Cut Off Your Nose To Spite Your Face
72Our Country Mandates The Flourescent Light Bulb
We knew it was coming, yet I could scarcely credit the reality of it: Last December, our President signed into law the death warrant of the incandescent light bulb. The excuse is global warming. The downside is--actually, the downsides are many and terrifying.
Why did I title this Hub Cut Your Nose Off To Spite Your Face? Because my wife and I believe that is exactly what governmental bodies around the globe have done in mandating use of the fluorescent light bulb while relegating the incandescent bulb to the dustbin. The f-bulb does use less electricity. But it can be deadly.
Deadly? How so? Surely I exaggerate! After all, if Canada did it, it must be safe, right?
No. Not really. My wife has a number of ailments (a high number), one of which is extreme sensitivity to fluorescent lighting. Under such, she immediately begins to become disoriented, and the disorientation becomes worse the longer she is exposed. For this precise reason, if she accompanies me on a trip to Wal-Mart, I must get her out of the store within one hour at most.
Why? Because if she is under those lights for longer than that, we know from experience she'll be so "out of it" that her mind goes (temporarily) and she will resist leaving at all...getting worse by the minute. Whether the store is in Montana or Colorado makes no difference. If she is under the lights for more than two hours, she is subject to epileptic seizure, most likely (we logically figure) from the "flicker effect". And for any epileptic, the next seizure may just be the last.
The Fluorescent May Be "Green", But WE Don't Trust It
There Is More They Left Out
Amazingly, the downsides of fluorescent bulbs are virtually ignored by their advocates despite the dangers. Do none of their loved ones suffer from epilepsy, migraines, or whatever, under such lights in stores or offices around the country? Don't they realize toxic mercury is quietly sitting there in every fluorescent bulb, just waiting for a chance to do mischief?
Most of all, don't they realize the cost savings fallacy? Um, probably not that last one. Pam and I tried out a few of those $7 bulbs that were supposed to last a whole bunch of years. We put them in places that needed a little light without pouring it all over us all of the time, such as the entryway to our home. We would be passing through every now and then, but not sitting under the stuff for hours on end.
Okay. We'll grant they do save money on electricity, but in our experience, they did not save money on the bulbs themselves. More often than not, they burned out in weeks. Perhaps it was due to a stray electrical surge, but the fact was, trying to use them at all cost us a small fortune in glass.
Bottom line: We consider flourescent light to be definitely better than no light...but worse than any other form of light: Sunlight, moonlight, firelight, or the time tested inandescent light.
The Old Incandescent May Be Inefficient, But It IS Trustworthy
Whatever Happened To Self Discipline?
The big pitch, the only advantage proponents even try to claim for fluorescent lighting is its cost advantage. Can't argue with--
Wait a minute. Doesn't our light bill go down when we just turn off the lights we aren't using?
What would you like to bet? When the day comes that the entire planet has been successfully forced to use only fluorescent light bulbs (and it very much looks like that day is not far off), would anyone care to bet that use of electricity will simply increase to offset the "ecological savings" until the net effect is even more electrical power consumption than before the incandescent bulb was banned?
That is not a bet i would take...even without considering the other negative effects like toxic mercury and a law-passing campaign that has put the cart before the horse, cut off its own nose to spite its face, and three or four hundred other moldy cliches.
Thanks for reading,
Ghost32
The Extreme Danger Of Mercury
Links To Another Alternative: Full Spectrum Lighting
- Full Spectrum Lighting
A discussion of the health benefits of full spectrum lighting as well as two available products. - Natural Lighting
Additional discussion of, and products providing, the closest known "copy" of natural sunlight.
Share it! — Rate it: up down [flag this hub]
Comments
Very interesting article. I never gave it much thought, just started replacing my bulbs with f-bulbs. Thanks for reminding me that I should do some research for myself instead of just listening to what others say. =)
Your comments (thank you!) reminded me to add a Links capsule with a couple of links to Full Spectrum Lighting sites. Full spectrum bulbs would appear to provide a light that closely mimics natural sunlight and aids rather than hinders health in plants and animals as well as humans. Pam and I have yet to try them, but only because they are not exactly cheap. If any readers out there have used them and would be willing to share information, "Come On Down--The Price Is Right!"
Actually, the more you turn a CFL on and off, the shorter its life. It's not meant to be turned on and off, but to be a long term lighting, such as in department stores, offices, etc.
But I do have to argue with one point. A CFL has about as much mercury in it as a thermometer. Do you remember mercury thermometers? Did one ever break, and did you roll the mercury around in your hand? Did you die? Well, you won't die from a broken CFL either, or we'd all be dead by now.
I still think we should have an option. The power companies aren't going to be all too happy about this law, since it will cost them billions of dollars. I use about 7 CFL's in my house, in the lights that I forget and leave on most often. I can see a small decrease in my light bills, but to be truthful, your appliances use more than your lights, even when they're off.
Anything that glows...electronics, t.v.'s that turn on instantly, microwaves, all use 75% of their power when they are turned off. Why? Because they are staying "warm". Have you ever gone on vacation for two weeks, and come back and your electricity bill hadn't gone down at all? That's why.
You can save more electricity by unplugging everything when not in use than you can by replacing all your flourescent bulbs.
Trust me, if Bush signed this into law, his buddies are raking in the bucks on it some way.
Thanks, Dafla, for a great comment, and especially for reminding me about the fact flourescents wear out fast when turned on and off a lot. I had forgotten about that, though I'm pretty sure I knew it once.
On the other hand, some of the CFL bulbs my wife and I saw wear out "super fast" were only turned on and off once a day; they usually stayed one way or the other for at least 10 hours at a time.
As to the mercury, I'm sure you're right about thermometer mercury rolling in the hand NOT being enough to kill us (unless of course we're hypersensitive). But I'm not sure small amounts are all that safe, either, according to some pretty horrible reports about the damage that can accrue from having a mouthful of mercury amalgam fillings.
Personally, I was far too cowardly to roll any mercury around in my hand as a kid, though.
The Job Accommodation Network (http://www.jan.wvu.edu) lists reduction or elimination of fluorescent lighting as an appropriate accommodation for many conditions. In addition to causing headache, fatigue, and problems with light sensitivity, they are listed as problematic for individuals with epilepsy, migraine, lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, and vertigo (related to cardiovascular problems, multiple scleroses, and several other disorders.)
Janet Kaye, thanks for the Comment AND the solid reference. My wife has ALL of the problems you list, with the fortunate exception that her cardiovascular system seems to be excellent--a surprise when she was stress tested a few years ago, but a pleasant one.
Good information! Never knew anything about this issue before your hub! Have I just been under a blanket? Is this one the news shows? Consumer Reports? We've been slowly switching out to the CFL bulbs and now both my living room lamps have them! Thanks again for this information.
Hi, Desert Blondie--
Thanks for the comment! I would not say you've been "under a blanket" on the issue. It's more like it fits under the "Conspiracy of the Moment" cover: When an issue becomes popular in the "politically correct" sense, many times the media seems to jump on that bandwagon (in this case pro-CFL) and conveniently ignores the downside (of flourescents, for example). In that case, it helps to be a bit of an "underground rebel" (as my wife and I both are) who assumes The News is usually Wrong unless Proven Otherwise...a rather skeptical viewpoint, some might feel, but it works for us.
I don't know about Consumer Reports; haven't been reading that much lately. "Green" publications such as Mother Earth News sometimes do have great insights on these issues, however.
working
Iðunn says:
5 months ago
I'm big on using daylight as much as possible and artificial light as little as possible.
I had no details on the lighting dangers and specifics, however, and your read was fascinating. I do know sunlight is healthy. :)