From: hob on

<phil-news-nospam(a)> wrote in message
> In hob <dehoberg(a)> wrote:
> | A fluorescent light can be very inefficient and costly if the total
> | package is considered in certain applications - e.g., put fluorescents
> | your dining room instead of incandescent, and the $5000 fine-wood table
> | finish embrittles and the color fades in the higher-UV light.
> | Net energy saving from bulb-to-bulb swap for 5 years - $ 50 a year
> | Net efficiency over 5 years - $ 50 saved from electricity, $ 5000 lost
> | due to table damage, net efficiency is a loss of $4950.
> |
> | Draperies, silk lamp shades, and some plastic shades absolutely also do
> | not like fluorescent lights, nor does fine art - and many things in
> | bathrooms are plastic and will yellow in fluorescent light.
> I was under the impression that FL light blocked UV down to the level
> of IN light. Is this a wrong impression?

With the proper shield, yes, but TTBOMK, not the bulb alone-

I can only speak to personal experience as to damage such as fabric
deterioration and plastic embrittlement: FL, in the popular compact bulbs of
the last couple years and in tubes of years past, has destroyed within a
year items that have lasted for decades without any noticeable degradation
when used with A60.
In one instance several years back, we lost an older piece that turned
brittle and weak about a year after changing the core light from an A60 to a
compact FL. The other piece's core light was then immediately changed back
to A60, and has suffered no further deterioration since.

You don't see unshielded-for-UV fixtures FL in art museums, and they don't
use UV beaming down onto their unshielded works... and there is a reason for

If so, then maybe we need
> to add more UV blocking or restrict these lights more so in certain
> places.
> --
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN ( / Do not send to the address below
> | first name lower case at / spamtrap-2007-03-23-0755(a)