CFLs vs incandescent light bulb

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
<>

Potential Risks to Health from Low-Energy Light Bulbs

In January 2008 shops in the UK began phasing out the out traditional tungsten bulbs as part of a government plan to replace them completely by 2011 and save 5m tomes of carbon emissions a year.

However, health warnings have been issues as the current crop of low energy light bulbs are causing skin complaints and migraines, affect ME suffers and increase the risk of seizures in people with epilepsy. Aside from that they are releasing Mercury into the environment on disposal and not being as energy efficient as new LED equivalents.

Further health concerns have come from the bulbs exacerbating of skin conditions in the estimated 100,000 people in the UK with photosensitive skin including suffers of lupus, Xeroderma Pigmentation, eczema and dermatitis.

In spite of all the health concerns it would appear as if the government is going to press full steam ahead with this program.

An Environment Agency spokesman has apparently said that the organisation was not concerned about health risks, but wanted more information to be made available about how old bulbs should be recycled under the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment regulations.

The agency said it would not discourage people from making the switch to energy-efficient bulbs, which contain tiny amounts of mercury compared to thermometers and barometers.

So, here we have yet another proof of the “we are from the government and here to help you” attitude. Similar to the fluoridation of drinking water. While everyone knows it is a poison and can even cause tooth disease rather than help it in children it is done for the dental health of the children. But, alas, as per usual, I digressed.

While I, personally, are all for the energy saving light bulbs – if we could but make them safer – especially as they save energy, the health concerns must be taken serious by us and especially by the powers that be.

Those low-energy light bulbs could adversely affect the health of hundreds of thousands of people in the UK but that does not seem to concern the Environment Agency the the government per se. All they see is reduction on the carbon emissions that they have signed up to.

A glimmer of hope is, however, at the horizon and that comes in the form of a new a new type of Light Emitting Diode (LED) developed by Glasgow and Strathclyde Universities.

LED’s use less power than energy efficient light bulbs currently available but have not historically been powerful enough to be cheaply produced for the mass market. The Scottish scientists have overcome this by decreasing the costs and increasing the speed of Nano-imprint lithography, the process of putting microscopic holes in the LED’s to make them brighter, and suitable for home use.

Dr Faiz Rahman, who is leading the project, said: “This means the days of the humble light-bulb could soon be over.”

We do, as far as I can see, have such efficient LEDs already, so some degree, only they do not run on 230V AC. They are low power lights, such as the six that are powered by less than six volts DC in the recently reviewed BoGo Light. A couple of sets of light like used in the BoGo would already do the job. The savings compared to the CFLs would be immense. The problem is that our light circuits at home are run on mains voltage. This would, therefore, either require the lights to have a transformer unit built in to reduce the voltage to a standard LED voltage or we would have to run lights via a transformer at home.

It can be assumed, however, that the LEDs developed by Dr Faiz Rahman and his team at Glasgow and Strathclyde Universities will run directly from the mains.

LEDs must be the way forward rather than the CFLs, the latter which are becoming embroiled in controversy. And until such a time, which, the way it appears cannot be all that far away, that those LEDs will become available at a price similar to those of the current CFLs we must continue to have both versions, that is to say the CFL bulbs and the tungsten bulbs available to avoid having people suffer ill effects from the low-energy CFLs.

© Michael Smith (Veshengro), February 2008