It was actually a trick sentence without the word "minimum" found anywhere.

When you are a cheap troll, you need to bend the context and meaning of
sentences a lot to make your argument seem valid. Sometimes people reach
down into the facts, for a troll, and come up empty handed and have to, just
plain, make up ****.


"Charles Sullivan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:23:23 -0500, salty wrote:

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:31:57 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

And increased the number of corrective lenses by 150%

I had a few of these LED PAR30 bulbs in my hand a week ago. The prices
were outrageous and the lumen output was so pathetic I would have to
install triple the fixtures to be able to watch TV with them on. IIRC
the largest was 11 Watts and put out about 530 lumens??? Compare this to
a 23 Watt CFL (Not PAR30) putting out 1200 lumens.


11 watts gives 530 lumens versus 23 watts gives 1200? Do the math,
dopey. Sounds like DOUBLE the fixtures would give you 22 watts and 1060
lumens with the particular LED's you are whining about.

Just how do your extraordinary skills with higher mathematics show that
double the fixtures provide enough light if he thinks he needs a minimum
of 1200 lumens?

22

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:52:50 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

Isn't it time for the troll to change his nick again?

You been using this one for a long...long time now. Almost.... 21 posts?
Some kind of record for you, no?


Wow, you really are math challenged. I've been using this nick for
several years and thousands of posts.

So, now you are stalking me?

I see that Home Depot in Canada is now handling some LED bulbs with a title
of nightlights or something similar. They appear in the shape of the usual
medium base incandescent shape and have a white translucent dome over the
top if them. The ratings are so poor they could only be used a nightlights.

$30 ea.
7 Watts
155 lumens.

While there may be useful places for these nightlights, they don't look that
useful for me. Their efficiencies are barely as good as many incandescent
technologies at 155/7 = 22.14 lumens/Watt.

I am still looking for a decent PAR30LN LED bulb that can be used over my
sink with an X-10 switch module (yeah ..it dims) 1000-1500 lumens would be a
good brightness.


"Josepi" wrote in message
...
Things are definitely improving with this technology!

I still suspect, as the article in the link I pointed out (another post)
the LED manufacturers are cheating the measurments a bit as they don't
include ballast energy (they can't as they don't know the circuit) and
they don't include the losses of the lens and/or filter and as you article
describes, the input power vs output power.

Thanx!


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
Yes. The usual white LEDs have blue-emitting chips coated by a phosphor
that absorbs some-most of the blue light and converts it to a
yellow/yellowish broad band whose spectral content typically covers
mid-green to mid-red. Some of the blue light is not absorbed but passes
through the phosphor, to mix with the yellow/yellowish light so that you
get white light.

Nowadays, some of these blue chips used for white LEDs are achieving
around 40-50% efficiency. The most efficient white LED on the market
that
I am aware of, Nichia NSPWR70CSS-K1 at 20 mA, is a goodly 40% efficient
even after losses of the phosphor. At 20 mA, it is supposed to typically
achieve 150 lumens/watt.

- Don Klipstein )




In article , Josepi wrote:
How can the efficiency of a white LED be higher than it's constituent
LEDs?
Is this due to phosphour screens used?

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:31:53 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

22


Your IQ?

You really are clueless



wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:52:50 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

Isn't it time for the troll to change his nick again?

You been using this one for a long...long time now. Almost.... 21 posts?
Some kind of record for you, no?


Wow, you really are math challenged. I've been using this nick for
several years and thousands of posts.

So, now you are stalking me?

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:40:42 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

I see that Home Depot in Canada is now handling some LED bulbs with a title
of nightlights or something similar. They appear in the shape of the usual
medium base incandescent shape and have a white translucent dome over the
top if them. The ratings are so poor they could only be used a nightlights.

$30 ea.
7 Watts
155 lumens.

While there may be useful places for these nightlights, they don't look that
useful for me. Their efficiencies are barely as good as many incandescent
technologies at 155/7 = 22.14 lumens/Watt.

I am still looking for a decent PAR30LN LED bulb that can be used over my
sink with an X-10 switch module (yeah ..it dims) 1000-1500 lumens would be a
good brightness.


You don't know what you are asking for. Try one of these and you'll
find it is quite bright enough for that purpose:

http://shop.lightoftomorrow.com/par3...egs-p-272.html

....or, continue to stumble around in the dark, whining.

In article ,
wrote:


Snow is an issue over the sink?

Conservation, Salty. You're doing your part by turning down the
thermostat, aren't you?

Thanx for the link but, it becomes very obvious that decent lighting is not
a requirement for you, as you post.

Perhaps you could turn up the brightness on your LED backlit monitor, or put
on your spectacles and read the posts before posting unrelated links. Even
if the outdoor bulb did fit the fixture above my sink the somewhere between
390 and 450 lumens at somewhere between 2600K to 8000K colour temp. and low
lux output would not fit the bill. I like to see what I am doing.

Let's face it. LED area lighting has not become a reality for humans, yet.
ESL technology may be the next answer for a few decades.


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:40:42 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

I see that Home Depot in Canada is now handling some LED bulbs with a
title
of nightlights or something similar. They appear in the shape of the usual
medium base incandescent shape and have a white translucent dome over the
top if them. The ratings are so poor they could only be used a
nightlights.

$30 ea.
7 Watts
155 lumens.

While there may be useful places for these nightlights, they don't look
that
useful for me. Their efficiencies are barely as good as many incandescent
technologies at 155/7 = 22.14 lumens/Watt.

I am still looking for a decent PAR30LN LED bulb that can be used over my
sink with an X-10 switch module (yeah ..it dims) 1000-1500 lumens would be
a
good brightness.


You don't know what you are asking for. Try one of these and you'll
find it is quite bright enough for that purpose:

http://shop.lightoftomorrow.com/par3...egs-p-272.html

...or, continue to stumble around in the dark, whining.

You posted links to an outside rated bulb unit. Yup, reading details is
really hard.

Especially with interlaced and/or bottom posting.


wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:07:37 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


Snow is an issue over the sink?

Conservation, Salty. You're doing your part by turning down the
thermostat, aren't you?

???

"Josepi" wrote in
:

You posted links to an outside rated bulb unit. Yup, reading details is
really hard.

Especially with interlaced and/or bottom posting.


wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:07:37 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


Snow is an issue over the sink?

Conservation, Salty. You're doing your part by turning down the
thermostat, aren't you?

???




TOP posting is what screws up a thread's continuity.
that's why -UseNET Convention- is bottom posting.

People naturally read left to right,top to bottom.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article , Josepi wrote:
22

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:52:50 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

Isn't it time for the troll to change his nick again?

You been using this one for a long...long time now. Almost.... 21 posts?
Some kind of record for you, no?

Wow, you really are math challenged. I've been using this nick for
several years and thousands of posts.

So, now you are stalking me?

I have seen enough posts by saltydog and found them to be sensible that
your data on number of posts and your claim of troll don't do your
credibility well.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Josepi wrote:
I see that Home Depot in Canada is now handling some LED bulbs with a title
of nightlights or something similar. They appear in the shape of the usual
medium base incandescent shape and have a white translucent dome over the
top if them. The ratings are so poor they could only be used a nightlights.

$30 ea.
7 Watts
155 lumens.

While there may be useful places for these nightlights, they don't look that
useful for me. Their efficiencies are barely as good as many incandescent
technologies at 155/7 = 22.14 lumens/Watt.

That sounds to me like the Philips AmbientLED. There are two higher
wattages 11 and 16, with much higher lumens/watt mid-upper 30's IIRC.
And this is with 3100 K color and CRI of 85. Available at Home Depot
for that matter.

Meanwhile, please find me a 7 watt 120V incandescent achieving much
more than 6.5 lumens/watt with life expectancy 3,000 hours or more, let
alone the 40,000 hours for Philips LED lightbulbs. For that matter,
anyone find me even an off-the-shelf available 15 watt 120V incandescent
lasting 2500 hours or more producing 155 lumens.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Josepi wrote:

Thanx for the link but, it becomes very obvious that decent lighting is not
a requirement for you, as you post.

Perhaps you could turn up the brightness on your LED backlit monitor, or put
on your spectacles and read the posts before posting unrelated links. Even
if the outdoor bulb did fit the fixture above my sink the somewhere between
390 and 450 lumens at somewhere between 2600K to 8000K colour temp.

Someone please point out to me a complete part number including
notation of customer-selectable binning / ranking of any LED lighting
product or for that matter any LED with color temperature tolerance range
of 2600 to 8000 K. Preferably for something not also available in
versions with much narrow color temperature tolerance ranges.

and low
lux output would not fit the bill. I like to see what I am doing.

Let's face it. LED area lighting has not become a reality for humans, yet.
ESL technology may be the next answer for a few decades.

What the heck is ESL?

Meanwhile, it appears to me that LED units comparable in color,
efficiency and CRI to CFLs and lasting 2-5 times as long will be on home
center shelves in a couple years. There are LED pot light fixtures with
CFL-like efficiency, incandescent-like color and CRI of 92 and that have
been on the market (not mass-market retail in my experience however) for
something like a year already, though likely expensive.

snip mostly previously quoted material

- Don Klipstein )

In , I, Don Klipstein wrote in part:
In article , Josepi wrote:

Thanx for the link but, it becomes very obvious that decent lighting is not
a requirement for you, as you post.

Perhaps you could turn up the brightness on your LED backlit monitor, or put
on your spectacles and read the posts before posting unrelated links. Even
if the outdoor bulb did fit the fixture above my sink the somewhere between
390 and 450 lumens at somewhere between 2600K to 8000K colour temp.

Someone please point out to me a complete part number including
notation of customer-selectable binning / ranking of any LED lighting
product or for that matter any LED with color temperature tolerance range
of 2600 to 8000 K. Preferably for something not also available in
versions with much narrow color temperature tolerance ranges.

I did follow the link that was in the previously quoted material that I
edited out for space, and did see 2600-8000 K.

I do consider such a wide tolerance range of color temp. to be an
outright outlier in the area of white LEDs and LED lighting products,
unlike anything else or even specs thereof I have ever seen.

- Don Klipstein )

You need to read the thread and stop babbling junk about side issues.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:
I see that Home Depot in Canada is now handling some LED bulbs with a
title
of nightlights or something similar. They appear in the shape of the usual
medium base incandescent shape and have a white translucent dome over the
top if them. The ratings are so poor they could only be used a
nightlights.

$30 ea.
7 Watts
155 lumens.

While there may be useful places for these nightlights, they don't look
that
useful for me. Their efficiencies are barely as good as many incandescent
technologies at 155/7 = 22.14 lumens/Watt.

That sounds to me like the Philips AmbientLED. There are two higher
wattages 11 and 16, with much higher lumens/watt mid-upper 30's IIRC.
And this is with 3100 K color and CRI of 85. Available at Home Depot
for that matter.

Meanwhile, please find me a 7 watt 120V incandescent achieving much
more than 6.5 lumens/watt with life expectancy 3,000 hours or more, let
alone the 40,000 hours for Philips LED lightbulbs. For that matter,
anyone find me even an off-the-shelf available 15 watt 120V incandescent
lasting 2500 hours or more producing 155 lumens.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Josepi wrote:

You need to read the thread and stop babbling junk about side issues.

The top-poster needs to stop babbling junk about mostly a product line
including an LED lamp producing 155 lumens from 7 watts being a "side
issue" since this was in response to the top-poster complaining about an
LED lamp producing 155 lumens from 7 watts.

Or is the side-issue that the top-poster complains against being the
fact that 155 lumens from 7 watts at 120V is not a "nightlight" but more
light than every 15 watt 120V incandescent I have yet to hear of?

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:
I see that Home Depot in Canada is now handling some LED bulbs with a
title
of nightlights or something similar. They appear in the shape of the usual
medium base incandescent shape and have a white translucent dome over the
top if them. The ratings are so poor they could only be used a
nightlights.

$30 ea.
7 Watts
155 lumens.

While there may be useful places for these nightlights, they don't look
that
useful for me. Their efficiencies are barely as good as many incandescent
technologies at 155/7 = 22.14 lumens/Watt.

That sounds to me like the Philips AmbientLED. There are two higher
wattages 11 and 16, with much higher lumens/watt mid-upper 30's IIRC.
And this is with 3100 K color and CRI of 85. Available at Home Depot
for that matter.

Meanwhile, please find me a 7 watt 120V incandescent achieving much
more than 6.5 lumens/watt with life expectancy 3,000 hours or more, let
alone the 40,000 hours for Philips LED lightbulbs. For that matter,
anyone find me even an off-the-shelf available 15 watt 120V incandescent
lasting 2500 hours or more producing 155 lumens.

- Don Klipstein )

What did how been too when it was for that made up and down said by you when
they didn't.

Apparently you still can't read.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:

You need to read the thread and stop babbling junk about side issues.

The top-poster needs to stop babbling junk about mostly a product line
including an LED lamp producing 155 lumens from 7 watts being a "side
issue" since this was in response to the top-poster complaining about an
LED lamp producing 155 lumens from 7 watts.

Or is the side-issue that the top-poster complains against being the
fact that 155 lumens from 7 watts at 120V is not a "nightlight" but more
light than every 15 watt 120V incandescent I have yet to hear of?

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:
I see that Home Depot in Canada is now handling some LED bulbs with a
title
of nightlights or something similar. They appear in the shape of the
usual
medium base incandescent shape and have a white translucent dome over
the
top if them. The ratings are so poor they could only be used a
nightlights.

$30 ea.
7 Watts
155 lumens.

While there may be useful places for these nightlights, they don't look
that
useful for me. Their efficiencies are barely as good as many
incandescent
technologies at 155/7 = 22.14 lumens/Watt.

That sounds to me like the Philips AmbientLED. There are two higher
wattages 11 and 16, with much higher lumens/watt mid-upper 30's IIRC.
And this is with 3100 K color and CRI of 85. Available at Home Depot
for that matter.

Meanwhile, please find me a 7 watt 120V incandescent achieving much
more than 6.5 lumens/watt with life expectancy 3,000 hours or more, let
alone the 40,000 hours for Philips LED lightbulbs. For that matter,
anyone find me even an off-the-shelf available 15 watt 120V incandescent
lasting 2500 hours or more producing 155 lumens.

- Don Klipstein )

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:38:59 -0500, Josepi wrote:

What did how been too when it was for that made up and down said by you when
they didn't.

Huh? Can you write?

Apparently you still can't read.

And obviously you still can't post properly in a newsgroup. Despite having
the proper way pointed out to you. Newsgroups are not e-mail.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

I like my attachments at the bottom, my text attached to the poster's header
and co-operate with the posting style of all the browsers out there.

Best of luck with your troll. Old argument that loses in most tech groups.


"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:38:59 -0500, Josepi wrote:

What did how been too when it was for that made up and down said by you
when
they didn't.

Huh? Can you write?

Apparently you still can't read.

And obviously you still can't post properly in a newsgroup. Despite having
the proper way pointed out to you. Newsgroups are not e-mail.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:04:45 -0500, Josepi wrote:

I like my attachments at the bottom, my text attached to the poster's header
and co-operate with the posting style of all the browsers out there.

Browsers? This is a newsgroup. One uses newsreaders. Browsers are for the
web.

Best of luck with your troll. Old argument that loses in most tech groups.

Troll? You clearly don't know what the word means when used in a newsgroup.
And you shouldn't quote all of the prior article. Newsgroups are question
and answer dialogs. As I have done I address parts of your article piece by
piece. I can assure you I have been following newsgroups longer than you.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Wow!

Wasn't it a pain to FTP the messages back then? Tell us what FTP software
you used in the 70s.


"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:04:45 -0500, Josepi wrote:

I like my attachments at the bottom, my text attached to the poster's
header
and co-operate with the posting style of all the browsers out there.

Browsers? This is a newsgroup. One uses newsreaders. Browsers are for the
web.

Best of luck with your troll. Old argument that loses in most tech groups.

Troll? You clearly don't know what the word means when used in a
newsgroup.
And you shouldn't quote all of the prior article. Newsgroups are question
and answer dialogs. As I have done I address parts of your article piece
by
piece. I can assure you I have been following newsgroups longer than you.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

"aemeijers" wrote in message

stuff snipped - sorry I am so late in responding - been away

CFL, the resultant energy savings would eliminate greenhouse gases equal
to the emissions of 800,000 cars..."


Not saying that CFL's aren't a good thing. But press releases full of
SWAG numbers like that irritate me. Way too many uncontrolled variables
for them to come up with a hard number. How many hours a day is this
'one bulb per house' supposed to be on and what wattage? What type of
cars are those 80,000 cars, and how many hours a day are they lit up,
and at what speeds? And so on and so on...

Precisely. There are SO damn many variables to consider that a hard and
fast number like 80K is immediately suspect, especially coming from a
government that was so sure Saddam had WMDs we bankrupted the US trying to
find them.

While both LEDs and CFLs clearly cut down on energy use, only LEDs do it
without adding mercury to every house and business in the nation. The
analysis is really quite simple. Choose the product *without* the deadly
neurotoxin in every box. For the people unhappy about the color quality or
the harshness of the light, consider this: The Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution were both written with the help of candlelight. I
don't know how many people on earth still live without electricity, but I've
seen estimates that say that it's more than 1.6 billion that live in
darkness.

Yes, LED bulbs are more expensive now, but what will it cost us to clean up
all the mercury from CFLs in the future? If it's like some of our other
former "miracle substances" like asbestos, the cost will be substantial.
Remember, the Feds also urged people to insulate their home with asbestos
until they found out it was a deadly carcinogen.

--
Bobby G.

"Chuck" wrote in message
-

I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
ultra violet light like the sun does.

My wife detests fluorescents of any kind, especially when she's working on a
computer. She says they trigger migraines. I am not sure that LEDs will be
much better in that regard, but I am hoping they will be. I recently read
an article that said the recession was reducing carbon output way more than
any other mitigation technique like CFLs.

As pointed out, it's very hard to accurately assess the
benefit of CFLs because of the complexity of the issue. Few models seem to
include the fact that in the winter, incandescent bulbs actually help heat
the home. The true cost/benefits of CFLs over tungsten bulbs are incredibly
complex and that allows either side of the argument to spout nearly any
numbers they feel like. All they need do is adjust the underlying
parameters or ignore facts like the future cost of removing mercury from the
enviroment the same way we're now removing asbestos.

We've stockpiled a fair number of incandescent bulbs at my house, because
like you, I believe that I shouldn't be forced to use a technology that
makes someone in my family sick. In a free country I should have the right
to spend money on what I choose to, not what the government mandates.

If Americans truly want to save energy, how about dimming Las Vegas, which
is
reported to consume 5 gigawatts a day to keep all those lights running? I
wonder how many tons of carbon are consumed by the thousands of people who
fly in every day to gamble away their children's college fund? (-:

--
Bobby G.

"Robert L Bass" wrote in message
...
salty wrote:

Cue Twilight Zone theme...

Indeed. That one bent the needle on the bull****ometer.

Too bad you're so quick to label a fellow poster as a BS'er.

You owe Chuck an apology, but he shouldn't hold his breath.

It seems like BS to you only because it's clear you're just guessing, and
you haven't done a lick of research. It's been a long and well-established
medical fact that some people have photosensitive skin and that fluorescents
are much more likely to cause problems than incandescents. So far, your
only contributions to this thread have been in the form of calling
people liars, fact benders and bull****ters. You sure do love to label
people.

What was it Josephi said about the pot and the kettle?

Time to put your reading glasses on and learn:

"photodermatoses are a group of skin conditions induced by light which
include the Idiopathic (of unknown mechanism) photodermatoses, drug/chemical
induced conditions, the genophotodermatoses. Fluorescent light has been
identified as a risk factor (Rihner and McGrath 1992, Sayre et al. 2004)."

source:
http://copublications.greenfacts.org...n-diseases.htm

Another site:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

reports that CFL bulbs vary widely in UV output and that: "Because patients
are exposed continually over long time frames, this could lead to
significant cumulative damage."

So who's bull****ting whom? Once again, a personal attack on a person
(Chuck) whom I suspect you don't even know about a subject you apparently
have no experience with or knowledge about. Once again you provide
absolutely no independently verifiable facts, just your limitless
(apparently) personal opinion that once again is easily proved wrong.

Remember the time you insisted that no one could skim bank card information
from an ATM? This is going to end just as badly for you, I fear. Why not
either quit while you're ahead or apprise yourself of the facts? Remember
that old joke about the job performance report: "He has reached rock bottom
yet continues to dig." Put down that shovel and pick up a book.

--
Bobby G.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Josepi" wrote:


How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually
affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is
statistically reduced, big time.

Was wondering the same things. About the only thing I could think of
was that some medications make you more sensitive to UV radiation and
thus more susceptible to sun burn. But I haven't seen anything in 25
years of nursing to support that as a problem outside the sun or tanning
booths.

See my previous post about:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

Many people have photodermatoses:

http://www.google.com/search?q=perce...toderma toses

a quote in that article leads to:

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/ja/ia.jsp?...DISPLAY= DESC

Which claims: "Polymorphous Light Eruption (PLE) or sun poisoning is a
severe debilitating skin disorder with an incidence of 10-20% in the general
population." It's also well known, as you've noted, that meds like
fluoroquinones antibiotics and antidepressants like doxepin can seriously
exacerbate any underlying skin condition.

I'm surprised a nurse would be unaware of the scope of this condition, but
it's possible you've never run into a hospitalizable case.

No, wait. I apologize and take that back.

I discovered last week I have been pronouncing "hysteresis" wrong all my
life.

It's entirely possible you've never seen a really bad case because people
with severe photodermatoses don't get out much and for a good reason.
There's just so much to know and learn in the modern world that I don't
think any humans have a chance of knowing more that a little corner of it.

--
Bobby G.

After reading some of the reference materials supplied and some of the link
that only result in garbage I have to conclude that Kurt stated things
fairly validly

"But I haven't seen anything in 25 years of nursing to support that as a
problem outside the sun or tanning booths."

CFL and fluorescent lamps do not emit high enough levels of UV to cause
conditions similar to the UV levels of the sun, typically. If people could
react to these low levels of UV emmision they would be dead in seconds of
sun exposure. I believe your links would lead most researchers to conclude
this quite frequently.

For fluorescnt bulbs to emit a lot of UV the coatings need to be changed
from a usual visible lamp bulb.

OTOH: Here is an article focusing on macular degenration that identified a
component of CFL lighting (and possibly LED lighting) that may be the cause
of health problems for seniors due to spectral content. Off course this is
only to occular influences and not at levels to affect skin chemistry.

http://www.international-light-assoc...h%20PLDC07.pdf


"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
See my previous post about:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

Many people have photodermatoses:

http://www.google.com/search?q=perce...toderma toses

a quote in that article leads to:

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/ja/ia.jsp?...DISPLAY= DESC

Which claims: "Polymorphous Light Eruption (PLE) or sun poisoning is a
severe debilitating skin disorder with an incidence of 10-20% in the general
population." It's also well known, as you've noted, that meds like
fluoroquinones antibiotics and antidepressants like doxepin can seriously
exacerbate any underlying skin condition.

I'm surprised a nurse would be unaware of the scope of this condition, but
it's possible you've never run into a hospitalizable case.

No, wait. I apologize and take that back.

I discovered last week I have been pronouncing "hysteresis" wrong all my
life.

It's entirely possible you've never seen a really bad case because people
with severe photodermatoses don't get out much and for a good reason.
There's just so much to know and learn in the modern world that I don't
think any humans have a chance of knowing more that a little corner of it.
--
Bobby G.


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Was wondering the same things. About the only thing I could think of
was that some medications make you more sensitive to UV radiation and
thus more susceptible to sun burn. But I haven't seen anything in 25
years of nursing to support that as a problem outside the sun or tanning
booths.



"Josepi" wrote:
How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually
affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is
statistically reduced, big time.

Something many may not have have thought of is that box we stare at for
hours every night with the LCD sets and the lighting technology behind them.
This could be a huge factor in our lighting input for the day.

You may be interested in this (spurred by your supplied links elsewhere)
LEDs may be just as bad as CFLs for health damage due to spectral content.

http://www.international-light-assoc...h%20PLDC07.pdf


"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
My wife detests fluorescents of any kind, especially when she's working on a
computer. She says they trigger migraines. I am not sure that LEDs will be
much better in that regard, but I am hoping they will be. I recently read
an article that said the recession was reducing carbon output way more than
any other mitigation technique like CFLs.

As pointed out, it's very hard to accurately assess the
benefit of CFLs because of the complexity of the issue. Few models seem to
include the fact that in the winter, incandescent bulbs actually help heat
the home. The true cost/benefits of CFLs over tungsten bulbs are incredibly
complex and that allows either side of the argument to spout nearly any
numbers they feel like. All they need do is adjust the underlying
parameters or ignore facts like the future cost of removing mercury from the
enviroment the same way we're now removing asbestos.

We've stockpiled a fair number of incandescent bulbs at my house, because
like you, I believe that I shouldn't be forced to use a technology that
makes someone in my family sick. In a free country I should have the right
to spend money on what I choose to, not what the government mandates.

If Americans truly want to save energy, how about dimming Las Vegas, which
is
reported to consume 5 gigawatts a day to keep all those lights running? I
wonder how many tons of carbon are consumed by the thousands of people who
fly in every day to gamble away their children's college fund? (-:
--


"Chuck" wrote in message
-
I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
ultra violet light like the sun does.

In article , "Josepi"
wrote:

How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually
affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is
statistically reduced, big time.

I'd like to see this get more publicity. Hopefully women will begin to
get the message and spend a lot more time exposing their breasts to the
sun.

Been there and done that and it gets pretty boring when the old leather
saddle bags start to crack like the bottom of a desert. Takes most of the
fun out of it.


In article , "Josepi"
wrote:
How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually
affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is
statistically reduced, big time.



"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news I'd like to see this get more publicity. Hopefully women will begin to
get the message and spend a lot more time exposing their breasts to the
sun.

In article , Robert Green wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message

stuff snipped - sorry I am so late in responding - been away

CFL, the resultant energy savings would eliminate greenhouse gases equal
to the emissions of 800,000 cars..."


Not saying that CFL's aren't a good thing. But press releases full of
SWAG numbers like that irritate me. Way too many uncontrolled variables
for them to come up with a hard number. How many hours a day is this
'one bulb per house' supposed to be on and what wattage? What type of
cars are those 80,000 cars, and how many hours a day are they lit up,
and at what speeds? And so on and so on...

Precisely. There are SO damn many variables to consider that a hard and
fast number like 80K is immediately suspect, especially coming from a
government that was so sure Saddam had WMDs we bankrupted the US trying to
find them.

While both LEDs and CFLs clearly cut down on energy use, only LEDs do it
without adding mercury to every house and business in the nation. The
analysis is really quite simple. Choose the product *without* the deadly
neurotoxin in every box. For the people unhappy about the color quality or
the harshness of the light, consider this: The Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution were both written with the help of candlelight. I
don't know how many people on earth still live without electricity, but I've
seen estimates that say that it's more than 1.6 billion that live in
darkness.

Yes, LED bulbs are more expensive now, but what will it cost us to clean up
all the mercury from CFLs in the future?

SNIP bring in asbestos

Compared to incandescent, CFLs in USA on average reduce mercury
contamination of the environment.

Burning coal is a major source of mercury pollution, to such an extent
that a CFL successfully replacing a 60 watt incandescent and lasting over
5,000 hours, or successfully replacing a 100 watt incandescent and lasting
over 3,000 hours, achieves a reduction of mercury pollution - even if the
CFLs are not disposed of properly.

Meanwhile, they can be. I have heard that Home Depot accepts dead CFLs
for proper disposal. There is also www.lamprecycle.org.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Robert Green wrote:
"Chuck" wrote in message
-

I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
ultra violet light like the sun does.

My wife detests fluorescents of any kind, especially when she's working on a
computer. She says they trigger migraines. I am not sure that LEDs will be
much better in that regard, but I am hoping they will be. I recently read
an article that said the recession was reducing carbon output way more than
any other mitigation technique like CFLs.

As pointed out, it's very hard to accurately assess the
benefit of CFLs because of the complexity of the issue. Few models seem to
include the fact that in the winter, incandescent bulbs actually help heat
the home.

Unless your heat is resistive electric heat, it saves to reduce
electricity use and use the home heating system more.

The true cost/benefits of CFLs over tungsten bulbs are incredibly
complex and that allows either side of the argument to spout nearly any
numbers they feel like. All they need do is adjust the underlying
parameters or ignore facts like the future cost of removing mercury from the
enviroment the same way we're now removing asbestos.

Compared to incandescent, on average use of CFLs actually reduces
mercury pollution, because burning coal releases so much mercury into the
environment.

We've stockpiled a fair number of incandescent bulbs at my house, because
like you, I believe that I shouldn't be forced to use a technology that
makes someone in my family sick. In a free country I should have the right
to spend money on what I choose to, not what the government mandates.

If Americans truly want to save energy, how about dimming Las Vegas, which
is reported to consume 5 gigawatts a day to keep all those lights
running?

Would you believe those blinking and chasing marquee lights and the like
are mostly CFLs now? The ones that have to blink are cold cathode, which
can be blinked with the compromise of being a little less efficient than
hot cathode.

I wonder how many tons of carbon are consumed by the thousands
of people who fly in every day to gamble away their children's college
fund? (-:

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Josepi wrote:
Something many may not have have thought of is that box we stare at for
hours every night with the LCD sets and the lighting technology behind them.
This could be a huge factor in our lighting input for the day.

You may be interested in this (spurred by your supplied links elsewhere)
LEDs may be just as bad as CFLs for health damage due to spectral content.

http://www.international-light-association.eu/PDF/
Artificial%20Light%20and%20Health%20PLDC07.pdf

Except this stuff on blaming health problems by melanopsin peaking at
460 nm being stimulated by CFL's blue peak (436 nm) is BS. An equivalent
amount of daylight has more stimulation of the blue color sensors in the
eye (peaking at 445 nm), as indicated by daylight appearing more blue.
An equivalent amount of daylight stimulates scotopic receptors (peaking at
508 nm) much more than CFL does, as indicated by higher s/p ratio.
Daylight's spectrum is pretty smooth and high throughout the violet to
blue-green range, and favors a photomechanism peaking at 460 nm (whereCFL
spectrum is lacking) even less than is favors sensing a bluish color.

The whole document appears to me to be a fluorescent-bashing BS set of
half-truths.

In fact, most health claims related to 460 nm from advocates of
full-spectrum lamps are that non-full-spectrum fluorescents do not produce
enough in the 460 nm area (which most white LEDs do produce a lot of).

snip to here

"Chuck" wrote in message
-
I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
ultra violet light like the sun does.

As it turns out, CFLs do not produce a lot of ultraviolet, in fact
much less than is present in an equivalent amount of daylight that has
passed through a glass window. CFLs produce more UV than incandescents
do, but still little.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Robert Green wrote:
"Robert L Bass" wrote in message
m...
salty wrote:

Cue Twilight Zone theme...

Indeed. That one bent the needle on the bull****ometer.

Too bad you're so quick to label a fellow poster as a BS'er.

You owe Chuck an apology, but he shouldn't hold his breath.

It seems like BS to you only because it's clear you're just guessing, and
you haven't done a lick of research. It's been a long and well-established
medical fact that some people have photosensitive skin and that fluorescents
are much more likely to cause problems than incandescents. So far, your
only contributions to this thread have been in the form of calling
people liars, fact benders and bull****ters. You sure do love to label
people.

What was it Josephi said about the pot and the kettle?

Time to put your reading glasses on and learn:

"photodermatoses are a group of skin conditions induced by light which
include the Idiopathic (of unknown mechanism) photodermatoses, drug/chemical
induced conditions, the genophotodermatoses. Fluorescent light has been
identified as a risk factor (Rihner and McGrath 1992, Sayre et al. 2004)."

source:
http://copublications.greenfacts.org...ing-lamps/l-3/
5-skin-diseases.htm

Another site:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122268881/
abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

reports that CFL bulbs vary widely in UV output

They vary, but all intended for household, commercial and general
purpose lighting have less UV than an equivalent amount of daylight that
has passed through a glass window. Ones of color temp. 3500K or more have
even less UV because one of the phosphor components utilizes some of the
UV of wavelengths too long for most fluorescent lamp phosphors to utilize
- those CFLs even have UV content about as low as that of many
incandescents.

and that: "Because patients
are exposed continually over long time frames, this could lead to
significant cumulative damage."

SNIP from here

- Don Klipstein )

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"Robert L Bass" wrote in message
...
salty wrote:

Cue Twilight Zone theme...

Indeed. That one bent the needle on the bull****ometer.

Too bad you're so quick to label a fellow poster as a BS'er.

Please, Bobby. The *statement* that CFL's cause exacerbate all of these ills
was BS. There was no intent to attack the person who apparently believes it.

You owe Chuck an apology, but he shouldn't hold his breath.

You owe the newsgroup an apology for trying tio turn this into a fight. Now
stop it.

I have never had a CFL burn out yet in several years of usage. Many have
broken or came apart from the base and leaked.


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
Compared to incandescent, CFLs in USA on average reduce mercury
contamination of the environment.

Burning coal is a major source of mercury pollution, to such an extent
that a CFL successfully replacing a 60 watt incandescent and lasting over
5,000 hours, or successfully replacing a 100 watt incandescent and lasting
over 3,000 hours, achieves a reduction of mercury pollution - even if the
CFLs are not disposed of properly.

Meanwhile, they can be. I have heard that Home Depot accepts dead CFLs
for proper disposal. There is also www.lamprecycle.org.

- Don Klipstein )

Josepi wrote:

I have never had a CFL burn out yet in several years of usage. Many have
broken or came apart from the base and leaked.

What brand are you buying? I've had a bunch of Sylvania and Feit CFLs
burn out -- but I've had Sylvania incandescents that lasted only a day
or less too.

Perce

It does become hard to differentiate sales promotion at the cost of other
product bashing from honest testing and reporting, whatever that is...LOL

I believe it was that same report that brought in LED lighting as a similiar
problem as fluorescent spectrums. I wouldn't have believed that lighting
spectrum balance was so important but as I age I find myself very affected
by lighting, particularly SADS type responses due to lack of sunlight.


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:
The whole document appears to me to be a fluorescent-bashing BS set of
half-truths.

In fact, most health claims related to 460 nm from advocates of
full-spectrum lamps are that non-full-spectrum fluorescents do not produce
enough in the 460 nm area (which most white LEDs do produce a lot of).

As it turns out, CFLs do not produce a lot of ultraviolet, in fact
much less than is present in an equivalent amount of daylight that has
passed through a glass window. CFLs produce more UV than incandescents
do, but still little.

- Don Klipstein )

It looks like the answer will be too install incandescent in the winter when
we can use the heat efficiently and CFLs in the summer when we get enough
sunlight anyway...LOL

I still wonder about the effects of staring at the TV with flourescent
lighting behind it night after night. I have just ordered a new LED backlit
unit. This could be the new lighting / behaviour study coming with the CRT
units disapearing.


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Green wrote:
Unless your heat is resistive electric heat, it saves to reduce
electricity use and use the home heating system more.

- Don Klipstein )

I have had every brand made, I think. Sylvania,Phillips, GE, Globe, and a
miriad of brands I have never seen before. I am not sure which ones had
problems. I have had some DOA units too in 6-packs. I have had units that
took 5 minutes to brighten so you could tell they were on when I lived on
solar power, on cold days.

I sell old units to Jewish people for weddings. Nobody knows it isn't a
wine glass breaking inside the bag...LOL


"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
What brand are you buying? I've had a bunch of Sylvania and Feit CFLs
burn out -- but I've had Sylvania incandescents that lasted only a day
or less too.

Perce


Josepi wrote:
I have never had a CFL burn out yet in several years of usage. Many have
broken or came apart from the base and leaked.

I have had every brand made, I think. Sylvania,Phillips, GE, Globe, and a
miriad of brands I have never seen before. I am not sure which ones had
problems. I have had some DOA units too in 6-packs. I have had units that
took 5 minutes to brighten so you could tell they were on when I lived on
solar power, on cold days.

I sell old units to Jewish people for weddings. Nobody knows it isn't a
wine glass breaking inside the bag...LOL


"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
What brand are you buying? I've had a bunch of Sylvania and Feit CFLs
burn out -- but I've had Sylvania incandescents that lasted only a day
or less too.

Perce


Josepi wrote:
I have never had a CFL burn out yet in several years of usage. Many have
broken or came apart from the base and leaked.

In article , Josepi wrote:

I have never had a CFL burn out yet in several years of usage. Many have
broken or came apart from the base and leaked.

Have you actually seen mercury leaked from a CFL? I doubt it - the
quantity is very small.

Meanwhile, I have extensive CFL usage, and never broken or cracked one
unless I dropped it. I have seen one CFL that cracked during use, among
hundreds of burnouts that I have had a chance to see.

I have had a few come apart at the base during handling - like 2,
with one additional having the tubing come loose from tubing end
overheating while approaching burnout, with none of these 3 having
the tubing break, while I have had more burnouts than that in my home
since 1990. Both the ones that had their bases coming apart were dollar
store stool specimens of usual dollar store brands.

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
Compared to incandescent, CFLs in USA on average reduce mercury
contamination of the environment.

Burning coal is a major source of mercury pollution, to such an extent
that a CFL successfully replacing a 60 watt incandescent and lasting over
5,000 hours, or successfully replacing a 100 watt incandescent and lasting
over 3,000 hours, achieves a reduction of mercury pollution - even if the
CFLs are not disposed of properly.

Meanwhile, they can be. I have heard that Home Depot accepts dead CFLs
for proper disposal. There is also www.lamprecycle.org.

- Don Klipstein )