Wednesday, 26 August 2009

Lightbulb ban threat to health

The EU ban on traditional lightbulbs will put people's health at risk, warns UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom.

The ban on traditional light bulbs begins on September 1 with 100-watt bulbs being removed from shelves and the rest will be phased out by 2012.

Mr Bloom said: "They have had no regard for people's right to choose and absolutely no concern for the terrible impact this will have on those with light-sensitive health conditions.

"Time and time again we watch with despair as the EU churns out legislation with unintended consequences - and here we go again.

"We are being bullied into this in the name of climate change but what about the mercury contained in the new energy saving bulbs. I have no doubt that the issue of their disposal has not been given proper consideration."

People who are light sensitive suffer because of the emission of ultraviolet and the blue part of the visible spectrum. Tests by the Health Protection Agency has shown that the new compact fluoresent bulbs (CFLs) emit both.

"These types of bulbs should carry a health warning similar to cigarettes," said Mr Bloom, MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire.

"A whole range of illnesses are involved including lupus, psoriasis, eczema, porphyria, migraines, ME, epilepsy and autism.

"I have been told that adverse effects include nausea, burning sensations, rashes, lethargy, swollen joints, anxiety and genetic damage.

"Nearly all public buildings, including hospitals, and the majority of workplaces are lit with these types of lights which means that sufferers are unable to live a normal life.

"And if a proposal to change street lighting from amber sodium to white fluorescent tubes goes ahead it will mean sufferers will be unable to go out in the evening. This will make them prisoners in their own home.

"There maybe only a small percentage of the population affected but they have the same rights as anybody else under the Disability Discrimination Act and are entitled to access to any public building."


  1. Yes, ironic to ban products safe to use...

    Light bulbs have been safely used for 100+ years
    We are NOT talking about lead paint here,
    and light bulbs do NOT give out CO2 gas (like cars)

    = power stations give out the emissions, power stations can of course be dealt with directly
    (CO2 processing and/or energy substitution, as is already planned anyway).

    Ironically the environmentally questionable CFL lights are the one being promoted - in another world, those mercury containing bulbs would be the ones banned!

    For all reasons why banning bulbs is wrong,
    and why the energy emission savings arguments don't hold up,
    and for the EU and industrial background politics behind the ban
    see http// onwards

  2. The site mentioned above by Panta Rei is definately worth visiting. There are some good articles. For some reason the link does not work so cut and paste it.

    This light bulb business is just a huge waste of time, money and questionably brain power but is pretty much what has come to be expected from those crazy guys and gals of the EU whose overall uselessness is only eclipsed by that of the FSA.

  3. Thanks Graeme,

    yes and ironically it's wrong also for the CO2 emission reasons given:
    if banning actually was justified, governments could gain (or could have gained) a lot of income from a tax that apart from itself reducing the sales on the cheap popular bulbs, could give funding towards home energy schemes and renewable projects, lowering emissions much more than remaining bulbs were causing them = in the UK for example, a pound or two on reduced c.250-300 million annual sales would give substantial sums

    link correction to above post (forgot the colon, errm!)


Life's too short. Get angry about something today!!!