On CFL bulbs' neg. effect on health

1 view
Skip to first unread message

news....@googlemail.com

unread,
Sep 2, 2010, 10:45:09 AM9/2/10
to mobilfunk_...@googlegroups.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Alasdair Philips
To: Iris Atzmon
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 9:17 AM

I attach two graphs from measurements I made comparing various CFLs and an ordinary incandescent bulb. You may forward them if you wish. Note they are logarithmic scales - each y-scale grid line represents a 10-fold increase i.e. 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc.
 
Concerned about RF from Compact Fluorescent Luminaires (CFL bulbs)) we bought a variety of makes and designs - all labeled 60 watts nominal equivalent light power compared with conventional incandescent bulbs.
 
Both graphs and in decibels (dB). Each y-scale (vertical) interval grid-line represents a 10-fold different - so a difference in level of 3 lines is a 1000-fold (10*10*10). The bottom reference line represents the measurements from a conventional incandescent bulb. All measurements were taken on the same day in the same experimental setup. It was a metre-cubed earthed and screened box, with the bulb mounted in the middle of the far wall and the wide-band antenna mounted in the middle of the box about 35 cm from the bulb.
 
The first graph (20-60 kHz) shows the different fundamental driving frequencies of the different makes. The frequency range is surprising.
All the values were about 1,000,000 times higher than those at the same frequencies from the background level which was identical to the level when the incandescent bulb was used.
 
The "all to 5 MHz" graph shows the CFL emissions still at 100 times above background at 2 MHz and 100 times at 5 MHz. So they are a significant RF polluting source, especially if you sit close to them.
 
Alasdair Philips
Director, Powerwatch (UK)
 
 

 
all_to_60kHz.jpg
all to 5MHz 1.jpg
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages