Bring back traditional light bulbs, says PVV MP

, Comments 3 comments

Anti-immigration PVV MP Machiel de Graaf wants the EU ban on traditional light bulbs lifted, saying the ban is a green-socialist argument for removing people's freedom.

The last of the traditional light bulbs, the 40-watt, were banned by the EU from September 2012, following earlier phasing out of the 100W and 60W versions.

De Graaf says the replacement energy saving bulbs are also bad for the environment, reports the Telegraaf. The mercury contained in them escapes into the environment when they are destroyed, cancelling out any positive effects.

'People also miss the warmth of the traditional bulbs,' he says.

The MP will ask environment minister Melanie Schultz van Haegen to argue strongly in Brussels for the return of the banned bulbs.



© DutchNews.nl

3 Comments To This Article

  • mousouliotis posted:

    on 7th January 2015, 17:54:56 - Reply

    THE bigger problem for the world is stupidity. Read this article.
    http://www.allledlighting.com/author.asp?section_id=560&doc_id=561833
  • Darius posted:

    on 22nd September 2014, 18:34:20 - Reply

    Stuart if you look close to Christos Mousouliotis website then you will see he is the biggest paranoic on the world.
    "This is the one and the major disadvantage of CFLs due to the radiation 400-500 nm they emit, known as blue light. This is an extremely dangerous radiation, which suppresses melatonin secretion, giving “craze” signals to pineal gland with countless consequent effects on both the ill and the healthy" there are two type of cfl warm and cold warm do not supress melatonin. When I read his site and see his reference I can only conclude what a Quack.
  • Christos Mousouliotis posted:

    on 22nd November 2012, 13:17:47 - Reply

    I am not against any new innovation but anything that comes into our society must have full information provided for to the public. This is not the case on CFL’s and this is what I call dirty “green” politics of the environment.
    The main question is how can we remain healthy using those “green” lights. To achieve this is similar to make a space travel using an old train. Because few consumers on this planet are aware of the (many) dark faces of the “green” lights. Forget the unconstitutional ban in USA, EU and many other countries and remember that the bottom line is the cruel irresponsibility of the governments in any country on the Earth in not informing consumers on the countless dangers in using “green” bulbs.
    1. Mercury is a BIG issue but not the most important.
    2. The emission of radiation that probably causes countless sicknesses - maybe cancer - is not the big issue.
    3. The fact that several carcinogenic chemicals and toxins were released from their plastic parts when the “environmentally-friendly” compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) were switched on, including phenol, naphthalene and styrene, is not the main problem.
    4. Forget the geopolitical game on rare earth metals (money and power). China is the champion on it.
    5. Forget the UV radiation, skin problems and probably cancer. This is not the main problem.
    6. The most important factor, that has NOT been understood, is that the mandatory change of bulbs entails a change in the quality of lighting. And this is OUR REAL LIFE. What is certain is that a drastic change of myriads of active electro-biochemical processes in the bodies of all people will be effected, with unknown consequences. It is extremely well documented scientific knowledge that any kind of artificial light often and profoundly affects any living being adversely.
    This is the one and the major disadvantage of CFLs due to the radiation 400-500 nm they emit, known as blue light. This is an extremely dangerous radiation, which cause cancer and suppresses melatonin secretion, giving “craze” signals to pineal gland with countless consequent effects on both the ill and the healthy.
    The frequencies in the range of blue light (and UV radiation) are increasingly a source of concern due to their adverse health effects. Even the SCENIHR, namely the Scientific Committee of the EU, which verified the issue, almost cynically agrees with this, talking about adverse effects on the health of 250,000 people. Nevertheless, citizen unions argue that up to 70,000,000 people will be affected! In reality due to blue light everybody will be negative affected.
    Finally there is an unbelievable fact. The European Commission asked - again - for the second time (2008 and 2010) the SCENIHR “to explore and report scientific evidence on potential health impacts on the general public”.
    The SCENIHR has been confirmed the blue and UVA damages in the preliminary report. Hear is a part of the final report:
    "Despite the beneficial effects of artificial light, there is mounting evidence suggesting that ill-timed exposure to light (light-at-night), possibly through circadian rhythm disruption, may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, and can also cause sleep disorders, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular disorders, and possibly disturb affective states. Importantly, these effects are directly or indirectly due to light itself, without any specific correlation to a given lighting technology".
    The last phrase is another unscientific opinion from a scientific committee. Namely there is no one scientific paper equitating the damages from light of various types of bulbs. We know that photons in the blue range of light are more powerful than the ones in the red range, leading to possible hazards associated with blue light. The main factors are the intensity of the short wavelength light, the viewing distance and the viewing duration. The intensity of blue light from CFL's it is by far much stronger than from the incandesces bulbs.
    Please note that the first (final...) scientific opinion at 2008 from SCENIHR did not mention any of the side effects on human health such as the above mounting evidence”, “…circadian rhythm disruption," “…increased risk of breast cancer," “…sleep disorders, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular disorders, and possibly disturb affective states”.
    Regarding the UVA damages:
    “However, according to a worst case scenario developed in the Scientific Rationale, the highest measured emissions of UV from lamps used typically in offices and schools (single- and double-capped fluorescent lamps), although well below the limits for RG0, could noticeably add to the number of squamous cell carcinomas in the EU population”.
    Finally they admit their total lack of knowledge for the long-term side effects from UV! “The current standardization of lighting lamps and luminaries in four risk categories appears sufficient to limit the personal short-term risk. However, Risk Group 0 should not be taken to imply adequate protection of the general population as a whole from long-term UV-exposure effects”.