The new generation of CFL energy efficient light bulbs ("corkscrew bulbs") are so dangerous, in so many ways, that they had to be designed to satisfy an evil agenda of sickening the population. You will understand that this is no exaggeration by the time you finish this article.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the following emergency procedure should be followed in the event of a bulb breakage, due to the poison gas that is released.

The Official E.P.A. Broken Bulb Clean-up Procedure

Before Cleanup

  1. Have people and pets leave the room.
  2. Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
  3. Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.

Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:

  • Stiff paper or cardboard
  • Sticky tape
  • Damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces)
  • A glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.

During Cleanup

  • DO NOT VACUUM. Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.
  • Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder. Scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard. Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag. See the detailed cleanup instructions for more information, and for differences in cleaning up hard surfaces versus carpeting or rugs.
  • Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

After Cleanup

  1. Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
  2. Next, check with your local government about disposal requirements in your area, because some localities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center. If there is no such requirement in your area, you can dispose of the materials with your household trash.
  3. If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

Radiation from Energy Efficient Bulbs

A new radiation threat is upon us all. In lieu of this, we begin by emphasizing the "radio" and "radiant" links to the word radiation. They ultimately are descriptions of the same phenomena: radiant energy in the form of electromagnetic waves of pulsating energy. So, how does the energy actually radiate itself outward? The truth is, we do not really understand that part. Physicists have pulled their hair out for decades over that question. What we do know is that when things vibrate at a nuclear level or have electrical current changes, then these changes of state -- these frequencies -- cause energy to be radiated outward at the same frequencies. This is how radio transmissions work. Radio transmissions merely mix the audio (voice) signal with a fixed frequency that listening radios are "tuned" to, and viola! Or as my past electronics teachers would have said, in their fancy engineering terms: "It will have imparted intelligence upon the carrier wave". A good analogy of how frequencies operate is remembering the ripples from a time when you dropped a pebble into a small creek or pond. You may recall that the ripples were reflected from the banks at exactly the same rate and distance as the original waves that struck them. The whole point of this is to make clear that the very basis of radiant energy transmissions and all types of radiation on the entire electromagnetic spectrum boil down to one thing: frequencies. Frequencies determine how far the energy travels, how well it penetrates, and how it effects things. The ultra high frequencies of gamma (i.e. nuclear) radiation can quickly destroy a person through burns, cancer, or otherwise; while the low 60 Hz. of standard American power has little effect in typical exposure. Frequency determines if the energy is radio, microwave, infrared light, visible light, x-rays, gamma, or ultraviolet. There is real power in frequencies. As a general rule, the higher the frequency, the more dangerous the energy is. Nuclear radiation is at mindbogglingly high frequencies.

For years, we have heard about how energy-wasting incandescent bulbs are bad for the environment. This made way for a whole new industry of "green" bulbs, marketed to the growing population of people who seek to address environmental concerns. However, these bulbs compromise people's health, and they are ultimately much more harmful to the environment.

Exposure Effects of "Energy Efficient" Light Bulbs

  • Dizziness
  • Cluster headaches
  • Migraines
  • Seizures
  • Fatigue
  • Inability to concentrate
  • Anxiety

There are lots of speculations regarding how these bulbs can cause these effects. Very little research has been done. Despite this, European countries are phasing out incandescent bulbs, and forcing the public to switch to the "energy efficient" alternative.

The new light bulbs emit two forms of radiation outside of the visible light spectrum: ultraviolet and radio frequency. The F.D.A. states that in addition to visible light, these bulbs also emit UVB, and infrared radiation; but let us not forget the radio transmissions. These bulbs are reported to have a flicker rate of 100-120 cycles per second, which seems low considering the UVB light that these bulbs produce, and of course, radio transmissions. In any case, even a flicker rate as low as 100 hertz is more than enough to trigger severe epileptic seizures. Video games are well known to do the same at a mere 60 Hz. Judging from the multiple bands of radiation released, the flicker rate can be expected to be well beyond 120 hertz (including the light that we cannot actually see), so just start adding zeros to get the point about how likely they are to trigger epileptic seizures. These bulbs have negative effects on people with lupus too, which is something that has baffled everyone so far. They are also known to damage the skin, and thus they must emit high-frequency radiation. Watchdog organizations in the U.K. are clamoring about the issues mentioned above, and the fact that these bulbs also aggravate eczema and porphyria.

We have been doing this work long enough to spot the pattern. The radiation from these bulbs directly attacks the immune system, and furthermore damages the skin tissues enough to prevent the proper formation of vitamin D-3. This will cause major cholesterol problems in time, and cripple the liver by preventing it from converting the cholesterol reserves inside the skin tissues (vitamin D-2) into usable vitamin D-3. This has the potential to cause or aggravate, not dozens, but hundreds of disease states. All that they had to do was shift the frequencies of otherwise benign light bulbs, and suddenly we have this mess. It is as if the whole mess with fluorescent light bulbs gave somebody inspiration for how to radiation poison us, while tricking us into begging for it.

The Energy Efficient Scam

One of my first lessons while studying electronics was that energy efficiency is effected more by heat than any other factor. That is why superconductors are always super cooled, and why your oven uses about 60 times more power than your television. Heat equals wasted power. It is written in stone. Amazingly, standard light bulbs manage to be extremely energy efficient, despite the heat that they produce, and despite the fact that their light comes from heated elements. In fact, they manage to waste less than 10% of the power applied. This is because the heat resists the current flow in the wire coil -- to the point of practically cutting off the current. You see, heat also increases resistance. This breaking effect upon a bulb's current gives standard incandescent light bulbs their overall high efficiency.

My first engineering project was testing light bulbs with high-end testing equipment, to study this rare property. I remember our teacher gleefully laughing at us as we sat befuddled by the fact that all of our calculations for power usage contradicted the measurements. The exercise was meant to be a memorable lesson about how heat may dissipate (or conserve) power in such a way that electrical devices appear to bend the rules of physics. An important lesson was that while theoretically incandescent light bulbs ought to be wasteful of energy, they actually increase their own resistance via heat to the point that very little of their energy is wasted. Take for example how long a standard flashlight will produce bright light with one or two small batteries. On the other hand, just try to power an oven with those same batteries for an exercise in frustration.

It shows the breadth of the deception to note that the new generation of bulbs is supposedly designed to save us from a problem that does not actually exist -- inefficient conventional bulbs. The new bulbs, as you may have already noticed, do not produce any noticeable amount of heat. This is because the light from the new generation of bulbs is produced by injecting pulsating electricity (having a frequency) into a chemical gas to radiate light, as in pure radiation. By the types of radiation that the new bulbs emit, they must operate at frequencies astronomically higher than the 120 hertz that they are said to, so somebody is certainly lying about them. Technically, there is no reason for high frequencies to be used. If a lower frequency produces the needed visible light, then why do these bulbs operate at unnecessary higher frequency bands too? These extra frequencies simply could not have been stepped up and oscillated (frequency generated) higher by accident, regardless of whether the oscillation is chemical or electronic. Doing such a thing can make even an experienced engineer's head spin, due to the overall technical difficulties in frequency tuning; especially on the higher end. Furthermore, are we expected to believe that none of the companies or regulators involved ever bothered to test these new light bulbs with an oscilloscope during the testing? It is absolutely ludicrous to believe that they do not know. Thus, the only explanation is that these bulbs produce harmful radiation by design. They are designed to produce radiation outside of the range of visible light that is known to be harmful to humans, and it is all justified to solve an environmental problem that does not even exist.

The proof is already before you to observe at your leisure -- how these lights interfere with radios, cordless phones, and R.F. remote controls.

It Gets Even Worse

This may be showing my age to some, but I had never heard of "dirty electricity" when I was in college. For those of you with some electronics training, it is similar to the topic of harmonics, but the rest of you need not worry about this point. Here is the quick and dirty about dirty electricity. The new age bulbs do not just directly radiate radiation from themselves, which alone would be reason for infamy. Believe it or not, these bulbs actually inject frequencies back into a building's electrical supply lines. Thus, the building's normal electricity (at 60 Hertz) has been made "dirty" (contaminated with other frequencies). This means that every wire in the building is also emitting radiation, like a spider web of antennas.

Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, cataloged the frequency ranges for both the radiation coming from the bulbs, and the dirty electricity radiation that pulses throughout entire buildings. She is credited for creating the following charts.

Light Bulbs Radiation Graphs

"The energy efficient compact fluorescent lights that are commercial available generate radio frequency radiation and ultraviolet radiation, they contain mercury - a known neurotoxin, and they are making some people ill. Instead of promoting these light bulbs governments around the world should be insisting that manufactures produces light bulbs that are electromagnetically clean and contain no toxic chemicals. Some of these are already available (CLED) but are too expensive for regular use. With a growing number of people developing electrohypersensitivity we have a serious emerging and newly identified health risk that is likely to get worse until regulations restricting our exposure to electromagnetic pollutants are enforced. Since everyone uses light bulbs and since the incandescent light bulbs are being phased out this is an area that requires immediate attention."

-- Dr. Magda Havas

It is ironic that people buy these bulbs to help the environment, because the bulbs will leak mercury and emit mercury vapors when they break. They are so toxic that we not supposed to put them in the regular garbage. They are literally household hazardous waste. If you break one in a house, you are supposed to open all of your windows and doors, and evacuate the house for at least 15 minutes to minimize your exposure to the poisonous gas.

Our Recommendations

We recommend using either incandescent or L.E.D. bulbs. L.E.D.'s use less power, produce a more natural (and relaxing) light that is less yellow, do not burn out, are not toxic, do not produce harmful radiation, and they operate at a cool temperature, so that there is never a fire or burn risk. L.E.D. bulbs are simply a superior technology in every way.


Energy-saving bulbs 'can cause migraines' warn experts, Mail Online

Can Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs Damage Skin?, Scientific American

Health Concerns associated with Energy Efficient Lighting and their Electromagnetic Emissions, Weep Initiative

Low-energy light bulbs 'can trigger epilepsy', Mail Online


Related Articles

The F.D.A.'s Push For Radioactive ("Irradiated") Foods

Quick Tip: Answering Questions about Radiation from Japan, and Potassium Iodide

Granite Counter Tops Pose Health Risks

More Radiation Poisoning Coming Soon to a Hospital Near You

JAMA Admits that Chemo and Radiation are Likely to Cause Death

Radioactive Airport Body Scanners and Official Child Molestation Procedures


Thomas Corriher (Editor-in-Chief)
# Thomas Corriher (Editor-in-Chief) 2010-06-14 14:42
Thank you, John. Your confidence is surely appreciated. When discussing something that very few people know about, which seems too harsh to be true, it is easy for us to develop self-doubts. This is regardless of the time and research that we have spent on the issue(s) to verify everything. What makes the investigative reports scary for us is precisely the fact that they are by their nature, ground breaking -- that we must stand behind them alone, at least for a while. Most of our peers will never carry this story because it is not politically correct -- regarding "saving the planet", despite the fact that it is factually correct. Being in a position of leadership can be a lonely place, too often besought with doubts.

We've been entertained by the X-Files recently on Netflix, and that show reminds of these sticky situations ( ie. "The Truth Is Out There" ). The problem is being able to actually believe the truth when we find it.

Anyway, no one can make promises about radiation's effects on any individual's health. We have too little understanding of either the human body or radiation to come close to making predictions about the general radiation in our environments. That's really one of the scary things to consider, in fact. Radiation is very much like Russian roulette.

We do know that in the extremes, or when it is projected against a particularly vulnerable person, it may kill, burn, cause cancers, and a whole host of other terrible things.

In regards to typical low-level radiation exposure, it is important to consider that the human body is always repairing itself, and this includes eliminating cancer cells on a daily basis. It is only when the combined environmental factors overwhelm the immune system that we see major problems arise. Radiation is like toxins in that there are different types, with differing strengths; so there are "lesser evils" and "greater evils". We are more-or-less shielded from the really bad types of naturally occurring radiation by the earth's protective atmospheric bands, but we face the full blunt of man-made radiation in its many forms. The "air waves" are full of it.

I gladly risk moderate cell phone contact, but I would never allow myself to be hit with routine X-ray exposure. For a person having a healthy diet, and some exercise thrown-in, the risk of typical radiation exposure causing major problems is low; and furthermore, there are effective cures in case "the worst" happens -- namely cancer.

One of the things I tried to emphasize in my report is the non-typical radiation exposure from these new age light bulbs, particularly in the fact that they can cause an entire building to pulse radioactively. That takes it to a whole new level, and it should be absolutely unacceptable. You might as well insulate your walls with uranium -- something a healthy lifestyle won't protect your from.

In general, these are the factors that effect the dangerousness of radiation:

1. Frequency

2. Proximity (how far away it is)

3. Grounding/Shielding (ie. metals and bricks -- especially when grounded)

4. Amplitude (amount of power applied)

Be aware there are always exceptions to every rule.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Ron Joniak
# WonderfulRon Joniak 2010-07-18 11:15
Wonderful post here mate. Just brilliant.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Amit Goel
# some clarificationAmit Goel 2013-02-11 12:39
In your reply dated 6/14/2010 you have in point no 3 talked about grounding/shielding, could you please explain this in a little more detail. Is grounding/shielding good or bad. My view is that it is good. Thanks
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Thomas Corriher (Editor-in-Chief)
# RE: some clarificationThomas Corriher (Editor-in-Chief) 2013-02-11 16:44
We'll be talking about radiation issues (including grounding) in our next audio report. We expect to be doing the show very soon, so be watchful. You can check out our other shows in our audio archive ( and be notified of new media by joining our mailing list (
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Anna Eastabrooks
# LEDAnna Eastabrooks 2013-02-22 01:38
Very interesting. I'm wondering, where do the new LED lights stand?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
natasha akana
# ear budsnatasha akana 2013-05-06 15:59
what about head phones, ear buds and those types of things are they bad for you?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher)
# Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher) 2013-05-06 16:10
It is possible to increase the volume so that they can hurt the hearing. However, the risk of radiation damage is virtually non-existent. Headphones are not a dangerous source of radiation because the signal is at a relatively low frequency and an extremely low power level. So there is not enough radiation coming off of them to have any health impact.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Sarah Pros
# Thank you for explaining this so wellSarah Pros 2013-08-03 06:18
I am a highly logical (also feeling) person and I have always had a gut reaction which tends to be accurate.

My first thought on these bulbs were ugh! Finally, flickering fluorescents were phased out just when these were introduced. I felt bad with these lights on, I felt my skin broke out more (I was teenage) and I hated the flickering! And it wasn't just because the light is harsh and ugly. My dad installed an early one in my bedroom which was in glass thicker than a coke bottle (because of the breakage hazard) and was said to last a minimum of 20 years, or the $27 (circa 1990) price for a lightbulb would be refunded. Well within 7 years it was dead.

Later when they started pushing them and offering rebates, I also was suspect. It was worse technology, at a higher price point, being subsidized by government.. huh! I try to stay away.

But that is about as far as I got. Thank you for your in-depth explanation. One question. Does having them plugged in (but not turned on) still have radiation of sorts? My new place has at least four in each room, mounted in the ceiling, but I use table lamps. Would taking out the bulb decrease radiation, either directly, or via the spider web effect when my neighbors have their pulsing bulbs on?

Thanks for all this information!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Sarah Pros
# Piecing together a strange puzzleSarah Pros 2013-08-03 06:38
Sharing some thoughts I've been having from my various health research (you may have outlined it somewhere else on your excellent website which I am very new to)..

1. The air is sprayed nearly daily with magnetic particles (allegedly for HAARP and weather modification)

2. Heavy metals effect our immune system.

3. Lupus and other illnesses may be caused by parasites. Which doctors often do not recognize.

4. Morgellions fibers are attracted to and grow larger with contact to metal as well as with electricity, including life electricity of living plant and animals. They may or may not be in the daily weather spray.

5. The first gene modification was done on type of tiny worm found in soil and sometimes in the digestive tract.

6. With abundant modification to food supply, vastly changing the landscape of the soil and behaviors of these micro-organisms (often called parasites).

7. Now they are electronically pulsing the environment via environmentally hazardous light bulbs, satellite transmissions, cell phones, smart meters.

I'm starting to see a picture develop. A picture that seems unhealthy for life on earth (including human) and yet strangely, it must have been strategically planned.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Richard Story
# Richard Story 2014-04-03 19:07
That is very interesting data. When I went to school we learnt that the most expensive part of the light bulb was the material put in it to make it burn out and, without that, they would pretty much go forever.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Deborah Monroe
# Deborah Monroe 2014-11-28 18:49
Thank you both so much for all your hard work that you so generously share withthe pubic. It is so very appreciated & refreshing to find truth when you are in need of it! Ijust read over this article& as i read over the part that details the manner in which it causes the currents to be generated throughout the entire house or building, something else that i i just read several days ago involving the new "smart" meters which they are mandating in the uk & us recently. Im curious as to if you see the same connection that i am seeing? As i read the article on the smart meters, it talked about how the government, military, or local authorities were capable of & already were implimenting the use of these meters & the infothat theycollect to spy on a residence & its occupant(s). Evensaying that they could use them to basically bug your entire house or building if they felt it necessary. At the time i couldnt quite figure out how that might be accomplished, but i think this mightpossibly be that answer. Im curious to know your thoughts on this,if any. Thanks again for the fruits of your labours!!:-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Craig Hilles
# What's the alternativeCraig Hilles 2015-06-14 12:08
But, what is the alternative? Just trying to find the old-style light bulbs (which I'm not sure I can find now). Or, how about LED light bulbs?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher)
# Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher) 2015-06-18 16:18
Old-school incandescent lights and LED light bulbs are perfectly safe.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Stephen A
# LED safetyStephen A 2019-01-09 15:21
From what I understand, LED bulbs would be perfectly safe, if it wasn't for the circuit board attached to program them to flicker at a high rate. This frequency which we cannot see is damaging. There is no reason for LED bulbs to have this flicker, as they could work fine with less material as an incandescent with a steady current.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Thomas Corriher (Editor-in-Chief)
# Thomas Corriher (Editor-in-Chief) 2015-08-02 06:02
The L.E.D. bulbs are awesome. They use less power, produce a more natural (and relaxing) light that is not yellowish, never burn out, are not toxic in any way, do not produce harmful radiation, and they operate cool so there is never a fire or burn risk. It is simply a superior technology in every way. The world would be so different if L.E.D.s had existed in the time of Thomas Edison. Incandescent bulbs would have never been given a chance. It is possible that fluorescent lights would have never made it to the market as well. We are in the slow process of moving to L.E.D.s as our other bulbs burn out. After the transition is made, we'll never have to worry about burn outs again.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Ann Ray
# CFL BulbsAnn Ray 2018-10-24 08:53
I recently found out that many CFL bulbs contain a radioactive element inside them.
It is small but measurable if you have the right meter.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

Add comment

The Claimer: The information provided herein is intended to be a truthful and corrective alternative to the advice that is provided by physicians and other medical professionals. It is intended to diagnose, treat, cure, and prevent disease.