Industry, not environmentalists, killed traditional bulbs

Washington Examiner ^ | 01/01/2014 | Timothy Carney

[tomkat]

Thanks for that .. and apologies if that last sounded a tad snarky.

Better prices at the Borg, too.

Tho that's w/o having yet done much research re quality/reputation among the various brands.

Eg: Illumine^™ 100w pack of 15 @ $27 w/free shipping to local store.

[G Larry]

Ya...our supply should run out in about 2030.

[MeshugeMikey]

the few times ive had to work under flourescant lights left me with a deep desire to escape those evirons ASAP.

[MeshugeMikey]

I found two packages of two bulbs each..left at one store last week. I bought them both.

The bulbs are rated with a 2 year lifespan...

Flourescant light strikes me as being lifeless cold and downright repulsive.

[JohnBovenmyer]

In addition to problems seeing in fluorescent lights, and toxicity when breaking them, they are also carcinogenic! It hasn't been talked about much (likely suppressed by the media,) but back when the ban was first passed in 2007 there was a study from the UK showing the curly bulbs put out a lot of UV light. The bulbs that have an extra layer of glass around the CFL core (e.g. spotlight type bulbs) didn't put out as much UV. That study was mostly ignored here although I saw rare reports claiming they weren't putting out UV in US press. As a Dermatologist I've been trying to follow this. Over the past year I finally found more detail. If the curly bulbs' internal phosphor layer is intact it blocks most of the UV, but if the phosphor layer has cracks significant UV escapes. The old style straight UV bulbs have also long been known to put out UV. Edison bulbs don't. Making the curly bulbs is difficult and most are made where low price, not quality control, rules. As a result 95%+ have cracked phosphors.

I believe this UV is mainly longer wavelength, UVA, as glass better blocks the shorter wavelengths. The exposure is thus like a weak tanning bed's light. Considering the amount of time spent under artificial light, over a lifetime, this should increase the amount of skin cancer. The effect will be more noticeable for those with abnormal sun sensitivity (due to lupus, drug reactions and a variety of other conditions) as most sun sensitive rashes are in reaction to UVA exposure. UVA is also the wavelength most responsible for premature aging of the skin. These risks are not equally shared. Those who can tan in the dark are mostly spared.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I’m very much pro choice about illumination options. I’m a personal fan of CFL and the older adapter-base Circline fixtures, and wherever I live, I’ll replace as many incandescent bulbs as possible with the new fixtures. Illumination quality varies, depending on the phosphors used.

[Dr. Sivana]

My parents house had little tubes for gas lighting. and then electricity came to town....

Yup. And it was so cool that there was no need for a single government rule to get people to switch over.

The funny thing is, last time I was in Obama's Hyde Park, the newest house accessory I noticed was ADDING gas lights to the front walkway on some of the older homes. I know for a fact those thingsa did NOT exist there in the 1980s.

[SunkenCiv]

> “Philips formed a coalition with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council to push for higher standards.”

Same thing went down with CFCs, which were long out of patent. Thanks SeekAndFind.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The wavelength of the UV matters. Above a certain length, there is not enough energy in a photon to disrupt known biological molecules in a harmful manner. Certainly I’ve seen the phenomenon of UVB from fluorescent lamps, though. I’ve seen the inner spine of books glow under these lamps.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I don’t know why anyone would want them, unless you don’t care about your electric bill.

I don’t like the hypocrisy surrounding the squiggley flourescents, but it has seriously slashed my bill.

Now they’re cheap and yup, still full of mercury vapor...a bad thing.

Don’t worry, yellow/white LEDs will be here soon, and cheap. They will last forever and have no hazmat characteristics.

[trisham]

We’re already buying LEDs. They work well.

[MeshugeMikey]

I have nothing personal against fluorescent lights other than I dont care for the cold blue quality of the light they produce.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Do you mean the “daylight” color?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The price will come down of course, but they do last a long time so there is some offset there.

They have always had yellow and multi-colored LEDs, someday you might just be able to “dial up” the warm tone you want.

[ChicagahAl]

“Govt and selected companies teaming up getting that favored treatment =facsism, right?”

Actually it’s Mercantilism, the prevailing economic system prior to the invention of Capitalism.

When the government dictates to the selected companies, what they can produce, who they can sell to, and what prices to charge (for example) then you have Fascism.

[dalereed]

“I don’t know why anyone would want them, unless you don’t care about your electric bill.”

I don’t turn off anything and don’t give a shit about the bill!!!

I’ve never had one over $100 a month!

[trisham]

That would be a nice option.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I don’t turn off anything and don’t give a shit about the bill!!!...I’ve never had one over $100 a month!

Oh, you will. (nice attitude)

[JohnBovenmyer]

The wavelength of the UV matters...

Of course. As a Dermatologist I'm well aware of the differences between the effects of different spectra on the skin. There are differences in both the depths to which wavelengths penetrate (longer penetrates deeper) and what effects they can cause there. Direct photo-damage of DNA is the most talked about, but not the only, harmful effect of light. Shorter, more energetic wavelengths are riskier, but relatively long wavelengths can have some biological effects. After all, vision is a biological effect! Sunburns can be from UVB or bigger doses of UVA. Some rashes are triggered by visible light, although UVA triggers more. Even infrared, at sufficient dosage, can produce a rash and even rarely cancers.

With the fluorescent bulbs the problem should be mainly UVA as most glass blocks most UVB. Although our knowledge is far from complete and clear, what we know so far suggests UVA as the most important wavelength for growing melanomas and as a significant contributor to growing basal cell carcinoma. That fits with the increases in those cancers seen with tanning beds, the bulbs of which mostly put out UVA. UVB exposure is most important for causing squamous cell carcinoma, but also probably contributes to basal cell carcinomas and some melanomas.

[dalereed]

“Oh, you will. (nice attitude)”
Take your conservation and shove it!!