The Banning of Incandescent Bulbs is a Mistake

---

Hi Everyone!! I hope you're OK. To go 'green' - "Simply replace the usual 75-watt incandescent light bulbs with 18-watt compact fluorescent light bulbs. These provide about the same light output, use a fraction of the energy and last up to 13 times longer." Says an article from BBC NEWS. Sounds wonderful - doesn't it?!And only a SELFISH person, someone who does NOT care about the world we live in, would refuse to use the new bulbs. RIGHT?!Maybe. But then again - maybe not. Without question - those incandescent light bulbs that we have all been using for 100+ years ARE energy inefficient. Most of the energy they create turns into HEAT and not LIGHT. But just how much do we REALLY KNOW about the CFL's?! [Compact Fluorescent Light-bulbs]And are they SAFE?!SURE... if we all used them [And we will very soon not have a right to choose whether or not we do] 'we' will save money and energy. But I ask again.... ARE THEY SAFE?!According to Canada's 'EnergyStar' website [A website in favour of the new bulbs] this is what you do if you ever BREAK a CFL. "Open the windows, leave the room and close the door. After an hour or so, the air will have circulated. Using gloves, sweep the bits of broken CFL into some newspaper. Avoid using a vacuum. Wipe the area well with a disposable cloth. Place the debris and the rag into a seal-able plastic bag and dispose of it as you would any HAZARDOUS material. It will be safe in a cardboard box until this is convenient. Done" Convenient?Is that their idea of convenient?! Is that their idea of SAFE?!25 watt CFL's [Which is what most people will use to replace the old bulbs they are using now] have 5 milligrams of mercury per bulb. And given the fact that the bulbs are quite new and have yet to burn out and be disposed of in any significant number - no one knows for SURE just what the impact of those disposed of CFL's will have on the environment. In the U.S. alone it is quite possible that [From 2010 and beyond] anywhere from 80 to 100 MILLION improperly disposed of CFL light bulbs will will be dumped - literally - into our landfills each and every year. [And that information is from a PRO CFL light bulb website] The amount of mercury in that many CFL's will create an INTOLERABLE TOXIC BURDEN to the environment. And that is exactly what we will be facing. Don't kid yourself. The price we all ALL going to PAY for the enforced use of CFL's is going to be quite devastating. But there is more to the story...Many doctors - including Sanjay Gupta who most of us have seen on CNN - are very concerned about the effect CFL's will have on our HEALTH. [Even if they don't break] Dr. Gupta can't help but be concerned when it comes the effect of CFL's on migraine sufferers and those who have a history of epileptic 'fits'. But the hell with them - right? WE ARE SAVING THE ENVIROMENT!! So I ask again...At what ultimate cost?!Now don't get me wrong - I think the there are many practical uses for CFL's. Apartment and office building hallways - for instance. And many other places where a light is always on. But to force people to use CFL's for EVERY SINGLE LIGHT they have in their home [With the exception of some appliances - like the oven] is a direct attack on the idea of freedom. Encourage the use of CFL's? Sure. And you can do that by making the cost of a CFL light bult about the same as the old incandescent light bulb. But to outright BAN [As Canada and other countries are about to do] is silly. And will quite possibly turn into one of the biggest environmental disasters that man has ever brought onto the world. I say...For the SAKE of the environment.... Do NOT ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs. GBH - Craig!!

LOL! No offense Craig, but that's all I have in my house anymore... and the reason why they require you to do that is because what's inside them is exactly what's inside regular fluorescent bulbs, and you have to do the same if not more with those if they break. And besides, those bulbs are really REALLY hard to break anyways...They really do save some money. Along with lots of other things, such as shopping for electronics and appliances with the Energy Star logo as you mentioned earlier. These bulbs also have a longer lifespan compared to incandescent bulbs too. I've yet to have to change one and it's been 2 years since we changed them all out. Whi'e with the other bulbs, it'd be about 2 times a year that we'd have to change a bulb.Not to bash or anything at all. Just healthy debate from a user of these compact fluorescent bulbs. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't think I'm trying to beef with you or anything!!

The environmental problems of disposal of fluorescent lights is a genuine issue, but it has been an issue since ordinary fluorescents first came on the market. The compact fluorescent bulbs are no different. Nor is there any difference in the light. If they were going to cause epileptic fits, then people would be getting them in offices and stores. For a long time already, most lighting outside the home has been fluorescent.There have been big strides recently in LEDs, especially non-silicon LEDs, and probably in a few years they will be both more efficient and cheaper that fluorescents.

Direct attack on the idea of freedom? Are you serious? it sounds to me like your just trying to pull out any idea just so you don't have to transition over to new bulbs. Thats like saying that its a attack on our freedom that they don't make programs made for the first version of windows.

flourescent, metal halide, high pressure sodium, etc have been around for decades and in astronomical quantities. the environmental impact is not a new thing. They are also pretty near obsolite in the face of sold state lighting.from an evironmental point of veiw, we have bigger fish to fry than disposing of CFLs  Quote:Thats like saying that its a attack on our freedom that they don't make programs made for the first version of windows. what is an afront to freedom is the fact that new games from Microsoft require you to run crappy, expensive Vista!

Hi bhendrix08!! I hope you're OK. You said, "...but that's all I have in my house." That's great. And would it be fair to assume that using CFL's was something you decided to do. Unfortunately for ME - when the ban on incandescents becomes law - I won't have the right to decide. I will have to use CFL's whether I want to or NOT. And I don't want to. I don't like the light given off by CFL light bulbs [Or fluorescent tubes - for that matter] nor do I like the headaches that I get from them. But that's just too bad - right?! And the fact that florescent TUBES pose the same threat mercury wise as CFL light bulbs is not an argument in favour of CFL's. If anything - it would be an argument against them. [Whether or not they are easy to break] Would you be in favour of a law that forced every North American to use florescent TUBES?! Would you be more concerned for the environment then? I'm not 'beefing' with you either. Just talking!!GBH - Craig!! --------------------Hi Ineligible!! I hope you're OK.You said, "The environmental problems of disposal of fluorescent lights is a genuine issue, but it has been an issue since ordinary fluorescent first came on the market. The compact fluorescent bulbs are no different." Knowing that the issue of disposing of florescent lighting is ALREADY an issue - WHY would you be in favour of adding literally Trillions of fluorescent lights to the problem? As for there being no difference in the light - I disagree. The difference is very obvious. I can tell a mile way if a light source is incandescent or florescent. As for most outside lighting already being fluorescent - that's fine. But what a person lights a driveway with and what person reads with are two different things. It has to do with having the RIGHT to CHOOSE!!As for LED's - I think we should WAIT to see how advanced they will become. So far - there is a problem with making an LED bright enough to be considered an alternative to the incandescent - but they're working on it. But I would STILL be against the ban on incandescents. Let the market decide what bulbs are preferred. Not some bureaucrat. GBH - Craig!! ---------------------------------Hi Technichal!! I hope you're OK. You said, "Direct attack on the idea of freedom? Are you serious?" I couldn't BE more serious. And yes - of course - my objection to CFL's is based on the fact that I'm too cheap to buy the new bulbs. Yeah right. My objection [For the most part] is based on the fact that I'm an environmentalist. GBH - Craig!! --------------------------------Hi unsupervised!! I hope you're OK. You said, "flourescent, metal halide, high pressure sodium, etc have been around for decades and in astronomical quantities. the environmental impact is not a new thing. They are also pretty near obsolite in the face of sold state lighting.from an evironmental point of veiw, we have bigger fish to fry than disposing of CFLs"REALLY? Then why the ban on incandescent bulbs in the first place?! Why not focus on those bigger fish? Or is just because it LOOKS like something 'good' is being done?GBH - Craig!!

Hey there Craig Though I see your concern but with everything "good" there is always a draw back. It's hard to find any good change without some sort of negative side effect of some kind. It's just another exactly of cause and effect.I've personally already started changing out incandescent bulbs as they are burning out in my house with the CFL's.

I meant, Craig, that there is no difference in the light between standard fluorescents and compact fluorescents, so if there were any bad health effects in the light they would have shown themselves long ago.

IDK, now I have to recycle regular flashlight batteries. Car batteries had to be recycled for as long as I can remember...How many regular batteries had to be put out for them to decide it was a hazard?Not too many people use the flourecent bulbs, until now. We shall see.I also have not had a migraine since I stopped going to school, and I also think, that the headache from the bulbs in the stores stop me from shopping. I HATE it.

Quote:REALLY? Then why the ban on incandescent bulbs in the first place?! Why not focus on those bigger fish? Or is just because it LOOKS like something 'good' is being done? that is infact true. pushing CFLs is a short term sound bite for a government. Addressing the bigger fish is a long term project that no 4-year government has the political will to tackle. God forbid a government should risk the next election by making an umpopular policy that will be applauded in 50 years!