I recently read an article from the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) saying that Health Canada (sort of an FDA equivalent) has begun testing compact fluorescent bulbs to measure potentially harmful UV radiation and electromagnetic-field exposure levels. Their impetus for conducting the study was an October 2008 warning from the United Kingdom’s Health Protection Agency over “open” or “single envelope” bulbs (those having a corkscrew-like or tube-like design). The Agency’s research showed thatsome CFLs can emit UV radiation “at levels that, under certain conditions of use, can result in exposures higher than guideline levels.”


As a result of these finding the Agency is recommending that “bare” CFLs not be used in close proximity (closer than 30cm or 1 ft) for over 1 hour a day. “Bare” CFLs are those that are not encapsulated (double envelope). The outer glass container of the double envelope CFLs (easily recognizable as they look more light an incandescent light bulb) absorbs ultraviolet radiation and therefore no precautionary measures are needed.


Health Canada says that their own study will show results sometime in late summer or early fall and commented that “If the tests establish that there are reasons for concern, actions will be taken to force manufacturers to correct the situation.”


Personally, I am surprised that this is an issue all of a sudden. I would have thought that manufacturing standards for CFLs would limit the amount of UV and electromagnetic radiation emitted. It’s incredible that this potential risk was previously unknown. So how serious are the risks? In my opinion, in the majority of situations CFL bulb are contained with a fixture that contains glass or cloth that would provide an adequate shield for UV radiation. In those instances where your light fixture is exposed or you are using a CFL in a desk lamp I would suggest removing it an replacing it with an encapsulated CFL. Additionally, try to purchase only encapsulated CFLs in the future - so you don’t have to worry at all.


Unfortunately, this new potential heath risk for CFLs (regardless of how minor the risk is) combined with fears over their mercury content may delay the demise of the energy inefficient incandescent bulb and will likely delay the implementation of future energy saving innovations.

In my daily exploration of environmentally inclined forums and blogs I come across a lot of information and misinformation about Compact Fluorescent Bulbs. I figured it would be a good idea to blog frequently about CFL misconceptions as I come across them. Additionally, we here at GreenPricer.com have plans to write up a CFL buying guide - where you can get accurate information about which CFL bulbs to buy all in one place.

In the last few years there has been substantial hype surrounding CFLs as one of sure fire ways we can help avoid the looming energy and climate change crisises. Sure CFLs use a quarter the energy of incandescents, last 4-10 times as long, save us money on our energy bill and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released in to the atmosphere. But what of the negatives? According to the comments I see on forums and blogs, the biggest concern with CFLs seems to be the small amounts of the toxic metal mercury that is required for the bulbs to function. The amount of mercury in CFL bulbs varies greatly from brand to brand (anywhere from 1mg to 18mg of mercury) and cause many consumers to question whether the benefits of using CFLs are worth taking the risk that one will break. According to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, elemental Mercury is a liquid that releases mercury vapour at room temperature - vapor that can be inhaled into the lungs and passed into the blood stream. Symptoms of this ‘mercury poisoning’ can be tremors, neuromuscular changes, emotional changes (mood swings, irritability), insomia and headaches among others. It’s important to understand that elemental mercury differs from the much more toxic methylmercury which can cause long term health effects - especially on fetal development during pregnancy. Exposure to methylmercury occurs for example through ingestion of contaminated fish.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) did a study of Compact Fluorescent Lamp Breakage in February where they looked at a large number of different scenarios under which CFLs were broken. They continuously monitored air quality at 1 and 5 feet from the floor over a number of days following CFL breakage. The study results identified potential exposure to mercury vapour from the initial breakage of the CFL as well as ongoing emission from mercury left in the flooring surface. A third potential exposure is the emissions from the broken lamp debris once cleaned up.

The study found that under the majority of their testing scenarios, the initial mercury air concentration exceeded the EPA Referene concentration for mercury (designed to protect against chronic exposure) at the one foot level (where an infant or toddler would be breathing) and many also exceeded at the five foot level (adult breathing zone).

The Maine DEP has published a revised cleanup guidance based on the studies results. You can access it here.

The report stressed that variability among brands/models of CFLs appears to be a significant factor in contamination, however they were limited in their ability to test many models accross many scenarios. In the reports conclusion they state “Variability among brands/models is significantly higher than the variability among the six original scenarios.”

In my opinion the results suggest that a certain level of caution should be used around the installation and removal of CFLs. I would not put CFLs in lamps that could be knocked over easily and I would keep them out of an infants of young childs room. In addition, I will be looking to purchase only those CFLs that contain the smallest amount of mercury in them and are Energy Star qualified (the Energy Star label adds an additional layer of quality control beyond that of say an Underwriters Laboratory). Remember, you get what you pay for - cheap, no-name CFLs may contain more mercury and may not be engineered to the same level as an Energy Star qualified CFL (not to mention that they may perform far worse in terms of bulb life, color rendering and flickering). I will also make sure that, from time to time, I review the latest cleanup guidance - from the EPA or my State environmental agency - should a CFL bulb break and I have to clean it up.

That being said, with some caution, I will continue to use CFLs in my home. I would encourage you all the take a look at the study and its conclusions.

For some other discussion about CFL breakage take a look at a Q&A at Treehugger.com