This is quite apart from the mercury inside the bulbs, which (presumably) only becomes a problem — in your home — if you happen to break one. Outside of your home, who knows where those things will end up? The "environmentalists" like to deal with one environmental thing at a time. First, scare everyone about using too much energy, and force them to switch to CFL bulb. Then, with that noble accomplishment done, it will be time for all the anguish about the horrible chemicals in and around the bulbs, and all the money that must be spent cleaning that up.
But sequencing the troubles, the activism need never end.
***
Instapundit sent me to that article at The Telegraph, which tries to drag me further into its website with a sidebar that includes "Liz Hurley's tips for looking good." Oh, no, you can't can't make me click on that. I know the Liz Hurley tip for looking good: Look like Liz Hurley.
I'll give you the Ann Althouse tip for looking good: Stay out of fluorescent light. Position your head in the proximity of incandescence.
ADDED: Sorry, it's CFL not "CFC." Corrected. I was thinking Compact Fluorescent Crap.
Posts
93 comments:
LED bulbs, anyone?
... activism need never end.
You broke the code! It's fun being an activist. You can run around in funny costumes, and wave funny signs, and yell, and ring cowbells, and shout down people who are mistakenly trying to treat you like an intelligent person.
The activism will never end.
It's almost as if the goal was to save the environment by poisoning everyone and thereby reducing the surplus population!
Isn't this another portal opportunity?
Althouse is to light bulbs what Beck is to food.
I can't imagine Liz Hurley having a toxic cloud surrounding her, though.
The old Scientists claim sentence but no information on how the potential toxins are produced or how they were measured. Aren't journalists curious about that? Why don't they report it?
I maintain that the best way to protest CFCs is to take cartons and cartons of them to the Capitol and accidentally drop them so they all break, releasing the mercury and turning the Capitol into a Superfund site.
The phase-out of the 100 Watt incandescent is scheduled to go into effect in 2012! What a huge winner for the Republican presidential candidate if he or she promises to sign a bill revoking phase out.
Good thing the left are ridding us of those evil incandescent light bulbs. Incandescents are more appealing to the human eye, to human skin, and not an environmental disaster.
The left are so confident in their environmental moral superiority. Never mind those pesky unintended consequences.
That means we can't use CFC bulb in any room of a newer, greener, closed system house. Those really tight ones where you're not even supposed to open the windows.
wv: fulouter
The CFL's have turned out to be great avatars of the AGW scam. Everyone was told how advanced they were, how cheap, how efficient, how Gaia-friendly, etc...
Now that everybody's had actual experience with them and realizes that they're expensive, crappy, inefficient and probably dangerous, it illustrates how stupid and dishonest all the shouting was in the first place. If we could get people to properly extrapolate that experience to every other "green" scam we'd bury this anti-science fraud once and for all.
Does anyone but me think it's odd that mercury batteries, commonly used for cameras in years, were banned a while ago to great fanfare (thus forcing most people ditch their cameras), only for the People That Care to turn around and declare that the world was in Danger™ once more and this time the only thing that could save it was switching from regular incandescent light bulbs (which produce little to no pollutants) to lightbulbs that contained... mercury?
wv: coateled -- what we'll all have to wear when the environmentalists decide that lead isn't deadly anymore, but instead a necessary ingredient in something expensive "to save the planet" that replaces something cheap we use every day.
I detest CFCs. I use them outside and in the garage. That's it. I am proud to say I don't have a single CFC inside my home. No matter if the science is positive or negative, I still detest them.
What a huge winner for the Republican presidential candidate if he or she promises to sign a bill revoking phase out.
Great idea! Remind everyone about legislation that George Bush enacted!
"The company [NYT] said net income fell 57.6 percent to $5.4 million, compared with $12.8 million in the quarter a year ago. "
I'm heart broken by this.
MM
Lotta CONSEVATIVE Repub's don't have all that high an opinion of Bush.
WV: condem - No comment required.
It's about the nanny state. Can the government leave us alone for one second?
Fluorescent bulbs are best used in situations where lights are left on all the time, like office buildings, commercial situations and stores, etc. They are not all bad, and they do reduce energy use. Still, the light is generally not pleasant. It is a poor use of energy to flick a fluorescent bulb on and off all the time. Energy is used when you fire the CFL up.
And yes - disposal is a concern.
and now this.
"Great idea! Remind everyone about legislation that George Bush enacted!"
You really don't get it - even now?
Just sayin' that if Republicans try to put the phase-out of CFCs at Obama's feet -- I'm sure he voted for it as a Senator, it passed the Senate 65-27 -- a million Journalists, give or take a few, will note that Republican George Bush signed the bill into law.
It might be something that individuals can run against -- say, the person running against Tammy Baldwin could use that vote she cast for it against her. But nationwide? I don't see it happening.
Just to add to the insult.
I tried using the CFCs. They don't reduce my electrical bill. Not by a cent.
Yes, our main political problem is our activists. In Woodstock, we've got dozens of people living on SSI to support their activism. The entire music scene is corrupted by the BS of activism.
Saints are very tiresome people. I'll take the sinners over them any day.
what about flat panel computer screens?
Take your hands off my light bulbs you filthy government!
And PB&J is to Althouse as the Clown Posse is to Wisconsin elections.
Another thing about those bulbs. I replaced the incandescent bulbs with fluorescent bulbs at my work station because I prefer the light plus they photograph much better. When I turned them on they glowed yellowish and then only partially. Half the coiled tube wasn't activated. I thought in that moment, "Oh crap. Now I have to go out and find better fluorescent bulbs specifically for photography." But then within a few seconds they were fully illuminated. I could actually see the length of the coiled tube becoming activated and illuminating fully. I never noticed before these bulbs that need a few seconds to warm up. Which is fine with me.
Oh for God's sake, MM. It's not about who gets credit or blame. It's about doing something smart just because it's smart. Not to mention the precedent it will set in removing other bizarre and restrictive regulations enacted in the name of Gore. Save the stupid little score sheet bullshit for recounts.
I know the Liz Hurley tip for looking good: Look like Liz Hurley.
Phew! Thank goodness it's not get a lot of sleep.
I'd fail miserably.
The real question: when will cartoons start using CFC bulbs in "thought bubbles" to symbolize an idea.
Should congress mandate their use?
Eventually we will all carry around a tiny nuclear reactor in our pocket. It will light a room, a cigar, power the vacuum or vibrator, remove stains, and have a bottle opener on one end and a fine point pen on the other. I already have the patent. Looking for investors.
"LED bulbs, anyone?"
I bought a nice, expensive LED floor lamp a few years ago. It's absolutely useless as a light. The glow is ugly, and the light is insufficient for reading. It's a joke.
Woops, these are compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) bulbs, not CFC.
CFCs are chlorofluorocarbons, like Freon.
I finally gave up on those CFLs I've been bitching about in the bathroom for years. I found a box of 10 of the globe type incandescent bulbs at the hardware store and snatched them up for $13. I also stocked up 6 ea 3-way bulbs for our floor lamps.
I'll try to stock up a bit more on that stuff over the next few months. I'll go back to the CFLs when I run out, hopefully they will not suck as much then.
CFCs were a prior focus of environmental activism, in the environment activism continuum.
Dave,
I actually found some good globe type CFLs for the bathroom. They are very bright and not blue. It actually seems sunny in there some times and there's no window or skylight. They are the only ones I like however.
There's got to be a "change a light bulb" joke in this.
Like:
How many environmentalists does it take to change a light bulb?....
CFCs were a prior focus of environmental activism, in the environment activism continuum.
The chemistry that changes CFCs to ozone-destroying chlorine in the stratosphere is very well understood. Banning CFCs is a success story. Observe the damage. Hypothesize a cause. Develop field experiments to gather data. Verify (tweaked) hypothesis. Enact legislation. Observe beneficial results.
I actually found some good globe type CFLs for the bathroom.
Are they available on-line? Through amazon, maybe?
I hesitate, however, to buy CFLs through the althouse amazon portal. Is that kind of purchase allowed?
Just one,
but only after an exhaustive environmental impact study and a 2 million dollar "Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative" grant
Halogen, baby. It burns hot, but it is the closest to natural sunlight.
Note to nanny state government: hands off my halogen.
LED is not there yet. But, it's getting better all the time.
MadMan - sadly I can't remember where I got them, but it might have been Evil Walmart!
AprilApple,
We bought a halogen reading lamp at Ikea recently for around $60. It's very nice and hubby loves the brightness. I love the fact that he's not turning the overhead light on to read by anymore.
I know the Liz Hurley tip for looking good: Look like Liz Hurley.
And, she looks damn good.
kimsch, can you tell me the brand of those bulbs please?
Dave, the packaging is long gone, but I think I may have purchased them at Walmart. They look just like the regular bathroom globes. They've lasted very nicely as well (touch wood). Big difference when one of the incandescents goes out until you replace it.
"These lights give me a headache; if they don't give you a headache, you must be dead, so let's arrange the funeral!"
Anybody else wonder why straight fluorescent bulbs - T5, T8, T12 types, apparently don't have this electronic smog? Could it be the craptastic manufacturing procedures used by the Chinese? I can't see how making them all curly could transform them into a magnet for phenol, etc, so it seems a likely cause might be that CFLs ship with the smog preinstalled, as it were, ready to be burned off.
I have bathroom fixture for which bulb replacement is awkward. It uses a non-CFL fluorescent bulb with an unusual base. In 21 years, I have replaced the bulb twice. The bulbs are not made in China. Coincidence?
I have Halogen Par 20s and Par 30s in all my recessed cans. They burn hot, and I suggest dimming them to save energy.
I love the quality of light, but they are more expensive than regular incandescents.
Dave and MadMan - here's the scoop:
GE bulb. 11 watt. FLE11/2/G25XL/SW
Chuck R -
Interesting.
Could it be the craptastic manufacturing procedures used by the Chinese?
Not a bad conclusion.
Kim - excellent.
Liza Hurley is hot.
Those globes might not be as bad since the curly light is encased in the globe - so maybe the electronic smog is also encased...
wv: toresi
Electrical smog??
Phenol, naphthalene and styrene are electrical?
And low flow toilets are clogging up and wrecking various municipal sewer systems.
Those few hardy activists who foisted this junk on us should just go away.
Electrical smog??
Phenol, naphthalene and styrene are electrical?
Nope, that's pure hyperbole from the story. But contaminants in plastic, like the CFL bases, might be the source.
The bean counters at my brother's company had a product manufactured in China. Prototypes lost a few percent efficiency over a period of time, either every day or every week, I forget. In short order, the product didn't function properly. Materials analysis showed that a specified plastic was replaced with who knows what reground recycled stuff. It outgassed and ruined the performance. Sometimes you get what you pay for.
Phenol, naphthalene, and styrene--I smell aromatics and another rich history of words: link.
"Just sayin' that if Republicans try to put the phase-out of CFCs at Obama's feet... "
Well, screw that. Just be the candidate who promises to repeal them. That's all I care about.
"I actually found some good globe type CFLs for the bathroom. They are very bright and not blue. It actually seems sunny in there some times and there's no window or skylight."
You can't put them on a dimmer switch. I want a dimmer switch in the bathroom. I take baths.
Ann, those lightbulbs do warn about putting on a dimmer. Feel free to change the Amazon link to your associates account though. I'm in IL and I was dropped as an associate last Friday...
Killer light bulbs! OMG I just heard Charles Manson is worried about global warming. Could he be the evil genius behind these killer light bulbs?
The chemistry that changes CFCs to ozone-destroying chlorine in the stratosphere is very well understood. Banning CFCs is a success story. Observe the damage. Hypothesize a cause. Develop field experiments to gather data. Verify (tweaked) hypothesis. Enact legislation. Observe beneficial results.
No, you're wrong, the chemistry is not well understood at all.
As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry.
Not only that, the ozone isn't getting progressively smaller as fewer CFCs are released into the atmosphere, it's fluctuating at roughly the same rate that it always has.
Finally, how do we know that the ozone hole over Antarctica isn't a natural occurrence? The hole was observed when the first satellites were launched in the 1950s, but how do we know that it hasn't always been there, undetected?
Althouse - I just replaced six unfrosted bathroom globes with GE Reveal globes. They look blue when unlit, but produce a light my wife likes. Downsides are that they are GE (Obama's BFF company) and are made in China.
I wonder/worry about the mercury in the CFC bulbs too. A woman I work with accidentally broke a mercury thermometer in her house last year. She called the health department to ask how to best clean it up. They sent out a hazmat team to handle it. No joke.
The environmentalists, of of which I consider myself one to a degree, are similar to the Democratic Party as they are dominated by whackos who are weak in planning and foreseeing future needs and events.
Case in point: Obama goes to Brazil and says we want to buy his oil. Shit. I want to emulate Brazil's alcohol production and energy independence. They use sugar cane for producing ethanol, after they've processed the cane for sugar, very efficient.
"Finally, how do we know that the ozone hole over Antarctica isn't a natural occurrence? The hole was observed when the first satellites were launched in the 1950s, but how do we know that it hasn't always been there, undetected?"
It's my understanding that it's thought that it has always been there, but the claim is that CFCs are exacerbating it. My memory may be faulty on this point, however.
The biggest producer of electrical smog is the enviro-nuts.
It would be interesting to see how much would be saved if every item in the Federal budget passed to cater to them was repealed.
Ann Althouse said...
"I actually found some good globe type CFLs for the bathroom. They are very bright and not blue. It actually seems sunny in there some times and there's no window or skylight."
You can't put them on a dimmer switch. I want a dimmer switch in the bathroom. I take baths.
Well, that sounds alluring.
Fluorescent lights cannot be dimmed.
I am buying incandescent bulbs every time I shop. Hoarding is good. I am hoping this stupid law/regulation is repealed before I run out of incandescent bulbs.Gotta do what you can. I also refuse to buy a GE product or a govt. motors vehicle ever again.
"Fluorescent lights cannot be dimmed."
We have dimmable fluorescent lights in our lab.
My workplace uses lots of fluorescent light bulbs. It is funny in that there are strict regulations as to how burned-out "waste" bulbs can be stored, how many can be accumulated and how long they can be accumulated before they must be disposed of. For unused bulbs, there is no regulation as to how many can be held, how they are stored. Government at it's finest.
"But sequencing the troubles, the activism need never end."
That is the entire premise of that very good book by William J. Voegeli, Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State .
What a huge winner for the Republican presidential candidate if he or she promises to sign a bill revoking phase out.
Great idea! Remind everyone about legislation that George Bush enacted!
Yes. Let's do. Who CARES who enacted it at this point!
Bush was not a Conservative and did many things to alienate the Conservatives. This was just one of those idiot ideas
I don't use CFL's in our house either. We use rough service bulbs in the house and other places outside. Commercial use normally and very long lasting. They cost more than the ones you buy in the grocery or hardware store. AND are a partial business write off for us since we buy them by the case.
It's my understanding that it's thought that it has always been there, but the claim is that CFCs are exacerbating it
That is exactly right. Ozone requires sunlight to form. In the long polar night of winter, it slowly decays. When the sun reappears in Spring, it can start to be regenerated -- unless chlorine is present in the atmosphere, in which case reactions on ice cloud surfaces can catalytically destroy ozone.
Maguro writes:
Not only that, the ozone isn't getting progressively smaller as fewer CFCs are released into the atmosphere
I assume you mean ozone decrease. There is a timelag in CFC reduction in the troposphere vs. Chlorine reduction in the stratosphere. My recollection is that chlorine concentration in the stratosphere is still increasing, but that the curve is now concave down.
Above and beyond the mercury issue – they don’t last nearly as long as advertised. Apparently, using them like the light bulbs they are set to replace makes them wear out quicker. Snap!
Often turing them on and off, using them at any angle other than vertical - light side up, using them in a humid environment, and using them in enclosures all reduce their life significantly. I hope you don’t need light in a bathroom, hallway, closet, bedroom, kitchen, porch light, etc...
So, the savings may end up be a wash, but you get the added bonus of less light, less attractive light, and a super fun cleanup should one ever break. Awesome!!
All this fuss because those in government don't trust us enough to choose the right light for our individual needs.
I'm glad the old memory is still hanging in there.
I think the incandescent bulb bans are stupid. But fearmongering CFLs is evil.
There is nothing that most of us do on a daily basis that is more dangerous than driving a car. Ginning up baseless fears of technology for political advantage is something we can leave to environmentalists.
There is nothing that most of us do on a daily basis that is more dangerous than driving a car.
Is the government trying to tell me that I have to use a car for all my transportation? It appears that they do want me to use CFLs for all my lighting.
I assume you mean ozone decrease. There is a timelag in CFC reduction in the troposphere vs. Chlorine reduction in the stratosphere. My recollection is that chlorine concentration in the stratosphere is still increasing, but that the curve is now concave down.
I meant that the ozone hole isn't getting smaller.
In any case, my point is that the "beneficial results" you referred to have not, as of yet, materialized.
Thanks kimsch!
GE, ugh. But at least I know of a brand that someone is having decent luck with. I predict I won't need any for years though since I have so many of the incandescent bulbs now, and they don't fail nearly as fast as those crappy CFLs do.
I have to admit, I'm having trouble getting used to the fact that they come on at full brightness immediately. I'm used to runing them on a few minutes before I go in there.
Dave: The warm up period can be easy on the eyes in the middle of the night, but then again, I use a night light in the bathroom and, as a woman, I don't stand so no aiming issues!
wv: gestr
It's not "fear mongering" to point out the inescapable reality that in ten or twenty years, the CFL's will be the new "lead paint". It's a foregone conclusion if you haven't been living in a hole for the last 40 years.
The science doesn't matter, or CFL's never would've been mandated in the first place. It's economic power politics at the most basic level. A big lie.
"Electrical smog develops around" CFC light bulbs — phenol, naphthalene and styrene.
"They should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head."
Oy (*facepalm*). Figures, please. The mere emission of such compounds doesn't automatically mean danger if the rates of emission are low.
Phraseology like that reminds me of the stupid scare after 9/11 that conspiracy theorists use: The EPA measurement of "55x the backround level of radiation" being present. Of course, idiots went into a tizzy and started claiming the Twin Towers were nuked (*rolls eyes*), but even sane people were wondering "Wow, that's a lot, right?". Well, no it's not. 55x above background was still infinitesimal, and it was all due to tritium from things such as emergency exit lights, night-glow watches, the gunsight dots on federal officer's weapons (6 World Trade housed an armory for one of the federal law enforcement agencies housed there), etc. It was indeed an increase, and the EPA was properly doing it's job by publicizing it, but some who were aware of the announcement decided to take it in the wrong direction instead of properly apply context to it.
Same thing here. What are the rates of those compound's emission? When I google for the researcher's name (Peter Braun), all I find are stories saying "CFL's cause cancer". (*Bang head, bang head, bang head on desk*). No, he's saying they release carcinogens, and yes, there is a difference. What are the actual levels produced? Yes, that's important to judging whether CFLs are dangerous or not. But that damn story decides to take the irresponsible route and not give any actual figures; instead, it falls into the standard media cliché of finding expert heads to butt against one another. Heat, not light, but that's the way the blasted press works nowadays.
Anyway: Levels. Or the story is useless, Telegraph editors.
"Phenol, naphthalene, and styrene--I smell aromatics"
Whoa, did Peter hack your account?
I'm with MM and Tibor's skepticism.
I don't give a fig for phenol, napthalene, and styrene - without amounts.
(Napthalene? Mothballs. Big god-damn deal.)
No amounts/concentrations? No mechanism? No confirmation by another party?
Color me unimpressed (and by the other hysteria at the end of the article, too - they're being blamed for being too much like daylight now!).
I don't particularly like them, and don't at all approve of mandating them, but this is ridiculous garbage.
I get a content warning when I click links to Crack's site. Anyone else?
Content Warning
Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog's content is objectionable. In general, Google does not review nor do we endorse the content of this or any blog.
We've had some luck with the CFLs in the common areas in our building - in the foyer, stairs and landings where the lights stay on 24/7 they seem to be lasting for years - in fact, I don't think we've replaced a single one. We also use them in the outside lights which come on and off once a day on a timer. I won't have the bloody ugly things in our apartment though. Just turn off the damned light when you leave the room.
The chemical gases listed by the article "including phenol, naphthalene and styrene" I would expect to be emitted by any device containing a printed circuit board (PCB), adhesives, and styrene plastic components, when operating at an elevated temperature.
Such as: your flat-panel TV, your audio amplifier, or your microwave oven.
The article, as published, is ill-informed scare-journalism.
Too bad there was an ad for led bulbs ( more expensive, more safe)in the same page.
I want to emulate Brazil's alcohol production and energy independence. They use sugar cane for producing ethanol
The uSA is doing the same with corn. And sugar? In USA sugar is more expensive than any country on the world
The price trend I have seen for LED "bulbs" recently suggest to me that CFL's will be obsolete (and probably banned, if this article is any kind of leading indicator) within 3 years. Then all we have to worry about is disposing them!
WV: kinetshu - War Boots (using 2001 US Federal Jargon)
And tell me, does G.E. own stock in the CFL light bulb factories?
Is that why G.E. has a HUGE 77 percent increase in earnings? And I hear TAX FREE?
Anyone here remember Ed Meese, his cufflink present, and the word SLEEZE?
Kind of quaint now,isn't it?
How many environmentalists does it take to change a light bulb?....
If the environmentalist is a federal judge or BSD at the EPA it only takes ONE to change ALL the light bulbs.
Ann, I put the sole blame for this on the doorstep of your generation. They have totally screwed the pooch collectively for everyone. The envirokook movement has caused the death of millions of people and I don't see any indictment. The fact that it's directly related to leftardism is even more disparaging.
Gladys said...
The uSA is doing the same with corn. And sugar? In USA sugar is more expensive than any country on the world
That's because corn syrup has displaced sugar as the predominate sweetener in the US and when you tally corn subsidies on top of that, you can clearly see why sugar becomes expensive.
chuckR said...
Sometimes you get what you pay for.
In China? Absolutely. Material selection in engineering is a very difficult thing sometimes. There can be unforeseen consequences like using reground/recycled plastics vs. virgin plastics. There are distinct differences.
Methadras
In the case of my brother's company, they paid for (or specified and thought they got) a top grade material as part of the prototype and instead got crap reground floor sweepings. I'm not really a jingoist, I just don't trust'em. Its not the first time I've heard of this, just the most recent and closest to home.
Back to CFLs, they are relatively cheap if they worked as advertised, regardless of esthetic considerations, but they don't.
I wrote an article for my newspaper column a while ago about CFL's. I thought some might find it interesting.
http://friendlyneighborhoodrepublican.blogspot.com/2010/09/shining-light-on-impulsive-mandates.html
Post a Comment