by Michael Smith
While the latter, that is to say the old Edison light bulb, is less efficient as far as energy consumption if concerned, as it required a higher wattage in comparison to the CFLs to create the same amount of light, it is by far safer than the CFLs with their mercury and, I should assume, hence, in fact, by fare more environmentally friendly than the so much lauded CFLs.
CFLs cannot simply be disposed of willy-nilly, as theoretically, the Edison bulbs can as they just are glass and a bit of metal, because of the fact that they contain mercury - a toxin - and are also a danger to human health when broken accidentally. The advice is to leave the room where the break occurred and not re-enter within 15mins. In addition, in my opinion, there must also be an environmental impact in manufacture that would be by far greater than the impact from the manufacture of the standard and cheap incandescent light bulb, the Edison kind.
It is easy, in my view, to save energy with incandescent light bulbs... by simply using the switch to turn off those that are not needed. Simple, isn't it.
But, alas, there appears to be, yet another, hidden agenda as to light bulbs for why, otherwise, would anyone go as far as to actually physically banning them and making them illegal to be used. That is, at least, a rumor that I have heard, e.g. that in the next couple of years the very use of the ordinary light bulbs will become illegal.
So, who benefits from the new kind of light bulbs? Is it really the environment and the consumer or is it someone else? Methinks the case is the latter. Neither the environment nor the consumer are the true beneficiaries here; certain others, however, are.
We are being forced to accept something we may not need and which may not aid the environment at all – in fact it may cause harm to it – and this cannot be in either the interest of the environment not us, the people.
I believe we must first of all demand that we be told the real truth as to why the CFLs, which after all contain mercury and are hence not very environmentally friendly, are supposed to be forced upon us and the Edison bulb to be made illegal and secondly we must demand to be given the truth as to how much impact, truly, the use of CFLs would have compared to the Edison bulb, especially if people would heed the advice and turn off unnecessary lights. In other words, if we would turn off normal light bulbs which are so cheap to buy and hence, it would appear, also to produce in comparison to the CFLs, would it not be better for the environment after all, as there is no mercury to worry about at disposal of bulbs.
However, the way I see it, there are certain people's profits tied up in this CFL sale and the CFL recycling business. So, I am sure you can work out for yourself as to what is going on.
© M Smith (Veshengro), December 2008
<>
CFLs vs incandescent light bulb
