Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Belz...]

Nobody said he was deluded.

But even if someone did, so what ?

 

[Bri]

Also, I can't help but just laugh at you and Bri arguing against the personal experience of the prior poster that said CFL gave him headaches, then refusing to present scientific evidence for this position.

So do you actually not believe anyone who says something contrary to your true faith, acolyte?

This is the second (maybe third) time you've thrown out this particular straw-man, and I've already responded to it once.

Again, nobody has argued against the personal experience of the prior poster. I don't know whether the prior poster actually participated in a double-blind test to confirm whether energy-efficient light bulbs were really the problem as opposed to something else (environmental, light color, glare, brightness, etc), although I kind of doubt it.

Regardless, I correctly pointed out that in scientific studies, the vast majority of subjects who claim to experience dizziness or headaches aren't able to distinguish between different types of bulbs based on these symptoms.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are the one saying the "b" word over and over and over. I don't know if you had a point, but I do know you sure like that there "b" word.

I've already explained the risible absurdity of your reasoning wrt the frequency of word use.

Haze, it's obvious you've given up trying to respond to my arguments and are now just trying to get a rise out of me. It won't work.

 

[Bri]

But even if someone did, so what ?

It's possible that he had problems with earlier CFL's, some of which may have had a noticeable flicker (similar to the tube-type florescents that are commonly used in office buildings). Newer CFL's don't have that problem. Halogens and LCD's also don't have that problem if I'm not mistaken.

It's also possible that he actually participated in a double-blind test which determined that he was sensitive to one or more types of high-efficiency bulbs. Again, I kind of doubt that he's participated in such a test and I kind of doubt that if he had he would have found a correspondence between the symptoms and any particular type(s) of light bulb, but I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Regardless, what Joe and I said was accurate. In double-blind tests, the vast majority of participants don't get more headaches or dizziness from high-efficiency bulbs compared to low-efficiency incandescents. And despite mhaze's straw-man, neither Joe or I said he was deluded.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

So do you actually not believe anyone who says something contrary to your true faith, acolyte?

I usually laugh when CTers and theists call their opponents "cultists" or something to that effect. But in a discussion about lightbulbs ?

 

[mhaze]

You're right about that!

My point was that each occurrence of the word in the post in question was within quotes, which were then removed by mhaze in order to make it seem as though you had used them in a different context.

Not that it matters whether they were in quotes or not. As you pointed out, it would be very difficult to have a discussion without using some form of the word (with or without quotes) regardless of which side of the argument you took.

-Bri

Replace the word "Ban" with "Porn" and you'll see my point.....or consider narcotics officer doing nothing but talking about weed.

An obsession...

 

[mhaze]

It's possible....

Doesn't matter. You are speculating against another person's report of his experience, and that's ridiculous.

Well, not from the point of view of an authoritarian controller.

As far as I see things, if someone says he can't see well with bulb type X or that bulb type Y gives him migraine headaches. that's factual evidence.

 

[Bri]

Replace the word "Ban" with "Porn" and you'll see my point.....or consider narcotics officer doing nothing but talking about weed.

An obsession...

I doubt that anyone but you thinks so. And given the fact that you had to manipulate his post as much as you did to attempt to make the point, I suspect that you don't really think so either.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Doesn't matter. You are speculating against another person's report of his experience, and that's ridiculous.

I'm suggesting that it's possible that he was mistaken about the correlation between his dizziness and particular bulb types, based on a significant amount of evidence that the vast majority of others who report similar experiences turn out to be mistaken when they undergo blind testing.

As far as I see things, if someone says he can't see well with bulb type X or that bulb type Y gives him migraine headaches.

So everyone who reports having been abducted by aliens in their sleep really has been abducted by aliens?

that's factual evidence.

What is your definition of "factual evidence?"

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I'm suggesting that it's possible that he was mistaken about the correlation between his dizziness and particular bulb types, based on a significant amount of evidence that the vast majority of others who report similar experiences turn out to be mistaken when they undergo blind testing.

.....

Evidence of your claim has not been provided to the forum, so I guess we can just assume it's a lie?

You don't know much about migraines.

 

[Belz...]

Replace the word "Ban" with "Porn" and you'll see my point

They want to porn incandescent light bulbs ?

 

[Belz...]

Doesn't matter. You are speculating against another person's report of his experience, and that's ridiculous.

I thought you had come to this site for long enough to know how unreliable personal anecdotes are, and how bad people are at self-diagnosis.

 

[Bri]

Evidence of your claim has not been provided to the forum, so I guess we can just assume it's a lie?

Not providing evidence wouldn't necessarily make me a liar.

However, I actually did provide evidence a long time ago. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you missed it.

From my earlier post:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=flickering-fallacy-cfl-bulb-headaches

This is one example. A quick Google search turns up several articles citing various research. Now where is your evidence that this research is incorrect?​

Where is your evidence to the contrary? Does your consistent refusal to provide evidence make you a liar? I don't think so. But it's a pretty good indicator that you have no evidence to back up your claims.

You don't know much about migraines.

What, precisely, are you claiming that I don't know about migraines?

-Bri

 

[phelix]

Yes. I think I know people who claim "Head-on" really works are wrong. I think I know people who claim to be sensitive to EMF in the environment are wrong.

I also know a vegan who claims to be so sensitive to lactose that exposure to one single molecule causes her a severe reaction, and I think I know she is wrong.

I am willing to bet that phelix would not be able to distinguish among the various types of light bulbs if exposed to them in such a way that the bulb type wasn't apparent. I suggest that phelix's statement was the result of confirmation bias (failure to look for the evidence that would be required to substantiate the claim). The statement might even have been based on phelix having experienced dizziness while being exposed to maybe an earlier generation of CFL (that had a discernible flicker, perhaps).

But I doubt very much phelix gets dizzy whenever exposed to fluorescent (or other energy-efficient) lights, since they have been the rule rather than the exception in stores, offices, and so on for a long time.

Interesting, and likely. I am ok in most offices and stores, but some of them do still get me. This could well be earlier generation CFLs that have somehow survived replacement.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Interesting, and likely. I am ok in most offices and stores, but some of them do still get me. This could well be earlier generation CFLs that have somehow survived replacement.

So what sort of evidence do you think it would take to support or disprove your claim that these light bulbs cause you dizziness?

Are you at least open to the idea that you might be mistaken? You could have had a dizzy spell for an unrelated reason that coincided with an instance when you knew you were exposed to the light of a CFL.

I get dizzy spells due to ear congestion from allergies--so a couple of doctors have told me, anyway--and sometimes it's quite severe and really problematic given that I do a number of equilibristic stunts in my shows.

Confirmation bias can be easy to fall into. For example, many people are convinced that they can feel someone's gaze on them and support the claim with "evidence" of the number of times they remember being in a car and turning their gaze to look directly into the eyes of another motorist. They don't stop to ask how many times they move their gaze without that happening, or what evidence it would take to confirm or reject the claim. (Again, a simple blinded test shows beyond a doubt that no one can feel the gaze of another person on them. Plus the fact that that claim would require scrapping the way we understand how vision works.)

While I'm sure some people are sensitive to flickering lights, fluorescent lights (including CFLs) flicker far too fast to be perceptible.

So, to avoid confirmation bias, we have to ask what evidence we would need to confirm or reject the claim. Without considering ALL the evidence, we're just cherry picking the bits that seem to support a belief and not considering (or even gathering) the rest.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Replace the word "Ban" with "Porn" and you'll see my point.....or consider narcotics officer doing nothing but talking about weed.

An obsession...

Your logic has been refuted several times. Using a word necessary to talk about a topic with some frequency doesn't indicate one's position on that topic.

Nor does it indicate an obsession (your new claim).

By all means, let us consider narcotics. I have a friend who is a drug and alcohol addiction counselor. He uses words related to drug and alcohol use many many times per day. Does it follow that he is an addict?

I notice you whiffed on my earlier question about the Klanwatch. Do you think they are pro-KKK because they use those words so often?

For that matter, consider our own Robert Lancaster. He uses the name "Sylvia Browne" quite often. Would you say that means he is pro-Sylvia Browne? Or even your newer claim--that it indicates an obsession?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As far as I see things, if someone says he can't see well with bulb type X or that bulb type Y gives him migraine headaches. that's factual evidence.

So if someone claims Head-on works, is that factual evidence? If someone claims they were abducted by space aliens, is that factual evidence?

And please--don't keep trying to spin and weasel the claim to something it wasn't.

Phelix said:

Energy saving lights make me feel dizzy, and I doubt I'm the only one. There would be some mega complaints if we were forced to be dizzy everywhere.

He did not claim he can't see well with energy saving lights.

And he has already noted that he generally isn't bothered by fluorescent lighting in most places. (I suspect he is only bothered when he is aware that there are "energy saving" lights and not simply when it is energy efficient or fluorescent lighting, which as I've pointed out has been the rule rather than the exception in most public buildings for a long time.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are speculating against another person's report of his experience, and that's ridiculous.

No. It would be ridiculous to accept everyone's reported experience as proof of real causes and effects in the absence of evidence (or especially in contradiction to the evidence).

The flicker rate in most fluorescent lighting (and in all CFLs) is too fast to be detectible by humans. So I stand by my speculation that phelix would not be able to distinguish between CFLs or other types of lights in a blind test. So I further stand by my observation that confirmation bias is probably at work. (Without knowing which kind of bulbs he is exposed to all the time, he is only picking out a small subset of the evidence that would be required to support that claim and not looking for the required evidence--which is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.)

 

[phelix]

Wow JoeTheJuggler. Do you have stocks in CFLs or something? It just seems to be that I find myself getting dizzy when there are those cheap fluorescent lights on the ceiling, and covering my eyes or leaving the place stops it. It could be confirmation bias. It could be a psychological thing whereby my awareness of the lighting leads me to assume I'm going to get dizzy, and then I do. Whatever it is, it isn't really that important.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another, tangentially related claim I feel confident in rejecting came up on a program on NPR (or maybe it was a local program on the affiliate) within the last day or two. They were discussing "smart grid" technology for the transmission of electricity. They discussed giving consumers different price tiers based on demand (so you could, for example, do your laundry at off peak times late at night to enjoy a lower rate). They also discussed the satellite meters (which I've already got for gas and electricity).

A caller claimed that something they needed to consider was that many people including himself are sensitive to RF, and having such a meter in his home would cause him chronic headaches, dizziness and nausea.

I am confident that the caller is wrong.

Note, that I'm not questioning that the caller sometimes experiences headaches, dizziness and nausea (in fact, I'd be surprised if anyone claims they have never experienced those symptoms). But his claim that these symptoms are caused by RF is demonstrably wrong, and can easily be tested. I'm sure his claim too is the result of confirmation bias because he has doubtless never gathered the evidence he would need to make his claim. (And I'm also confident that he is ignorant of the actual ability of the human body to detect RF.)