Environmentally friendly light bulbs 'can give you skin cancer'
by Ted Slater on 01/05/2008 at 12:01 AM
That's not my title. That's the title given an article published in the British newspaper, Daily Mail. The article presents concerns voiced by the British Association of Dermatologists and Spectrum, an alliance of charities working with people with light-sensitive conditions.
Why is this relevant? Because the U.S. congress passed a law last month that'll soon make the use of regular light bulbs illegal, in effect mandating that people either use fluorescents, LED-based lights, organic-based lighting (still in development) or candles. Or just go to bed early. This new law (inspired largely by fears of global warming) is set to go in effect over the next six years.
Normal incandescent bulbs will be outlawed in the UK within four years.
In addition to skin cancer, the increasingly popular fluorescents "can trigger migraines, as well as dizziness, loss of focus and discomfort among those with epilepsy." According to Spectrum, over 300,000 people could be thus affected by these lights.
It could be argued that these new fluorescents are actually worse in some ways than traditional bulbs. They contain mercury, which is harmful to both people and the environment. If they're regularly turned on and off, they'll wear out quicker and use more electricity. And they're much more expensive -- perhaps eight times more than a regular bulb, while lasting perhaps only four times as long. No wonder Big Light Bulb (Philips, GE, Sylvania, etc.) has been advocating a move to these new bulbs. Follow the money.
Lots of things could change, of course, so I'm not advocating alarmism. These laws could be relaxed or overturned. New technology could produce efficient lights that have fewer negative side effects. Maybe you could purchase traditional light bulbs with a physician's prescription.
Truth be told, I actually see some good resulting from this ill-informed legislation. My utility bills may be lower because of my having to use more efficient bulbs. And I'll likely have more candle-lit dinners in the coming years. Very nice. Frankly, I have no doubt that scientific research and the free market will bring us some very efficient, very pleasant light bulbs before these laws go into effect.
I do find it laughable, though, that politicians are so easily swayed by the climate change frenzy that they'd in effect legislate the use of bulbs that are in some ways worse for the environment, may end up using more resources than regular bulbs in some circumstances, and are arguably worse for people. Not to mention that it's impossible to read by fluorescent light.
Ah, Big Brother. The same Big Brother that invaded the privacy of our bathrooms and mandated that we waste water using low-flow, multi-flush toilets.
1. Bill said the following at 7:33 AM on Jan 5:
Nuts. I just replaced the bulbs in my living room with CFLs. What doesn't cause skin cancer, anyway? My main issue with them is that the light is too bright/harsh. You need to change your lamp shades in order to "yellow" the light a little more and make the room look like it did with regular bulbs.
The energy savings is key. 60 watts down to 13 watts? It's a no-brainer.
2. Jacob Douvier said the following at 8:56 AM on Jan 5:
I cannot stand fluorescent light. I think I'm going to stock up on incandescent light bulbs.
3. Emma said the following at 9:29 AM on Jan 5:
Why is it that so many Christians are so opposed to the idea that humans are a huge factor in the global warming crisis? Why are you so critical of the US government actually trying to pass legislation that will help make less of a negative impact on the environment? You need to remember that the US, while being one of the most advanced nations in the world, is also the most wasteful and careless as far as using natural resources is concerned.
As a Christian myself I am appalled that we are not doing our best to be stewards of the earth. Why are we denying our responsibility in the global warming crisis? Is it because the biggest advocate was vice-president under the Clinton administration?
This is not the first blog on Boundless that treats the subject as a joke. It would be great if the writers on the site would be a little more responsible when they voice their opinions considering that Boundless targets a large, young Christian audience.
Now that my rant is over, I will ask one last question: Is there anything out there that doesn't cause cancer? The whole light bulb/cancer connection seems like a cheap way to say "Hey, there's no way we can do anything about the global warming crisis without hurting ourselves in the process."
4. Dawnson said the following at 11:10 AM on Jan 5:
From Emma:
"Why is it that so many Christians are so opposed to the idea that humans are a huge factor in the global warming crisis? Why are you so critical of the US government actually trying to pass legislation that will help make less of a negative impact on the environment?"
1. Because the science behind global warming being mostly man-made is dubious at best.
2. The "less of a negative impact" idea could be used to promote, well, just about any change the environmentalists can think of. I don't want the government telling me what light bulbs to use, what car to drive, what fabric of clothing to wear. Where does the interference into our lives stop? And for what? An attempt to stop what supposedly is caused by humans.
So let me ask you this. What if global warming is driven by the Sun, for the most part, and is just a natural cycle of the earth? We make all of these changes and pass scads of laws, but the warming trend continues. I'm afraid of what will happen when they think "geez, this isn't working, we need to do MORE!" What levels of madness will be justified in the name of "saving" the planet?
In an article I read recently, the woman featured had aborted her baby and sterilized herself when she realized that having a baby was the most CO2 emitting thing she could do. God forbid that line of thinking ever catch on in the lawmakers' minds.
My agitation about this has little to do with light bulbs. It is the fact that this is yet another small step toward a very opressive future, all in the name of making "less of a negative impact on the environment."
5. Jacob Douvier said the following at 11:13 AM on Jan 5:
Why are you so critical of the US government actually trying to pass legislation that will help make less of a negative impact on the environment?
I don't think it's the government's job to tell me how to live, including what light-bulbs to use, how many miles per gallon my car has to get, or how many squares of toilette paper I can use in a day. The government's job is to protect its citizens from foreign agents and domestic trouble-makers. It's ironic that those championing global warming are the ones who also champion socialism. Lo and behold, what is their solution to the perceived problem? Socialism. That's a pretty "inconvenient truth" if there ever was one. Ends to not justify the means. Even if there is an actual problem, it does not mean we are justified in taking away personal liberty because it gets us our desired ends faster.
6. JB said the following at 11:19 AM on Jan 5:
Actually, the EPA says that changing to fluorescent lights would reduce mercury release into the environment. The transition from incandescent lights would allow us to close about 80 power plants in the US and coal burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury.
Anyway, since when you do believe that the government needs to respect privacy things like bathroom purchasing decisions? Does this have something to do with that penumbra we keep hearing about?
7. Kit Joos said the following at 1:07 PM on Jan 5:
Emma,
I appreciate your concern for the earth's enviroment and I do agree with you that as Christians we should practice good stewardship of the earth's natural resources.
In your latest blog you asked "Why is it that so many Christians are opposed to the idea that humans are a huge factor in the global warming crisis?" Perhaps my following statements will help to answer that question.
It is estimated that 5.5 gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide are released into the earth's atmosphere each year from anthropogenic (human) causes, primarily from coal, oil, and natural gas. While this number may appear large, it is actually quite small in comparison to the earth's reservoirs of carbon: 750 Gt in the atmosphere, 1,000 Gt in the surface ocean, 2,200 Gt in vegetation and soils, and 38,000 Gt in the intermediate and deep oceans. With all of the carbon dioxide combined, anthropogenic contributions account for approximately .013%. It seems highly improbable that this .013% could account for any significant change in the earth's surface temperature.
Whether from anthropogenic or natural causes, it is obvious that carbon dioxide levels are increasing, but can these increasing carbon dioxide levels account for the rise in the earth's surface temperature? According to graphs provided by the National Climate Data Center, the United States' surface temperature increased at .22 Celsius per century (data taken from 1895-1997). However, during 1940-1997, a time when anthropogenic carbon dioxide out put was at its highest, the increase United States' surface temperature declined to .08 Celsius per century. These findings are in direct oppostition to the theory that carbon dioxide is the driving force in global warming.
I believe that it is on the basis of scientific reasoning that many Christians are opposed to the theory of humans playing a huge role in global warming. In my opinion, the current global warming "crisis" amounts to little more than political propaganda.
For more information, visit www.icr.org. The prior stated graphs can be found at www.icr.org/article/348/, or you can read my research paper which can be found on my myspace page. I encourage you to continue investigating the true causes of our earth's temperature change. God Bless.
-Kit
8. JS said the following at 1:34 PM on Jan 5:
-Because the science behind global warming being mostly man-made is dubious at best.-
Yeah.. and the world is flat.
We cannot continue to ignore the true facts that we have continued to have a negative impact on this earth since Eden. Let's be responsible and head the call to individually be "stewards of the earth" the issue for the government is that many of these issues have to be legislated to protect against those who are irresponsible with the resources they have been blessed with who are the real domestic trouble-makers in the long run...
Question: Would you have at your vegetables if your momma didn't make you???
Love to all and peace to those who accept it. Be well.
9. Dawnson said the following at 3:30 PM on Jan 5:
JS: "Yeah.. and the world is flat."
Please see Kit Joos' explanation above your post.
"We cannot continue to ignore the true facts that we have continued to have a negative impact on this earth since Eden."
And please define "negative impact". I think that will say alot about your priorities regarding the earth, and I will know better how to continue this discussion constructively.
10. Judy said the following at 3:31 PM on Jan 5:
Why do people believe in global warming anyway? Global warming is just big money for political games... Yes, the polar caps in may be melting at one pole, but guess what - they are increasing at the other pole. Switzerlands glaciers are getting bigger. One volcanic eruption spews more carbon than has been produced since the Industrial Revolution.
Plus, most facts "proving" global warming that I have seen (and I live in a liberal state) only go back 30 years. I'll be 30 this year - can we say insufficent data? The earth is at least 7000 years old - try a couple thousand years of data and then I might be persuaded to consider global warming.
11. Becca said the following at 3:50 PM on Jan 5:
A few facts:
1. The article doesn't actually say that the bulbs can give you skin cancer. It only says that people who already have skin conditions that can lead to cancer might find those conditions aggravated by the lights.
(Isn't this sort of selective reading the sort of thing you've criticized in proponents of global warming, Ted?)
2. The Daily Mail is a tabloid not only in format but in content, as one can tell by taking a look at their home page. Gossip about celebrity drug overdoses? Paparazzi shots of semi-clothed actresses? A "young contortionist dubbed 'snakegirl'"? Sensationalistic headlines a-plenty? Not exactly the sort of thing that evokes rigorous, accurate journalism...
3. The Daily Mail is so notorious for making absurd claims about everyday things either causing or curing cancer that there is a blog devoted to the phenomenon. (It's called "The Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project" - pretty cute.)
(What's with the fearmongering? Isn't that another one of your big problems with global warming proponents, Ted?)
12. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 4:30 PM on Jan 5:
My Dad, who is an electrical engineer, pointed this out about fluorescent light bulbs:
While CFLs use less power and are more efficient at lighting, they may not yield as great a savings in domestic energy use as people think. Incandescent bulbs are only ~10% efficient as far as lighting is concerned; the other 90% goes to heat. Therefore, if you are using electricity to heat your house, having more efficient light bulbs will mean that your heaters will need to do more work.
On the other hand, the net energy savings from CFLs will be greater than the increase in their efficiency if your a/c is in use, since there will be less heat produced in your home.
In summary, from the viewpoint of reducing domestic electricity use, CFLs should be used in the summer; in the winter, it doesn't matter so much, because any energy wasted as heat will reduce the load on your heaters.
13. Jacob Douvier said the following at 6:11 PM on Jan 5:
the issue for the government is that many of these issues have to be legislated to protect against those who are irresponsible with the resources they have been blessed with who are the real domestic trouble-makers in the long run...
See, you're using ends-justifies-the-means reasoning. Just because it's quicker and more efficient does not legitimize taking away my personal liberty. The right way would be to spend your time telling me why I, as a consumer, should demand better gas milage and why I as a consumer, should choose to buy incandescent alternatives. There is not constitutional power given to the federal government to ban lightbulbs or make automakers increase fuel efficiency. The government is not my momma. I am an educated man capable of making lifestyle choices for myself.
14. Leann said the following at 7:27 PM on Jan 5:
1984, here we come...
15. Joshua Pettett said the following at 8:48 PM on Jan 5:
According to the "scientific community", the entire Universe came into existence by meaningless chance and without the direct interaction of a supreme being. And of course, since evolutionary theory is "indisputable scientific fact" (although it is much more disputed, even by atheist scientists, than the mainstream media would have you believe), teaching anything else in our nations public schools is often illegal. But Christians generally believe that God was and is very much involved in that process. That belief makes us potentially illegal dissidents (consider 2 Timothy 3:12). So why shouldn't we be skeptical of a much more controversial theory and wary of invasive laws based upon it? Now I'm not suggesting that such theories should be ignored; even if they are completely wrong, the scientific method compels us to reconsider the observations on which they are based. And I'm certainly not suggesting that we should subvert the rule of law. But no one should be surprised when Christians are hesitant about accepting debatable offerings of Man's wisdom (consider 1 Corinthians 1:27).
16. Matt said the following at 9:15 PM on Jan 5:
Global Warming does partly stem from CO2 emissions and humans do bear most of the responsibility, but a number of special interests have been instrumental in highly exaggerating its likely effect and, more importantly, the effect of draconian CO2 reduction laws.
The field of meteorology has seen a meteoric rise in the last ten years, having 20 times the amount of funding than 20 years ago if I recall correctly. Anybody who has worked in science and engineering academic fields knows the insane drive each researcher has for funding. This drive compels every researcher to exaggerate the importance of their work.
Therefore, the researchers tend to take the most liberal of possibilities in any data set. The models, for example, assume a 1 percent per year increase in CO2 emissions. The increase has been a consistent 0.5 percent for some time now. Another assumption in an old IPCC report was that North Korea would have the same standard of living as America in 50 years, further increasing the CO2 emissions projected.
More compelling, though, is the sheer futility of the western world trying to reduce their CO2 emissions to stave off global warming. They don't say if we cut our CO2 by x%, the earth will cool by y degrees for a reason. The Kyoto protocol will only reduce the warming by a few fractions of a degree even under the most generous estimates.
Furthermore, reducing CO2 would require immense investment. CO2 is the by-product of complete combustion, whereas other pollutants such as NOx, CO and Hg are byproducts of incomplete combustion. The only answer would be expensive renewable forms of energy or expensively sequestering the CO2. Keep in mind, these steps will only reduce the average temperature by a fraction of a degree.
By the way, I do highly recommend CFLs. There isn't a bigger no-brainer financially out there. Energy costs aren't gonna go down any time soon either.
17. Oloryn said the following at 10:16 PM on Jan 5:
I've got a few CFLs at home, but I haven't replaced them all. For one thing, you aren't supposed to put them in enclosed light fixtures, so the kitchen ceiling lights still have incandescents. Same issue with the outside light fixtures.
What concerns me more is that there are apparently safety issues if CFLs are broken. Reports of needing $2000 hazmat teams appear to be overblown, but it is still necessary to handle the situation gingerly. E.g. see here or here. Once LED replacements are available, I'll be removing the CFLs and finding out where locally I can dispose of them (you can't just toss them in the trash).
18. MJ said the following at 12:18 AM on Jan 6:
I know the climate change thing is a hot potato around here (though I don't really understand why people are so up in arms over either side), so I'm not going there. However, what everyone seems to forget is that it's not just about climate change. Regardless of whether or not human activity is actually causing the climate to change, there is no dispute over the facts that:
a) power plants generate large amounts of pollution (which consists of more than just CO2), particularly coal- and gas-fired plants; and
b) the tons of waste we dump on or in our land is excessive, ugly, smelly, and won't be *good* for the surrounding environment (not to mention... wasteful?).
Even "greener" energy options can be incredibly disruptive to the landscape they draw from.
Using energy efficient light bulbs is one small way we can contribute to lessening the waste generated by power plants (i.e. by decreasing the amount of power needed); and if those bulbs really do last longer they will also mean less trash going into our dumps. I know I can't speak for everyone, but personally I'm happy to pay a little bit more for my light bulbs in order to see both those things happen.
Yes, the light is harsher than the "soft yellow" glow of an incandescent; but is it really reasonable to expect all light sources to give the same "soft" glow? And CFLs are available in different "color" options for different types of lighting, though having tried only one kind (which I think is the harshest) I can't speak to whether the "warm white" CFL really does produce light like that from an incandescent.
As to the legislation regarding light bulbs, I do think it would be a good thing for more fixtures to use energy efficient bulbs; but I think it's more than slightly ridiculous that the government feels the need to mandate such things. And besides, who's going to police it?
19. Josh M said the following at 8:00 AM on Jan 6:
As Christians, shouldn't we be remembering to obey those in authority because God put them there?
Also, being that we are the stewards of Creation on Earth, it is our responsibility to take care of it; whether or not global warming is happening or not. Fact: Fluorescents use less electricity. Fact: Less electricity use puts out less pollution. Fact: Less pollution is GOOD for the world, and the beings that live in it.
Also, Fact: Mercury in fluorescents is not a big issue, because there is a system set up to recycle them that does not put the mercury into the environment. Why should you be concerned, as a Christian, that the government is pushing for less pollution, more efficient vehicles, and the like? And being alarmist and saying "this is just a jumping point for more to come" is another way of saying "I'd actually just not like to think about the consequences of my actions, which gives me the right to pollute Creation". If we have the means to reduce negative impact on the world God gave us, REGARDLESS of whether global warming is occurring or not, we are mandated to do so.
20. BB said the following at 9:51 AM on Jan 6:
Our Cars will have to run 27.5 MPG or better by 2012.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=s109-3694
We will be required by law to remove normal light bulbs
http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/071219/19_faq_the_end_of_the_light_bulb_as_we_know_it.html?.v=1&.pf=banking-budgeting
Analog signals will be required to end. That includes AM radio, analog telephone (CDMA mostly), and television broadcasts.
And finally the toilet HET standards that are forced.
Looks like 2012 will be our most efficient year to date. Too bad the whole global warming could all be a hoax.
Oh, maybe someone can confirm or disprove this for me. Wasn't the coldest recorded years in history during one of the wars where coal burning and pollution was at it's highest? If that's true, maybe the problem is that we're not releasing enough green house gas.
21. Brandon said the following at 4:44 PM on Jan 6:
Get the phillips CFLs. They have that familiar yellow glow, last 7 years and are brighter than most CFLs. I love mine.
22. Peter Wells said the following at 5:41 PM on Jan 6:
Jacob Douvier - you do realise that the early Church, as recounted in Acts, was basically Socialist, don't you? Redistrubution of wealth, and all that. Of course, it's easy for us to be uncomfortable with that idea because if we did that as part of the global church today, we'd be the ones who'd have to give the most away.
Socialism isn't perfect, but no utopian ideal is, and that includes Democracy.
Also, it's not just 'global warming' that factors into this... Tungsten, which is the element used for the fillaments of incandescent bulbs, is fairly rare, and a number of years ago I recall hearing that it was projected that we'd run out of it in the next decade or so at the rate we're using it. It makes sense to switch now before we hit 'peak Tungsten' :P
23. Ted Slater said the following at 6:15 PM on Jan 6:
Peter Wells -- aspects of socialism may be appropriate among some congregations within the sphere of the church. But it is not appropriate for the sphere of the state to enforce socialism upon us -- that's not a right inherent in the sphere of the state, IMO.
You mention Democracy. You understand that the U.S. is not a Democracy, right? "I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the...."
According to Wikipedia, at the current rate of consumption, the currently known reserves of tungsten "will last for approximately 140 years." I do believe that someone told you we would run out of it in 10 years; alarmists say such things all the time. They say the same thing about so-called fossil fuels....
That said, I'm all for research into lighting. Cool stuff!
24. Dave said the following at 7:09 PM on Jan 6:
I'm not sure where Daily Mail gets their information, but I looked up the emitted spectrum of Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) and it appears that virtually all of the UV components (UV light is known to cause skin cancer) are blocked by the glass and the phosphor coating on the glass, only allowing visible light through.
See here for more information on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp#Phosphors_and_the_spectrum_of_emitted_light
25. Vanessa said the following at 7:26 PM on Jan 6:
Finally, someone else sees the non-sensical use of low flow toilets! Flush once with 10 gallons or 3 times with 6 gallons?
26. Jacob Douvier said the following at 7:37 PM on Jan 6:
you do realise that the early Church, as recounted in Acts, was basically Socialist, don't you? Redistrubution of wealth, and all that. Of course, it's easy for us to be uncomfortable with that idea because if we did that as part of the global church today, we'd be the ones who'd have to give the most away.
Aside from agreeing with Ted's response, I would also add that the actions of the early church were voluntary, not mandatory. When Annanias and Sapphira were struck down by God, it was not because they did not give all of the money from their sale, but because they lied about it. There sin was not keeping their money for themselves.
27. BB said the following at 8:21 PM on Jan 6:
lol Peter Wells... so you are saying because it worked for honest Christian men that it will also work for a dishonest self seeking society?
28. NeedACatchyName said the following at 10:28 PM on Jan 6:
BB: I think the analog signal phase-out only applies to television signals. And quite frankly, it's a much needed thing. Just as quick bit of background information for everyone, two devices can't send signals on the same frequency at the same time (without some sort of multiplexing or sharing scheme), so the FCC regulates what can transmit on which frequency. Without this FCC regulation, wireless transmission across long distances would be virtually impossible because there would be no way of guaranteeing that a particular frequency wouldn't be interfered with. Unfortunately, there are only so many frequencies to go around, and analog TV sits on a pretty big chunk of wireless frequency space. When the nation switches over to all digital television (which only uses a fraction of the frequency space that analog uses), then a whole lot of extra frequency space will be freed up for other applications.
Oh, and as far as CFLs go, I don't the government should mandate them like this. However, I'm replacing all my incandescent bulbs with CFLs as they burn out, for the increase in energy efficiency.
29. Peter Wells said the following at 3:54 AM on Jan 7:
Sorry if you mis-interpreted my comments... I'm not saying socialism is great at all (which is why I said it wasn't) but I am saying that we shouldn't dismiss all of its ideas just because it failed (Thomas More's Utopia was a satire, wasn't it?).
Setting that aside, Ted, I suppose that what you're really saying here is that you value libertarianism, which I'd agree with entirely. Otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to say what I'm saying. And it's nice that you recognise that the US isn't a democracy even though it claims to spread democracy everywhere else.
As I mentioned, the information I saw was pretty old, and it was based on projections that were based on old data as well. With new manufacturing options, increased consumption of neons, LED's, halogen, etc, that projection has probably changed. Or maybe it was completely wrong. Not sure.
Jacob: As above, Socialism isn't perfect. But the early church proved that it was a legitimate way to model a society that transcended race, geography and nationality. A "Kingdom of God" that stood apart from all other powers. From what you were saying, it appeared that you were dismissing it's ideas altogether.
30. Peter Wells said the following at 4:07 AM on Jan 7:
I should add that I do have a soft spot for the incandescent bulbs. Nice soft light, and they don't buzz like a lot of cheap CFLs.
When I was studying Education, I remember reading a study that showed that fluroescents, neons and the like cause problems with concentration for some people, especially boys, due to the 'refresh rate' on the lights (kind of like old CRT monitors) http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/lighting_flicker.html
However I think most bulbs these days are at or above 120htz, so they're not as bad as they used to be. They certainly have no effect on me, anyway.
31. Paul said the following at 6:52 AM on Jan 7:
Ted,
You make some interesting points that I'd appreciate you expanding on:
it is not appropriate for the sphere of the state to enforce socialism upon us -- that's not a right inherent in the sphere of the state, IMO.
Do you mean that's not a right inherent in your particular nation, or any nation in general?
Also, what is your point of reference for that statement? My understanding is that those who hold political power define the rights of the state. In a representative democracy we, the people, have the power to select who makes those choices, they then choose how large and how prescriptive a government is required to serve the greatest national good (on the basis of their principles and our petitions). As Christians, we can disagree with those choices and are compelled to rebel against them if they contradict our faith, but that does not change the rights of those in power to make them.
You understand that the U.S. is not a Democracy, right?
Sorry, I don't understand that (perhaps because I'm not an American). I've checked the dictionary, and it says "Democracy - 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives...". Isn't that the form of government you have? I don't think you're referring to the 2004 electoral irregularities, so perhaps I'm missing something else that isn't working properly in the US system.
32. obewan said the following at 7:47 AM on Jan 7:
Why should personal freedom be abused in the form of a license to waste? Once again, Focus is using its whiny bully pulpit to bash conservation. Don’t forget that most electricity comes from burning coal. Burning coal causes the emission of mercury and sulfur and can lead to acid rain. I have seen cars in the Northeast with the paint eaten off! Mercury in fish comes from burning coal. Global warming is not the only issue.
Ted, where are YOUR facts when you say that CFL’s can only be 2-3 times as efficient? I think most engineers (including myself) would disagree strongly with that statement. Ted’s statement “…it is impossible to read by CFL light” is an outright LIE. That is an unsubstantiated exaggeration and would not have been allowed by him if I had made it. I read by CFL light every day and never get a headache. (Thus it is NOT “impossible.”)
Where are the FACTS on the skin cancer allegation? Where are the long-term studies? What are the REAL exposure hazards and exposure levels? I am sure it is WAY below outside background radiation. I worked in the nuclear industry for 13 years and am well acquainted with radiation health physics and would never consider light from a 15-25 watt CFL to be dangerous. Don’t forget they used to say TV’s and computer monitors emitted dangerous x-rays as well. We did not see people stop using them. Don’t give the mercury a second thought. They already have recycling covered.
The CFL people state that if everyone in the US changed ONE bulb to a CFL, we would have enough energy to power 1 million homes for ONE YEAR. I think it is a sad state of affairs that laws must force people to do what is right rather than letting them do it voluntarily out of good conscience. Yet America plods on – the world’s energy pig- fat, bloated, and wasteful. Only 40% of electricity produced makes it to market – due to inefficiencies and waste. Yes we need laws if that is the only way people will conserve. Building codes allow the cheapest wiring to be used in spite of the fact that the payback is very short (less than a year I think) if the best wire is used. Wake up people! GREEN IS GREEN AND THEERE IS MONEY TO BE SAVED!!! I use only CFL’s in my whole condo and gladly donate the savings to feed a starving 3rd world child.
33. obewan said the following at 9:06 AM on Jan 7:
Since I know Ted will attack my undocumented 1 million homes number, I got the real data from the DOE, and it is substantially higher than the other number I had heard in the press.
"...if everyone in the U.S. replaced one incandescent with a CFL — the savings could light 2.5 million homes for a year, according to the DOE ..."
www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/05/05/news/doc463bb94d7a079913224703.txt
34. Joshua Pettett said the following at 1:45 PM on Jan 7:
If we as a society are really serious about reducing energy costs and pollution (without making significant lifestyle changes), why aren't we building more nuclear power plants? Not only is nuclear-generated electicy a much cleaner alternative to coal-generated electicy, but that fact also makes it a more attractive substitute for other conventional fuels. For example, hydrogen-powered cars would be more feasible because gathering hydrogen though electrolysis would become more practical. Also, if nuclear power replaced natural gas in electricity generation and other industrial processes, then more natural gas would be available to replace gasoline and coal usage.
35. Charles H. said the following at 2:06 PM on Jan 7:
Anyone know if the new law also bans halogens? I know that when my college switched to "efficient" lights that didn't produce much actual light, the dorms filled with 300 and 500 watt halogen lights. Electricity use went way up...
36. P&P said the following at 2:18 PM on Jan 7:
Ted: Maybe you should be grateful to have electricity at all, rather than complain about light bulbs. If you've truly been to a third world country and seen people live in crushing poverty you might complain less.
Oh, and what about this country? There are plenty of people struggling to pay their electric bills right now. Why not be grateful that you're not one of them?
There are plenty of people on the planet (maybe even your street), who think you have it pretty easy.
37. Ted Slater said the following at 3:50 PM on Jan 7:
P&P -- I spent about a year in the impoverished mountain jungles of central Mexico working at a school for indigenous youth, and a couple of months in Colombia serving with an outreach to homeless kids. I've lived among poverty first-hand. I'm not sure how that's relevant to my point.
38. Peter Wells said the following at 7:36 PM on Jan 7:
Ted, re-reading your OP, specifically your comments about 'Big Lightbulb', it seems that, ironically, the 'liberal' environmentalist movement has managed to hijack the U.S.'s conservative/neo-classical economic policy. You know, the one that values Gross Domestic Product above all else? I mean, seriously, what better way to increase the GDP than co-erce people into buying expensive 'green' products that they don't really need? How green is it when you create a lot of waste by throwing out your old 'polluting' cars and lightbulbs and toilets?
Whilst I support the green movement and my anarchist streak wishes we could end our dependence on process intensive fuels like coal and oil and uranium, you have to ask how much of this is actual concern for our planet and how much of it is just a new marketing fad designed to drive consumerism...
39. Becca said the following at 11:38 PM on Jan 7:
Ted,
I'm still interested in a response to the first fact I mentioned in my earlier post - namely, that you've misrepresented the article you linked, a fact made even worse by your criticism of such tactics on the part of global warming proponents in earlier threads.
40. Becca said the following at 11:47 PM on Jan 7:
On the subject of 'green' toilets -
I completely agree with all above who criticize low-flush toilets. They're terrible.
Composting toilets, on the other hand, aren't terrible at all.
They're also much less icky than they might sound - I spent last summer working on a small sustainable farm in rural Maine where the only toilets available were very simple composting toilets - essentially a bucket toilet, with the crucial addition of a scoop or two of sawdust or peat moss after, uh, finishing up. This wasn't an outhouse, either - it was inside the cozy stone house I was living in. The composting process made it so that there was no smell at all. (The only slightly unpleasent part was having to take the bucket out to the outdoor compost heap every day). Best of all, composting breaks down all the bad bacteria, so in the end we were left with super-rich compost that was safe to use on our plants!
And there's no need to bend to the man on this one, whether he be government or big business - the best book on DIY composting toilets, The Humanure Handbook can be read online for free!
41. obewan said the following at 6:11 AM on Jan 8:
Peter Wells Wrote:
"How green is it when you create a lot of waste by throwing out your old 'polluting' cars and lightbulbs and toilets?"
My understanding of the new law is that it pertains to REPLACEMENT bulbs and it will be phased in over time. People can keep and still use their old light bulbs until they are replaced. Who will check anyway? Thus, nothing has to be thrown out. As for throwing away cars, that is a lark too. The new CAFE will not peak until 12 years from now. No one is going to throw away a car because of a gov't mandate. I find your argument unrealistic.
42. P&P said the following at 7:39 AM on Jan 8:
Ted:
Have you ever heard the adage "I cried because I had no shoes, then I met a man who had no feet"?
In this case, it's "I whine about buying light bulbs, when the people down the street from me can't afford to buy heating oil."
Complaining about how the big bad government is trying to better regulate electricity usage when there are people living in developing countries without any electricity and are people in your own community choosing between paying their electric bill or eating is a pretty bourgeois complaint.
43. Ted Slater said the following at 9:21 AM on Jan 8:
P&P -- Sounds like you're calling me an unsympathetic, ignorant, hypocritical energy glutton. Am I understanding you correctly?
Let me rephrase some words you put into my mouth: "I whine about Ted's comments, when the people down the street from me can't afford internet access."
It sounds like you're criticizing me for criticizing the logic behind this policy. Is it wrong to critique? If so, feel free to practice what you preach.
-------
FWIW, I use 6 CFLs in my home, and have tried to use more. I use an electric lawnmower. I intentionally purchased a Fisher&Paykel clothes washer ("North Americas Most Energy Efficient Top Load Agitator Washer [that] uses only 24% of the energy of a traditional washer"). I use a swamp cooler during the summer. I practice organic gardening techniques that have no negative impact on the environment. Nobody can accuse me of being gluttonous with my energy usage or careless of the environment.
I've lived and worked among the poorest of the poor for a dozen months, people who walk miles to the campus medical clinic in bare feet, people whose homes are made of scrap wood and corrugated metal. I've sacrificed my comfort to serve others. Nobody can accuse me of being careless about those in financial difficulty.
I "lent" my home to a homeless family for months, while I slept in various friends' living rooms. I was essentially homeless myself during stretches of college, when I just didn't have the income to live in the dorms or rent a place with friends. I understand and sympathize with homelessness.
P&P -- your accusations against me don't hold water. Maybe just let the line of reasoning in your last couple of posts go.
-------
Becca -- The publication I referenced in my OP may be a tabloid. The fact remains, though, that the British Association of Dermatologists and an alliance of charities representing people with light-sensitive conditions have come out against CFLs, claiming that they can cause a variety of maladies. That's the truth.
The article does quote the president of the British Association of Dermatologists as saying, "Photosensitive eruptions ... can lead to skin cancer."
Again, the publication may be trash. But the truth remains that some people can have very serious reactions to these kinds of lights.
44. Carrie Lea said the following at 3:42 PM on Jan 8:
Becca, thanks for the link to the Humanure Handbook. My husband and I are planning to (eventually) build a home that includes several waste-reducing features such as the composting toilets that you described. We are looking into solar panels for the roof, passive solar heating design, and a geothermal heat pump as well. I think it's pretty cool that with solar panels, you can actually sell back excess energy to the power company.
Ted Slater -- Would any of you consider posting on some of the features I mentioned above? Like you, I am all for reducing wasteful practices, but leery of government getting too pushy. I think the solution is in educating people about their options. The more we know about these energy- or water-saving alternatives, the more likely we are to implement them. (After all, as obewan pointed out, green is green.) If most Americans started implementing things like composting toilets and solar panels, I have a feeling the whole global warming thing would become a moot issue.
45. Robert J Espe said the following at 11:02 AM on Jan 9:
My landlord provided the CFL's to be installed in my apartment. They are in enclosed fixtures, and I use them for reading, computer repair, and everything since they are all I have. I think they are great, I only spend $10/month for power.
Even if they weren't given to me, I would use something energy efficient (maybe CFL's, I prefer LED's, I also like candles). The way I figure it, the world's resources aren't mine even if I can afford them. I open and close my blinds for passive solar heat even though my landlord pays the heat bill. I agree with Wendell Berry, even if power was free, I don't have the right to consume as much as I want.
That said, our government shouldn't be legislating this stuff directly at the federal level. There is too much they don't know, and it obstructs progress by forcing research into government approved channels. The private sector works things out (you can get LED auto headlamps, I own a flashlight that doesn't need batteries), and people who don't like incandescents should be satisfied with taking them out of their own home, or at most banning them in their community or State.
46. Becky F. said the following at 3:54 PM on Jan 9:
The United States is more like a Democratic Republic. The people elect the representatives, but they make the policies and laws.
47. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 10:05 AM on Jan 11:
Ted:
"The fact remains, though, that the British Association of Dermatologists and an alliance of charities representing people with light-sensitive conditions have come out against CFLs, claiming that they can cause a variety of maladies. That's the truth."
And you believe them? They're just trying to make more money off of lighting. Meanwhile, over 3 prominant scientists say that CFLs cause no skin maladies whatsoever. I'm siding with the scientists here, instead of government-run, corrupt, Big-Lightbulb "organizations."
48. Netanya said the following at 8:31 PM on Jan 18:
This is all really interesting to me, though I found this article a bit late. I've been using CFLs since high school (I'm 24) and was overjoyed when Wal-Mart started pushing cheaper CFLs because of my electric bill. I use them in my kitchen, bathroom, and for my plants. (I've got a good chunk of my apartment sectioned off as a greenhouse - herbs!)
Still, I'm very disappointed the government passed this law. Flourescent lighting really irritates my eyes and gives me headaches when I try to read by it, and I read a lot. Because the light quality is poorer in CFLs, I continue to use incandescents in the lamps on my dresser for doing make-up and getting dressed.
I've also found that in rooms like my kitchen and bathroom where I'm constantly turning the CFLs on and off everytime I enter/leave the room, my CFLs burn out faster than the incandescents. I read an article about that and found that flourescent lights work best when you turn them on and leave them on for long periods of time. They take time to warm up, and it shortens the life of the bulb every time you flip the on/off switch. The article said this had something to do with the flourescent bulb requiring more electricity to turn on than it does to stay on. Maybe an electrician could chime in on this (if anyone is still reading this blog)?
Short story -- They're good for my plants, bad for my reading nightstand, and dubious for the rest of my apartment. The government should butt out of my business and let me control what's best for each area of my house. Oh yeah - and I live in a small town where there's no place (to my knowledge) to recycle CFLs - I don't have the money to take them elsewhere - So guess where they go. Yeah, the dumpster. Legislated Green America, here we come.
49. Netanya said the following at 8:39 PM on Jan 18:
Oh yeah -- forgot to mention. Emma, if global warming is a problem caused by humans, then why are the icecaps on Mars also shrinking?
By the way, I think most of us aren't doing our part to keep the earth clean, but I'm a big fan of debunking dubious science. I know few astronomers (ones I've run into real-life and know they have more interest in real science than politics) who give any credit to the global-warming-caused-by-pollution theory.