaccumulation which can cause ecological damage.

On the contrary, Defra (2008) has argued that over the life time, CFLs produce less mercury than traditional bulbs due to the fact that mercury is emitted from power stations during electricity generation and CFLs are more energy efficient therefore saving on the amount of electricity that needs to be generated. This is supported by research findings at Yale University (Aron, 2008) which found that for places relying on coal power for electricity generation, the switch to CFLs can cut mercury emissions significantly. In the U.S.A, annual emissions of mercury from coal power plants amount to 100 000kg (Aron, 2008) so using CFLs not only reduces the electricity used but also the mercury emitted into the environment.

Information dissemination

Due to health and environmental risks, CFLs were subjected to the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive (Environmental Agency, 2009). The Environmental Agency (2009) states that the legislation aims to make producers pay for the collection, treatment and recovery of waste electrical equipment; and suppliers must allow consumers to return their waste equipment free of charge. The HPA (2008) has also indicated that if a customer bought a new light bulb from a retailer, the retailer should accept their old light bulb and prevent it going into a landfill site by disposing of it safely. Under the WEEE Regulations, all new electrical goods should now be marked with the crossed-out wheeled bin symbol to show that they should be disposed of separately from normal household waste (HPA, 2008).

In this study packaging of CFLs from Philips, General Electric and Tesco were examined to note if they comply with the WEEE directive and/or if they supply enough information to customers. Some of the major distributors of CFLs, including TESCO, ASDA, Morrison's, Homebase and B&Q were surveyed by visiting the shops in the Medway towns and around London and talking to their Customer Services Departments in order to note if they also comply with the WEEE directive. Their websites were also surveyed to note any information on the recycling programs they have.

Information supplied by manufacturers

Philips: The packaging of a CFL from Philips has completely no written information on disposal or any risks associated with the bulb. The only information on the packaging is that they last for 10 years, the wattage, a recycling symbol and an A rating. There is no crossed-out wheeled bin symbol which is clearly in contravention of the WEEE directive. There is no leaflet enclosed with the bulb.

TESCO: The packaging of a CFL from TESCO has handling and fitting safety instructions as well as WEEE directive instruction which states that it should not be disposed of in household waste. It also gives advice on recycling- that one should see in store or visit the website recycle-more.co.uk. It also has the A rating and the crossed-out wheeled bin symbol. This clearly is in line with the WEEE directive. However, it does not give any advice on what to do in case of breakage or other health risks.

General Electric: The packaging of a CFL from General Electric has completely no written information on disposal, recycling or any risks associated with the bulb. The only information on the packaging is that they last for 6 years, the wattage and an A rating. There is no crossed-out wheeled bin or recycling symbol which is clearly in contravention of the WEEE directive. There is no leaflet enclosed with the bulb either.

Information supplied by distributors

The survey involved visiting the shops of major distributors of CFLs, talking to their Customer Services departments and checking whether there were any notices near or on the shelves where the CFLs were stocked as this would, arguably, be the most convenient position for customers to see them.

The following question was asked to the Customer Services Departments in the shops of TESCO, ASDA, Morrisons, Homebase and B&Q which are the major distributors of CFLs in the Medway towns:

Do you by any chance have recycling or collection facilities for energy-saving bulbs in your shop?'

The following were the responses:

TESCO: Sorry we do not collect or recycle any kind of bulbs. We only recycle ink cartridges and batteries'.

No notices were displayed in store about either recycling or disposal of CFLs. No information on the recycling of CFLs was found on their website.

ASDA: We do not at the moment sorry, unless batteries.'

No notices were also displayed in store about either recycling or disposal of CFLs. No information on the recycling of CFLs was found on their website.

Morrisons: We are only able to collect batteries for recycling and not bulbs; maybe in future; sorry about that.'

No notices were also displayed in store about either recycling or disposal of CFLs. No information on the recycling of CFLs was found on their website.

Homebase: We do not have facilities to collect, store or recycle spent energy-saving bulbs at the moment.' No information on the recycling of CFLs was found on their website.

No notices were also displayed in store about either recycling or disposal of CFLs.

B&Q: We only collect bulbs that have been bought from us in their original packaging if they do not work when you get home. Otherwise, we do not collect spent ones for recycling; you could take spent ones to a tip run by the council and put it in the electrical good.'

There was a notice in store advising customers about the voluntary phasing out of traditional bulbs; but no notice about disposal or recycling of CFLs. No information on the recycling of CFLs was found on their website.

Discussion of survey results

The fact that only 1 of the 3 manufacturers displayed significant information on the packaging of their CFLs is surprising as the Environmental Agency has put obligations under the WEEE Regulations to businesses who manufacture electrical or electronic equipment. The WEEE directive applies to all types of discharge lamps such as fluorescent tubes and compact fluorescent energy savers (Environmental Agency, 2009). This is evidence that the WEEE directive is not complied with by many manufacturers.

It was even more surprising that none of the major retailers are in compliance with the WEEE directive on CFLs. They all have no facilities for collection or recycling of CFLs and they also do not provide information to customers on the correct disposal of them. Defra (2009) indicates that waste CFLs have been subject to the requirements of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations since 1st July 2007 obliging those who sell items, such as energy efficient bulbs, to provide information to the public about where they can take waste bulbs and other WEEE. But nearly three years later this does not appear to be the case. These findings are in line with research findings in USA (Engelhaupt, 2008) and Ireland (Scott,1998) which indicated that lack of information was the main reason why consumers toss burnt-out CFLs into their household rubbish bins and why they do not recycle them. The problem is compounded because many people still do not know that the bulbs contain mercury (Poole, 2008). Arguably, although CFLs only contain a small amount of mercury they still pose a serious environmental problem if they are not recycled.

Conclusion

It has been highlighted in this study that climate change is the biggest threat facing mankind today and everyone needs to work together by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It has been concluded from many studies that energy-saving bulbs are about 80% more efficient than the traditional light bulbs and hence use less electricity; they last longer and over their life span would save users money (HPA, 2008). Researchers on CFLs have all been left without a doubt that CFLs have the potential to significantly reduce worldwide carbon emissions if they continue to be put into wide use (Nelson, 2009). Nelson (2008) suggests that in England for example the atmosphere will be saved an estimated 5 million tons of carbon dioxide per year due to the bulbs alone.

This study has also revealed that whereas there are economic advantages of using CFLs, there are also some costs. As they work by using electricity to excite mercury vapour (Havas, 2008), proper disposal and care of CFLs is essential as mercury is toxic and can pollute the environment. However, as this study has highlighted, there are many failings in this regard especially during their manufacture due to poor factory conditions leading to many workers being exposed to mercury. Perhaps as technology improves research could be carried out on reducing the amount of mercury or eliminating it from the bulbs altogether.

Concerns about UV and radio frequency radiation produced by CFLs (Havas, 2008; HPA, 2008) have resulted in precautionary measures being recommended by the HPA for the use of certain types of CFLs. Sufferers of migraines and epilepsy have also stated that their conditions are worsened when CFLs are used although there is not sufficient research to suggest why this is so.

Whereas manufacturers and retailers of CFLs are obliged under the WEEE directive, this study has revealed that most are not in compliance as only 1 of the 3 manufacturers and none of the 5 major retailers surveyed had disposal or recycling programs for CFLs neither did they provide adequate information to customers. It could be suggested that lack of consumer awareness of potential health and environmental risks posed by CFLs is a limiting factor as information and education need to be central to any program. Since everyone in the UK will soon be using energy-saving bulbs, as traditional light bulbs are phased out, this is an area that needs attention.

It could be recommended that the UK Government and other governments could make it compulsory for manufacturers and retailers of CFLs to provide adequate information on the health and environmental risks CFLs pose. This information could be made available on the packaging of all CFLs as well as in the shops where they are sold. Local Authorities could also be involved in providing recycling and disposal facilities so that CFLs do not end up in landfills. There are challenging possibilities for many different researches on public awareness of the benefits and hazardous impact of CFLs.

References

Aron, J., (2008). Are energy-saving light bulbs actually bad for the environment?

Available from: http://justatheory.co.uk/2008/10/03/are-energy-saving-light-bulbs-actually-bad-for-the-environment (17/02/10).

Balbus, J., (2008). Dangerous CFLs? Don't Believe Everything You Read. Available from: http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/02/06/cfls_parade (12/02/10).

Becks, J., (2009). UK Retailers Report Consumers Stockpiling Light. Available from: http://www.electric.co.uk/news/uk-retailers-report-consumers-stockpiling-light-bulbs-12341130.html (16/02/10).

Defra, (2009). Energy Saving Light Bulbs. Available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/lightbulbs.htm (12/02/10).

Delgado, M., (2008). An energy saving bulb has gone-evacuate the room now. Available from: http://mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech.htm (01/02/10).

Dex, R., (2009). Energy-saving light bulbs: Maybe they're not such a bright idea after all. Available from: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Energysaving-light-bulbs-Maybe-they39re.5842541.jp (18/02.10).

Energy Saving Trust, (2009). About Energy Saving Recommended products. Available from: http:// energysavingtrust.org.uk /Energy-saving-light bulbs-and-fittings (30/01/10).

Energy Saving Trust, (2009). Energy Saving Light Bulbs

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Home-improvements-and-products/Lighting (28/03/10).

Engelhaupt, E., (2008). Do compact fluorescent bulbs reduce mercury pollution? Journal of Environmental Science Technology; Vol 42 (22), p817-1021.

Environmental Agency, (2009). Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Available from: http://www.environmental-agency.gov.uk/business/topic/waste/32084.aspx (22/02/10)

Fabiano, M., (2008). Mercury in Compact Fluorescent Lamps Spurs Superfund Research: Available from: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2008/july/fluorescents.cfm (31/01/10)

Gray, R., and Julia McWatt, J., (2009). Energy saving light bulbs offer dim future. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6110547/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-offer-dim-future.html (03/02/10).

Havas, M., (2008). Health Concerns associated with Energy Efficient Lighting and their Electromagnetic Emissions. Research paper to SCENIHR, Peterborough, Canada.

HPA, (2008). Emissions from compact fluorescent lights. Available from: http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard (03/02/10

HPA, (2009). Precautionary advice: Energy saving compact fluorescent lights. Available from: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1223445517429 (02/02/10

Joseph, W., (2009).Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs Poison Chinese Workers.Available from:

http://www.earthascope.com/compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-poison-chinese-workers (12/02/10).

Kondro, W., (2007). Mercury disposal sole health concern with fluorescent lights.

Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 177(2), pp 136-137.

Krabbenhoft, D.P. and Rickert, D.A., (2009). Mercury Contamination of Aquatic Ecosystems; US Geological Survey. Available from:www.usgs.gov/wid.html (30/04/10).

Laurance, J., (2008). Energy saving light bulbs can emit enough UV radiation to damage skin. Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/energy-saving-light-bulbs-can-emit-enough-uv-radiation-to-damage-skin-956696.html (08/02/10).

MAA, (2009). Energy saving bulbs could pose a health risk. Available from: migraine.org.uk/media/documents/CFLs (29/04/10).

MAI, (2010). MAI contributes to CFL light bulb consultation process. Available from: http://www.migraine.ie/index.php (21/01/10).

Medicinenet, (2009). Mercury Poisoning. Available from: medicinenet.com/mercury-poisoning/article.htm(26/05/10).

Mitra, S., (1986). Mercury in the Ecosystem; Its Dispersion and Pollution Today. Trans Tech Publications, Lancaster; pp 1- 18, 69-89, 195-244.

Nelson, B., (2009). Energy-Efficient Lightbulbs Poison Hundreds of Chinese Workers. Available from: http://www.ecolocalizer.com/2009/05/04/energy-efficient-lightbulbs.htm (14/02/10).

NZAO, (2008). Optometrists criticise eco-bulbs. Available from: tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360

Pakhare, J., (2007). Mercury Poisoning Symptoms. Available from: buzzle.com/article/mercury-poisoning-symptoms.html.

Patton, M. Q., (1990). Quantitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd Ed.

London; New Delhi: Sage publications, pp 150-158

Poole, B., (2008). Energy-saving light bulbs carry risk. Available from: http://tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/93203.php (02/02/10).

Scott, S., (1998). Household energy efficiency in Ireland: A replication study of ownership of energy saving items; Economic and Social Research Institute; Dublin: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Skumatz L. A., and Howlett, O., (2005). Findings and "Gaps" in CFL Evaluation Research: Review of the Existing Literature. Available from:

http://mail.mtprog.com/CD_Layout/Day_2_22.06.06/1115-1300/ID109_Skumatz3_final.pdf (05/02/10).

Winton, L., (2005). Final Report on a Consumer Research Study about Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs). Chatswood; Artcraft Research report

An Assessment of Benefits and Potential Health and Environmental Hazards from Compact Fluorescent Lights

By: Orowing Mahenga

POST COMMENT

Asbestos: A Deadly Environmental & Health Hazard Every Person's Guide To Preserve The Environment Home Improvement Project That Saves The Environment And Your Pocketbook-water Conservation About Changing Your Child's Learning Environment How Personal Lockers Can Benefit Your Work Environment Run A Safe And Secured Condo Environment Let Us Protect Our Environment Hand in Hand Some Good News On Environmental Initiatives For Sustainable Farming Would Be Welcome Hard, Disc Rfid Stickers For Harsh Environments The Importance of Children's Participation in Environmental Issues Chinese Environmental Law For Foreign Invested Enterprises Conference Calling - Saving Time, Money And The Environment China Environmental Labelling Standard Interpretation Of Building And Sanitary Ceramics