Scottish Daily Mail

The medical experts who refuse to use low-energy light bulbs in their homes

These eminent professors have stocked up on old-style bulbs to protect against skin cancer and even blindness. So should YOU be worried?

- By JOHN NAISH

HOW would you view a man who’s stockpiled a lifetime supply of old-fashioned light bulbs because he believes low-energy bulbs could lead to blindness? You might well dismiss him as dotty. But the man in question, John Marshall, is no crank. In fact, he’s one of Britain’s most eminent eye experts, the professor of ophthalmol­ogy at the University College London Institute of Ophthalmol­ogy. So concerned is he that he has boxes stacked with old- fashioned incandesce­nt light bulbs at home.

‘I bulk bought incandesce­nt light bulbs before the Government made it illegal to import them,’ he says.

‘I can’t give you an exact number, but I have enough to see me out.’ nor is he alone in his concerns about modern light bulbs. Another eminent British professor, John Hawk, an expert in skin disease, is warning they may cause sunburn-like damage, premature aging and even skin cancer.

He doesn’t have any low-energy bulbs in his house, explaining: ‘I have lots of old-style bulbs I bought in bulk when they were available.’

Incandesce­nt bulbs had been the standard form of illuminati­on for more than a century. But following an EU directive, the Government banned the import of 100-watt bulbs from 2009. This was followed by a ban on 60w bulbs in 2011 and a full ban on all ‘traditiona­l’ bulbs in 2012.

The EU directive was aimed at cutting fuel and carbon emissions. The l ow- energy bulbs — or compact fluorescen­t lamps (CFLs), to give them their technical name — are said to use 80 per cent less electricit­y and to last longer.

Old-fashioned incandesce­nt bulbs work by electrical­ly heating a filament inside a glass globe filled with inert gas, so that it emits light.

Instead of a glowing filament, lowenergy bulbs have argon and mercury vapour within a spiral- shaped tube. When the gas gets heated, it produces ultraviole­t light. This stimulates a fluorescen­t coating painted on the inside of the tube. As this coating absorbs energy, it emits light.

The concern is about some of the light rays emitted in high levels by these bulbs, says Professor Marshall. Recent scientific evidence shows these specific rays are particular­ly damaging to human eyes and skin.

Light is made up of a spectrum of different coloured rays of light, which have different wavelength­s. As he explains: ‘Light is a form of radiation. The shorter the wavelength, the more energy it contains.

‘The most damaging part of the spectrum is the short wavelength light at the indigo/violet end of blue.

‘Incandesce­nt bulbs did not cause problems, but these low-energy lamps emit high peaks of blue and ultraviole­t light at this wavelength.’

HOW THEY CAN ATTACK YOUR EYES

In THE same way ultraviole­t rays in sunlight can cause premature aging in our skin if we get sunburnt, there is a similar situation i n the eye, says Professor Marshall.

‘You shed skin every five days, but your retina is with you for life.’

The retina at the back of the eye is vital for sight — it’s made up of light-sensitive cells that trigger nerve impulses that pass via the optic nerve to the brain, where visual images are formed.

Sustained exposure to ultraviole­t light wavelength­s from CFLs increases the risk of two seriously debilitati­ng eye conditions, macular degenerati­on and cataracts, the professor claims.

With macular degenerati­on, the macula, which is at the centre of the retina, becomes damaged with age. A cataract is a clouding of the lens inside the eye. These are two of the leading causes of blindness in Britain.

‘If you are in a country with high levels of ultraviole­t light, your eyes will age faster,’ he says. ‘This is why the incidence of cataracts is earlier and greater nearer the equator, where sunlight is at its strongest, so there is more light across all spectrums. CFLs may have a similar effect.

‘The exposure can also significan­tly i ncrease your risk of macular degenerati­on. The biggest risk factor for this is age, as it commonly starts to affect people from 60 to 80.

‘You will almost certainly exacerbate that risk with low-energy light bulbs,’ adds the professor, who last month warned his colleagues of the dangers at Optrafair, a national education forum for opticians.

READING LAMP DANGER ZONES

BUT it’s not just your eyes that may be at risk from these light bulbs.

Professor John Hawk, the retired head of the photobiolo­gy unit at St John’s Institute of Dermatolog­y, King’s College, London, warns: ‘There is good evidence that the CFLs that have been foisted upon us emit radiation sufficient to cause damage to the skin if used close by for long enough.’

He says the risk is particular­ly high if the bulb is a metre or less from your body, which is common as people use them in reading lamps.

‘There is evidence that demonstrat­es that the lamps can not only cause damage to skin, but also short-term symptoms such as sun rash and prickly heat, a condition that medically is called polymorphi­c light eruption.

‘As with any ultraviole­t damage, these effects can add up over the years. The cumulative effect of this ultra-violet light causing burning, skin cell damage and aging skin, is that it must to some small, but significan­t, extent, increase the risk of skin cancer.’

Low-energy bulbs are also known to cause trouble to people who have lupus, an auto-immune disorder that typically affects the skin, joints and

internal organs. Irritation caused by ultraviole­t light worsens the rashes, j oint pain and fatigue associated with the disease.

According to the Lupus Foundation of America, up to two-thirds of people with the condition are sensitive to CFLs.

The EU has acknowledg­ed that exposure to low-energy lightbulbs may cause skin damage. But a report published in 2008 by its Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks s ai d t his risk is only with ‘prolonged’ exposure at distances of less than 20cm.

In such cases, ‘CFLs may lead to UV exposures approachin­g the workplace limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage’.

THE LINK TO MIGRAINE

‘MIGRAINES and epilepsy are also problems,’ says Professor Hawk. ‘I have seen 30 skin patients in my clinic who have been experienci­ng these problems linked to the bulbs.’

This may be because low-energy bulbs can flicker impercepti­bly (incandesce­nt bulbs flicker only when they are about to break).

A 2013 study i n the j ournal Neurology found that flickering lights are likely to trigger migraines in some sufferers. Flickering lights are also a trigger for epileptic fits.

Eleanor Levin, 44, a teacher of Spanish and music from Lancaster, blames low- energy bulbs for her headaches. She says she can’t be in the same room as one as it will trigger attacks of nausea, confusion and migraine. She first noticed the problem three years ago, when she began to suffer headaches in the office where she worked. ‘In the end, it made me so ill I had to give up that job,’ she says.

Eleanor has seen an array of doctors and neurologis­ts.

‘Some neurologis­ts have told me they believe the problem is caused by light flickering and is related to migraines,’ she says.

‘I have old-fashioned incandesce­nt lights at home and don’t get headaches — that’s why I now teach students at home for a living. I’m also fine with halogen bulbs.’

But she says she has to be careful where she goes at night. ‘Luckily, there are enough places that use gentle ambient light without these bulbs,’ she says.

‘The EU accepts there can be skindamage problems related to low- energy light bulbs, but not headaches. I suspect there are a lot of people who suffer milder problems with CFL bulb-related headaches, but who have not made the link with the cause.’

It’s also previously been reported that low- energy bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, raising concerns that if the glass is broken, this toxic substance could be released into the air or landfill.

A study by germany’s Federal Environmen­t Agency f ound a broken l ow- energy bulb emits levels of the vapour up to 20 times higher than the safe guideline limit for an indoor area.

While the amounts are relatively small, if a low- energy bulb does break, Public Health England advises householde­rs to evacuate the room and leave it to ventilate for 15 minutes. You’re advised to wear gloves while wiping the area with a damp cloth and picking up the fragments — t hese should be placed in a plastic bag, then sealed. This should be taken to a council dump and placed in a special recycling bank — councils do not collect hazardous waste in normal collection­s.

RISKS OF FAULTY BULBS

ANOTHER potential concern is that low-energy bulbs bought off the shelf vary considerab­ly in the amount of dangerous spectrum ultraviole­t light t hey emit, according to research at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, by Professor Harry Moseley, its head of photobiolo­gy. ‘ There appear to be significan­t problems with quality control i n their manufactur­e,’ he says.

‘our testing has found that in a batch of ten CFLs from randomly selected makers, o ne may be significan­tly worse than the rest, because, for example, it has a fault in its light-shielding.’ Professor Moseley says that the ‘ single- envelope’ bulbs — the low- energy bulbs where the coiled parts are visible — tend to emit the highest levels of ultraviole­t light. He believes those with a ‘double’ envelope — where a pearly dome like an oldfashion­ed lightbulb covers the coiled parts — tend to block out UV light ‘much better’. Dermatolog­ist Professor Hawk acknowledg­es the efforts to improve the bulbs by providing clouded glass domes. ‘But we are not sure how improved they are,’ he says.

He has been trying to lobby the EU to lift its ban on incandesce­nt bulbs.

‘I have talked to the committee on light safety in Brussels a bout t hese concerns, but no one there seems to be interested in this,’ he says. ‘The EU was trying to be green by introducin­g CFLs, but they did not think of the health consequenc­es. They are very reluctant to reverse its policies.’

Anne Vick, the communicat­i ons director of Lighting Europe, the industry associatio­n representi­ng leading lighting manufactur­ers, maintains ‘there is no risk from ultraviole­t light exposure emitted by CFLs as their UVA and UVB rays are well within the limits t hat guarantee consumer protection’.

She adds: ‘European scientific experts have not found any health impact from UV rays emitted by energy-saving bulbs in normal conditions.

‘For workers exposed to high levels of light and for people affected by extreme light sensitivit­y, experts recommende­d using double-envelope lamps.

‘CFLs comply with all relevant consumer protection legislatio­n. All lamps are thoroughly tested in order to ensure safe applicatio­ns for all consumers.’

Meanwhile, an EU spokespers­on told the Mail that ‘based on scientific evidence, an EU scientific committee in 2008 and the UK’s Health Protection Agency came to the conclusion that in normal use compact fluorescen­t lamps do not pose risks to the general public’.

However, Professor Moseley is not convinced.

He says that what’s needed is better legislatio­n from the EU on the quality and safety of lowenergy lighting.

‘But they are very reluctant,’ he says. ‘Their feeling is that it is the sufferers’ problem. In Brussels, the carbon emission targets take precedence.’

Eye expert Professor Marshall has a far simpler, i f rather blunt, solution.

‘ I would l i ke to urge the manufactur­ers of these light bulbs to get rid of them.’

 ??  ?? Warnings: Professor John Marshall (top) and Professor John Hawk
Warnings: Professor John Marshall (top) and Professor John Hawk
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom