Health Canada

2010 Executive Summary: Report on Health Canada Survey of Ultraviolet Radiation and Electric and Magnetic Fields from Compact Fluorescent Lamps

Health Canada Info: The Safety of Compact Fluorescent Lamps

Conclusions of Report
“EMF: The results of the testing of the CFLs demonstrated that the electric and magnetic fields arising from the use of these lamps are below exposure standards that are based on established effects and thus should not be an issue of health concern.”

To date, only the executive summary of this report is available online. According to Health Canada, the entire report will only become available once it is translated into French.

From a precautionary perspective, the short paragraph on “Electric Field Intensity” reveals stunning results. Other governments have tried to fudge actual emission levels to meet precautionary guidelines. Not so Health Canada. The latter is content with staying below its selected thermally-based exposure limits: up to 2.5% of the ICNIRP exposure limit in the ELF range (60 Hz) and up to 45% of the Safety Code 6 exposure limit in the VLF range (3-1000 kHz). Converting the percentages into actual emission levels at 30 cm shows that in the power-frequency range (60 Hz) the worst-case testing result (104 V/m at 20 cm) is roughly 4.5 times higher than the precautionary threshold limit recommended by TCO (www.tcodevelopment.com), the Swedish standard for low-emission monitors. In the kHz range, the worst-case testing result (126 V/m at 20 cm) is 56 times higher than the TCO limit. No mention of a pronounced 120-Hz pulse or any flicker percentages—at least in the executive summary.

Canada does not issue any exposure limits for alternating electric and magnetic fields below 3 kHz, which is why Health Canada refers to the ICNIRP Guidelines for the power-frequency range. It is interesting to note that Health Canada selects its own Safety Code 6 with 280 V/m for the comparison in the kHz range where the ICNIRP Guidelines recommend to stay below 87 V/m. Compared to the ICNIRP Guidelines, the worst-case testing result would have been 45% above an international exposure limit based on “established effects.”

UK Health Protection Agency

2008 Assessment Summary: Optical Radiation Emissions from Compact Fluorescent Lamps

HPA Info: Emissions from Compact Fluorescent Lights

HPA Precautionary Advice

Conclusion of Assessment
“The optical output of all tested CFLs was modulated at a frequency between 15 and 40 kHz, representing the frequency of the electronic ballast. In addition, all had a 100 Hz envelope with modulation in excess of 15%. This degree of modulation at this frequency may be perceived and has been linked to a number of adverse effects.”

The conclusion of the scientific assessment was translated for the public in the following terms: “HPA scientists observed that a significant proportion of the CFLs tested had a flicker at about 100 Hz. Whilst a 100 Hz flicker will not be perceptible to most people, some will be aware of it if the light bulb is in the periphery of their vision. Lighting industry bodies were informed of this finding prior to publication and further research may be needed on this.”

European Commission: Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENHIR)
2008 SCENIHR Scientific Opinion on Light Sensitivity

Conclusions of Executive Summary
“The Committee identified only UV/blue light radiation as a potential risk factor for the aggravation of the light-sensitive symptoms in some patients with such diseases as chronic actinic dermatitis and solar urticaria. No evidence was found that would indicate that either EMF or flicker could be a significant contributor.”

The entire scientific opinion suffers from a “sparseness” of relevant data on all levels. Therefore it does not come as a surprise that “suitable direct scientific data” on energy-saving lamps and various health symptoms could not be found by this committee. In many cases data of traditional fluorescent tubes has been extrapolated to CFLs, whether this is justified or not.

Furthermore, the opinion regarding the EMF emissions is based on Swiss measurements that were fudged by choosing an inappropriate testing method for the electric field in the kHz range.

And if someone actually performed a decent measurement on CFLs like the scientists that produced the assessment report for the UK government, saying that the 100-Hz flicker “may be perceived and has been linked to a number of adverse effects,” the SCENIHR opinion quotes this paper in support of its own claim that “’flicker-free’ fluorescent light sources produce hardly noticeable residual flicker.” Despite the fact that figure 6 of the quoted paper by Khazova shows clearly that the majority of the tested CFLs had a flicker percentage between 15% and 25%. I would not call this “residual.” By the way, poor-quality CFLs can have a flicker percentage up to 50%.

On page 22 of the opinion, the scientists are more honest; they concede in their conclusions regarding non-skin pre-existing conditions: “There is a need for additional experimental and epidemiological studies before final conclusions can be drawn regarding several of the conditions mentioned in the mandate for this opinion.”

Swiss Federal Office of Energy & Swiss Federal Office of Public Health

2010 Final Report: Assessment of EM Exposure of Energy-Saving Bulbs & Possible Mitigation Strategies

2010 Fact Sheet

CFL Home Page

When the testing report from 2004 stated that the EMF emissions of incandescent lamps were similar to those of compact fluorescent lamps, it was heavily criticized for its flawed testing procedures. The IT’IS Foundation at the ETH Zurich set out to remedy this situation and pioneered new testing procedures. The sophisticated testing setup confirmed what others had been saying all along: the electric field emissions of CFLs in the kHz range are quite different.

The new testing report even goes on to say, “based on the observed large variations between the bulbs, it can not be concluded that energy saving bulbs are intrinsically compliant with the ICNIRP recommendations.” (p. 74 Final Report) In plain English, some CFLs can actually exceed the recommended ICNIRP exposure limit of 87 V/m at 15 cm distance (up to 433 V/m). As a result, the Swiss government issued the following recommendation on 30 March 2010: “Stay at least 30 cm away from energy-saving lamps in rest, recreation or work areas where you spend lengthy periods in order to minimise your exposure to UV radiation and electric fields.” (p. 2 Fact Sheet)

Note that the 30-cm distance ensures compliance only with the thermally based ICNIRP guidelines. “These exposure limits do not take account of the possible longer-term impact of electric and magnetic fields.” (p. 3 fact sheet) This is a roundabout way of saying that long-term impacts cannot be excluded. At 30 cm, none of the tested CFLs (10-71 V/m) meet the TCO guideline of 1 V/m for low-emission computer screens. In this case, it is good to know that for the kHz range “the [electric field] exposures of the incandescent and LED bulbs were below the sensitivity of the equipment” (0.1-0.3 V/m) (p. 74 Final Report)

2004 Final Report: EMF von Energiesparlampen:
Feldmessungen und Expositionsabschätzungen mit Vergleich zu anderen Quellen im Alltag [EMF of Energy-Saving Lamps: Field Measurements and Exposure Assessment in Comparison to Other Common EMF Sources]

English Summary of Testing Report on Energy-Saving Lamps:

The testing results for electric field emissions in the kHz range (p. 21) are extremely low: ca. 0.1-05. V/m. In most other reports, including the Health Canada survey, the testing results for this VLF frequency band usually range anywhere from 15 to 60 V/m. How come there is such a huge difference? In their wisdom the Swiss scientists used a rod-like sensor for taking the measurements. This type of sensor will always guarantee the lowest readings possible. As a result, the report claims even the TCO limit of 1 V/m could be met by all compact fluorescent lamps tested. Really? I don’t think so because the TCO testing procedure specifies—for obvious reasons—to use a disk-like probe.

Considering that the testing was supported by two lighting manufacturers, Osram AG and Philips AG, the results may not come as a surprise. The kHz signals are the ones that seem to be associated with many of the reported health symptoms.

On the one hand, the report complains about how low the TCO emission limit for power-frequency electric fields is (p. 20) and that it is next to impossible to stay below this level without having to implement very special shielding strategies. It goes on to explain that computer screens can easily meet it because they need to be grounded for electromagnetic compatibility reasons. I, of course, wonder why the brains of office workers cannot enjoy the same basic level of protection. Interestingly enough, on page 25 of the same report, it is shown that it only takes one additional grounding conductor attached to a metal lampshade to meet the TCO emission limit. My question: why don’t we electrically shield lamps? One additional conductor cannot cost the earth.

For a detailed analysis of the inappropriate testing procedures used by the Swiss scientists, see the testing by Peter Schlegel conducted on behalf of the Swiss consumer protection organizations Kassensturz and K-Tipp.
Ergebnisse der Messungen an 14 Sparlampen [Testing Results for 14 Compact Fluorescent Lamps], September 2007