Follow @taxnomor

Pages

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Misinformation campaign targets USA TODAY reporter, editor

WASHINGTON - A USA TODAY reporter and editor investigating Pentagon propaganda contractors have themselves been subjected to a propaganda campaign of sorts, waged on the Internet through a series of bogus websites.

Fake Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog comments. Websites were registered in their names.

The timeline of the activity tracks USA TODAY's reporting on the military's "information operations" program, which spent hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan - campaigns that have been criticized even within the Pentagon as ineffective and poorly monitored.

"I find it creepy and cowardly that somebody would hide behind my name and presumably make up other names in an attempt to undermine my credibility," Vanden Brook said.
The activity is the work of what online reputation expert Andy Beal calls a "determined detractor."
"It's like a machine gun approach. They're trying to generate as much online content as they can," he said. "The person who's behind this, we can give them a lot of credit here and assume they're very sophisticated about reputation attacks."

Posted by at No comments:

What is Gang Stalking?

Gang stalking – also known as “organized stalking” – is a slang term for a set of tactics used in counterintelligence operations involving the covert surveillance and harassment of a targeted individual. The goal of such operations – in the parlance of counterintelligence personnel – is to “subvert” or “neutralize” an individual deemed by a government agency (or its informants) to be an enemy.
Strategy and Tactics
Organized stalking methods were used extensively by communist East Germany’s Stasi (state police) as a means of maintaining political control over its citizens. The Stasi referred to the tactics as “zersetzen” (German for “corrode” or “decompose” – a reference to the intended psychological, social, and financial effects upon the victim).
The use of tactics such as electronic surveillance, slander, blacklisting, and psychological operations (“psyops”) methods for counterintelligence purposes – for example, to punish or suppress dissenters and whistle-blowers – has a well-documented history in the U.S. and other nations. For example, in addition to their use by the Stasi, some of the same tactics were used against American citizens during the infamous Cointelpro operations by the FBI, and the Project MK Ultra experiments by the CIA.
In gang stalking, the victim is systematically isolated and harassed in a manner intended to cause sustained psychological torture while creating the least-possible amount of evidence of stalking that would be visible to others. Accomplices – such as neighbors, co-workers, and even friends or relatives of the victim in some cases – are recruited to participate (often unwittingly) by counterintelligence personnel using various means, such as by telling them that the target is a potential threat or that the target is the subject of an “investigation.”
A whole set of psychological operations tactics is used against targeted individuals. These methods, described in detail in the overview below, include such things as threats, verbal harassment, slander, vandalism, abusive phone calls, computer hacking, tormenting the victim with noise, and “mobbing” (orchestrated verbal harassment by strangers, neighbors, or co-workers).
Harassment tactics used in organized stalking (“Cointelpro Version 2.0″) are specifically chosen for their lack of easily-captured objective evidence. Perpetrators use common annoyances such as constant noise by neighbors or rude comments and behavior by strangers, but on a frequent ongoing long-term basis. The cumulative effects of relentless exposure to such tactics can amount to psychological torture for the victim.
Accounts by numerous victims share common specific details – suggesting that the perpetrators of gang stalking are following a well-tested and standardized playbook. Using inconspicuous and difficult-to-prove tactics – sometimes referred to as “no-touch torture” helps keep organized stalking off the radar of potential witnesses and the mainstream news media.
Disinformation
Another factor contributing to the low profile of organized stalking in the media is a disinformation campaign – a common tactic in counterintelligence operations. In the case of organized stalking, the disinformation is mainly intended to mitigate exposure of the program.
Toward that end the Internet has been flooded with websites and forum comments about gang stalking that falsely purport to be from self-proclaimed victims of organized stalking, making irrational claims – references to demons and such. The intended effect is to convey the impression that everyone who claims to be targeted by gang stalking is simply delusional.
An additional disinformation strategy has been the establishment of front groups – most notably, FFCHS (Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance) – ostensibly a gang stalking victims support group, but actually an organization run by counterintelligence operatives.
News Reports About Gang Stalking
Mainstream news media reports about (post-Cointelpro and post-Stasi) gang stalking – in America and abroad – did not begin to appear until the past decade or so. Such reporting is still uncommon, but the frequency of reports by reputable sources has increased dramatically in recent years.
A Newsweek/Daily Beast article in August 2000 described a trend of systematic intense harassment of individuals in their workplaces as part of a phenomenon known as “mobbing” – which is commonly reported by victims as an element of organized stalking.
In the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, mainstream news media reports about domestic spying in the U.S. began to appear. In 2004, the PBS news program NOW and Newsweek magazine reported that the Pentagon had quietly resumed its practice of domestic surveillance. (Spying on civilians by the U.S. Army had been one of the scandals which led to the famous Church Committee investigations by Congress in the mid-1970s.)
The U.K. newspaper The Sunday Times published an article in October 2004 about the use of gang stalking tactics (“zersetzen”) by the intelligence agency MI5 to punish whistle-blowers.
In May 2006 The Globe and Mail, a Canadian national newspaper, reported that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) used gang stalking techniques (referred to as “Diffuse and Disrupt” tactics) against terrorism suspects for whom they lacked sufficient evidence to legally prosecute.
The July–September 2006 edition of Revue Internationale de Criminologie et de Police technique et scientifique featured a peer-reviewed academic article by Belgian criminologist Nicolas Desurmont which described how a secret policy of criminal stalking sanctioned by law enforcement authorities is used as an extrajudicial counterintelligence weapon to psychologically terrorize targeted individuals. Desurmont has since published additional papers on the subject, and presented his findings at international conferences on criminology.
In recent years, references to gang stalking in the media have increased. In October 2010, the influential political blog, Daily Kosposted a claim that zersetzen tactics are being used by intelligence agencies in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada.
Two news reports in 2011 described gang stalking operations in California. In January of that year, local TV news broadcasts on KION (Channel 46) and KCBA (Channel 35) featured a report about gang stalking – referred to as such by the reporters and by Lieutenant Larry Richard of the Santa Cruz Police Department. In August, San Joaquin Valley newspaper The Record and KCRA (Channel 3) local TV news reported that the city manager of Stockton, California had been systematcially stalked by local police after a break-down in contract negotiations between the city and the police union.
An article in the Sun Sentinel, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper in Florida, appeared in December 2012 about the organized stalking of a police officer by other officers and sheriff’s deputies from multiple jurisdictions. The victim of the stalking had cited an off-duty police officer for reckless driving. The stalking – which included illegally snooping on the victim’s private data and efforts to harass and intimidate her – was apparently done in retaliation.
The brazen use of gang stalking tactics for personal vendettas by law enforcement personnel in the Stockton, California and Florida cases seem to suggest that the officers involved were familiar with the effectiveness of the methods and were also used to getting away with such behavior.
At least two articles in 2013 alleged that the FBI’s infamous Cointelpro operations have re-emerged in full force. In January, an article inCounterPunch magazine asserted that “Cointelpro is alive and well.” In June, an article in the Nation (America’s oldest continuously-published weekly magazine) examined the case of journalist Barrett Brown. He currently faces a potential jail sentence of 105 years in connection with his efforts to expose the activities of private security/intelligence firms. The article’s author wrote: “One might think that what we are looking at is Cointelpro 2.0 – an outsourced surveillance state – but in fact it’s worse.”
The cover article of the October 2013 issue of the magazine Fortean Times is about “State-Sponsored Gangstalking” in the U.S. The author – a professor at California State University Long Beach – explored the case of a former U.S. military service member who stole some equipment and information from the U.S. military, and was then targeted for long-term intense harassment using psychological operations tactics and electronic weapons.
A local TV news report in November 2013 on WDTV Channel 5 (a CBS affiliate in West Virginia) presented a report on “organized stalking.” The broadcast featured testimony from two individuals from Pennsylvania who appeared to be credible and sincere, discussing their constant harassment by perpetrators using gang stalking tactics.
Scope of Operations
According to crime survey statistics (linked below) from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request, in 2006 there were an estimated 446,790 stalking incidents involving three or more perpetrators stalking a single individual. Of those incidents, it was estimated – based on victims’ reports – that at least 40 percent involved apparent coordination of the stalking among the multiple perpetrators.
Such statistics suggest the existence of activities whose scope cannot be explained simply as stalking by criminals – especially given that the otherwise-comprehensive index of crime categories in the DOJ’s website conspicuously makes no mention of this type of stalking.
An Internet search-engine query of the term “gang stalking” – as of October 2013 – yields well over six million results. Many of those references are obvious examples of deliberate disinformation (as mentioned above, and explored in detail in the overview below).
Organizational Structure of Counterintelligence Operations
The FBI ran a secret illegal counterintelligence program (“Cointelpro”) in the U.S. from 1956 until it was exposed by civilian activists in 1971. The program mainly targeted political dissidents. Apparently, a more sophisticated and larger scale counterintelligence program is now in effect.
Assuming that Cointelpro operations were in fact suspended after the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee investigations into the scandal in the 1970s, evidence suggests that they resumed a short time later. Ted L. Gunderson, a former high-level FBI official who became a whistle-blower, asserted that a much more sophisticated version of Cointelpro began to re-emerge in the 1980s. A link to Gunderson’s affidavit on the subject is provided in the overview below.
Based on news reports, accounts of self-proclaimed victims, and the DOJ statistics cited above, the apparent sophistication and scope of current organized stalking operations would require the acquiescence of multiple federal and local government agencies (including the FBI and the Department of Justice, among others). Federal law enforcement agencies, America’s 16 intelligence agencies, and local police departments now share crime and national security information via a nationwide network of “data fusion centers” – part of the extensive post-9/11 homeland security infrastructure.
Numerous job listings by intelligence/security contractor corporations for “surveillance role players” with active security clearances and training in counterintelligence (links and details in the overview below) strongly suggest that federal law enforcement agencies have largely outsourced these operations – which would be consistent with other security programs. A June 10, 2013 article in USA Today noted that about 1.4 million Americans have top-secret security clearances.
Federal and local law enforcement agencies – as well as intelligence agencies – also make extensive use of criminal informants (who are in large supply in America, with its extraordinary per capita incarceration rate). It would be natural for such informants to be used in a counterintelligence program. Indeed, the original Cointelpro was found by the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee investigations to have delegated some activities to organized crime groups. First-hand accounts of self-proclaimed victims of gang stalking support this assumption: by their appearance and behavior, many street-level perpetrators seem to be ex-convicts.
A national counterintelligence program would require acquiescence by the DOJ – just like the first Cointelpro did. U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy approved some of the Cointelpro operations.
Target Selection
Gang stalking apparently targets American citizens deemed to be dissidents or whistle-blowers (and perhaps potential dissidents and whistle-blowers), although others might be targeted for other reasons – such as for experimental or training purposes. For perspective, it should be remembered that for two decades the CIA performed secret illegal experiments on U.S. and Canadian citizens (the infamous MK Ultra program). Those experiments included physical and psychological torture.
It is entirely possible that some people targeted by America’s counterintelligence program are chosen simply because they crossed someone (or a corporation) connected with the program who is exploiting the counterintelligence system as a personal or corporate weapon. The intelligence industry no doubt has its share of the sort of opportunists who would abuse the enormous secret powers available to them.
An example of this occurred in April 2012, when USA Today reported that one of their reporters and an editor were slandered by a secret disinformation campaign waged by an intelligence contractor firm to discredit them because the newspaper had investigated and reported on that contractor (a company which conducted propaganda campaigns for the U.S. military). Similarly, in August 2013 it was reported that at least a dozen National Security Agency (NSA) employees had used their surveillance system access to spy on their current and former spouses and partners.
Implications
In addition to being morally reprehensible, gang stalking – just like the original version of the FBI’s Cointelpro operations – is illegal. It violates criminal laws in all fifty states against stalking, as well as grossly violating the U.S. Constitution’s prohibitions against unreasonable searches and punishment without a trial.
While the vast majority of Americans are never personally targeted by gang stalking, they should still be concerned about the existence of such programs. Even if secret extra-judicial punishment were constitutionally legitimate (clearly it is not), it would still have an enormous potential for abuse as a personal or political weapon by its practitioners.
Ending this abhorrent practice by law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies, and their parasitic corporate contractors will require exposing what is happening to the public. For anyone reading this, if you can assist with that exposure – even by simply sharing this information with relatives and friends – please do so.
Full article and additional info:
Posted by at No comments:

8 aspects of potentially health dangerous CFL bulbs

This article was scrubbed from the Electrical Engineering Site but can still be recovered from archive.org


Original Link:

Archive Link:



8 aspects of potentially health dangerous CFL bulbs

Posted MAR 14 2012 by  in ENERGY EFFICENCY, LIGHTING with 8 COMMENTS
8 aspects of potentially health dangerous CFL bulbs
8 aspects of potentially health dangerous CFL bulbs

Introduction to Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL)

We are becoming more conscious about climate change and many governments in the world are looking for different ways to reduce greenhouse gases and to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. One of the simplest solution for this is aggressively adopting CFL which is phasing out energy inefficient light.
Compact fluorescent lights (CFL), heavily promoted for their energy saving properties and quickly pushing traditional incandescent bulbs out of the market.
They are now inexpensive, payback in electricity savings is nearly immediate, and there is that side benefit of reducing power plant emissions.
CFL bulbs use approximately 75% less energy than incandescent light bulbs and last longer. At first glance this seems like a good way to conserve energy and to protect our environment. However…
Sales of CFL light bulbs are down more than 16% compared to 2010
Sales of CFL light bulbs are down more than 16% compared to 2010
Many environmentally conscious people think they are doing a great thing by using compact fluorescent light bulbs – CFLs. We see them advertised everywhere, even our most trusted environmental news sources tells us we should be using them. Production of traditional incandescent light bulbs may be phased out completely by the year 2014.
Unfortunately most people are unaware of and not many are talking about the fact that although CFL bulbs reduce energy and greenhouse gases, they put our health at an even greater risk than incandescent bulbs. They are energy efficient but not environmentally friendly. There are a number of serious problems associated with CFL bulbs that need to be considered and corrected. These include mercury content, emission of UV radiation, emission of radio frequency radiation, and generation of dirty electricity. There is the additional concern that these lights are making some people ill. This includes those who suffer from migraines, skin problems, epilepsy, and electrical sensitivity.
Governments are mandating CFL use and banning incandescent light bulbs. Media, industry, and governments have “screwed” the benefits of CFL bulbs into the deepest sockets of our mind. We are neutrally try to highlight dark and bright side of CFL by some fact and supporting arguments.

Bright Side of CFL

There are some advantages of CFL over incandescent light bulbs:
  1. Compact fluorescent lamps are four time more efficient than traditional light bulbs. (13 Watt CFL would give off as much light as a 60 Watt incandescent).
  2. CFL bulbs use approximately 75% less energy than incandescent light bulbs.
  3. CFL has long life compared to incandescent light bulbs.
  4. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are easily shrinking power bill and carbon footprint.
  5. CFL reduces greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants created by fossil-fuel power plants.
  6. Price so CFL is less compared to incandescent light bulbs.

Dark Side of CFL (Health problems created by CFL)

CFL’s save energy. Saving energy is good for the planet and may retard global warming. Sounds good although CFL have some seriously negative effects.

1. Mercury emissions by CFL

One of the negatives side of CFLs that it contain mercury so it must be disposed of properly in order to prevent contamination of our environment, our landfills and our water supply.
Mercury is an essential ingredient for most energy efficient lighting products, including CFLs. It is the mercury that excites phosphors in a CFL, causing them to glow and give light. When electric current passes through mercury vapor, the mercury emits ultraviolet energy. When this ultraviolet energy passes through the phosphor coating, it produces light very efficiently. Because mercury is consumed during lamp operation, a certain amount is necessary to produce light and achieve long lamp life.
Mercury can be added to the CFL in two ways. Some manufacturers use liquid mercury, which is less expensive and more difficult to accurately dose. Uses amalgam, a small “pill” which is a solid state form of mercury and other elements. Amalgam is much easier and more accurate to dose. This is the only manufacturer using 100 percent amalgam in its CFL products.
Airborne mercury poses a very low risk of exposure. However, when mercury emissions deposit into lakes and oceans, they can transform into a highly toxic form that builds up in fish. Fish consumption is the most common pathway for human exposure to mercury. Pregnant women and young children are most vulnerable to the effects of this type of mercury exposure. However, the most people are not exposed to harmful levels of mercury through fish consumption.
Mercury is an element found naturally in the environment. Mercury emissions in the air can come from both natural and man-made sources. Utility power plants (mainly coal-fired) are the primary man-made source, as mercury that naturally exists in coal is released into the air when coal is burned to make electricity. Coal-fired power generation accounts for roughly 40% of the mercury emissions.
Health problems associated with mercury depend on how much has entered your body, how it entered your body, how long you have been exposed to it, and how your body responds to the mercury. Children are more susceptible to mercury poisoning than adults. Exposure to small amounts of mercury over a long period, and brief contact with high levels of mercury may cause adverse health effects. Symptoms depend on the length or level of exposure.
Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that can cause serious damage to the all the tissues and organs in the body as well as the central nervous system and endocrine system and it disrupts functioning of crucial neurotransmitters in the brain.
It is one of the most toxic substances on the planet and has been linked to a variety of serious health conditions like autism, memory problems, infertility, depression, thyroid disorders, Alzheimer’s, adrenal disorders, anxiety, Parkinson’s and MS to name a few. It is especially toxic to children, pregnant women and small pets.

While the mercury is contained in the light bulb there is no risk, however if you drop the bulb on the floor of your home, then you are exposed to dangerous mercury vapors. Many are reporting that it is quite easy to break CFL light bulbs as you are screwing it in the socket.
Additionally, when we toss them in the garbage and they are picked up by the garbage company, they are getting broken all over the city and in the landfills. This means that our air and soil is being contaminated with mercury across our cities.

Arguments to oppose this Drawback

  • The amount of mercury in the most popular and widely used CFLs is minimal, ranging between 2.3 mg and 3.5 mg. That is lower than other CFLs on the market, which generally contain approximately 5 mg, roughly the equivalent of the tip of a ballpoint pen.
    .
  • By comparison, older home thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury and many manual thermostats contain up to 3000 milligrams. It would take between 100 and 665 CFLs to equal those amounts..
  • CFLs are safe to use in your home. No mercury is released when the bulbs are in use and they pose no danger to you or your family when used properly.
    .
  • CFLs are responsible for less mercury than standard incandescent light bulbs, and actually work to prevent mercury from entering our air, where it most affects our health. The highest source of mercury in our air comes from burning fossil fuels such as coal, the most common fuel used to produce electricity. A CFL uses 75% less energy than an incandescent light bulb and lasts up to 13 times longer. 
    .
    70% of power plants are coal fired and thus burn fossil fuel to produce energy. These power plants will emit 10 mg of mercury to produce the electricity to run an incandescent bulb compared to only 2.4 mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same time. Coal-fired power generation accounts for roughly 40% of the mercury emissions.
Top

2. Compact fluorescent bulbs and Migraine

In the past, some people reported headaches or eye strain when using fluorescent lighting. Some could see a flicker in the lighting, caused by lower frequencies and magnetic ballasts. The newer CFLs use higher frequencies and electronic ballasts, which mean the human eye, cannot detect any change in the light frequency.
There is also less of a ‘hum’ in the newer lights. The ‘hum’ in older lights may have caused headaches.
The flickering of fluorescent bulbs is a known migraine trigger. Compact fluorescent bulbs have made great strides in reducing the flickering that is common in this class of light bulbs. Despite this, many individuals are finding that compact fluorescent bulbs cause migraine headaches. CFL bulb manufacturers have denied any link between the bulbs and increased headache problems.
Currently, there is little research to support the link between migraine and CFL use; however, personal, anecdotal evidence demonstrates that many migraines cannot tolerate the new lights. Migraine is not just a headache. Migraine disease is a neurological condition that not only causes pain but can impact motor function, sensory function, vision, memory, and speech.
Individuals who have problems with fluorescent bulbs can try the following tips to lessen the impact of a CFL on migraine disease:

 Arguments to oppose this Drawback

  1. Use the newest compact fluorescent bulbs available.
  2. Sit as far from the bulbs as possible.
  3. If flickering is interfering with TV or computer monitor use, try repositioning the light to see if the flickering effect on the screen lessens.
  4. Try eye glasses or contacts that block out UV radiation.
  5. Use halogen or LED lighting.
  6. Try double walled bulbs or a light diffuser.
Top

3. Compact fluorescent bulbs and Lupus

Compact fluorescent bulbs can produce more ultraviolet light and have a different light spectrum than incandescent bulbs. This makes compact fluorescent bulbs problematic for people with Lupus or other light sensitive skin conditions.
Individuals with light sensitivity should monitor the effect of compact fluorescent bulbs on their health.

Arguments to eliminate this Drawback

  1. Keep at least 1 foot between yourself and the compact fluorescent bulb.
  2. Try a light cover or diffuser over the light.
  3. Investigate the amount of ultraviolet light produced by different brands of CFLs.
  4. Use halogen or LED lighting.
Top

4. Ultra violet light emissions from CFL

Ultra violet light is responsible for skin cancer. It can also be a problem for individuals with ultra violet sensitive conditions such as Lupus.
One would think that staying inside would keep a person safe from this harmful radiation.

Arguments to eliminate this Drawback

This is not completely true. Fluorescent lights put off UV light. While this exposure is much smaller than that of sunlight, it is important to keep it in mind. The current guideline limit  is 30 J m-2 for the eye and skin, which is equivalent to a constant irradiance of 1 mW m-2 effective for 30,000 seconds or 8 hours, a normal working day.
At close proximity (2 cm or ¾ inch), the exposure limit would be exceeded in less than 10 minutes by about 20% of the CFLs tested.
About half of the CFLs exceeded the exposure limit at this distance after 30 minutes. If the distance is increased to about 8″ only around 8% of the CFL bulbs exceed this limit.Also, encapsulated bulbs that have a globe of glass around the CFL itself emit less UV radiation than the traditional bulbs.
Do not use compact fluorescent bulbs for close up work or lighting. Purchase double walled CFLs that are encapsulated.

5. Spectral distributions by CFL

Natural daylight provides the only true full spectrum lighting. Incandescent light is closer in spectral distribution to natural daylight; fluorescent light is far different which accounts for its negative effects on the human body. There are thousands, of well documented scientific photo biological studies indicating the negative effects of fluorescent lighting.
The effects of different light sources on the body have been researched at a long list of prestigious institutions including MIT, and Harvard University.
The latest research is being done on how different colors of light (spectral distributions) affect the body’s circadian rhythms. Researchers used to think of the eye as the main organ for vision but because of the recent discovery of additional nerve connections, it is now understood that light mediates and controls a number of biochemical processes in the human body, including the production of important hormones through control of the light/dark cycle (circadian rhythms) – the body’s biological clock.
Fluorescent light gives off a very much distorted spectrum which is very different from the natural daylight in which our bodies have evolved.
Fluorescent light disrupts our circadian rhythms – our body’s regulator mechanism – and in doing so studies have shown negative health effects from minor annoyances such as headaches, eyestrain, fatigue, and weight gain, to serious effects such as insomnia and sleep disturbances, an increased risk of cancer, and a suppressed immune system.
Top

6. Emission of UV Radiation by CFL

Fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury, which emits UV radiation when it is electrically excited. This UV radiation then interacts with the chemicals on the inside of the bulb to generate light. According to Philippe Laroche, Media Relations Officer for Health Canada, compact fluorescent light bulbs, unlike tube fluorescent bulbs, do not have prismatic diffusers to filter UV radiation.
Therefore, there may be skin sensitivity issues, especially in people with certain skin diseases.
Interestingly, the British Dermatological Association has spoken out against CFL bulbs because their patients have adverse reactions to them. They are asking the UK government to allow people with skin problems to continue using incandescent light bulbs once the ban for energy inefficient bulbs becomes law.

Arguments to eliminate this Drawback

Not all CFL are the same. GE produces a low-UV bulb called Safe-T-Guard (registered Trade mark) for dark rooms. So the technology to produce safer bulbs is available and should be required for all bulbs.
Top

7. Emission of Radio Frequency Radiation by CFL

CFLs emit radio frequency radiation at levels that may interfere with various types of wireless technology.

Arguments to eliminate this Drawback

GE has started to put on General Electric acknowledges this and notice on the back of product packaging for all GE electronically ballasted CFLs:“This product complies with Part 18 of the FCC Rules, but may cause interference to radios, televisions, wireless telephones, and remote controls. Avoid placing this product near these devices. If interference occurs, move the product away from the device or plug either into a different outlet.
.
Do not install this product near maritime safety equipment or other critical navigation or communication equipment operating between 0.45-30MHz. “
Top

8. Poor Power Quality Produced by CFL

CFL is affecting Quality of Electrical Power. There is a deviation in the magnitude and frequency of the sinusoidal waveform.
Fluorescent lamps will only run on alternating current. They also need a pulse of high voltage and heated filaments at either end to start the electrical discharge that lights them. After that, the current must be limited externally, otherwise too much would flow and they would burn out. In a traditional fluorescent strip light, this is accomplished by the starter switch and the choke (a coil of wire wound around an iron core).
Once started, the current flows through the tube as a smooth sine wave at mains frequency, which is 50Hz (cycles per second).This makes the light flash on and off with each half cycle (i.e. 100 or 120 times a second) and some people, such as epileptics and migraine sufferers find this disturbing.
CFLs produce transients that contribute to poor power quality on electrical wires. According to General Electric (GE) their typical electronically-ballasted CFL operate in the 24-100 kHz frequency range. This range is within the radio frequency band of the electromagnetic spectrum and is classified as Intermediate Frequency (IF) by the World Health Organization.
There is concern about electromagnetic interference (EMI) associated with IF and recently studies have shown that IFs are biologically active and can have adverse health effects.

Arguments to eliminate this Drawback

Not all CFL are the same some generate more dirty electricity than others. In a recent study the values for dirty electricity ranged from 47 to 1450 GS units compared with a background value (with lights off) between 54-58 GS units. Clearly technology exists to produce CFL that do not generate dirty electricity.
However, almost all CFLs use electronic control gear. This usually incorporates a switched-mode power supply in the base of the lamp itself. It rectifies the AC from the mains to convert it to DC and then chops it electronically into a series of sharp rectangular alternating pulses, which then light the lamp.
New frequency, which is usually about 40 kHz (40,000 cycles per second), is so high and the gaps between pulses are so short that the relatively slow response of the phosphors can fill them easily. Consequently, these lamps do not flash.
Top

Required Vigilant Awareness while using of CFL

Although CFLs are considered safe to use, here are some steps you can take to further protect you and your family:
  • Always handle CFLs carefully when installing and removing them.
  • Buy CFLs that are marked low UV.
  • Buy CFLs that have a glass cover already added, which will help further filter out UV radiation.
  • Use additional glass, plastic or fabric materials in your lighting fixtures to act as UV filters.
  • Increase the distance you are from the CFL, as this will reduce the level of UV exposure.
  • All ENERGY STAR® qualified CFLs have less than 5 milligrams of mercury (some manufacturers are able to produce CFLs that have only about 1 milligram of mercury). Avoid purchasing non-ENERGY STAR® CFLs, as they may have much higher levels of mercury in them.
  • As of September 2008, all ENERGY STAR® qualified CFLs are required to list their mercury content on the packaging. This information is not required on non-ENERGY STAR® CFL packaging.
  • A CFL is a sealed unit, and no mercury is released when it is in use or as long as it is intact. Some mercury is released when a bulb breaks, and appropriate clean-up guidance should be followed.
  • If the bulb breaks, make sure to clean it up properly.  Also, check your local regulations to make sure that you won’t break any laws while disposing of the bulb.
  • Look for recycling programs online, through local stores, or through the light bulb manufacturers.  Make an informed choice.  If CFLs concern you or if you have health problems do to them, switch to a LED or incandescent bulb
Top

Disposal of CFL Bulbs

  • If CFL breaks- carefully sweep up all the fragments, wipe the area with a wet towel, and dispose of all fragments, including the used towel, in a sealed plastic bag.
    .
  • Follow all disposal instructions. If possible, open windows to allow the room to ventilate. Do NOT use a vacuum. Place all fragments in a sealed plastic bag and follow disposal instructions.
    .
  • Due to the mercury in fluorescent bulbs, they require special disposal methods. When these bulbs are sent to a traditional landfill, the bulbs often will break and will then emit mercury gas that is harmful to workers and to the environment.
    .
    The health threat to workers is especially large at transfer stations where large quantities of light bulbs may be crushed in a single location. Due to the dangers associated with mercury “ten states and multiple local jurisdictions prohibit the disposal of mercury containing products, including CFLs and other mercury containing lamps, in solid waste.”.
    .
  • Require CFLs to go through special CFL recycling programs or for individuals to dispose of CFLs at hazardous waste collection centers.
Top

CONCLUSION

If we can afford the discomfort of higher electrical bills, it is OK to go back to incandescent. The Earth will be fine, it just goes through cyclical warming and cooling’s, and we humans might not have as much impact on it as we give ourselves credit for. The heat generated by incandescent is not always wasted either. In colder months the heat reduces the amount of energy drawn from household heating.
In the next some year the prices of LED lighting will start to come down, and new LED lighting fixtures will be introduced. The CFLs will begin to be phased out, leaving behind a long term problem of mercury disposal, remediation, and a so far untold toll on human health
Instead of promoting compact fluorescent light bulbs governments around the world should be insisting that manufactures produces light bulbs that are electromagnetically clean and contain no toxic chemicals.
Some of these are available (LED) but are not yet affordable. With a growing number of people developing electro hypersensitivity we have a serious emerging and newly identified health risk that is likely to get worse until regulations restricting our exposure to electromagnetic pollutants are enforced.
Also, with improper disposal of these bulbs we are creating a mercury-time bomb. Since everyone uses light bulbs and since the energy inefficient incandescent light bulbs are being phased out in many countries by this is an area that requires immediate attention.
Try a CFL, but use and dispose it very carefully!
Published at Electrical Notes
Posted by at No comments:

CFL Cancer Risks

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandates the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs, and favors energy-efficient compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs.

Sounds good—until you realize that CFL bulbs contain mercury, and mercury poses a significant cancer risk. A new study shows that CFL bulbs also emit high levels of ultraviolet radiation—specifically, UVC and UVA rays. In fact, the UV rays are so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells. Experts saythe radiation could initiate cell death and cause skin cancer in its deadliest form—melanoma.

In every bulb the researchers tested, they found that the protective phosphor coating of the light bulb was cracked, allowing dangerous UV rays to escape. Healthy skin cells exposed to CFLs showed a decrease in their proliferation rate, an increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in ability to contract collagen.
On top of that, it’s a sad fact of life that light bulbs break. How do you clean up the mercury after a bulb breaks? The Institute for Molecular and Nanoscale Innovation measured the release of mercury vapor from broken bulbs. They recorded concentrations near the bulb of up to 800 mcg/m3, which is eight times the average eight-hour occupational exposure limit allowed by OSHA (100 mcg/m3).
Even more shocking, the recommended limit for children is a mere 0.2 mcg/m3. A child exposed to a broken CFL bulb will receive eight thousand times the recommended amount of mercury vapor!
A broken 13-watt CFL bulb will only have released 30% of its mercury a full four days after it is broken—the remainder is trapped in the bulb. So picking up shards with your bare hands or leaving them in poorly ventilated room while you ponder the best disposal method is a particularly bad idea.
Unfortunately, there is no good solution for cleaning up after a broken CFL bulb. Researchers at Brown are testing a cloth made with a nanomaterial (nanoselim) that can capture mercury emissions for proper disposal. But until this is commercially available, it is best to avoid CFLs altogether. And how will we dispose of the clean-up cloth?
General Electric claims that CFLs don’t produce a hazardous amount of UV radiation, and that UV is far less than the amount produced by natural daylight. The truth is that all compact fluorescent lights bulbs contain mercury vapor. Once that vapor is hit with an electric current, it emits a great number of UV rays. UV rays are theoretically absorbed by the layer of phosphor that coats the bulbs—but the signature twisted spiral shape makes these bulbs more prone to cracks in the phosphor, which dramatically increases UV/mercury exposure. Researchers found cracks in almost all bulbs purchased from retail stores, indicating that it is a standard design flaw of these bulbs.
CFL bulbs contains other cancer-causing chemicals as well. German scientists found that several different chemicals and toxins were released when CFLs are turned on, including naphthalene (which has been linked to cancer in animals) and styrene (which has been declared “a likely human carcinogen”). A sort of electrical smog develops around these lamps, which could be dangerous.
CFLs are supposedly better for the environment, but according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 98% of CFLs end up in landfills—creating a mercury build-up that can escape into our soil and waterways.
We’re happy that the federal government is tackling environmental problems, but this “solution” is especially short-sighted—and not unlike the national smart meter push, is creating serious health risks in the long-term.
Worse, soon consumers won’t have the option to buy incandescent lights—they simply won’t be available. The government hasn’t placed an outright ban on incandescent light bulbs. Section 321 of EISA mandates higher efficiency standards for general service lamps. But these standards are high enough that most commonly used incandescent bulbs just won’t meet the new requirements. EISA will effectively eliminate 40-, 60-, 75-, and 100-watt incandescent bulbs. The new efficiency levels will be in full force by 2014.
Even the United Nations has acknowledged the problem of mercury in CFL bulbs, and has instated a ban on certain types of CFLs. We won’t know the full implications of that ban until the treaty is made publically available.
The good news is that CFLs are not the only energy-efficient bulbs out there. There are also light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which are mercury-free—though LEDs emit blue light, which can be disruptive to sleep, as we noted in our 2012 article.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)