Posted on 03/21/2007 8:23:31 AM PDT by CNS
Fluorescent light bulbs have a small amount of mercury in them.
Cripes they messed with toilet tanks , now light bulbs!
Black market in lightbulbs.
Who'da thought?
How many Kennedys does it take to change a light bulb?
Three.
One to hold the bulb and two to drink until the room spins around.
Even when people are forced to act one way they tend to do something to make up for it. For example, I notice that when flushing I tend to hold the handle down until the entire flush is done instead of the old method of just giving the handle a push and release. I doubt that saves as much water as the environmentalists said it would.
Similarly I expect that people will come out with "yellow" shades to adjust the harsh color of the fluorescent light which will also dim the light some and require higher wattage bulbs to give the same total light. Now if they could just come out with a DC fluorescent bulb which doesn't have that just noticeable flicker.
Fluorescent light bulbs have a small amount of mercury in them.
Light bulb disposal legislation coming.
Fluorescent light bulbs contain a drop of mercury. I wonder if they take that into account?
I have a few of these dim bulbs. I use them for desk lamps where you need little light and the heat is not welcome. I tried them in overhead lights, Walmart had a sale recently, they now reside in unused closet areas. The costs are high.
The cost is high & I bet that the cost of disposal will be also.
"An average traditional incandescent bulb based on a filament emits 12-15 lumens per watt (a measurement of the bulb's lighting output.) Harman's bill would require all bulbs to produce 60 lumens-per-watt by January 2012; 90 lumens-per-watt by January 2016; and 120 lumens-per-watt by January 2020."
120 lumens per watt? Is that even physically possible? OK, just went and looked it up, and it is. No currently commercially available home lighting source reaches that level of efficiency, however, unless you want to light your house with arc or gas discharge lamps. In fact, apparently even current compact fluorescent bulbs come up a little short of the 60 lumens per watt figure, you'd have to go to fluorescent tubes to reach that.
Politicians should be banned from sticking their fingers into the technology pie like this. They're not qualified to make such decisions, nevermind the fact that they're grossly overstepping the proper bounds on their power.
$2000 to dispose of a broken florescent bulb
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1802727/posts
We have some white LEDs in use but they are EXPENSIVE right now but the cost is well worth it for what we need them for. But those early florescent bulbs were so ugly and the light was so bad that their modern cousins face an uphill battle. I use some of the old style ones in globe fixtures where the bulb does not show. You can easily get by with a 100 watt equivalent where normally only a 60 watt traditional bulb could be used.
Well - if they can't pass legislation to set target dates for withdrawal from Iraq - maybe they can set target dates for withdrawal from Walmart.
How many Kennedy's does it take to replace a lite bulb?
Only one to hold the bulb, but you need the others to drink enough to get the room to spin
What about those smaller candelabra type bulbs? Do they make a florescent version of those?
I would never go back to big clunky 1910-technology bulbs.
All of my lights are CLF except for one LED desk lamp and six four foot fluorescent bulbs. I like low electric bills.
Word in Kalifornia is that the cost of throwing them away will be very expensive- They contain more Mercury than the regular bulbs, thus making them toxic waste and this kind of surcharge will lead to illegal dumping of the used bulbs.
Sooooo-- we get to pay for them over and over again. Very expensive in the first place, surcharge to dispose of them, and they don't work in large outdoor applications, especially in cold climates. So what happens to my security lights?
You heard it here first....
Yes, I had a colleague who had to disable the lights in his office and use a couple of incandescent lamps he plugged in. Otherwise the lighting made him ill.
We use nothing but energy saving bulbs in our house, but I would really resent having the government force this on us. One thing for certain is that it will adversely impact the market and probably end up making the new bulbs more expensive. Moreover, it will take away the incentive to keep improving them, which they have been doing up to now.
Remember when AT&T had a monopoly on telephones, and either you used their phones or you lumped it? Needless to say, there was not a lot of innovation going on in new phone products, despite Bell Labs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.