SKIN RISK: A new study finds that damaged compact fluorescent lightbulbs can emit harmful ultraviolet light capable of damaging skin cells.
Image: flickr/rubberpaw
The curlicue compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) oft touted as an Earth-friendly alternative to standard incandescent bulbs may cause skin damage, according to a new study by researchers at Stony Brook University.
The bulbs are already known to pose hazards from using mercury, a toxic element, though in very small quantities, as lighting manufacturers are quick to point out. Regulations in parts of the United States and in the European Union limit mercury to 3.5 milligrams per bulb, with the limit dropping to 2.5 mg next year.
Now researchers have found that ultraviolet radiation seeping through CFLs may damage skin cells. Miriam Rafailovich, a professor of materials science and engineering at Stony Brook, led the research after reading an article in an Israeli newspaper that reported a spike in skin cancer on a communal farm when residents switched to fluorescent bulbs.
"In the past two years some disturbing reports have surfaced mostly in the European Union literature, which indicate that exposure to CFL bulbs might be responsible for exacerbating certain skin conditions, such as photodermatoses and skin cancer in humans," says the paper, published last month in the journal Photochemistry and Photobiology.
The issue comes from how CFLs are designed. Fluorescent lamps, large and compact, work by using electricity to excite mercury vapor inside the bulb. The excited vapor then emits invisible ultraviolet light that is absorbed by the bulb's phosphor coating. In turn, the coating re-emits the energy as visible light.
But researchers found UV light leaks more from CFLs compared to standard fluorescent tubes because the small diameter of the glass coupled with its twists and turns creates more spaces where the phosphor coating chips away, letting more UV light escape.
Past studies indicated that UV emissions from CFLs could harm previously damaged tissue and worsen chronic skin conditions, but researchers were curious about what these lamps do to healthy skin. To find out, the scientists studied two types of skin cells: keratinocytes, which make up 95 percent of the outermost layer of skin, and dermal fibroblasts, which form the connective tissue underneath.
Using CFL bulbs from different manufacturers purchased from retailers on Long Island, the team exposed cultured skin cells in a petri dish to the bulbs mounted in a desk lamp from different distances for varying periods. The team measured how much UV light was emitted and then assessed how the cells responded.
"All of them had some [UV emissions], but some were a lot worse than others," Rafailovich said of the bulbs. She noted that colored fluorescent party bulbs had lower UV emissions because the flexible color coating helped protect the phosphor layer.
Avoid close contact, researchers say
UV light comes in three varieties: UVA, UVB and UVC. The researchers tested the bulbs for UVA and UVC emissions. In skin cells, UVA creates reactive oxygen, which can damage their inner workings, and penetrates further into skin. Outdoors, people are typically exposed to UVA and UVB.
UVC, on the other hand, is usually scattered away by air, so we aren't usually exposed to it in sunlight. However, close to its source, like a CFL, UVC damages DNA.
"We saw significant amounts of UVC [from CFLs], which is not what you see in the atmosphere," said Rafailovich.
Under CFLs, the experiments showed cells stopped growing and changed shape. Dermal fibroblasts suffered worse than keratinocytes, since they are usually not exposed to light. This indicates these bulbs can damage skin in several layers.
Rafailovich explained that at close range, around a foot or so, CFL exposure is "the equivalent of sunbathing at the equator." This may not be cause for alarm for those who have CFLs mounted in ceiling fixtures, but it should be a concern with desk or table lamps. The researchers recommend avoiding CFLs at close range and placing them behind glass barriers or enclosures.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentGFD. Who do I sue now? Thanks you freaking green liberal dips.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComment above is equal parts pointless and dumb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLast para... "researchers recommend avoiding CFLs at close range and placing them behind glass barriers or enclosures"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre the researchers stating that a glass barrier is sufficient to eliminate "significant amounts of UVC"?
Lets not forget that we have systems in place in our skin to protect from moderate UV exposure. Using cultured cells under these lights would be like you using these lights after using duct tape to rip off the outer layer from your skin following a year in the dark to remove any melanin, assuming you're not naturally pigmented. Here's a quick link, if SA will let it through there filters, to a review article on the subject. "The Protective Role of Melanin Against UV Damage in Human Skin" (Brenner, 2008) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671032/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost transparent barriers do filter out at least some UV. Back when I was doing research into enhancing UV damage for the purposes of purifying water of harmful bacteria, we had to use special crystal to maximize the transmittance of UV light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting, Umair: "after reading an article in an Israeli newspaper that reported a spike in skin cancer on a communal farm when residents switched to fluorescent bulbs." - well done, not covered by the original reports out about this!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLED bulbs are presented as the Big New Deal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishyped up elsewhere too...but their light quality is equally doubtful, albeit with less UV danger.
More on the Stony Brook study, and previous ones in the EU and Canada on the same topic,
also with LED and CFL and incandescent light quality spectrum comparisons and UV information
see freedomlightbulb.org
yes Dave... was similar advice by DEFRA UK, EU and Canada studies 2008 and 2009 e.g. for pear shaped double capsule type CFLs within 30cm distance usage for over 1 hour at a time (pretty close..study lamp, sewing, maybe ;-))
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe UVC is normally filtered from sunlight by the ozone layer ads you may know
-- see comment and link at end here, for more.
oh ok... reference to comment above, as it turns out ;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this