OCT 16

I hate banning technologies.

As someone who has suffered from severe depression in the past, I seem to reading that flourescent bulbs can contribute to depression. I would hope people would look into this a bit further before making conventional bulbs illegal.

ESL light bulbs are coming in April 2009. Check it out at http://vu1.com/technology/technology.htm

Not so much a criticism of the content as the reference source: The Christian Science Monitor? Really?

I'd personally avoid any publication related to an organisation based on such flakey and misleading concepts as "Christian Science". Just by putting the word "science" in there doesn't make it objective rationalism. By supporting these muddle-headed groups, I'd argue one's also fostering ill-logic, much like the anthropocentric affluence that fueled this energy crisis in the first place.

Kris,
CSM actually has little to do with "Christian Science", although it's a name that has unfortunately stuck. CSM is actually a decent, independent news source.
With regards to lighting, rather energy, banning these incandescents will spur on innovation in other lighting sources so the ban, in time, should be good.

516 S. Main St.
Los Angeles Ca. 90013
213-806-6320
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Hello ,
First I am glad to hear that you over came the difficult ties which plagued you.
But now I am seeking support for the issues that shall arise in the up coming General Election. This is the idea of Prop1A has to do with introducing Electrical Train. Well and good I say, since I introduce this in 1985, presently awaiting a Government Proposal approval. But my train concept of electrical power mode was solar in nature. And thus therefore could perform the task designed. If you can pick up a General Election booklet you will see everything that I was telling the city council and county officials then. Yes, the result can be positive as indicated but not by oil producing factor, to manufacture electricity. The same problem will exist and the only thing that will occur is less cars on the road but the factory to manufacture the electricity will still have need of foreign oil, pollution will still be present and the idea of less greenhouses to use the space for other needs is an impossibility. What I am seeking is support, although it maybe somewhat late the change of the rail views can best be serve with this need of interest support. As I have said I have had a Solar Monorail that I have been attempting to get money ( there is a provision in 1A which supplies $950 million in bond funds to “other Passenger Rail Systems” which could be put to a running test model) for development for all the same said reason since 1985 and thus. Can you help support, request more detail and provided suggestions to what present seems like a California problem but the solution will be even more difficult if allow to wide spread. I have contacted many agencies and countries to make the solution a feasible one to understand, am I doing something wrong or do I need more participation? Well I am asking before this wrong, is worse than what it is presently. Thank You, Email me please. If desire specifics, details or suggestions of your support.
Creates Jobs both the electrical trains shall enable this factor!
Fights Global Warming its apparent the monorail (solar constructed) shall perform best!
Reduces Our Dependence on Foreign Oil factory manufacture electricity will not!
The Idea of Pollution shall be a threat to the environment with oil produced electricity!
10-17-08
Yours Truly
Samuel Harris Jr.

Thanks LEDFan,

I had that feeling (that the name said little of the content). I still feel it's a bit misleading, though. Oh well...

Oh yes, and apologies to Megan, the Author, as well then

When these CFL's first became available, I jumped on the bandwagon. One of the places I installed a CFL was in my garage door opener. It was winter. The first time I came home after dark and saw that faint white glow from the bulb, I realized how useless they are in cold weather, and restored the good ol' filament bulb. CFL's aren't for everywhere, so I'm hoarding my old filament bulbs for when they ban them completely.

I was a bit concerned when I learned about the ban on incandescents in the US. I am a strong advocate for CFLs, but suspect that many people will throw them out with the garbage like they did their old incandescents. The mercury in CFLs, while small in amount, is still toxic and should be handled as such. I know that Home Depot is now recycling these, but it’s still a concern that ignorant people (and I mean that literally, not as a slam) won’t bother.

I have replaced almost all of my incandescents with CFLs, but have left a few where we prefer a good, dimmable light. I spent $20 for a dimmable CFL, and can tell you that this is far inferior to the intensity range of an incandescent. I also found that, as mentioned in another comment, CFLs do not initially provide good light in cold weather. So, while they are definitely an important part of our lighting solution, they are not ideal.

I am a strong advocate for LEDs, and am waiting for good, affordable, dimmable LEDs that can be screwed into a regular socket running on 120 volts. I think LEDs hold a great amount of promise, but we have to figure out how to more effectively use them in our existing lighting appliances. I trust that ingenuity and innovation will overcome this challenge!

What is the fate of the halogen in the EU? Are they banned because they are 'filament' lamps? Would the ban just effect residential users or commercial/industrial users as well?
I work in the film/entertainment industry. Quality, color balanced halogen filament lamps are key to our work.

Sam Harris -
I may not speak for everyone here, but there is a place for pushing your political propaganda, the comment thread is not it.

How many people will actually dispose or recycle CFLs in the proper way?

Handing out individual sources of mercury vapors in CFLs is not the answer to reduction of mercury. This source creates a major problem with disposal - millions of lightbulbs containing mercury - because ultimately they will be in garbage bins and landfills across the U.S.

Mercury thermometers were removed from the market, the answer is not to reintroduce a mercury product, such as CFLs. A mercury thermometer contains 500 mg of Hg, and a CFL contains 5mg of Hg. But when a university or business throws out 40 light bulbs at one time, and the neighbors throw out their light bulbs. The cumulative source of mercury from millions of CFLs is the problem, even if you don’t think 1 broken light bulb is.


Reduce mercury from coal burning plants through use of scrubbers and advanced technology.


A consumer product has a lifespan. Follow the lifespan of a CFL. First you have to mine the cinnabar. Cinnabar is heated to create mercury. Thus creating more mercury. Then you have to inject mercury into the thermometer - leaks here at the factory are possible. Then the consumer buys it, uses it and either breaks it or disposes of it. Now you have mercury in the garbage, which ends up in a landfill or rather in the air we breathe because mercury is a vapor. So we have effectively, added a neurotoxin to the ecosystem and into our health.

And believe me having mercury poisoning is a long and dangerous illness, that effects the brain and body. You should interview someone with mercury poisoning.

I am doing an article that will be published in the February 2009 issue of macCompanion magazine regarding our personal experiences with CFLs and verifying what is discussed in this video - http://vodpod.com/watch/1270032-just-how-safe -are-cfl-light-bulbs

Bottom line: These are very, extremely, detrimental to our health and not a good buy. Get your money back and go back to incandescents or pay higher medical bills because of the health risks we take with these bulbs.