Well, it looks like I've made some progress over the years.
It seems like only yesterday when every such 'study' was warmly embraced by all, and everyone found new ways to re-phrase the new "wisdom." Then, naturally, I'd pipe in with my skeptical / cynical or simply contrary attitudes. stirring the pot.
Today, I see several other posters have pointed out the omissions of the "study." We're not lining up to sip the Kool-ade. That's a good thing.
All I can say is that, for all my time under CFL's, I've never shown the slightest tan or sunburn. This puts the UV exposure at 'negligible.'
Contrast that to the huge expanses of upholstery and flooring that are routinely bleached by sunlight coming in the window. Now there's a spot that gets some UV! Yet, our "green" political agitators stack the certification deck in favor of "daylighting" schemes. Do they WANT us to suffer from UV exposure- even when we're "safely" indoors?
Even more cynical is the way they ban 'ordinary' bulbs, force us to switch to CFL's ... then tell us we cannot count those CFL's as 'energy efficient' lighting. Lithonia may never have heard of these guys - but I bet they send them a card every Christmas!
