Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wow JoeTheJuggler. Do you have stocks in CFLs or something?

Just committed to skepticism and critical thinking!

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.

Well. . . given that energy efficient lightbulbs use a LOT less electricity, it's pretty important to get the information right.

If it were true that "energy saving lights" could cause some people chronic suffering, it would be a huge problem since the EISA will require most standard light bulbs to meet energy efficiency guidelines.

It could be your symptoms are psychosomatic, but it could also be that they're real and have nothing to do with fluorescent lights. I encourage you again to consider what evidence would be required to support that claim.

 

[phelix]

I cannot think of a decent way to support the claim, as too many variables are involved, and it is a rare event. It could well be that tiredness, nervousness, excitement, and so on and so forth, contribute to the episodes, and so any tests involving CFLs where I know they're there, CFLs where I don't, incandescent lamps where I think they're CFLs... would be fruitless, and not give enough data to accurately say one way or the other.

My best thought would be to do some sort of statistical analysis on everyone who claims to have been affected in a similar way, and seeing if the frequency of episodes increases as CFLs are rolled out more widely.
Still wouldn't be conclusive, and still wouldn't tell us whether something is psychosomatic or real or whatever, but we could knock confirmation bias off the list this way.

 

[mhaze]

... . given that energy efficient lightbulbs use a LOT less electricity, it's pretty important to get the information right.....

Not really. Not really at all, given that some people like apples, and some people like oranges. I guess I could argue that apples were better, and they should eat apples, and not oranges....

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.

Yeah they are going to try to convince you the problem is all in your head, they know better than you, you are stupid, you are delusional, etc.

Pretty strange really is all I can say.

Still no evidence of that "scientific work", though that Bri claimed, and which Joes says...we don't....need....that.....

hmmm.....

 

[Belz...]

The flicker rate in most fluorescent lighting (and in all CFLs) is too fast to be detectible by humans.

All humans or most humans ? I ask because some people have freak senses.

 

[Belz...]

Not really. Not really at all, given that some people like apples, and some people like oranges. I guess I could argue that apples were better, and they should eat apples, and not oranges....

Mhaze, Phelix is being very reasonable in his response to Joe. Why are you trying to muddle this issue further is beyond me.

 

[This is The End]

I doubt all energy saving light bulbs make you dizzy. I'd be willing to bet in a blinded test, you wouldn't be able to tell whether a bulb you couldn't see directly was a CFL, a halogen, or a traditional incandescent.

Am I mistaken or was Joe's first response to phelix a double blind challenge that he couldn't even tell the difference between bulbs, not that they were giving them headaches?

Even if the latter, and those two sentences do go together, the person could just tell by the color of the light if it was a traditional incandescent or a CFL, thus negating the double blind test.

Talk about this not being a ban all you want, but 99 percent of people would consider this a ban on the light bulbs they grew up with, just like 99 percent of people don't think that a halogen is the same thing as an incandescent.

 

[This is The End]

Mhaze, Phelix is being very reasonable in his response to Joe. Why are you trying to muddle this issue further is beyond me.

If you count all of the nitpicking, then Joe hasn't been very reasonable in this thread either.

 

[mhaze]

Mhaze, Phelix is being very reasonable in his response to Joe. Why are you trying to muddle this issue further is beyond me.

I'm not. For example, I have a hall light circuit that has a dimmer switch. I tried a CFL, and it flickered SOMETIMES.

Not every time. But once in a while was irritating. So now it has a regular bulb back in it.

Consumer preference ... rules ....

And consumer preference doesn't need to be "explained or rationalized" to some self purported internet authority on liberal authoritarian light bulb law and regulation.

 

[Bri]

Am I mistaken or was Joe's first response to phelix a double blind challenge that he couldn't even tell the difference between bulbs, not that they were giving them headaches?

I think the idea is that in a double-blind test he should be able to tell which bulbs give him headaches and which don't. From a practical standpoint, that might depend on how quickly he gets the headaches and how quickly they go away.

Even if the latter, and those two sentences do go together, the person could just tell by the color of the light if it was a traditional incandescent or a CFL, thus negating the double blind test.

CFL's come in a variety of color temperatures (as do incandescents). It would be possible to choose bulbs that are close enough in color that he shouldn't be able to discern the type from the color.

Talk about this not being a ban all you want, but 99 percent of people would consider this a ban on the light bulbs they grew up with, just like 99 percent of people don't think that a halogen is the same thing as an incandescent.

I doubt it. Most people wouldn't consider it a ban at all due to the many reasons already mentioned on this thread. However, most people would agree that inefficient light bulbs (regardless of the technology) that don't comply with the new efficiency requirements will be phased out by the standards.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I think the idea is that in a double-blind test....

You said these studies existed, please produce them with no further hype.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Am I mistaken or was Joe's first response to phelix a double blind challenge that he couldn't even tell the difference between bulbs, not that they were giving them headaches?

Yes. See my previous post. If you don't know which kind of light bulb you're exposed to all the time, the claim that the kind of light bulb is the cause of dizziness is the result of confirmation bias.

Even if the latter, and those two sentences do go together, the person could just tell by the color of the light if it was a traditional incandescent or a CFL, thus negating the double blind test.

That's not true. CFL light bulbs exist in colors indistinguishable from that of traditional incandescents. That is, CFL light bulbs are offered in a range of a color temperatures which overlap the ranges of color temperature of traditional incandescents. I guarantee you, if the bulb itself is hidden from view (and you're not close enough to feel the waste heat from the traditional indandescent), there are CFL bulbs that are indistinguishable from traditional incandescents.

But of course the claim was about "energy saving lights", so I wouldn't be limited to CFLs anyway.

Talk about this not being a ban all you want, but 99 percent of people would consider this a ban on the light bulbs they grew up with, just like 99 percent of people don't think that a halogen is the same thing as an incandescent.

And I think you just pulled that figure out of the air and have nothing to support it. As such, it is merely begging the question.

It's also the bandwagon fallacy, even if it were true. Regardless of what people believe, the law is not a ban on incandescents and halogen bulbs are in fact incandescents. Similarly, the number of people who reject the theory of evolution by natural selection does not affect the truth value of that theory.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you count all of the nitpicking, then Joe hasn't been very reasonable in this thread either.

Please retract your statement or substantiate it with examples.

It's not nitpicking to point out that a law that neither intends to nor has the effect of banning incandescent bulbs is correctly characterized as a ban on incandescent bulbs. I have substantiated my position repeatedly.

 

[This is The End]

I think the idea is that in a double-blind test he should be able to tell which bulbs give him headaches and which don't. From a practical standpoint, that might depend on how quickly he gets the headaches and how quickly they go away.



CFL's come in a variety of color temperatures (as do incandescents). It would be possible to choose bulbs that are close enough in color that he shouldn't be able to discern the type from the color.




I doubt it. Most people wouldn't consider it a ban at all due to the many reasons already mentioned on this thread. However, most people would agree that inefficient light bulbs (regardless of the technology) that don't comply with the new efficiency requirements will be phased out by the standards.

-Bri

I don't agree with any of these 3 answers, at all.


All the CFLs I have bought (many brands) have a distinguishable light color from the incandescent I have, including those with 'watt equivalent'. I can look in the various rooms of my house and easily tell which is which.

Alas, I know the plural of anecdote is not evidence, but as for your 3rd 'I doubt it' everyone I know considers this a ban. The only people I have ever heard try and say that it isn't a ban are a few people in an online thread (this one).

Fact: The traditional light bulbs that everyone used for over 100 years are going to be illegal to import or manufacture.

Whether or not there are alternatives, and whether or not the alternatives are as good does not matter as far as it being a ban.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And consumer preference doesn't need to be "explained or rationalized" to some self purported internet authority on liberal authoritarian light bulb law and regulation.

And you're still repeating the lie that the EISA is a "liberal" law (even though it got bipartisan support after the measure that Democrats sponsored that would have removed some tax breaks for oil companies was removed, and even though it was signed into law by Bush) and that it's an "authoritarian" law even though it was passed the way most federal legislation was passed.

You're still wrong.

And I note you've still failed to support your first claim that the law was written in "snarky" language.

 

[This is The End]

Please retract your statement or substantiate it with examples.

It's not nitpicking to point out that a law that neither intends to nor has the effect of banning incandescent bulbs is correctly characterized as a ban on incandescent bulbs. I have substantiated my position repeatedly.

It's a ban. You nitpicked that it isn't technically a ban. Even though it's still a ban.

You also nitpicked that halogens are technically incandescent, even though no one considers them to be, and no store labeling does either.

 

[This is The End]

That's not true. CFL light bulbs exist in colors indistinguishable from that of traditional incandescents. That is, CFL light bulbs are offered in a range of a color temperatures which overlap the ranges of color temperature of traditional incandescents. I guarantee you, if the bulb itself is hidden from view (and you're not close enough to feel the waste heat from the traditional indandescent), there are CFL bulbs that are indistinguishable from traditional incandescents.

Another Joe nitpick. Notice the word 'are' in the last sentence. So technically he says there are some CFL bulbs that can mimic the light, yet none of the ones I have ever bought, or that anyone I know has ever bought, do that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

All the CFLs I have bought (many brands) have a distinguishable light color from the incandescent I have, including those with 'watt equivalent'. I can look in the various rooms of my house and easily tell which is which.

That might be true, but it's insufficient to refute the point made that CFLs exist that overlap the color temperature ranges of traditional incandescents and are thus indistinguishable.

The "watt equivalence" (not the right term--they're actually lumen equivalence such that a much lower wattage bulb replaces the higher wattage traditional incandescent) is really about brightness, not color. And the bulbs exist in overlapping lumen ranges also.

Alas, I know the plural of anecdote is not evidence, but as for your 3rd 'I doubt it' everyone I know considers this a ban. The only people I have ever heard try and say that it isn't a ban are a few people in an online thread (this one).

So what? I'm sure there are people who claim not to know anyone who doesn't believe in God. Does it follow from that claim that God doesn't exist? (See again, the bandwagon fallacy.)

Fact: The traditional light bulbs that everyone used for over 100 years are going to be illegal to import or manufacture.

You're simply wrong, and we've been over this several times. The energy efficiency guidelines exclude a great number of types of lightbulbs that may be considered "traditional". And for that matter, the type of bulbs in use over a 100 years ago are not on the market at all anymore.

Whether or not there are alternatives, and whether or not the alternatives are as good does not matter as far as it being a ban.

I agree. What matters is that the law is neither intended as a ban on incandescents nor is it effectively a ban on incandescents.

It is effectively a ban on standard sizes, color, brightness, function, etc. of energy inefficient bulbs, excluding bulbs that are outside the brightness range of traditional incandescent bulbs from 40 to 100 watts, reflector bulbs, 3-way bulbs, rough service bulbs, colored bulbs, etc.

Which is why it's a mischaracterization to refer to it as a ban on incandescents.

 

[Bri]

All the CFLs I have bought (many brands) have a distinguishable light color from the incandescent I have, including those with 'watt equivalent'. I can look in the various rooms of my house and easily tell which is which.

Probably because the ones you have are a different color temperature than the incandescents you have.

However, many CFL bulbs list the color temperature on the package (and I believe that if there isn't already, there will soon be a requirement that all packages list this information). The color temperatures available for CFL's overlap the color temperatures available for incandescents, so it is certainly possible to find a CFL that is similar in color temperature to an incandescent, thereby preventing someone from being able to distinguish them by color in a double-blind test.

Alas, I know the plural of anecdote is not evidence, but as for your 3rd 'I doubt it' everyone I know considers this a ban. The only people I have ever heard try and say that it isn't a ban are a few people in an online thread (this one).

Sure, some people might think it's a ban until you list all the reasons that it's not actually a ban. Those who are adamant about calling it a ban when it's pointed out that it's not actually a ban are likely in the vast minority, and not even close to 99%.

Fact: The traditional light bulbs that everyone used for over 100 years are going to be illegal to import or manufacture.

Except for those that are exempt.

Whether or not there are alternatives, and whether or not the alternatives are as good does not matter as far as it being a ban.

True. Nobody said otherwise. It's not a ban for many other reasons already outlined in this thread.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another Joe nitpick. Notice the word 'are' in the last sentence. So technically he says there are some CFL bulbs that can mimic the light, yet none of the ones I have ever bought, or that anyone I know has ever bought, do that.

This is not a nitpick. It's just pointing out that your inexperience and ignorance of the existence of CFL and other energy saving lightbulbs that are indistinguishable in color and brightness from traditional incandescents doesn't support the position that such bulbs don't exist. You claimed the outcome I expect from a blinded test is impossible because you claim those bulbs don't exist.

Since you're wrong, and those bulbs do exist, the outcome of the test would be as I predict.

 

[This is The End]

You're simply wrong, and we've been over this several times. The energy efficiency guidelines exclude a great number of types of lightbulbs that may be considered "traditional". And for that matter, the type of bulbs in use over a 100 years ago are not on the market at all anymore.

I knew you would do that when I typed that, every who has read this thread probably knew you would do that.

You are nitpicking out a small fraction of a percent of light bulbs that won't be banned and saying that that makes it not one.

Go back to any year from 1900 to 1990. Remove every light bulb from every fixture in every house in the USA. 99% of those bulbs will be illegal to import or manufacture in a few years.

It's a ban.