Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

(bold mine) Are you no long....

So when you said double blind studies exist that prove people that get dizzy from CFLs, you were lying?

Just like to know.

 

[mhaze]

"No, no, no, no, no !!! Nah nah nah !! I can't hear you ! IT'S A BAN !!!!"

It's not a ban, they are just going to fix things up where you can't get them anymore. They just don't like the word "BAN".

It's like, you know, a REALLY IMPORTANT political correct type thing, to not be accusing of being responsible for a "BAN".

Maybe "BAN" they think makes them bulb-racist. Because at the center, these are bulb-haters, and haters are pretty much the same.

They don't want, as Joe succintly put it, want to "sound Draconian", while of course, being .....

 

[Bri]

So when you said double blind studies exist that prove people that get dizzy from CFLs, you were lying?

Just like to know.

No, but I was mistaken (as I said).

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

Hey, buddy...

I'm stocking up on three legged dogs.

You can too.

I know you want to.

I see you have no intention of supporting your analogy.

 

[Belz...]

It's not a ban, they are just going to fix things up where you can't get them anymore.

Haze, it's like saying that laws that make cars with carburators illegal are a ban on cars. And yet, we still have cars today. They just have a more efficient equivalent.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're the one who brought it up, remember ? Bulbs from 1900-1990. How many of those bulbs, the actual items or the actual technology, are still in function here ?

Also. . . there's the point that the EISA doesn't ban existing bulbs from being sold or used. And it's silly to talk about forbidding the importation of bulbs that are already here.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They don't want, as Joe succintly put it, want to "sound Draconian", while of course, being .....

You have a habit of taking things out of context and attempting to make them mean other than what they do. The "sound Draconian" stuff was about the point that the following two statements are not logically equivalent:

1. The law is a ban on incandescents.

2. The law establishes energy efficiency guidelines for some types of light bulbs and will have the effect of banning some types of traditional incandescent while not prohibiting ANY energy efficient bulbs of ANY technology from being produced or sold.

Not only is one much more accurate, the one that is less accurate (I'm being polite--it's actually false) is the only one that sounds draconian or authoritarian.

Do you understand this or do I have to spell it out yet again?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, but I was mistaken (as I said).

Haze, will you admit you were mistaken about your claim that the law is written in "snarky" language?

You were wrong in your claim that halogens aren't incandescent, don't use filaments and aren't dimmable?

In your claim that your energy use has no impact on the environment because you get your electricity from a nuclear plant?

That your behavior in stockpiling bulbs, including bulbs excluded from the standards, is not evidence at all in support of your claim that the law is a ban on incandescents?

That claiming the law is a ban on incandescents isn't equivalent to saying the effect of the law is to ban some energy inefficient incandescent bulbs?

ETA: Add to the list:
Will you admit that your appeal to the number of people who think the law is a ban is the fallacy argumentum ad populum?

That your assertion that the number of times I use the word "ban" signifies that I hold any particular position is nonsensical?

That you miscounted 5 paragraphs as 1 paragraph? And then you quoted text from the first paragraph of the post in question with occurrences of "ban" (and cognates) from the other paragraphs to imply that the first part of the text ("I've said it before and I'll say it again") went with the occurrences of "ban" when the truth is that it wasn't so?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Belz, you even bringing up that the bulbs don't "exist" is just weird, and I don't even know how to respond.

If you think the law will somehow ban bulbs that already exist in the U.S., then you're wrong. And if you think discussing whether or not the law would ban the importation of bulbs that already exist in the U.S. even makes sense, then you're woefully confused.

ETA: And to anticipate your misuse of the word "nitpicking": these are actually gross errors that completely undermine your claim that the law will ban 99% of the bulbs we've used for generations.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another nitpick post by Joe. 99% all of those changes, that you claim make that 99% include different bulbs, are still types that will be banned.

You're just wrong. The law in fact doesn't ban ANY existing bulbs. Existing stock can be sold. Bulbs already produced can be used as long as you are to.

So, ignoring the fact that no one will ever force you to remove a bulb you already have in serve--back to the math: do you suppose for every excluded bulb in your house there are 99 bulbs that will be subject to the energy efficiency guidelines (assuming, contrary to fact, that bulbs already in your house are subject to those guidelines--though we all know by now, of course, that they aren't)?

99 bulbs for every refrigerator bulb? Another 99 bulbs for every candelabra bulb? Another 99 bulbs for every 3-way bulb, every reflector bulb, every high intensity bulb?

Look, I'm ignoring plenty of other reasons why your claim is wrong. Even so, your claim is not even close to accurate. You just pulled the 99% figure out of thin air without even considering the math.

 

[Belz...]

Well, it's something we see a lot in debates. Exaggerated and unchallenged statistics _sound_ like a good argument.

 

[mhaze]

....--back to the math: do you suppose for every excluded bulb in your house there are 99 bulbs that will be subject to the energy efficiency guidelines (assuming, contrary to fact, that bulbs already in your house are subject to those guidelines--though we all know by now, of course, that they aren't)?

99 bulbs for every refrigerator bulb? Another 99 bulbs for every candelabra bulb? Another 99 bulbs for every 3-way bulb, every reflector bulb, every high intensity bulb?

Look, I'm ignoring plenty of other reasons why your claim is wrong. Even so, your claim is not even close to accurate. You just pulled the 99% figure out of thin air without even considering the math.

I'm reasonably okay with the 99% figure, because....

For a 3-2-2 house, I figure about 30-40 bulbs of which 2 are excluded, the microwave and fridge bulb. But those two are turned on rarely and for brief intervals, and rarely fail.

So of total purchases for the home, 99% is likely right.

For total installed base at any given time, may be more like 90-95% as being banned by the new Draconian, Authoritarian laws.

 

[iknownothing]

The law only establishes energy efficiency guidelines for a a few lumen ranges (roughly equivalent to the lumen ranges of traditional incandescent bulbs 100 to 40 watts) of only standard base size, color, function, etc.

Those are the only kind of light bulb I buy.

That bulb in the refrigerator? Excluded. The sewing machine light? Excluded. The porch light? Excluded. Reflector lights? Excluded? 3 way light bulb? Excluded. Chandelier "candle" light bulbs? Excluded. The bulbs in the traffic light nearest your home? Excluded.

[ETA: The bulb inside your oven? Excluded. The bulb inside your microwave oven? Excluded. The bulb on your bench grinder on the workbench? Excluded. Any oversized bulb or bulb with other than a standard medium Edison base? Excluded. Also, any energy-compliant bulb already in use--such as CFLs--will not be "banned"--and by now they account for a lot of in-home lightbulbs.]

I don't see how any of those count. The vast majority of those are bulbs that I would never be buying replacements for anyway. When I buy light bulbs, I am buying 40w or 75w bulbs for use in lamps and light fixtures.

I was enthusiastic about CFLs at first. They don't live up to the promise at all. At the moment, I've got one burned out in the dining room, one in my bedroom, and one in each bathroom. That's a lot of expensive light bulbs to replace. They do not last anywhere near what they are supposed to.

Also, the light from CFLs is kind of sickly and unpleasant.

And you have to turn them on and leave them on for long periods of time, or else you will shorten their life. Well, that's not a reasonable use for a lot of bulbs in my house. What are you supposed to use in closets when regular bulbs are no longer available? Or the laundry room, when you mostly go in just to start or retrieve a load?

I guess I'll be looking into LEDs when incandescents are no longer available.

 

[mhaze]

You have a habit of taking things out of context and attempting to make them mean other than what they do. The "sound Draconian" stuff was about the point that the following two statements are not logically equivalent:

1. The law is a ban on incandescents.

2. The law establishes energy efficiency guidelines for some types of light bulbs and will have the effect of banning some types of traditional incandescent while not prohibiting ANY energy efficient bulbs of ANY technology from being produced or sold.

Not only is one much more accurate, the one that is less accurate (I'm being polite--it's actually false) is the only one that sounds draconian or authoritarian.

Do you understand this or do I have to spell it out yet again?

No, I understand perfectly well......you really, sincerely do not want the law to Sound Draconian.

Every cop likes the bad guys to not resist, and to politely get into the car for the trip down to the station. Just keep in mind I am calling for disobedience to this law, and I don't buy the b.s. that you are pushing.

 

[Belz...]

Also, the light from CFLs is kind of sickly and unpleasant.

Personally I like neon light. You know, the white diffuse light from those long rods they have at the office ? I wish they had replaced all lighting with that. It's just easier on my sensitive eyes.

 

[Bri]

No, but I was mistaken (as I said).

I may have been mistaken about being mistaken. There have been at least two double-blind studies on the relationship between flicker from fluorescent lighting and headaches.

One double-blind study was performed by AJ Wilkins et al in 1989. I believe it looked at the distribution of headaches per week of office workers using florescent lights with magnetic control gear operating from a 50 Hz electricity supply. Nearly everybody studied got infrequent headaches (fewer than once per week) but a few experienced two or three headaches per week. When they used a higher-frequency electronic ballast instead of the magnetic control gear in the lights, nobody had a headache more frequently than 1.3 times per week.

In 1998, research was done by R Kuller and T Laike with similar results.

So, according to the studies, flickering isn't a problem for most people. Flicker rates at or lower than 100 - 120 Hz can cause headaches in some people who are sensitive to it. Increasing the frequency by use of an electronic ballast reduces headaches even for people who were sensitive to flickering. Old fluorescent lighting may have used magnetic control gear that would have resulted in 120 Hz flicker, but most now use electronic control gear that increase the rate of flickering from 20,000 to 60,000 Hz.

Sources:

http://www.sustainablehealthybuildings.org/PDF/2nd/Peter R Boyce.pdf

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc43097/nrcc43097.pdf

http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/overlays/Energy93.pdf

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I was enthusiastic about CFLs at first. They don't live up to the promise at all. At the moment, I've got one burned out in the dining room, one in my bedroom, and one in each bathroom. That's a lot of expensive light bulbs to replace. They do not last anywhere near what they are supposed to.

CFL's have improved greatly in the last year or two. I used to have similar problems with certain brands burning out prematurely, but rarely have that problem now, even in rooms where I turn them on and off a lot (like the kitchen).

Also, the light from CFLs is kind of sickly and unpleasant.

CFL's now come in a variety of color temperatures. According to Popular Mechanics, CFL bulbs beat incandescent bulbs in a double-blind test of lighting quality (i.e. the people tested either couldn't tell the difference or else thought the CFL's looked better):

The results surprised us. Even though the incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, our subjects didn't see any dramatic difference in brightness. And here was the real shocker: When it came to the overall quality of the light, all the CFLs scored higher than our incandescent control bulb. In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren't just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light.​

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

And you have to turn them on and leave them on for long periods of time, or else you will shorten their life. Well, that's not a reasonable use for a lot of bulbs in my house. What are you supposed to use in closets when regular bulbs are no longer available? Or the laundry room, when you mostly go in just to start or retrieve a load?

I believe that CFL life is rated based on 5 minute cycles (leaving the lights on for 5 minutes and then shutting them off). Less cycling will increase their life span, more cycling will decrease it.

I guess I'll be looking into LEDs when incandescents are no longer available.

LED's are getting a lot cheaper, but I'm guessing that for most uses (except maybe in places where you cycle the light on then off in under 5 minutes many times per day), CFL's may still be more cost-effective than LED's. However, I suspect that LED technology will replace CFL technology entirely at some point.

-Bri

 

[Antiquehunter]

A question - I haven't been to a Home Depot (or similar) in a long time. I live in Chile, and the cost of the CFL bulbs that are almost exclusively used in home situations is much lower than what I recall the CFL bulbs used to cost in Canuckistan.

I pay about $4.00 USD for a CFL bulb in Chile. Is this comparable to the rates in the USA / Canada? I remember that these CFL bulbs USED to cost about $10 a pop when first introduced.

 

[Bri]

I generally buy 75-watt equivalent CFL's in packages of 6 for around $10 or $12.

-Bri

 

[Antiquehunter]

Wow - OK. So the argument that it costs too much money to replace bulbs with CFL ones (because they are very expensive) doesn't hold much water. Doesn't sound like there is a meaningful price difference in incandescent vs CFL.