Send Your Light Bulbs To Washington
All light bulbs have usage advantages. People should feel perfectly free to use and enjoy CFLs and LEDs along with incandescents.
But pushing the use of any bulb is wrong: And CFLs are being pushed on consumers, in energy saving campaigns, in CFL replacement programs, and lately also via regulations, as the only practical replacement alternative, which also happens to be more profitable for the light bulb manufacturers.
"Hey, you can still use energy efficient incandescents like Halogens, and LEDs that show such promise!!" Certainly - as said - all light bulbs have their advantages. But that does not make them worthy replacements.
Replacement Halogen and similar incandescents are still different from simple incandescents in light quality and other respects, apart from costing much more for marginal savings, which is why neither consumers or politicians like them much. No "Halogen replacement program" in any American state!
Besides: All known general service incandescents including touted Halogens will progressively be banned on the enacted EISA 45 lumen per W end regulation standard. That's right. The politicians don't tell you that. USA regulations including updates on repeal bills in local states (legislated Texas June 2011)
LEDs meanwhile have still greater differences, cost much more, and have particular development issues around brightness, omnidirectionality, and broad spectrum light quality.
That is why the replacement push is to use CFLs - as also seen in post-ban Europe. Unfortunately, whatever the CFL energy saving advantages, politicians also choose to hide, obfuscate, or ignore the disadvantages relating to this type of lighting.Therefore this blog seeks to highlight some of these issues, with appropriate references. Not least of which is the issue of CFL disposal:
Improper disposal of compact fluorescent light bulbs is dangerous to your family and to the environment. In some states, it is illegal to put these light bulbs in your trash. It's easy to dispose of compact fluorescent light bulbs properly. Just send them to your Senator or Congressman in Washington. Or send them to the EPA.
Light Bulb Regulation Testimonials
The comprehensive website Light Bulb Choice has a new testimonial section. The debate is often political in nature, but one should not forget the impact these and other society regulations can have on people. That includes the choice of what lighting to use from comfort and enjoyment aspects, since the smooth broad spectrum light quality of incandescents is not found in CFL or LED lighting, with their more spiky emission spectra, a more “unnatural” light in that regard. But it also includes the deeper problem for some people, who suffer from light sensitivity conditions, such as some migraine or skin sensitivity disorders, or other electromagnetic radiation sensitivity. See http://ceolas.net/#li18x onwards. Politicians are of course sometimes aware of this in talking of how “Joe X” told them this-or-that in how “Washington rules are bothering them” – so such testimonials can be a further reference for them. in the UK, Savethebulb.org as seen also works with light sensitivity groups such as the Spectrum Alliance. They also have a page with people’s stories. The common retort is that “incandescents are not banned”, you can “still buy Halogen incandescent replacements”, and the like. Certainly, the lighting choice reduction is not as drastic as some critics would have it. However, although in the short term, also from stocking up, the lack of choice will not be so evident, it should be noted that not only will incandescent technology be effectively banned for ordinary lamps by the ever more stringent phase out standards that will come to apply in the USA (after 2014) or the EU (by 2016) in enacted legislation, but the light quality of replacement incandescents is somewhat different too, they run hotter etc, and of course cost much more for marginal savings. See for example the Freedom Light Bulb “Yes it is a ban” post.