Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[phelix]

As for the claim being about "energy saving lights", that is more because of my lack of lightbulb knowledge than anything. You would need to test all the different common varieties, rather than just producing something that nobody actually uses but which fits the bill.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Except for those that are exempt.

And those outside the brightness ranges for which energy efficiency guidelines have been established. (The list of exclusions exempts bulbs even if they fall within those brightness ranges.)

 

[This is The End]

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.

Just wow. You should step back and read that. Instead of testing the light bulbs I have, and that I see for sale in the store, you're suggesting we test a light bulb that I have never bought and never seen for sale that was made to pass the test.

Obviously if one is made to pass the test, it would...

You claim now that your double blind challenge to phelix was not covering the bulbs he actually has, but a new bulb that mimics the light from a traditional incandescent?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As for the claim being about "energy saving lights", that is more because of my lack of lightbulb knowledge than anything. You would need to test all the different common varieties, rather than just producing something that nobody actually uses but which fits the bill.

I'm certainly not talking about a type that nobody actually uses. Regular CFLs, energy efficient halogens, and (I'm told) some of the newer LEDs, exist in color temperature and brightness ranges that overlap those of traditional incandescent bulbs.


I was in a restaurant the other day that had fairly low hanging light fixtures over the tables. I had to tip my head down to see under the little shades. Without doing that, I would have been unable to tell that some of the bulbs were traditional incandescents and some were CFLs.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just wow. You should step back and read that. Instead of testing the light bulbs I have, and that I see for sale in the store, you're suggesting we test a light bulb that I have never bought and never seen for sale that was made to pass the test.

I never specified that the testing had to be based on your shopping experiences.

I guarantee you, the light from CFLs and other energy efficient bulbs sold in stores right now would be indistinguishable from traditional incandescents in a blinded test. Nothing tricky either. Just put the bulb under a frosted cover (as most fixture do).

You don't get to use turn on time or the heat created to distinguish them (because those are not relevant to the claim that the nature of the light causes dizziness). You have the subject walk into an already lit room and try to tell whether the bulbs are traditional incandescent or not. Do it with proper controls and enough repeats to eliminate the likelihood that the results are due to chance alone.

 

[This is The End]

I'm certainly not talking about a type that nobody actually uses. Regular CFLs, energy efficient halogens, and (I'm told) some of the newer LEDs, exist in color temperature and brightness ranges that overlap those of traditional incandescent bulbs.

Notice the 'nobody' in the first sentence. Another example of your 'all or nothing' nitpicking. Just like with the ban.

OK, so 'someone' 'somewhere' uses a CFL that mimics old style incandescents. Now lets talk about the ones that I have and that I buy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Notice the 'nobody' in the first sentence. Another example of your 'all or nothing' nitpicking. Just like with the ban.

OK, so 'someone' 'somewhere' uses a CFL that mimics old style incandescents. Now lets talk about the ones that I have and that I buy.

I have no idea about your particulars. That's an absurd burden.

I'm talking about the regular CFLs on the market now.

How about some of the ones mentioned in this article?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4215199

Notice the Westinghouse Natural Light? Its color temperature was observed (in their testing) to appear to be 3433 kelvins (for a bulb rated at 3500K).

I'm not trying to be sneaky or tricky. Your accusations of nitpicking are absurd if the only way I can satisfy them is to use only bulbs you've bought.

ETA: And this Wiki article lists the color temperature range for traditional incandescent bulbs as 2700-3300K.

 

[This is The End]

I guarantee you, the light from CFLs and other energy efficient bulbs sold in stores right now would be indistinguishable from traditional incandescents in a blinded test. Nothing tricky either. Just put the bulb under a frosted cover (as most fixture do).

Just look at this paragraph. Nothing tricky? Putting them through a filter isn't tricky?

You made it sound like you were making a guarantee that they put off the same light. Then in the second sentence you put in the qualifier that they have to shine through a frosted filter.

Even with that hilariousness aside. Most rooms in my house use a bulb cover. Yet I can still tell the difference between CFLs and a traditional incandescent. It's a different color light entirely.


Of course you are going to say that in:

I guarantee you, the light from CFLs and other energy efficient bulbs sold in stores right now would be indistinguishable from traditional incandescents in a blinded test.

you implied the qualifier "if you buy a CFL that mimics the light, of course".

 

[This is The End]

I'm not trying to be sneaky or tricky. Your accusations of nitpicking are absurd if the only way I can satisfy them is to use only bulbs you've bought.

So I'm the first person you have found that notices that CFLs put off a different color than traditional incandescent?

 

[This is The End]

Also, you never responded to this:

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.

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.

 

[Belz...]

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

What do you call nitpicking ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

That has NOTHING to do with my post. Phelix says he could be wrong, which is the first step for knowledge. You're basically telling him to NOT doubt himself.

 

[Belz...]

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

That wasn't the original claim: the claim was that incandescent light bulbs were banned, not just some of them.

 

[Belz...]

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

It's not a good sign when you're inventing supporters out of thin air.

It's a ban.

Is not.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, you never responded to this:

You're wrong. I responded to that same claim much earlier in this thread and again just recently.

 

[Belz...]

Also, you never responded to this:




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.

Actually two people answered this. Including Joe. You're not very good at this.

 

[mhaze]

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? ....
-Bri

You have linked to an article which is a sort of bantering commentary. You have not linked to the claimed "double blind studies" that you earlier asserted existed. You have not linked to RESEARCH at all.

Now do double blind scientific studies exist, or do they not exist?

Let's determine if the phrase "LIAR" does, or does not, apply to you.

Oh, by the way...the very article you linked to does not support your claims:

...Magda Havas, an Environmental & Resource Studies Ph.D. at Canada’s Trent University, says that some CFLs emit radio frequency radiation that can cause fatigue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, eyestrain, even migraines.

 

[Bri]

You claim now that your double blind challenge to phelix was not covering the bulbs he actually has, but a new bulb that mimics the light from a traditional incandescent?

The double-blind test that Joe proposed had nothing to do with the bulbs Phelix has now. It was to find out whether Phelix gets headaches from all high-efficiency bulbs as he initially said (note that he later agreed that it's possible that the problem was with older CFL bulbs that might have had noticeable flicker). If there are CFL's that don't give him headaches, then his problem is solved. To find out, a double-blind test could be performed with CFL's and incandescents that are the same color and brightness.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Now do double blind scientific studies exist, or do they not exist?

Let's determine if the phrase "LIAR" does, or does not, apply to you.

You really don't know what the word "liar" means, do you?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

The double-blind test that Joe proposed had nothing to do with the bulbs Phelix has now. It was to find out whether Phelix gets headaches from all high-efficiency bulbs as he initially said (note that he later agreed that it's possible that the problem was with older CFL bulbs that might have had noticeable flicker). If there are CFL's that don't give him headaches, then his problem is solved. To find out, a double-blind test could be performed with CFL's and incandescents that are the same color and brightness.

-Bri

No ducking and dodging allowed. Here's the claim you made:


....His comments are right in line with scientific research.

Most people who think that certain types of bulbs give them headaches or that they can see strobing really can't tell the difference in double-blind tests and are no more likely to get headaches or dizziness with one type of bulb than another.

You have been asked repeatedly by me to provide evidence for this claim. Please do so or admit that you don't have any.