cfl's

[Trevor Wilson]

On 30/08/2013 2:58 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"
felix_unger wrote:

Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.

That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..



**Points:

* A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.

* The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
produce UV radiation.


** The mercury vapour discharge inside any fluro produces little else.


* The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)

** Invese square law ONLY applies to a point source of light.

Stop grasping at straws.


** Wot - like you are ?

FYI Fluoros used for UV light uses special glass like quartz.

**Indeed. As a 60s-70s guy I used UV tubes quite a bit at parties (as
I'm sure you did). Those (so-called 'black light') tubes did use a
special glass. Unlike the moron I responded to, I did a little
rudimentary research into tanning beds. The fluoro types use a phosphor
coated tube, in which the phosphors are specifically designed to produce
UV-A and UV-B. I don't know if they use special glass or not, though it
seems likely that they do, given the attenuation of UV through regular
glass.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b8aja0F959cU3@mid.individual.net...

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
they still emit radiation
But not enough to be of any concern. I guess you never watched an old CRT
TV
or heaven forbid used a CRT computer monitor as they are far worse for
radiation emmision.

everybody used CRT monitors. there was no other choice until LCD's came on
the market

Right, and how many died from them? CFL's are far less dangerous.

Trevor.

 

[felix_unger]

On 30-August-2013 2:43 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote

they emit UV radiation too.

Bullshit.

Yes. they do,

No they don’t. UV doesn’t get thru glass.

whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.

That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..



**Points:

* A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
* The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
produce UV radiation.
* The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)

Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished.

UV does pass thru glass

Shut the fuck up.

you STFU (egotistical twit!)

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 30/08/2013 5:24 PM, felix_unger wrote:

On 30-August-2013 2:43 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote

they emit UV radiation too.

Bullshit.

Yes. they do,

No they don’t. UV doesn’t get thru glass.

whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.

That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..



**Points:

* A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
* The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
produce UV radiation.
* The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)

Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished.

UV does pass thru glass

**Considerably attenuated.

Shut the fuck up.


you STFU (egotistical twit!)

**I'm not the one making the stupid claims.

The appropriate response from you should be to acknowledge your
considerable errors, rather than continuing to back yourself into a corner.

You're wrong. Admit it and move on.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[felix_unger]

On 30-August-2013 7:15 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 30/08/2013 5:24 PM, felix_unger wrote:
On 30-August-2013 2:43 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote

they emit UV radiation too.

Bullshit.

Yes. they do,

No they don’t. UV doesn’t get thru glass.

whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.

That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..



**Points:

* A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
* The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
produce UV radiation.

which goes thru the glass

* The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)

Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished.

UV does pass thru glass

**Considerably attenuated.


Shut the fuck up.


you STFU (egotistical twit!)

**I'm not the one making the stupid claims.

The appropriate response from you should be to acknowledge your
considerable errors, rather than continuing to back yourself into a
corner.

You're wrong. Admit it and move on.

about what? Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass. pick on
him- or is he too much for you to handle?

 

[Phil Allison]

"felix_unger"

Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.

FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.

Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.

But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it is not
100%.

The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this
attenuation.

In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV that
any fluoro tube.



.... Phil

 

[felix_unger]

On 30-August-2013 7:52 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"felix_unger"

Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.

FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.

Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.

But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it is not
100%.

The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this
attenuation.

and window glass passes UV which is why curtains and carpets fade

In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV that
any fluoro tube.

so?

... Phil

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
whoever conned the govt into mandating their use

The govt conned themselves...

must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
not only are they an environmental hazed,

Bullshit.
they are simply not cost effective.

Bullshit.
they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,

The best of them do.
or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps more.

Mine have been quite literally free.
they emit UV radiation too.

Bullshit.

Yes. they do,

No they don’t. UV doesn’t get thru glass.

Whether the majority of cfls emit harmful amount of UVs to us, is something
I'm not sure yet.
That need some reading of research papers.

whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story. That
would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.

Come on man. You should know that's incorrect. I know you are no big in
physics, but you still suppose to have chemistry experties, which should
give you enough background knowledge on that.
We have sunglasses(not just glasses) for a very good reason.

 

[Damian]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:b8b8bcFdh4eU1@mid.individual.net...

"felix_unger"

Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.


FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.

Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.

But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it is
not 100%.

The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this
attenuation.

In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV
that any fluoro tube.

Yes, but most of you 'black' guys can handle it. ;-)
It's mostly in Australia we should be worried about this UV sun thing. I
believe most of the habitable other areas of the world is ok.
I believe the darker your skin, the better protection you might have against
UV in under Australian sun.
I rarely hear aborigenes getting skin cancer, by that I meant the real
Aborigenes. Not the 5% Aborigenes.

... Phil

 

[Damian]

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:b8hn00FpgdrU1@mid.individual.net...

Damian <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[...]
Shouldn't it be illegal to sell them, like tobacco and alcohol?!
BTW, Rod is a home brewer.
I would dob in the bastard, if I know where he live. )

Never mind where, better worry about *whether*!

Yeah, that makes sense. Roddles gota be around 200 years old according to
history reports. ;-)

 

[SG1]

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:l03v56$9lq$1@dont-email.me...

There is no such thing as LNP either.
But, they do insist they exist.

LNP exists as a political party in Qld.

 

[Rod Speed]

"SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
news:52257fa3$0$51551$c3e8da3$eb767761@news.astraweb.com...

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:l03ujh$7fo$1@dont-email.me...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8f9g6F9iuqU1@mid.individual.net...


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvprn6$et1$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
whoever conned the govt into mandating their use

The govt conned themselves...

must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
not only are they an environmental hazed,

Bullshit.
they are simply not cost effective.

Bullshit.
they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,

The best of them do.
or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps
more.

Mine have been quite literally free.
they emit UV radiation too.

Bullshit.

Yes. they do,

No they don't. UV doesn't get thru glass.

Whether the majority of cfls emit harmful amount of UVs to us, is
something I'm not sure yet.

Your problem.

That need some reading of research papers.

Nope, just try seeing if you can get anything to fluoresce using one.

You cant.

whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

Nope, because UV doesn't get thru glass.

Come on man. You should know that's incorrect.

No its not with the glass used with cfls.

I quote again, your comment says, "UV doesn't get through glass".
Dead incorrect.
Not specifically about cfls.


That's why the black light UV tubes and bug zappers use quartz glass
instead.

I know you are no big in physics,

You're just plain wrong there.

but you still suppose to have chemistry experties,

And physical chemistry use spectroscopy and anyone
who has done any of that knows that UV doesn't get
thru the glass used with cfls.

which should give you enough background knowledge on that.
We have sunglasses(not just glasses) for a very good reason.

It isnt to keep the UV out.

My everyday spectacles have a coating to deter UV. So optical glass alows
UV to pass.

Not a fucking clue, as always.

 

[SG1]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8mu17Fsl03U1@mid.individual.net...

"SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
news:52257fa3$0$51551$c3e8da3$eb767761@news.astraweb.com...

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:l03ujh$7fo$1@dont-email.me...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8f9g6F9iuqU1@mid.individual.net...


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvprn6$et1$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
whoever conned the govt into mandating their use

The govt conned themselves...

must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
not only are they an environmental hazed,

Bullshit.
they are simply not cost effective.

Bullshit.
they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,

The best of them do.
or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps
more.

Mine have been quite literally free.
they emit UV radiation too.

Bullshit.

Yes. they do,

No they don't. UV doesn't get thru glass.

Whether the majority of cfls emit harmful amount of UVs to us, is
something I'm not sure yet.

Your problem.

That need some reading of research papers.

Nope, just try seeing if you can get anything to fluoresce using one.

You cant.

whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

Nope, because UV doesn't get thru glass.

Come on man. You should know that's incorrect.

No its not with the glass used with cfls.

I quote again, your comment says, "UV doesn't get through glass".
Dead incorrect.
Not specifically about cfls.


That's why the black light UV tubes and bug zappers use quartz glass
instead.

I know you are no big in physics,

You're just plain wrong there.

but you still suppose to have chemistry experties,

And physical chemistry use spectroscopy and anyone
who has done any of that knows that UV doesn't get
thru the glass used with cfls.

which should give you enough background knowledge on that.
We have sunglasses(not just glasses) for a very good reason.

It isnt to keep the UV out.

My everyday spectacles have a coating to deter UV. So optical glass alows
UV to pass.

Not a fucking clue, as always.

I trust opto more than I could throw you.

>

 

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:b8j59cF3t9uU3@mid.individual.net...

Rod has AIDS
Aquired Itelligence Deficency Syndrome.

Are you sure he aquired it and was not just born that way?

Sheesh. Talk about living in glass houses.

Are you really sticking up for Rod? I guess he'll be pleased there is one at
least

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:l03v0a$92g$1@dont-email.me...

According to the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and
Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) in 2008, CFLs may pose an added
health risk due to the ultraviolet and blue light emitted. This radiation
could aggravate symptoms in people who already suffer skin conditions that
make them exceptionally sensitive to light. The light produced by some
single-envelope CFLs at distances of less than 20 cm could lead to
ultraviolet exposures approaching the current workplace limit set to
protect workers from skin and retinal damage. Industry sources claim the
UV radiation received from CFLs is too small to contribute to skin cancer
and the use of double-envelope CFLs "largely or entirely" mitigates any
other risks.[63]

A 2012 study comparing cellular health effects of CFL light and
incandescent light found statistically significant cell damage in cultures
exposed to CFL light. Spectroscopic analysis confirmed the presence of
significant UVA and UVC radiation, which the study's authors conjectured
was attributable to damage in the bulbs' internal phosphor coatings. No
cellular damage was observed following exposure to incandescent light of
equivalent intensity. The study's authors suggest that the ultraviolet
exposure could be limited by the use of "double-walled" bulbs manufactured
with an additional glass covering surrounding the phosphor-coated layer.[6

And a full glass light fitting will do the same job, including the $10
batten fix frosted glass balls. I suggest you buy some of those and stop
worrying.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:l03vbp$a9d$1@dont-email.me...

I've seen incandescent light globes in super markets just not that long
ago.

Obvious lie. You have clearly wanked yourself completely blind.
I checked the other day. They are still around man.
You need to get extra strength lenses on your specs.
You've been rubbing the glasses on something or something.

Yep, the supermarkets are full of halogen bulbs now, which are still
inandescent globes, and most people don't notice any difference except for
the minor improvement in efficiency boldly displayed on the packaging. Plus
the extra cost of course!

Trevor.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/09/2013 6:49 PM, Trevor wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:b8j59cF3t9uU3@mid.individual.net...
Rod has AIDS
Aquired Itelligence Deficency Syndrome.

Are you sure he aquired it and was not just born that way?

Sheesh. Talk about living in glass houses.

Are you really sticking up for Rod? I guess he'll be pleased there is one at
least

**I don't have an axe to grind WRT Rod. He has insulted me in the past
and will likely do so in the future. He has also agreed with me. He
doesn't seem to carry a grudge. I do enjoy pointing out hypocrisy when I
see it, however.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[felix_unger]

On 28-August-2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
are simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.

Just replaced another one this morning (sigh)

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b8q51dFigniU1@mid.individual.net...

On 28-August-2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all the
way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and they
cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


Just replaced another one this morning (sigh)

I replaced another one last week. Had very little use, still worked, but was
so dim as to be useless :-( Replacement was lower wattage (15W Vs 20W) but
FAR brighter!

BTW is anybody using the Embertec AV switch the government was conned into
supplying to reduce GHG emmisions? Got one a few weeks ago, and it wants to
turn the TV off every time you switch channels, after flashing for only a
few seconds. Swapped it for another one, and it does exactly the same so
obviously a design fault. Now if I paid for it I could demand my money back,
but since my taxes paid for it the company gets to keep the money for faulty
products.
Designed in Australia, I guess that's what happens now we have almost no
electronics industry, what's left is the dregs. A typical marketing company
with no technical capability :-(

Trevor.

 

[Damian]

"SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
news:5225b565$0$61452$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com...

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:l03v56$9lq$1@dont-email.me...


There is no such thing as LNP either.
But, they do insist they exist.

LNP exists as a political party in Qld.

Oh?! My bad.
It's that they don't know they are already dead. )