News Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

  • Thread starter Thread starter CAC1001
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the government's decision to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs due to energy efficiency concerns. Participants question the legitimacy of government mandates on consumer products, suggesting it could lead to broader restrictions on various items, such as SUVs and large electronics. Concerns are raised about the aesthetics and practicality of CFLs compared to traditional bulbs, including issues with visibility in traffic lights during winter. There is a debate over whether the government should intervene in consumer choices for the sake of efficiency, with some arguing that such regulations infringe on personal freedom. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the tension between energy efficiency initiatives and individual consumer rights.
  • #91
Office_Shredder said:
naught, I've never actually seen a scientific study one way or the other on that, do you have a source?
It's well known OS.

http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/fluorescent.htm

and

But if you break a CFL, you'll have a toxic spill in your home.
Maine's Department of Environmental Protection has developed the best advice on the procedures to follow if a CFL breaks. Don't use a vacuum. Maine officials studied the issue because of a homeowner in that state who received a $2,000 light bulb clean-up bill from an environmental hazards company—a story that has circulated around the country and increased consumer concerns about CFLs. It turns out that the company's advice was overkill, and a subsequent analysis showed no hazard in the home. But the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb, to make the clean-up of any breaks easier.

http://money.usnews.com/money/busin...-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Evo said:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/fluorescent.htm

Have to say, the "I've broken one" advice seems a bit overkill. It is interesting though and I'm reading their full report on breakages now.

As I said previously, I broke one (in an enclosed room) and I'm still around. Health wise, I think you'd have to be breaking a fair few of these within a short space of time to be affected.

I always use a cloth when changing light bulbs, I'm paranoid they'd break. (In the case of the CFL I didn't have a cloth, it shattered right above my head when I whacked the fitting a tad violently).
 
  • #93
Evo said:
It's well known OS.

http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/fluorescent.htm

and
http://money.usnews.com/money/busin...-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html

From your own quote"
It turns out that the company's advice was overkill, and a subsequent analysis showed no hazard in the home.

If there was no hazard in the home, how can it be well known that these things are dangerous upon breaking? Perhaps "well believed" is a better phrase. If this is such an obvious fact there should be an authoritative source stating that they are a health risk in the home
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
jarednjames said:
Have to say, the "I've broken one" advice seems a bit overkill. It is interesting though and I'm reading their full report on breakages now.

As I said previously, I broke one (in an enclosed room) and I'm still around. Health wise, I think you'd have to be breaking a fair few of these within a short space of time to be affected.

I always use a cloth when changing light bulbs, I'm paranoid they'd break. (In the case of the CFL I didn't have a cloth, it shattered right above my head when I whacked the fitting a tad violently).
I'm not afrid of mercury, heck as a child, we used to play with mercury that we got from broken thermometers and that's 100 times the amount of mercury in one of these bulbs.
 
  • #95
Evo said:
I'm not afrid of mercury, heck as a child, we used to play with mercury that we got from broken thermometers and that's 100 times the amount of mercury in one of these bulbs.

If that's the case, then what's with all this stuff about "properly disposing" of the CFLs? Sounds like they won't be a problem in that sense...? Also while I agree that there will be some alternatives to CFLs, not really very many, and not cheap ones at all.
 
  • #96
jarednjames said:
And to hell with the consequences I suppose?

Killing all those that p*** me off and disagrees with me might be best for "MY life", but is that what's best for everyone else?

You can't make a rational argument that you should be able to do everything good for your life. Society can't function like that.

In a free society, you can do everything you want as long as you are not infringing on the rights and freedoms of others.

If you want to kill people because it will improve your life, that is taking away their rights and freedoms.
 
  • #97
CAC1001 said:
If that's the case, then what's with all this stuff about "properly disposing" of the CFLs? Sounds likey won't be a problem in that sense...?
My personal feelings about mercury doesn't affect environmental agencies, now does it?
 
  • #98
Office_Shredder said:
From your own quote"


If there was no hazard in the home, how can it be well known that these things are dangerous upon breaking? Perhaps "well believed" is a better phrase. If this is such an obvious fact there should be an authoritative source stating that they are a health risk in the home
That comment is about a $2,000 bill from an environmental clean up company. It was found that their report was exagerrated.

Why don't people read the articles linked? <pulls hair out>
 
  • #99
Well I just mean it seems like the environmental agencies are blowing it out of proportion a bit.
 
  • #100
CAC1001 said:
Well I just mean it seems like the environmental agencies are blowing it out of proportion a bit.
I think all environmental agencies and environmanetal groups blow things out of proporation on a regular basis. No argument from me.
 
  • #101
Evo said:
I'm not afrid of mercury, heck as a child, we used to play with mercury that we got from broken thermometers and that's 100 times the amount of mercury in one of these bulbs.

I'll 1-up you... I remember playing with it in grade school... And that wasn't all THAT long ago...

But that being said, despite the four 100W (well, 26W or whatever) swirley bulbs above my head right now, I still think CFL's are going to be a problem in the future.

CAC1001 said:
In a free society, you can do everything you want as long as you are not infringing on the rights and freedoms of others.

If you want to kill people because it will improve your life, that is taking away their rights and freedoms.

Ooh, some sense from a thread otherwise devoid, and filled with thoughts that harken of the days of East Germany and Iron Curtain Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc... all in the name of a "good idea" espoused by government. Oh well, at least it's only the internet... for now...
 
  • #102
CAC1001 said:
In a free society, you can do everything you want as long as you are not infringing on the rights and freedoms of others.

If you want to kill people because it will improve your life, that is taking away their rights and freedoms.

By that definition, the United States isn't a free society. I used to dislike that thought, but I'm kinda used to it now.
 
  • #103
Jack21222 said:
By that definition, the United States isn't a free society. I used to dislike that thought, but I'm kinda used to it now.

Not entirely 100% the way the libertarian-minded would prefer, but still very close.
 
  • #104
Evo said:
That comment is about a $2,000 bill from an environmental clean up company. It was found that their report was exagerrated.

Why don't people read the articles linked? <pulls hair out>

You said it is well known that CFL lightbulbs contain hazardous quantities of mercury for home use. Your article here:
http://money.usnews.com/money/busin...-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html

Nowhere does it say that mercury in light bulbs is a health hazard. It cites a case where someone thought they had to have an environmental team clean up their house, but it turns out later that wasn't really true.

What am I missing, and where is the evidence that CFL light bulbs contain hazardous quantities of mercury for household use?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
Office_Shredder said:
You said it is well known that CFL lightbulbs contain hazardous quantities of mercury for home use.
No, I didn't. Mu Naught said that mercury was a health hazard and you said you had never heard of that, so I provided you a link to information on mercury in CFL's, if the information on the main page wasn't enough, there were links to additional information.

Mu naught said:
Yea - these newer bulbs are good from an energy conservation perspective, but they break VERY easily and release poisonous mercury...

It's a health risk as far as I'm concerned.

Office_Shredder said:
naught, I've never actually seen a scientific study one way or the other on that, do you have a source?

I will take your word for it that you somehow have never heard that mercury is poisonous.

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/consumerinfo.htm
 
  • #106
jarednjames said:
For some reason I note people dislike the government saying "don't use incandescent light bulbs", but how would they react to a private company saying this? What if all the private companies boycotted incandescents and sold only the new variety?
You end up in an identical situation, the only difference is who made the decision and what you could do about it.
That's not even an analogous situtation, much less an identical one, for two major reasons:

1. The first situation involves the use of force by government against peaceful citizens. The second does not involve the use of force.

2. Your second situation is just logically impossible. You have provided no reason whatsoever that a product could be legal, in demand, and profitable, but nobody willing to sell it. That simply doesn't happen.
 
  • #107
Evo, Mu naught said that he thinks the mercury in CFL bulbs is a health risk. I asked for a source on that. You said that it's well known. I know that mercury is poisonous, but everything's poisonous if you ingest enough of it. There's not a lot of mercury in these bulbs, so I want to know if it is in fact true that CFL bulbs, if they break in your house, pose a health risk
 
  • #108
The EPA has http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html" . As you can see, there are more steps than with a broken incandescent, but it does not involve hazmat teams.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #109
Evo said:
I will take your word for it that you somehow have never heard that mercury is poisonous.
When was that said?
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/consumerinfo.htm
According to that source, a CFL bulb has less than 1/100th the mercury of a (formerly common) household mercury thermometer. Basically not a significant health risk from the occasional broken bulb.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #110
Vanadium 50 said:
The EPA has http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html" . As you can see, there are more steps than with a broken incandescent, but it does not involve hazmat teams.
LOL. I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that one has been called to the scene before anyway. :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #111
Evo said:
I believe Bob was arguing against you. Which of his points do you agree with?

No. Whenever the government tries to regulate something like this, there's problems.

Sometimes they're small and the overall program works as in low flush toilets. They were mandated in Canada before the US and Canadians used to come to the US to buy full flush toilets. Once the US restricted full flush toilets, everyone eventually had to accept them in spite of complaints about how they worked (sometimes you had to flush twice). I think most people today would wonder why low flush toilets were ever an issue. With a standard regulation, you set an even playing field and manufacturers started finding ways to make better performing flush toilets. Government regulation and a free market response. (That wouldn't support Barwick's point).

Sometimes it just doesn't work as in setting minimum fuel efficiency for passenger cars. It's infeasible to ban trucks and to set fuel efficiency standards that would prevent trucks from performing the role they have to fill. Since there had to be some exemptions, everyone suddenly decided they needed a truck - especially if their truck had 9 seats and a DVD player to keep the kids entertained. Now the fuel efficient cars just get run over by SUVs. (That would support Barwick's point.)

I think taking incandescents off the market will definitely cause more problems than even your average government program. (Which does support Barwick's point.)

Breaking one CFL bulb in your home isn't a problem. Throwing all of the CFLs in a city of a few hundred thousand into a landfill turns the landfill into a toxic waste dump. Of course, throwing all of the used batteries from a city of a few hundred thousand into a landfill also turns the landfill into a toxic waste dump, so perhaps tossing CFLs in on top of them isn't such a big deal (yes, used batteries are toxic waste, too, and you shouldn't be tossing them into your regular trash).

Plus, there has to be exemptions since CFLs can't replace incandescents in every situation. The regulations open up an entire new market combining an array of 5 or 6 40 Watt incandescent light bulbs into a very tastefully designed floor lamp or very nicely designed ceiling track lighting with 7, 8, or 10 40 Watt incandescent bulbs.

Taking incandescents off the market will also spur development of better halogen bulbs and lamps. It will also spur development of cheaper LED lighting (I personally like this option for the long term - I won't even buy a flashlight that uses incandescents any more).

Whether the overall program works long term or not is something to be determined. It probably will eventually, but banning incandescents before there's an effective replacement just seems like a real PITA for consumers.
 
  • #112
It doesn't make sense to me unless they're going to ban candles too. I have a light on my door step that is difficult to replace. A few years ago I put a flourescent in there. I wasn't so much concerned about the cost or the energy savings, I just wanted a bulb I wouldn't have to replace so often. However, it burned out in a few days. I took it back to the store and they replaced it for me but the second one burned out too and I just asked for my money back. Why would a flourescent bulb burn out where an incandescent bulb is ok? It's a 40 watt bulb and I think the flourescent was 11 or 12 watts.
 
  • #113
Jimmy Snyder said:
It doesn't make sense to me unless they're going to ban candles too.

Huh? Can you explain, please?
 
  • #114
BobG said:
Taking incandescents off the market will also spur development of better halogen bulbs and lamps.

But halogens are incandescents.

Philips makes a wonderful halogen bulb - the halogen bulb is inside a second, outer, gas bulb. What are the problems with halogens? They use non-standard sockets, and once you touch the glass, the bulb is ruined. This solves both problems at once.
 
  • #115
BobG said:
(yes, used batteries are toxic waste, too, and you shouldn't be tossing them into your regular trash).

I have read that a lot of recycling is actually a sham as they often will just dump the recyclables in with garbage and then use special machines to separate everything later on; this is also because a lot of times people will put the wrong products into the wrong recycling bins, so the machines are needed. Don't know if they do this with batteries however.
 
  • #116
Jack21222 said:
By that definition, the United States isn't a free society. I used to dislike that thought, but I'm kinda used to it now.

You're right. By the Constitution it's about a 98% free society. By current implementation where they ignore the Constitution and put a gun to people's heads to pay for things like Socialist Security, and the banning of light bulbs, it's probably closer to about a 65% free society.

Sad thing is, literally every other nation on the planet is nearly as bad or worse. I think a few random small countries may top out at like 70% on a scale put out every year (I think by the Heritage Foundation, I'm not sure).
 
  • #117
BobG said:
Plus, there has to be exemptions since CFLs can't replace incandescents in every situation. The regulations open up an entire new market combining an array of 5 or 6 40 Watt incandescent light bulbs into a very tastefully designed floor lamp or very nicely designed ceiling track lighting with 7, 8, or 10 40 Watt incandescent bulbs.

You mean like what happened when they put politicians in our showers?

http://mises.org/daily/2007

I hope that's the right article, I can't get to the site right now, but basically when they restricted shower heads to an incredibly low flow rate (ever take a shower in an old house, where you have water pressure that'll actually blow all that shampoo right out of your hair?), people got pissed, and some companies skirted the absurd law by making a shower head with 3 heads, so it'll flow the same amount of water you used to have, and you can leave the shower actually feeling like you got clean again.
 
  • #118
Breathing mercury results in a number of nervous system and lung problems.

Here are some quotes from the paper, if you don't wish to read the whole thing. The amount of mercury released from a single CFL exceeds the "safe" levels for many state EPAs, as in the one for Maine I posted yesterday

The presence of mercury in CFLs
(and in more traditional, linear fluorescent
light tubes) raises several risk issues.
Workers may be exposed to mercury when
manufacturing, transporting, installing, recycling
or disposing of fluorescent lights. While
no mercury is released during normal operation,
consumers can be exposed to mercury if
a fluorescent tube or CFL is broken. And as
the number of fluorescent lights in use grows,
so does the amount of mercury that can be accidentally
released in homes and can enter the
waste stream.

Mercury vapor, which is
readily dispersed in air and absorbed through
the lungs, is the most immediate health
concern. But liquid mercury, especially if it
is absorbed into a carpet or an upholstered
surface, can remain in place and vaporize
over time, contributing to ongoing indoor
exposure.

Can a Broken CFL Create a Household
Health Hazard?
CFLs, like other light bulbs, tend to be fragile;
most designs use relatively unprotected, thin
glass tubes. Given normal human foibles,
some CFLs will be broken. People may drop
a CFL or apply too much force when
installing or removing it. Lamps occasionally
get knocked over, especially in homes
with children and pets. And when a CFL’s
useful life is over and it is thrown away, it
may get broken in the trash before it even
leaves the house.
The mercury in a broken CFL can escape and
contaminate the site of the breakage. Most
of the mercury in a CFL is in vapor form;
some may be adsorbed onto surfaces inside
the lamp, and a small amount may exist as
tiny liquid droplets.

http://mpp.cclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/final_shedding_light_all.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #119
Al68 said:
1. The first situation involves the use of force by government against peaceful citizens. The second does not involve the use of force.

Either way, the public would be forced to purchase the new product, whether via the government or privately. They key here is that the government aren't going around houses forcing people to change them or else. They are simply preventing the sale by manufacturers. If people are that concerned, why don't they just go out and buy as many incandescents as they can? If you're going to need them in the future, why not just get them all now? Same cost there or there abouts.
[QUOTE/]2. Your second situation is just logically impossible. You have provided no reason whatsoever that a product could be legal, in demand, and profitable, but nobody willing to sell it. That simply doesn't happen.[/QUOTE]

Is it really? No reason whatsoever?

Perhaps there's a more profitable/new/better product they want to push, to do this they stop selling the old one?

For some reason here though, people don't care that the new bulbs could save energy, all people care about is that the government want them to buy them. Damn government trying to save a bit of energy, what are they thinking?

People are just being stubborn. "I don't care about efficiency, becaues the government is telling me to buy them I don't want to."

Be honest, if all the companies only sold CFL's as of tomorrow, by their own choice, what would you all say then?
This is what the effect will be once this regulation kicks in. The only difference is who's causing it.
 
  • #120
Jack21222 said:
Huh? Can you explain, please?
Lumen for lumen, candles create far more greenhouse gasses than incandescent bulbs. So why does the govt go after one and not the other? The powerful candle industry lobby.
 

Similar threads

Do light bulbs or convection heaters heat a room with the highest efficiency?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
12K