Monday, December 30, 2013

WARNING 60- and 40-Watt Incandescent Light Bulb Production Ends January 1

Government regulations forced the phasing out 100- and 75-watt light bulbs in 2012 and 2013 respectively. However, the elimination of 60- and 40-watt bulbs will have a much greater impact on U.S. consumers because they are the two most popular bulbs on the market, according to the electronics industry research firm IMS Research.

So what will you be able to use as an alternative? CFL bulbs.

Keep in mind what Karen de Coster wrote in July 2012:
Is it any surprise that a team of researchers have found that compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs are a health hazard?
“Despite their large energy savings, consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs,” said Professor Rafailovich. “Our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover.”
Stories from last year indicated that the green-government bulbs release carcinogenic chemicals and toxins in addition to frying your skin. Thus the reason for the EPA’s warnings for cleaning up a toxic spill in your home. It’s just another reason I keep a good stock of human-friendly incandescent bulbs.

14 comments:

  1. Also check these out: http://www.newcandescent.com/ (legal incandescent bulbs)

    ReplyDelete
  2. CFL lights cause skin cancer.

    “It can also cause skin cancer in the deadliest for, and that’s melanoma,” said Dr. Rebecca Tung.

    In every bulb that researchers tested they found that the protective coating around the light creating ‘phosphor’ was cracked, allowing dangerous ultraviolet rays to escape.

    http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/01/02/study-eco-friendly-light-bulbs-may-put-health-at-risk/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's incorrect. Glass blocks UV light. There would have to be a crack in the glass itself, which would cause the light bulb to stop working. If glass didn't block UV, we would all get tans while working indoors under fluorescent lights or next to a window. Also, there wouldn't be all this vitamin D deficiency going around.

      Delete
    2. The blue frequency is damaging as well. The red frequency blocks the damage from the blue, but the CFL bulbs tend to have very little red.

      Reading is not that hard, cell death increased after exposure to CFL bulbs, therefore CFL bulbs are harmful.

      Delete
    3. "If glass didn't block UV, we would all get tans while working indoors under fluorescent lights or next to a window. Also, there wouldn't be all this vitamin D deficiency going around"

      There are many types of UV light, UVA and UVB. Only one produces tanning and vitamin D. So you can get plenty of UV without tanning or producing vitamin D.

      Delete
    4. If glass blocked all UV light, black-lights wouldn't work.

      Delete
    5. I find fluorescent bulbs to be fatiguing. I can always tell when I'm in an office with no natural light. At the end of the day I have trouble focusing. That very rarely happens when I'm working in a place where there's lots of natural light. I personally think it's from the 60Hz cycling, but it could be from the spectrum.

      Delete
    6. Unknown, it is from too much blue and little red which is characteristic of CFLs.

      Delete
  3. Completely forgot about this, thanks for the heads up

    ReplyDelete
  4. LED light bulbs while more expensive at install than incandescent should have a lower life cycle cost.
    LED is preferable to fluorescent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They phased out the incandescents YEARS ago here in Australia and while the CFL's did reduce our power bills they have since almost doubled the cost of our power (30c/kWh now) thanks to all the other 'GREEN' schemes...

    ReplyDelete
  6. A loophole in this legislation still allows manufacture and sale of rough handling incandescent bulbs. They cost 2.88 each but they last 10,000 hours rather than 860 hours per house quality bulbs. And you can get them stateside. check our newcandescent.com for more info.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Health concerns aside, I question this idea that CFLs are more cost-effective. Maybe if you turn the light on and leave it on, but my experience is that CFLs are every bit as likely as incandescents to 'pop' when being turned on... and I don't know about you but this often leads to an untimely early death with light bulbs. Since CFLs cost a lot more than incandescents, it makes them more expensive in addition to all their other other downsides (disposability issues, noxious odor when they die, etc)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. I've had a few early CFL failures like that with bulbs bought in the last many years.

      The CFLs from the late 90s were good bulbs. The ones made in Germany and the USA. They lasted a very very long time. I should have bought a bunch of those... but at the time I only had one lamp where such a bulb suited my needs and when the German made CFL finally died I could only find Chinese made ones. These bulbs have been distinctly lower quality in performance and are hit and miss in longevity. At the low end they have a shorter life than cheap incandescent bulbs. At the good end they never reach the life level of the old CFLs. I currently buy incandescent (rough service if needed) or LED or halogen depending on the lamp.

      Delete