Comments for Government Mandates New Labels for Light Bulbs at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 10 out of 10 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:38:46 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3202-government-mandates-new-labels-for-light-bulbs#comment-44892 These labels are a good idea. There are concerns that the new energy saving light bulbs are not bright enough and these labels solve that. - energy-savinglightbulbs Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:08:30 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3202-government-mandates-new-labels-for-light-bulbs#comment-40120 I'm also skeptical about the wild hyperbole used by the anti-CFL crowd when talking about the dangers of mercury in CFL bulbs. Here is a comparison of mercury levels found in common household items. [quote] Mercury Content Common Items * 3000mg - Common thermostats (max. amount) * 500mg - Old mercury-filled thermometer * 500mg - Dental filling * 25mg - Watch batteries for the last 50 years (now going mercury-free) * 13.6mg - Mercury emitted at power plant to power an old NON-CFL bulb * 5mg - Compact fluorescent light bulb * 1-3 mg - Low-mercury CFL's (e.g., Phillips and Turolight) Figures from Energy Star Canada and GE[/quote] - Timetrvlr Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:57:00 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3202-government-mandates-new-labels-for-light-bulbs#comment-40105 If CFL's contain mercry sertainly 40-80 watt tube flourescents must have more mercury. But these have been used for at least 70 years, broken, gas inhaled, and I hear no public or government outcry. The mercury in a CFL is probably not enough to kill an ant.:) - davgart Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:50:50 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3202-government-mandates-new-labels-for-light-bulbs#comment-39996 According to the FTC, all bulbs containing mercury will have a disclaimer saying so printed right on the bulb itself, in addition to the lumen output. This will hopefully act as a gentle reminder of how harmful these bulbs are to the environment whenever users screw them in. Though as someone who works in the solid state lighting industry I agree that at the bottom line most people are waiting for quality LED lights to become way more affordable before they make the switch. - lightpants Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:00:05 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3202-government-mandates-new-labels-for-light-bulbs#comment-39948 Most people don't care about how much energy something uses, they just care about cheapest. Get rid of the "energy" in "yearly energy cost". Seriously, I know people who can't do the math to divide the cost of the bulb by 5.5. They'd say "these bulbs last about a year, so a $1 incan at $7/year is cheaper than a $7 cfl at $1.50/year." Or they might think you're supposed to multiply the years it lasts times the cost/year to get cost. People suck at word problems. If there is any ambiguity someone will screw it up. - kurdt Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:33:08 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3202-government-mandates-new-labels-for-light-bulbs#comment-39943 A link to the FTC announcement with links to the text and samples is here: [url]http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/lightbulbs.shtm[/url] Besides the back label shown above, there is a front label that shows brightness (lumens) and energy use (dollars/year @3hrs/day, $.11/kWh). I think it's great to measure relative energy use in dollars. We should do that for other appliances like TVs. - Carl Hage Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:21:15 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3202-government-mandates-new-labels-for-light-bulbs#comment-39940 Also, i wonder how they will handle leds lumen degradation, if at all. Do other bulbs dim over time? - Todd Horst Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:16:21 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3202-government-mandates-new-labels-for-light-bulbs#comment-39939 i see cost and life are based on 3 hours of use per day. I hope this will be consistent with all bulbs. Otherwise to boost performance you could say based on 1 hour per day. Obviously you can still look at energy used, but at a glance it would be misleading. - Todd Horst Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:13:00 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3202-government-mandates-new-labels-for-light-bulbs#comment-39935 Is it just me or is lighting really evolving quicker than it seems? This labeling is a good way to help consumers compare apples to apples. httP://www.greencollarenvironmentalist.com - Garrett Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:17:13 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3202-government-mandates-new-labels-for-light-bulbs#comment-39933 It should actually say "Contains Mercury: Do Not Eat" Might as well have a poison skull&Bones on the CFL's for the ignorant American consumer. "Mercury: that kills people!!! Better not buy THAT bulb!!!" Even though it will save a TON more money and CO2 emissions over it's life than the incandescent bulb. Even the Kelvin scale on the sticker will be misleading to the majority of consumers... maybe it's "better" when the scale is to the far left? Or "better" to the far right? Not knowing AT ALL, of course, what the Kelvin scale is all about. I guess the Nanny-state Federal Government must hold the hands of the lowest common denominator consumer in America with an IQ of 60. - Doc Rings Fri, 25 Jun 2010 04:49:46 +0100