Thursday, December 27, 2007

Compact Fluorescent Bulb's Appeal Dims

Recently I made some comments about lighting and my dislike of so-called "compact fluorescent bulbs".


I am not in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs for the following
reasons:


1. They do not put out sufficient light for many tasks.
2. The stated "equivalent" light output is overstated. If I take a 60W incandescent and the labeled "equivalent" and put them side by side, the incandescent wins by a wide margin.
3. Compact fluorescent electronics are more complex and more likely
to start fires. The miniature electronics are highly loaded and stressed. An an incandescent bulb has none of these components.
4. The RF radiation of compact fluorescent bulbs is many hundreds of
times greater than incandescent bulbs.
5. Compact fluorescent bulbs do not provide a full spectrum of light
6. Compact fluorescent bulbs flash at a rate of 60 cycles per
second, and cause headaches and eyestrain.
7. The electronics in compact fluorescent bulbs produce interference to radios,
and other over the air systems, and create RF pollution.
8. Compact fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, a known neurotoxin
9. Compact fluorescent bulbs do not save enough energy to offset the
above
concerns.
10. Proper use of incandescent lighting can be energy efficient, better for the
environment, health of users, and provide a higher quality of illumination. Like any technology, they can be senselessly used, and many are. Better fixture design, turning them off when not needed, and proper wattage selection will preserve the environment. Legislation to eliminate incandescent lighting is a knee-jerk reaction and a statutory "solution" to what is a technical, education, and consumer-habit problem.

No comments: