One concern that I’ve never seen addressed is the degredation of artwork and dyed materials caused by fluorescent lighting. Museums and art galleries never use fluorescent lighting and I’ve experienced the fading of color from prints in my fluorescent-lit office.
Is there something different with CFL’s or can we expect artwork, draperies, and carpets to gradually lose color with exposure to CFL?
Replies
3 downs, a longer field and a slightly larger ball.
Such a problem would not surprise me at all, especially with the 'daylight' bulbs.
I had one office have a problem ... one of their people had 'Lupus," ("allergic to sunlight") and claimed the new office lights were making her ill. A change of bulb, and all was well.
All fluorescents produce more blue/ultraviolet (the light that causes fading and sun damage) than incandescent lamps. In general, the more "full spectrum" the lamp is, the less UV it's likely to produce, but still there'll be more than with incandescents (which produce very little).
Any valuable artworks should be protected behind UV-blocking glass, etc. Of course, most draperies are subject to sunlight fading anyway, and are unlikely to be noticeably affected by the light from CFLs. The same is true to a lesser degree for upholstery and carpets.
The strength of the fading UV rays in direct sunlight is going to be much higher than in a CFL bulb, so I think that's less of an issue. I think the main reason museums, etc. don't use fluorescent bulbs for lighting is poor color rendition, i.e., it doesn't look 'natural' to the eye.
The biggest downer of the CFL is that all the real talent goes to the NFL for the big bucks...
and most Canukistanians prefer Hockey anyhoo...
.
.
Pants???
I Don't need No Steenking Pants!!!
Go RoughRiders!