CFLs and EMF

(Compact Fluorescent Bulbs and Electro-magnetic Fields)

Last update: July 2013

One criticism leveled against CFLs is that they generate harmful electromagnetic fields (EMF).  I looked into this and while there's no question that CFLs generate EMF (as do all electric appliances), it's less clear that there's actually a health risk.  Below is what I was able to dig up.

While all electric appliances generate EMF, electronics and motors generate more, and so CFLs would have a greater EMF than incandescents.  Some sources also refer to "dirty electricity" (DE) (e.g., Havas 2006 PDF), but it's not clear to me whether this is supposed to be regular EMF or a special, different kind of EMF.

So first let's see what the science says on EMF in general.  On the one hand, the scientific bodies of governments around the world say that there is no risk from most EMF in general or from CFL's in particular.  On the other hand, some scientists and advocacy groups have blamed EMF on a huge variety of ailments (including cancer, diabetes, and even back pain), and some research has indeed suggested a connection between EMF and health issues.  Here's an example of the widely differing opinions on EMF in general:

World Health Organization:  "Approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years about non-ionizing radiation. Scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields."

Dr. Magda Havas, writing in peer-reviewed journals:  "Although the position of most international health authorities, including the World Health Organization, is that this form of energy is benign as long as levels remain below guidelines, an increasing number of scientific studies report biological and health effects associated with electromagnetic pollution well below these guidelines (Sage and Carpenter, 2007). Epidemiological studies have documented increased risks for childhood leukemia associated with residential magnetic fields exposure (Ahlbom et al., 2000), greater risk for various cancers with occupational exposure to low-frequency electric and magnetic fields (Havas, 2000), miscarriages (Li et al., 2002), Lou Gehrig's disease (Neutra et al., 2002), brain tumors associated with cell phone use (Kundi et al., 2004), as well as cancers and symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) for people living near cell phone and broadcast antennas (Altpeter et al., 1995; Michelozzi et al., 2002). Laboratory studies report increased proliferation of human breast cancer cells (Liburdy et al., 1993), single- and double-strand DNA breaks (Lai and Singh, 2005), increased permeability of the blood brain barrier (Royal Society of Canada, 1999), changes in calcium flux (Blackman et al., 1985), and changes in ornithine decarboxylase activity (Salford et al., 1994)." (June 2008)  "Most of the research on the biological effects of nonionizing radiation is done at one of two frequency ranges.... An intermediate frequency range...has characteristics of the two major types of electromagnetic pollution mentioned above.  Scientists doing research on the biological effects of power line frequencies seldom measure this frequency range and thus ignore the effects it might have on health." (2006)

Magnetic fields degrade quickly with distance

Field strength in milligauss (mG) by distance.   From EMF in Your Environment, EPA Dec. 1992.  In many cases, the level from the appliance at 4 feet was so low it couldn't be distinguished from background radiation.  Note that this chart is for only magnetic fields, not electric fields.

One thing that's not in dispute is that EMF degrades rapidly with distance.  The levels at 3 feet away are often 99% less than the levels at 4 inches away.  So you're getting more EMF radiation from the computer you're reading this on than your light bulb, because you're so much closer to your computer.  The chart at right shows that at a distance of 2 to 4 feet, magnetic fields degrade to nearly nothing.

That's for EMF in general.  There isn't much research or analysis available about CFL's in particular, but there is this:

1. SCENIHR (an advisory board to European goverments) reviewed the evidence and said that except for people who are extremely sensitive to sunlight (who could develop skin problems from exposure to certain kinds of CFL's), there's no evidence that CFL's cause health problems.
2. Health Canada says "In short, the contribution of the dirty electricity-generated fields to the total produced by CFLs in a home is estimated to be minor or insignificant."
   

The case that EMF from CFL's are a health risk:

• CFL's emit a much higher EMF than regular light bulbs (incandescents) or the newer LED bulbs.
• CFL's are responsible for a high amount of "dirty electricity" (DE) in particular.
• While few studies exist about DE and harmful health effects (four), all of them found a positive link. (Havas, June 2008,  Havas, Sep. 2008 (PDF), Havas 2006,  Milham 2006, PDF)
  
• If earlier research didn't find links between EMF and health problems, it's because it didn't look at all the frequency ranges.  Therefore, the statements from science organizations that EMF isn't a health risk are unreliable, because they're based on incomplete science. (Havas, 2006)
  
• In any event, there is indeed a fair amount of data linking EMF to health problems. (Havas, June 2008)
  

• Most government health organizations say that there is no known risk, including the World Health Organization (EMF in general) and SCENIHR and Health Canada (CFL's in particular).
• Most studies have failed to find a correlation between CFL's and health risks.
• EMF degrades dramatically with distance.  A magnetic field of 6 - 2000 µT at a distance of one inch, is only 0.01 - 0.03 µT at a distance of three feet. (WHO)  If you're not close enough to a household source to touch it, the absorbed EMF is extremely low.
  
• EMF isn't unique to CFL's.  All kinds of electronic equipment emits EMF, including hairdryers, computers, wireless routers, and most notably mobile phones.  So using incandescents instead of CFL's wouldn't necessarily reduce a person's exposure significantly, depending on the kind of electronics in the person's environment.  Even the sun is a source of EMF.
  

• Electric and Magnetic Fields, and Health Concerns (PDF).  A primer from Environment Canada.  Very easy to understand.
• Electric & magnetic field strength at various distances, from the World Health Organization
• EMF field strength at various distances, for household appliances and power lines, from Long Island Power
• Environmental and Health Effects of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs, Havas 2008
• Prevention magazine article on "dirty electricity"
• I'm skeptical of this article because I couldn't verify the claims.  For example, the author says that Gilles Theriault's research on dirty electricity, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, showed that workers exposed to it had a 15-fold risk of lung cancer.  However, Dr. Theriault's home page lists only one paper in that journal, and that paper says nothing about either dirty electricity or lung cancer.  I found one paper in another journal by Dr. Theriault which addresses lung cancer, but that paper concluded that lung cancer was NOT strongly associated with working in high-exposure jobs.
  
• Popular Science article on electromagnetic hypersensitivity
• Special issue of the science journal Pathophysiology (Aug. 2009), devoted entirely to research on the health effects of EMF (over a dozen articles)
  
• Video interview with Lloyd Morgan, a scientist who believes that cell phones cause brain tumors
  
• EMF documentary: "Full Signal".  Article about the film claiming a clear link between EMF and damaging health effects.  Here's also the home page for the film.