Battle of the light bulbs (California considers banning incandescent bulbs)

[Doondoo]

A new light is about to burn more brightly: the stubby, squiggly fluorescent bulb. Environmentalists love it, Wal-Mart is promoting it and Australia is eyeing it as an easy way to save energy and curb global warming.

Now, California lawmakers are giving it some wattage by considering a ban on the sale of old-fashioned incandescent bulbs beginning in 2012. The proposed switch represents a revolution in a lampshade, because incandescents account for 95% of light bulb sales. Replacing each descendant of Thomas A. Edison's invention with a low-energy, long-lasting, compact fluorescent bulb would slash electricity consumption by 75%, proponents say.

Retired aerospace engineer Frank Vincent is sold. "I use them. It saves me energy and it saves me money on that energy," said Vincent, 63, who was shopping Friday at a Wal-Mart store on Crenshaw Boulevard.

.......

Many energy experts applaud the California bulb ban bill as a natural move by government to raise energy-efficiency standards, akin to requiring new homes to have high-rated thermal insulation and double-pane windows.

"There are sound economic reasons for this," said Peter Navarro, an energy economist at UC Irvine. "If you just rely on the marketplace, you're not going to solve the problem."


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bulbs24feb24,0,2077530.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[madrchsod]

1. good idea

but all fluorescent bulbs are made in china...

[greenman3610]

2. so what?

you're saying regular bulbs aren't?

[Warpy]

3. The problem is that too many fixtures won't accept them

from chandeliers in McMansions to lights connected to ceiling fans to those cheap overhead fixtures in the housing we mere mortals occupy.

I switched to fluorescents in every fixture that would accept them starting a full 10 years ago. For one reason, I realized it was much more expensive to change incandescent light bulbs every few months plus pay more to use them than it was to bite the bullet on the higher cost of a compact fluorescent bulb that would last many years with ordinary use.

I still have a few fixtures that have incandescent bulbs. Since I don't enjoy trips up and down a rickety ladder, I don't use them much.

Banning incandescents wouldn't work for me and I surmise it won't work for people in California. Perhaps some sort of tax credit issued with each bulb purchased might do the trick, use a carrot instead of a stick.

....nah, it's a Republic administration, they'll never do that.

[LiberalHeart]

27. People with certain low vision problems would also suffer....

Fluorescents have a way of washing out color, even the co-called "warm" ones. My mom, who's legally blind, would be heartbroken if incadescent bulbs weren't available. Meanwhile, I'm having trouble imagining my leaded glass lampshades working well with fluorscents. Maybe some smart manufacturer will figure out a way to change the look of the light into something that mimics incadescents.

[LeighAnn]

29. Yep, that's the way!

There are already all sorts of different kinds of lighting implements, by 2012 the marketplace will have surely come up with affordable solutions for every flourescent downfall.
Rest in Peace, Thomas Edison and his incandescent bulb. Both served our universe in ways too mind-blowing to measure.

[Contrite]

32. Yes, they really screw up your decorating too.

Paint colors, etc. look decidedly different, even with the "warm" fluorescents. It's a bummer but energy conservation is a more important issue, IMHO.

[demigoddess]

38. right now there are 'soft white' fluorescents, as well as 'daylight' or

sunshine fluorescents. It is a matter of preference. The soft-whites are pretty much the same as incandescents. I have both in my house and they are quite different and I can only tell the difference by how quick they come on when you flip the switch.

[EFerrari]

47. Really? I'll have to try that. Fluorescent lighting used to give

terrible headaches in school.

[zanne]

49. OMG! I bought some "daylight" flourescent bulbs...

I installed them in the kitchen, living room and bedrooms. When my husband came home after dark, he said "The house is blue"! I went outside to take a look and, sure enough, the house looked like it was radiating blue!

[slackmaster]

58. The definition of "daylight" color is variable

The blue comes from the 10,000 degrees Kelvin northern sky component which may or may not be present in a source called "daylight".

[zanne]

48. I think there are many more "layers" to be discovered...

I use flourescents and I love them, but my niece's husband is a lighting designer and he abosolutely hates them. What will happen to "mood" lighting? Will recessed lighting ever be the same? We're gonna have to sacrifice something here, but it's about time.

[Toucano]

72. Consider using LED bulbs in places where CFLs won't fit.

They're expensive (probably about the same as CFLs were 10 years ago), but they'll work for you.

http://www.superbrightleds.com/edison.html

[youngdem]

4. They just need to offer a tax rebate to encourage use...

And offer free ones through the power companies.

The idea of requiring all fixtures be changed to compact fluorescents is overreaching. There are many types of applications where either the fixture or the application aren't appropriate for CFs. Many recessed fixtures, lamps, chandeliers, theatrical applications, art illumination, exterior/accent lighting, low voltage fixtures, exposed bulb vanities, etc. that would not be acceptable uses for the CFs. Requiring these bulbs would PISS OFF many thousands of voters who we need for more important battles. We can't run the middle off with the light bulb police.

Promote their savings, offer credits for their purchase, educate on how much savings can be realized,ask builders to include only compatible fixtures in new homes, perhaps make their purchase tax free - all these things would help, but please, let's pick our battles on what we require.

[TomInTib]

5. I will just have incandescents shipped in from elsewhere

No way am I going to live under that ugly-ass flourescent glow.

Let them first employ this idea in Municipal and commercial applications.

[XemaSab]

6. I already work under that ugly-ass flourescent glow

I hate it. The lights flicker and give me a damn headache. x(

[kestrel91316]

9. None of the CFLs in my home flicker. The 4 ft long ones in my

office are another matter. The fixtures without electronic ballasts are the problem. I am gradually upgrading them.

[TomInTib]

10. I used to have this little tile that I kept in my left pocket.

Crazy woman in Houston gave it to me so I would be clearer at Trade Shows under all that nasty light.

Don't ask me how, but it worked like a charm.

If ever I should run across it, I will send it to you.

[The Stranger]

18. Great. Thanks for helping out with the planet.

[XemaSab]

20. Two things:

1) I work for an environmental consulting firm.

2) Our office building is the most environmentally unfriendly POS you ever saw. The lighting is AWFUL so the people with offices have floor lamps they brought in from home, or just leave the lights off. I work in a cube (with NO natural light) so I can't do that. There is endless wailing and gnashing of teeth in my cubicle neighborhood over how many lights are turned on, with everyone needing different levels of light for the tasks at hand. The HVAC is all screwn, so we have the heater going when it's 80 out and the AC going when it's 60 out. One side of the building is WAY too hot so people run fans, and the other side is too cold so people have space heaters. It's the McDLT container of office buildings. Also, the outside walls are all windows, so there's almost no insulation at all. This is also part of why one side is always hot and the other side is always cold. Finally, we are built on a salt marsh so the parking lot is covered with an oily black crust and the building is sinking. We have people come by once a month to measure the rate of settling. Good times.

Right now I have two things drawing electricity at home: the fridge and the computer.

So you're welcome. :hi:

[Porcupine]

30. Some notes on CFL compatibility.

I do residential building maintenance for rental properties. That's why I know some of this.

Just for starters; the new CFL's do not flicker. They can operate in any lamp that will fit them with the exception of your refrigerator, oven, and possibly the light in your hood fan above your stove. Except for people who live in the mountains temperature is not a problem in California.

The 13 watt lamps that will fit in the exact same space as a 60 watt bulb are perceivably dimmer than a 60 watt. In areas such as the kitchen or bathroom use either a 20 watt lamp CFL or 2 13 watts to get good illumination. In areas like hallways where daylight equivalent is not required the 13 watt lamps work great. They also work nicely on porch lights and carriage lights for entrances where long burn times will save you a lot of money.

Recessed light fixtures that take a normal 60 watt bulb can take a CFL with a reflector housing. Remember the CFL is burning 1/3 to 1/4 cooler at minimum than the incandescent it is replacing so it's ok to use them in the same spot.

CFL's are available for 40 watt carriage lamp sockets but not the 10 watt. You should consider having those lamps rebuilt or replaced anyway due to the maintenance hassle.

CFL floods for exterior lighting work fine where temps below 10 degrees are not common but get at least a 20 watt CFL flood.

The biggest problem you may have when changing bulbs is that some lamp shades will not fit with CFL bulbs. This is just hit and miss and there's no help for it other than replacing fixtures. You have to check the fixture at the store to see if it will fit the bulb you want to use. Do this with every fixture you buy.

CHECK FOR SCORCHING ON YOUR LIGHT FIXTURES!!. Look carefully at the fixture when you change your bulbs. Are the wires black or carbonized? (look like charcoal) Is there any scorching on the bulb socket? Is there scorching on the reflector? If there is scorching on the wire or socket or if scorching on the reflector is larger than a nickel replace the fixture. It is a fire hazard.]

Frequently people install over sized bulbs on light fixtures to get more light than the original bulb would provide. Typically a 75 watt bulb in a 60 watt fixture. The extra 15 watts was enough to cook the insulation off wires in the fixture and now you have something that can short at any time.

CFL's are reliable and the reduced heat in the fixtures alone is enough to justify a change-out. Ladder work is dangerous and light fixtures break most often when the bulbs are being changed out. Simply reducing change cycles is sufficient reason to switch to CFL's in a business or government environment where bulb changes are done by staff. The electricity savings is just a huge bonus.

[Trillo]

34. You need to use a special tool to measure the frequency

of the flicker.

[Contrite]

62. Question

I installed two CF fixtures, one in mudroom and one in laundry room. Both fixtures are the same, both take 3-13 watt quad 4-pin fluorescent plug-ins. In the mud room the light comes across more yellow than the laundry room. Any idea why?

[RC]

7. I have fluorescents all over in my home.

You can't tell the difference except in the kitchen where they are 4 foot tubes.

[TomInTib]

11. Do you have any art or fine woods?

My guitars look like Formica under those squiggly bulbs.

And the color of anything is way off.

I have no beef with the general principle, just personal tastes.

[William Bloode]

13. Educate yourself!

Cfl's come in every color range. They come in 2,700K warm orange type glow, and up to 9,000K for stark white. They also have many inbetween. Just look for the Kelvin rating on the package. 3,000k or less=orange glow, 3,000-5,000K=mixed spectrum, 5,000+ = Stark white.

[TomInTib]

14. I will check that out.

Thanks

[RaRa]

24. We switched over this past year

My husband was all for it. I initially HATED the light - I felt like I was in an office. But there are different varieties out there and you do get used to it.

My question is about the mercury. We have some standing lamps and what if one of my young kids knocks one over? How dangerous is the mercury level?

[William Bloode]

12. Educate yourself!

Cfl's come in every color range. the come in 2,700K warm orange type glow, and up to 9,000K for stark white. They also have many inbetween. Just look for the Kelvin rating on the package. 3,000k or less=orange glow, 3,000-5,000K=mixed spectrum, 5,000+ = Stark white.

[XemaSab]

8. It's illegal to throw CFLs in the trash

but people do it anyways.

They're full of mercury. You're supposed to take them to the hazardous waste collection facility, along with your batteries. :eyes:

[geomon666]

17. And that's why I won't be buying them.

Not that I have to (I don't live in California).

[NickB79]

26. Congrats on releasing MORE mercury then

The electricity saved by using CFL's prevents extra coal from being burned in coal plants, which is the #1 source of mercury in the environment. Over their lifespans, CFL's prevent more mercury from entering the ecosystem than they contain inside them.

So, by using incandescent bulbs, you guarantee that you will get even more mercury in your water and food than if you had to clean up a broken CFL bulb every now and then.

[slackmaster]

35. There are no coal-fired plants in California

:D

[NickB79]

37. The poster I responded to lives in Florida

And there ARE coal-fired plants there.

Besides, the incandescent ban would reduce the amount of natural gas burned in California, which releases CO2 and contributes to global warming. Global warming has the potential to kill hundreds of millions of people globally over the next few decades, making it a far greater danger than mercury exposure, IMO.

[geomon666]

53. I get my power from the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. n/t

[NickB79]

56. Excellent

I'm sorry my earlier post was a bit over the top. I've just heard this argument here and on a few other boards over the past year as excuses to not use CFL's by people who do get most of their electricity from fossil fuels such as coal, and I was getting a bit tired of it.

[slackmaster]

57. I have not yet seen a FULL cost accounting of CFs

Entire financial and enviromental impact of their manufacture, use, and disposal. Pros and cons. Complete disclosure and analysis.

A DUer friend of mine started a thread asking that exact question. It turned into a "smear the queer" session and got locked within minutes.

[geomon666]

81. I understand

I know CFL's are more efficient and cleaner but I just don't have a reason to bring the extra mercury into my house. My health is poor as it is.

[geomon666]

52. No I'll just be using LED's.

Thanks.

[FarCenter]

15. The objective should be to switch to LED light bulbs

These are much more efficient that either incandescent or flourescent light bulbs. Color choices are available, and they can replace track lighting bulbs, such as PAR 20s. They also work with dimmers.

Traffic signals have been mostly switched to LED, since they are far more reliable and long-lived.

They are fairly expensive now, but prices are coming down. With volume, they can be produce as cheaply as fluorescent bulbs.

[slackmaster]

16. You're on the right track, but nobody can say what will be available in 2012

That's one of many reasons this proposal seems absurd to me.

For the record I recycle, reuse, and compost; I turn off lights and unplug wall pads when they are not in use, and I switched over to CFs everywhere I could in 2000 during the summer of rolling blackouts here in California. I'm remodeling my house, and the kitchen is getting halogen fixtures because of their superior color spectrum (they're also more efficient than traditional incandescents).

[truthisfreedom]

28. LED lightbulbs will be available in 2012. There have been major breakthroughs in LED technology

during the past couple of years... some have been posted in the LBN forum. The most important breakthroughs are the single-die LEDs that provide enough light output to be useful so that you don't have to use large arrays.

[depakid]

42. I have a fine LED headlamp

It lasts longer and is brighter- using less battery power and it weighs much less than my old Petzl lamp.



I love the thing.

[geomon666]

19. Thank you.

Been waiting for someone to say that for a while.

[Tracer]

40. LED Bulbs.

This past Christmas, I replaced my old incandescent colored tree lights with LEDs.

I was amazed at their brightness --- and even more amazed by the fact that they were COLD!

Some people thought that they saw a strobe-like effect from them, but I thought that it was possibly caused by the outer wavy / nubbly texture of the glass.

[krispos42]

21. Do not ban. Tax.

If California put a #1 or $2-per-bulb tax on incandescents, that would make most people switch what they could. And for the people that don't like, can't use, or have lights that won't take CF bulbs, they can just grit there teeth and pay the tax.

I freely admit that there are some uses for the natural lighting of an incandescent. Make-up mirrors, dimmer switches, weird fixtures.... probably more that I can't think of now. So, let those that need them pay a little extra for them.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, after all.

[Trillo]

23. Hopefully such an idea would also apply to "corporate" lighting

purchases.

[Trillo]

22. This may help sell more pharmaceutical "sleeping pills"

I changed all my light bulbs to compact fluorescent about 5 years ago. If I recall, I spent over $200 to do so.

Unfortunately, in the bedroom, If I use those, they have some effect that keeps me from relaxing. So I've developed this process whereby an hour or two before turning off all the lights to go to sleep, I turn off the fluorescent and turn on the incandescent, meaning that I have both types in that room.

I presume this insomnia effect is the frequency of on pulses to off pulses, otherwise known as fluorescent "flicker". The problem seems to be, for me, that turning off a fluorescent and trying immediately to go to sleep results in insomnia of up to an hour or two. I habitually simply get up and do something else if I can't sleep after 30 minutes or so.

Why can't incandescents simply be priced higher than compact fluorescents, instead of banning them outright? Say, a manufacturer applied "energy tax" or something similar, rather than a ban?

In the event of a law such as this passing, I really hate to think that I'll be going to real candlelight in the bedroom. Unhealthy fumes come off of those, not to mention the fire danger they present.

[bushcrab]

25. it's not the flicker, You're EMF sensitive

Ballasts inside the fluorescent fixture emit fairly strong electromagnetic fields, especially in the two foot range. If you find yourself feeling uncomfortable around these lights, I suggest you to check out this link:

http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm

Unless, of course, it's worth putting up with every night.

[Trillo]

33. That's probably true, (but it's also related to 'flicker')

I'm certain we're all 'sensitive to it', but some of us are more 'aware' of its effect than others. There has apparently been some research with using fluorescent type 'light tubes' as radio antennas.

However, it is also related to the flicker. The flicker of the tube that I have in my bedroom is about 900 Hz, I've measured it with an oscilloscope probe (or perhaps I used a frequency counter, don't remember precisely) several inches from the tube. It's not a visible flicker, but it's definitely on and off about 900 times per second.

While the input power requirements and frequency (in Hz) of fluorescent type lamps are often specified on the packaging, the frequency they emit is not an advertised specification printed on packaging. Perhaps it should be.

[Porcupine]

31. A 1$ a bulb tax would be a good idea.

Currently you can buy four incandescents for a $1.75 or so. That is cheaper than a single flourescent bulb. A simple 1$ a bulb tax on incandescents with the money going directly to an energy retrofit for schools fund or some such would save everybody $$.

Once installed CFL's more than pay for themselves and schools frequently have no energy savings processes at all. Once installed the energy retrofitts save the taxpayers $$. Everybody benefits.

edit:speling

[Oak2004]

39. Except perhaps those of us, like myself, who get migraines and occasional seizures

from flourescent light exposure.

Telling me, as some appear to, that there is no flicker that could be doing this to me does not seem to persuade my neurology, or the neurology of other friends with similar problems.

If anything I find the newer bulbs *worse* than the older style. I for example can't shop at all in my ultra-environmental local co-op with the fancy new bulbs (at least not without getting really sick), but I can usually put up with the cheap old tubes in most of the not-so-environmentally-trendy supermakets long enough to grab what's on my list and get out.

LEDs, I look forward to. Mandatory flourescents however would be a declaration of war on my physiology.

[goforit]

36. I just wish they would come in different shapes other than stubby.

Just on an artistic standpoint folks.

I do have them already yet am hoping for a more atractive shape.

[Tesha]

63. "PL" style comes in multiple long, straight tubes. (NT)

[Canuckistanian]

41. Engineers know.

Most engineers spend a lot of their time trying to increase efficiency of the products they're designing.

And incandescent light bulbs are a perfect example of inefficiency. Most of their energy goes into heat, not light.

In the case of an outside light bulb, that heat energy is wasted totally. And you're paying for the privilege.

An inside light bulb in a warm environment, it's a double waste, because your air conditioner has to work harder to get rid of THAT heat.

[B3Nut]

43. But that heat makes Lava Lites work!

They need an exemption for the little bulbs used in Lava Lites! Not like the little 15-watt critters see 24/7 use, just a few hours on various occasions. I only run mine if I'm going to be chilling and listening to music, and I'll usually burn candles at the same time. It goes great with the Doors or Iron Butterfly! :D

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Canuckistanian]

44. I've got one, too

But I don't have them scattered all over my house and on for 5 hours a day.

Besides which, I can only listen to Iron Butterfly for about a few hours at a time!

[slackmaster]

46. Let's be fair now Canucistanian

People run their interior lights for more hours during winter months. The heat from incandescents reduces the demand on your home heating system.

BTW - I live in San Diego and don't even have air conditioning.

[Tesha]

64. Depends where you live.

> An inside light bulb in a warm environment, it's a double
> waste, because your air conditioner has to work harder to
> get rid of THAT heat.

Depends where you live. Here in New England, about nine
months of the year, the waste heat is useful, but the
equivalent of buying rather-expensive electric heat.

Tesha

[MadHound]

45. Rather than worrying about what bulbs are in people's homes

The state should be working on providing cleaner, renewable energy to power their electrical grid. Wind would be an excellent place to start, follow it up with solar. Between these two, California, and in fact the entire US could fulfill all of their electrical needs. Then we could be free to choose what sort of lighting we put where.

Frankly I'm against CFLs, since there are many people out there, including my wife, who have medical conditions that would be magnified by CFLs. If mandatory CFLs became the norm, it would force by wife and I to live a life of isolation, since going out anywhere would bring about major problems. And I guess that we would have to light our house by candle light:shrug: Either that, or get into the black market incandescent market.

Treat the source of the problem, the way that electricity is produced, rather than throwing everything onto the user end. It is a much more effective way to deal with the situation.

[kanebender]

50. Change incandescent bulbs to fluorescent bulbs

I have made a pledge at youchoose.net to change incandescent bulbs that have burned our with fluorescent bulbs. Join in...at http://www.youchoose.net/pledge/use_fluorescent_bulbs

[Javaman]

51. Does this also include halogen lights?

They crank out the heat and, I believe, use as much if not a bit more then incandescents.

[Tesha]

65. Halogen lamps are 25-50% more efficient than ordinary incandescent.

> Does this also include halogen lights?
>
> They crank out the heat and, I believe,
> use as much if not a bit more then incandescents.

Halogen lamps are a sub-species of "incandescent lamps",
but because they can run the tungsten filament at a higher
temperature and often include better optics, they are about
25-50% more efficient than ordinary incandescent lamps,
plus the light they give off is usually whiter and somewhat
"cooler" (it contains less infrared per unit of visible light).

Also, the bulbs are usually engineered to run about twice
as long as a comparable ordinary incandescent. Low voltage
halogen bulbs are also much more compact and physically
rugged than line-voltage incandescent lamps.

All of this makes them the current lighting of choice for
"high fashion" designs and those applications that can't
easily switch to CFL.

Tesha

[Megahurtz]

54. Why The Fuck don't they just Ban S.U.V.'s???

:sarcasm:

That would make more sense.

[Megahurtz]

55. Good One, California!!!

:sarcasm:

Idiots!:grr: I hate Flourescent Lights!

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:NGThaJpwQpYJ:www.informinc.org/SheddingLightRelease.pdf+dangers+of+fluorescent+lights&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Fuck Them! I'm not using them!

[wuushew]

59. Not using them contributes more mercury to the environment

http://www.energy.ca.gov/html/energysources.html

California
Electricity (2005)
Source
In-State 78.33%
Natural Gas 37.71%
Nuclear 14.47%
Large Hydro 17.03%
Coal* 20.07%
Renewable 10.73%

[slackmaster]

60. I disagree with your interpretation

Since only about 20% of California's electrical power comes from (out-of-state) coal-fired sources, you need to divide that 10.0 milligram figure for incandescents by about 5 yielding about 2. On the CFL side divide the 2.4 by 5, you get roughly .5 plus the 4.0 from the CFL.

Based on this information, a California power consumer puts a little over twice as much Hg into the environment by using CFLs.

Mercury is far from the only issue. Once again I'd like to see a FULL accounting of ALL the economic and enviromental costs.

[Nihil]

61. Why do you persist with this approach?

> Mercury is far from the only issue. Once again I'd like to see a
> FULL accounting of ALL the economic and enviromental costs.

Why? What is your big problem with saving energy?

Do you also pursue people who recommend turning off lights as there
hasn't been a full enough study of the effect of the extra wear on
the switch mechanism (in case it might lead to more house fires)?

> Based on this information, a California power consumer puts a little
> over twice as much Hg into the environment by using CFLs.

Even if your fudging of the published figures is accurate (which it
may well be for a progressive state like California), the major point
in my view is that the Hg contributed by the CFLs is buried in landfills
whilst the Hg contributed by coal-fired power stations across the world
is largely fed straight into the atmosphere. Which does the most harm?

Landfill construction and monitoring has improved over the last few
decades so the leakage from that source is much less than from the old
dumps. Coal-fired power stations, on the other hand, are still being
built in large numbers and energy consumption is not decreasing.

The amount of mercury in CFLs is a diversion, a strawman used to distract
people from cutting back on how much energy they waste every day.

"The American way of life is not negotiable"?

[Tesha]

66. Their approach also ignores the fact that CFLs *ARE* recyclable.

Their approach also ignores the fact that CFLs *ARE* recyclable
and the mercury in them recoverable. While it's not done widely
on a consumer level, it's certainly done today on a commercial
level, and will become more and more viable as CFLs become
commonplace in the home.

The mercury need not go anywhere harmful.

By the way, I saw a graph that stated that in our waste stream,
mercury from *OLD THERMOSTATS* was a bigger contributer than
*ALL* fluorescent lamps, compact or otherwise.

Tesha

[slackmaster]

68. I'm one of "Them" now and using an "approach" because I asked a question

How dare I seek full disclosure and an honest, unbiased discussion of the issues?

Come on and smear me everyone, I'm the queer now!

:nuke:

...CFLs *ARE* recyclable
and the mercury in them recoverable. While it's not done widely
on a consumer level, it's certainly done today on a commercial
level, and will become more and more viable as CFLs become
commonplace in the home.

It seems to have escaped your attention that there is nothing in the proposed law to mandate availability of CFL recycling facilities for consumers.

If that is not made easy enough, people won't do it.

[Megahurtz]

77. Don't Worry slackmaster,

I agree with you. :hi:

Flourescent Lights give me a headache and I'm not using them.
They probably have more to cause problems than just Mercury in them.

[Megahurtz]

79. "the mercury need not go anywhere harmful"

exept to the person burning the bulb.:think:

Sorry, I've got enough Mercury in my mouth already.

[Tesha]

83. Did you not see where I used the word "recycle"?

Did you not see where I used the word "recycle"?

The idea is to extract the mercury from the end-of-life
lamp; it's a pretty easy process when carried out on an
industrial scale.

Tesha

[Nihil]

85. No, she missed that ...

She's too busy eating light bulbs ...

> Sorry, I've got enough Mercury in my mouth already.

:shrug:

(Or maybe she was confusing light bulbs with dental fillings? Who can tell?)

[Megahurtz]

87. Cute.

:eyes:

[Megahurtz]

86. We don't know what kind of stuff these Bulbs emite

while they're burning. They give me headaches. That tells me something.

[Nihil]

88. Try plugging them in instead of putting them on the fire?

:P

(OK, I know I'm being silly but that comment called out for it!)

On a more serious note, does your problem get worse if you are watching
TV or using a computer? If so, it might be the beat frequency that is
affecting you rather than the light itself - i.e., the frequency difference
between the screen refresh rate (25-70Hz) and the light pulse rate (50-60Hz)
is more likely to fall in the frequency band that provokes tension and
nausea than anything the lamp does by itself.

Just a thought ...

[Tesha]

91. I think I misunderstood you.

I think I misunderstood you.

You've used "brning" in the sense of "being illuminated"
and not in the sense of "being incinerated", right?

Well, when CFLs are illuminated, they emit:

o A lot of visible light,

o A little near-ultraviolet light, but far less
than comes through a glass window from the outside,

o Some heat and infrared light,

o Some Radio-Frequency Interference (RFI).

People have mentioned "EMF"s. The Radio-Frequency
Interference aside, modern CFLs are probably pretty
low on the "EMF" scale. Because magnetic components
are expensive, large, and heavy in comparison to
other electronic components, the electronic ballasts
that control CFLs tend to avoid magnetic components.
And the current flow in the "spiral lamps" spirals
halfway in one direction and hafway in the other
direction, so the arc tube itself probably produces
little in the way of a magnetic field. (So-called
"PL" lamps, those long straight kinds of CFLs,
on the other hand, may produce magnetic fields.)

And just to state the obvious, there are *NO*
mercury emissions unil someone breaks open the
arc tube, and then we're talking a few milligrams
at most.

Tesha

[slackmaster]

67. Wow, I can't recall ever seeing such a collection of straw men in one post

What is your big problem with saving energy?

Allow me to quote myself from reply #15, which you seem to have missed:

For the record I recycle, reuse, and compost; I turn off lights and unplug wall pads when they are not in use, and I switched over to CFs everywhere I could in 2000 during the summer of rolling blackouts here in California. I'm remodeling my house, and the kitchen is getting halogen fixtures because of their superior color spectrum (they're also more efficient than traditional incandescents).

And more ironically, from reply #57:

I have not yet seen a FULL cost accounting of CFs

Entire financial and enviromental impact of their manufacture, use, and disposal. Pros and cons. Complete disclosure and analysis.

A DUer friend of mine started a thread asking that exact question. It turned into a "smear the queer" session and got locked within minutes.

I guess I'm the queer now, and I'm DAMN PROUD OF IT! How DARE I ask a tough question that nobody seems to want to answer. :argh:

Even if your fudging of the published figures is accurate (which it
may well be for a progressive state like California)...

My "fudging" was an attempt to compensate for wuushew's mixing of apples and oranges, and keep the discussion honest. The thread topic is a proposed law in California. The chart that wuushew linked to from Wikipedia is not entirely clear - It appears to be comparnig the mercury cost of incandescent lights vs. CFLs based on electrical power generation from 100% coal. But only about 1/5 of California's electrical power is generated from coal, so the comparison was inaccurate. Why do you have a problem with using accurate figures?

The mercury issue is one small facet of a complex economic and environmental calculation that nobody has bothered to do. I don't have all the information to compute the real cost. All I did was ask a question; I refuse to buy into a draconian proposal to criminalize sale of a common consumer commodity without seeing a full analysis of the pros and cons. I believe government in general should encourage positive behavior changes through the use of economic incentives and other carrots whenever possible, rather than the sticks of the criminal justice system.

To quote a former coworker who is from China - A left jack boot up your ass feels no better than a right jack boot up your ass.

I'm already doing the right things on my own energy consumption, and have been for years. How dare you accuse me, in this open forum, of having a "problem" with saving energy? I will not stand for it. I demand that you apologize and retract your vile, baseless accusation.

[Nihil]

71. Congratulations on your (past) CFL usage!

... but why should I care whether you are queer or not? :shrug:

> Allow me to quote myself from reply #15, which you seem to have missed:
>> For the record I recycle, reuse, and compost; I turn off lights and
>> unplug wall pads when they are not in use, and I switched over to CFs
>> everywhere I could in 2000 during the summer of rolling blackouts here
>> in California. I'm remodeling my house, and the kitchen is getting
>> halogen fixtures because of their superior color spectrum (they're
>> also more efficient than traditional incandescents).

You are quite right, I'd missed that you were the author of #16 (typo).
Well done. Congratulations. Smooth down your feathers.

> The mercury issue is one small facet of a complex economic and
> environmental calculation that nobody has bothered to do. I don't
> have all the information to compute the real cost.
> I refuse to buy into a draconian proposal to criminalize sale of
> a common consumer commodity without seeing a full analysis of the
> pros and cons.

My concern is that this smacks of the Bush "Science" policy wherein any
positive action is repeatedly deferred because they "need another study".
(And no, I am not accusing you of being a Bush "Science" adviser of
any sexual orientation whatsoever ...)

> All I did was ask a question

I did the same but it was interpreted as an "accusation in open forum"
and generated a hysterically pompous & indignant response.
:shrug:

Maybe we both need to work on phrasing our questions better but at least
I now know that you too have a concern in saving energy. Thanks.
:pals:

[slackmaster]

74. You've jumped to the conclusion that banning incandescents is "positive"

I am undecided on the issue because I haven't seen enough information. In general, I react negatively to the word "ban" - The Volstead Act, the War On (some) Drugs, and the ill-thought federal "assault weapons" ban come to mind.

Saving energy is certainly positive. But robbing Peter to pay Paul is a wash at best.

My concern is that this smacks of the Bush "Science" policy wherein any
positive action is repeatedly deferred because they "need another study".
(And no, I am not accusing you of being a Bush "Science" adviser of
any sexual orientation whatsoever ...)

My suspicion is based partly on the fact that Wal-Mart supports the bill and might see hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue if it passes. Also the historical tendency of the California legislature to jump on every progressive-sounding bandwagon without looking very deeply into the issues.

[meldroc]

69. Here's a monkey-wrench for this legislation: efficient incandescent bulbs

GE developing energy-efficient incandescent light bulb

GE Consumer & Industrial’s Lighting division, a world leader in the development of energy-efficient lighting products, today announced advancements to the light bulb invented by GE’s founder Thomas Edison that potentially will elevate the energy efficiency of this 125-year-old technology to levels comparable to compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), delivering significant environmental benefits. Over the next several years, these advancements will lead to the introduction of high-efficiency incandescent lamps that provide the same high light quality, brightness and color as current incandescent lamps while saving energy and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Hmmm. I hope the pending legislation doesn't say "Incandescent lights are prohibited," but instead states "Lights sold must have an efficiency of 30 lumens per watt or greater."

[slackmaster]

70. Blasphemy!

Summon the Lawgivers!

[Doctor_J]

73. I use flourescent spirals

wherever they fit. they don't buzz like the tubes, I only have to change them about once every two years, and they save energy.

[slackmaster]

75. If they are only lasting two years, you may have a problem with your power

Or your fixtures. I have a couple dozen in my house and only one has failed in seven years.

[krabigirl]

76. I get migraines from flourescent lights. Hope they can make them softer.

[hogwyld]

78. Some of the hypocracy around here is crazy

Most people at DU are good environmental stewards, while other won't give up their incandescents until they're ripped from their cold dead fingers. "Oh the buzz" "They're ugly" etc. What the hell are you all going to do when the ozone is gone, the earth becomes an inhabitable hunk of rock. For what? So you can keep your pastels from looking a little washed?? Jeeeeeeesh.

[Lurking Dem]

80. And what are those of us with lupus going to do

when we can't go anywhere that doesn't have fluorescent lighting? Wear burkas?

[bushcrab]

82. How 'bout outlawing thermostats set above 68 degrees first?

Heat and refrigeration suck up far more energy than incandescent light bulbs do. Put on a sweater and turn down your thermostat in the winter if you really want to conserve energy and help the environment. Make no mistake, it's your comfort level that is killing this planet, not incandescent light bulbs.

[Nihil]

84. Wake up! It's ALL about your comfort level!

> How 'bout outlawing thermostats set above 68 degrees first?
>
> Put on a sweater and turn down your thermostat in the winter if you
> really want to conserve energy and help the environment.

How about doing all of it? Turn down winter thermostat, turn up summer
thermostat (for the folks who need A/C) AND replace your bulbs.

How about cutting the shit out of your life at both ends rather than
just treating it as an "either/or" fudge?

How about doing the smart thing without needing laws to force you to do it?
That would be a novelty ... and a long overdue one at that ...

[bushcrab]

89. You're preachin' to the choir here dipdog

You prob think we need to outlaw electric boomboxes, now that crank-up radios are available, huh?

Outlawing incandescents is kinda like ordering a Diet Coke with your super-sized meal ----- it helps, but there's a bigger problem that needs addressing here.

[Nihil]

90. Sounds like we agree little crab!

> You prob think we need to outlaw electric boomboxes, now that
> crank-up radios are available, huh?

Nope. Not sure where that came from but let it float away anyway. :shrug:

> Outlawing incandescents is kinda like ordering a Diet Coke with
> your super-sized meal ----- it helps, but there's a bigger problem
> that needs addressing here.

More like changing to low-tar cigarettes whilst setting off 'dirty' bombs.

We're not just talking about getting fat or even morbidly obese by
following our current path: to continue as we are doing is a death
sentence for everyone (and everything) else too.

Most of the laws on the books arose because people wilfully ignore the
"common sense" or "right" thing to do. This is no exception.

Smart people are already reducing/reusing/recycling, living more
sustainable lifestyles, accepting that profligate waste really isn't
a good idea in a world of finite resources.

Unfortunately, most people still insist on spreading poisons with their
every action so something more "draconian" IS required.