In ,
phil scott wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:28*am, Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

full spectrum light is crucial to good health... the body evolved
needing all spectums of light (natural light) or incandescent... to be
healthy.

cool white florescent etc..and others have that problem.

a good google search....' full spectrum light, heatlh, Ott'

I've been there done that. My sensation is hype.

I have studied this area enough to be in a good position to know every
known and reasonably-theorized photoreceptor and significant photochemical
mechanism in the human body.

They a

1. The red, green and blue cones in the retina of the eye:
Having 2 different light sources matching each other in color and
visually-apparent brightness is sufficient to achieve matching stimulation
of all 3 of those different photoreceptors by such 2 different light
sources in question. Even if one is an incandescent and the other is a
CFL with the usual spiky spectrum.

2. Rods in the retina of the eye: If 2 light sources have the same
apparent brightness and same "s/p ratio" (scotopic/photopic), then they
stimulate the rods of the eye equally.

CFLs of incandescent-like color tend to have s/p ratio about 10% less
than incandescents of same color. I don't think that is all that bad.

3. There is highly suspected to be a "cirtopic receptor" in the human
eye, influencing circadian rhythms. I hear various figures for peak
wavelength of sensitivity of that one and no figures for bandwidth.
Figures for peak wavelength tend to be in the greenish-blue to
very-bluish-green range. I suspect, in part from wide variation in
determinations in peak wavelength for sensitivity, that the bandwidth is
on the wide side - as in maybe similar to that of rods.

So it appears to me that the cirtopic receptors don't get shortchanged
much more than the rods do by an incandescent-like CFL in comparison to an
incandescent of same color and same photometrics.

4. A somewhat-suspected separate "violet cone" that has its neural output
being channeled into something like 80% blue 20% red neural channels:
I suspect that such *may be true* since I have foveal tritanopia, and I
find that defect in my vision to affect spectral pure deep blues but not
spectral violets (such as the 404.7 nm wavelength of mercury).

Should the "violet cone" actually exist, CFLs of incandescent-like color
do stimulate that one as well as incandescents do - via the 404.7 nm
wavelength of mercury vapor.

5. Suntanning/erythemic ultraviolet: Both incandescents and CFLs are
similarly lacking in production of such. Erythemic UV found in daylight
is mainly the longer wavelength 35% or so of UVB and the shorter
wavelength 25-30% or so of UVA.

6. UVA of wavelengths absorbed by tryptophan and related compounds: I
have yet to hear of anything good from that and I am aware of a harmful
mechanism from that ("nuclear cataracts" ["permanent suntanning of the
core of the lens of the eye], as well as contribution to the more-common
foggy "regular" cataracts).
Most of the trouble from this is "superlinear" with intensity of
exposure. As in if exposure intensity is cut in half but imposed for
twice as much time, you are better-off.

The main offender here for a very large majority of the population is
natural daylight. Both incandescents and incandescent-like CFLs run
low in such wavelengths and do so similarly. Non-dollar-store CFLs and
other triphosphor fluorescents of higher color temps. produce even less,
due to the blue phosphor component used in these lamps utilizing the
365-366 nm mercury spectral feature - which other fluorescent lamp
phosphors usually do not absorb. (2700K CFLs generally lack the usual
blue phosphor of "triphosphor fluorescents".)

7. There is some notation to a wound-healing mechanism using deep red
light of wavelengths around 660-670 nm.

CFLs lack that. However, the study I saw noting a proposed actual
photochemical mechanism also noted requirement of intensity of exposure to
such wavelengths, easily fallen short from by direct sunlight, let alone
home indoor lighting of any kind.

8. Acne treatment - the main acne bacterium does produce a waste product
that is converted into something toxic to that bacterium by "mid-violet"
wavelengths. Direct midday sunlight usually has enough of that to make a
difference. Indoor home lighting, regardless of type, does not.
Artificial lighting to blast acne bacteria is typically "03
super-actinic" fluorescent lamps, available from pet/aquarium shops among
some other sources. Exposure requirement is high enough to require a lot
of this - or preferably twice-daily or whatever 15 minutes or whatever
amount of time blasting acne-befallen parts of your body by such a lamp
mere inches away.

9. Photoreceptor in animals other than humans - live coral has a
requirement for deep blue to bluish-violet wavelengths.

10. Photoreceptor in animals other than vertebrates - arthropods have a
UV (probably UVA) photoreceptor in their eyes, occaisionally noted as
having peak sensitivity around 350 nm.

There are some other photochemical processes and photochemicals known to
be in the plant kingdom, and notably found absent in anything that is into
the animal kingdom enough to lack chloroplasts. (Euglenas are protozoa
with both mitochondria and chloroplasts, and were considered to be within
the "animal kingdom" until the kingdoms were redefined to make protozoa
and slime molds [masses of amoebas - prorozoa] to be not considered
animals.

Bottom line: I see "preponderance of evidence" to a great extent that
incandescent-like CFLs are not much more unhealthful to humans than
incandescents of same photometric performance are, despite the spiky
spectrum of CFLs.

- Don Klipstein )