 |
 |
Traditional lightbulbs banned by EU
Louise Gray
London Telegraph
Saturday, Oct 11, 2008
The high energy filament bulbs are being phased out in order to improve energy efficiency and meet climate change targets.
The switchover, which will affect all of the European Union’s 500 million citizens, was first ordered at a Brussels summit last year as part of an ambitious energy policy to fight climate change.
A meeting of EU energy ministers, including the UK’s new secretary of state for energy and climate change Ed Miliband decided to go ahead with the ban.
The move has previously proved controversial.
(Article continues below)
Traditional light bulbs are around 38p compared to £1.38 for the cheapest low energy models and campaigners have complained about affordability, as well as the cost of having to adapt fittings for the new bulbs.
The fluorescent bulbs generally take time to warm up and there have been complaints the light is too dim and has a tendency to flicker.
There are also worries over how the bulbs will be disposed of. Under new regulations for hazardous waste, councils are obliged to recycle low energy bulbs at considerable cost to the tax payer.
Incandescent filament light bulbs use up to five times as much energy as efficient lights such as “compact fluorescent lamps” (CFLs).
Advocates claim that replacing the worst-performing lamps with today’s best available technology will reduce domestic energy consumption for lighting by 60 per cent in the EU, equivalent to saving 30 million tons of CO2 pollution every year.
However questions remain over the cost, health impact and aesthetic quality of the new low-energy fluorescent bulbs.
There have been concerns low energy bulbs can cause headaches, rashes and even sunburn. If the bulbs break the toxic mecury inside can cause migraine and dizziness. The bulbs are also too big for some old-fashioned fittings, can look out of place in historic homes and are generally more expensive – although the EU has vowed cost will come down before 2010.
The Health Protection Agency warned consumers they should not stay close to open energy saving bulbs for more than an hour.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
24 Responses to “Traditional lightbulbs banned by EU”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
October 11th, 2008 at 7:19 am
This is sad…….
Not only are incadescent light healthier and more pleasant for your eyesight, you don’t need to follow disposal guidelines as do the new screw in flourescent bulbs….
and they have a further throw and flatter field than do any LED technology or flourescent….
and just to expose….
Flourescent Tubes are also being obliterated…..you can no longer purchase balasts to run the Tube type Flourescent as they are being phased outof production…
For industry, this means Mercury Vapour Ballast lamps as they have the throw to replace Flourescent…..
October 11th, 2008 at 8:24 am
another failure to mention THESE BULBS ARE MADE ONLY IN CHINA!!!!!
tHE USA has already adopted this phasing out of traditional bulbs, even knowing the industry will be based totally on china to mfg and ship these bulbs-
hiway robbery
October 11th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Can you say “control” ? i bet ya can…this is just one more way,we have to suffer,so the elite can do what they want with impunity. THOSE LIGHTS ARE DANGROUS,the ‘mercury vapor’ and other hazzardous substances are only ‘a drop in a bucket’…because their amounts are truthfully miniscule…but we all know,drops in a bucket,can add up to oceans in a landfill…Do some research…
October 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Fluorescent lights are okay…I use them to cut down on electricity bills. But they are overhyped– they use lot more material to produce, and they don’t always last as long as they are supposed to. I’ve had several burn out in few days or weeks after installation.
We need to keep incandescent lights on market because there are some uses for them that fluorescent lights can’t replace….like using for heat in incubating eggs for poultry, or having a comfortable and bright lights for work, like in artist studio or photography.
Oh well, I hope that LED lights will eventually replace fluorescent bulbs…they are WAY better!
October 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
If they really cared about saving electricity, wouldn’t they be forcing offices to turn off their lights at night? This wastes a HUGE amount of electricity. In the US its like 10-15% of the electricity usage I believe.
October 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
this is yet another way for corporations to make money and governments to increase the level of control they have over our lives. all in the name of a green movement based on very arguable “evidence”. its just a cousin to 9/11 in the way its being used to justify asking us to sacrifice a quality of life. but being green is a new religion that has passionate followers that are eager to do what their told.
incandescent light comes from a heated filament making it like fire and the sun, a light that is best for our well being. fluorescent light from energy saving lamps is of a poor quality and disliked by most because of its harsh, cold, unflattering appearance. these bulbs contain mercury that will poison the earth if not disposed of correctly. losing the incandescent is another victory for the elite and a terrible loss to the human experience.
October 11th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I started using Ott lights (20-watt fluorescent CFLs, available at Home Depot) many years ago, after reading in the ’80s about Ott’s research into the health benefits of full-spectrum lighting. I also use Sunwave and ME-DTC full-spectrum fluorescent CFLs & tubes in my house, garage, & shop. Sorry but y’all can have your incandescent bulbs. They generate excessive heat, burn out () MUCH more often than CFLs, and yes they waste energy ($$). The only exception I make is on a couple dimmer circuits, which aren’t used very often.
Don’t get me wrong, I say the gov’t can KMA when they dictate what people buy and how they live. But my reasons for using full-spectrum bulbs have absolutely nothing to do with being “green”. I just prefer high quality light that incandescents can’t match, and I use 1/3 or less the energy. IMO, that’s a real and proper benefit of technology.
October 11th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Flourescent light is a sickly, murky, ‘muddy’ light. You do not get the ’spark of life’ type of clear illumination as with incandescent. You do not get the true color of anything under flourescent light.
No stained glass shades will look beautiful, no Himalyan salt lamps will work properly with flourescent (not to mention you couldn’t even get a buld small enough) they WORK with the small amount of heat given off by incandescent to produce the negative ions.
I HATE FLOURESCENT and should not be FORCED to use it.
October 11th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
BTW – I am an artist and I know my lighting. Flourescent produces a ‘haze-like’ foggy-like light used in homes. Reds are no longer red. Colors simply do not hold true under floursecent.
October 11th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
BTW I just want to add to my earlier post, that the CFLs & tubes I use are “full-spectrum”, 5500° Kelvin. I also work in the electronics field, where color codes and miniature soldering require good & accurate light. We use ME-DTC fluorescent lighting in the lab, and they’re unbeatable.
*Typical* CFLs & tubes you buy in the store are not full-spectrum (even if the packaging shows rainbows or similar deceptive advertising), and I agree their light output is often cruddy with poor color rendering.
Sorry but I guess this is off-topic, the real discussion being gov’t meddling.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I am quite aware that typical flourescent bulbs are not full spectrum. However, if your reds are not true red, full spectrum blubs are not “unbeatable”, regardless of the Kelvin rating.
And zero/minimal heat output will not produce negative ions from Himalayan salt lamps.
They can still take flourescent and shove it. It’s not off topic when the quality of light affects your life.
It’s the very heat of incandescent, the brilliance it creates, that cannot be duplicated by full spectum bulbs. I’ll take candles over greenish flourescent for home night lighting.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Full spectrum bulbs are not the same. And they do not produce the same quality of light as incandescent. They are bright, and yes “warmer” than regular flourescent, ie:5500 Kelvin, but they still do not produce the same quality of light.
Nor will they elicit negative ions from Himalayan salt lamps.
October 11th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
To the energy ministers I say – your not gonna tell me how to light my house…your not gonna tell me how to make love to my wife…your not gonna tell me how to walk my dog….your not gonna tell what i can and cannot eat….not when you steal all the money with your brothers merrill and lehman, starve my freinds in haiti who are reduced to eating mud cakes and kill every butterfly,bee,wolf,wild horse or whale you get your hands on…. you need light…a special light…but this light will never come to you because you live in darkness..thats why you cannot tell the difference in bulbs…..but i can…and i chose to say no to your idea of light
October 12th, 2008 at 6:17 am
@ #11 (I hate flourescent) Going off topic to correct your comment.
If you’re getting an obvious ‘greenish’ tint to your work under fluorescent lighting then it means the tubes you’re using are not true full spectrum and/or daylight bulbs. And as for your reds not being true reds under fluorescent, that’s because the orange/yellow tint of traditional bulbs emphasises colours and tints in that section of the colour spectrum/chart (reds), you should already know this as it’s basic colour theory.
Additionally, painting under the influence of incandescent bulbs also means that when looking at your work in normal daylight the general colour hue range will be incorrect relative to those lighting conditions (daylight); meaning that the painting will only look ‘correct’ under incandescent lighting; again, another basis ‘rule’ (if you like) of painting.
This is also why Bruce said in an early comment he uses these bulbs for electronics work, there *is* a reason for it. His other comments are also prescient, include the KMA on being ‘nannied’.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am
38p compared to £1.38?
This I’m afraid is disinformation and I always heartily disagree with the poor reporting on energy saver bulbs. I bought FIVE Philips brand energy savers last week for £1, that’s Twenty Pence each. At least two UK generating companies are giving away 4 such bulbs to every domestic customer each year. Not much to us, and about £2M to them.
What is there to complain about? Energy in the UK needs be, with or without any hype of ‘Climate Change’ about efficiency or conservation. Conservation like ‘Conservative’, remember.
“Nothing comes for Free”, especially if the juice is sourced from Nuclear Power. The less you use, the less you pay on any given tariff and the average energy saver bulbs use only 10% the juice of conventional bulbs.
Additionally, the old style ‘incandescent glass envelope’ bulbs were as I hope you remember, highly sensitive to shock or handling, with the tungsten coated filament easily fracturing. The electronic starting systems of modern ‘energy-savers’ have been improved to be more reliable and less prone to failure.
What is there not to like about energy saving bulbs? I’ll tell you what! It’s an opportunity for misinformed types, new to the ‘climate change’ bandwagon to blow off their mouths about how they are being told what to do! Grow up people. Not everything that you are advised to do is a plot against your freedom and ENERGY DOES NOT COME AT NO COST. It has to be generated, and transmitted to the consumer and no matter what political corruptions enter the system, Messrs Maxwell, Faraday & Ampere were all correct & their complementary electrical laws remain unchanged. The more current and power that needs to be transferred over power lines, the more the heating and resistance losses. The more the losses the more this is transferred to the customer in increased prices. It’s a fixed law & given this system of electrical provision nothing can change that. Unless you generate huge amounts of power by Hydroelectric river dam systems you can never be complacent about the economies.
Again, what is there not to like about the concept of energy saving light bulbs and as they are rolled out in ever increasing numbers, extremely cheaply, with guaranteed lifetimes of up to 10 years why wouldn’t you want to use them? Would it be pride or stubbornness or because somebody told you that you have the right to be wasteful if you choose?
For me, the issue of a conspiracy around energy saving light bulbs is a way to make such protagonists and their other arguments look like naïve, massively misinformed members of an outdated cult movement or sect.
October 12th, 2008 at 10:25 am
And what genius fails to notice these are classified as toxic waste due to heavy metal content. If you break one in a childs room then god help you, major toxic exposure to your child.
I can not believe this stupidity.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:08 am
#16
“For me, the issue of a conspiracy around energy saving light bulbs is a way to make such protagonists and their other arguments look like naïve, massively misinformed members of an outdated cult movement or sect.”
i agree… the *new* updated cult movement or sect is *GREEN*
gotta move with the times!
October 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Juntawatch ….Shut your misinformed pie hole…
I work in the lighting industry, and Incanescent lighting is the cleanest and safest and cheapest to manufacture …
the Myth that a energy saver lasts longer is a myth…. They contain mercury and require extreme caution at disposal …..
The lumens that a energy efficient replacement bulb creates to be equal to the incadescent are measured within 5 feet of the throw of the fixture….
What they don’t tell you is the lumen field dispersess logrythmically (more rapidly) after 5 feet than with incadescent (exponentially), thus needing secondary fixtures plugged in every 10 feet for a flat field of light……..
So… that 12.5 watt replacement for the 60watt incadescent looks as bright to the eye if you look at it, but only throws the light 5 feet before it falls off the scale….requiring a second ugly light to be turned on 12 feet over… the cost for supply and disposal for these 2 bulbs is much worse….
Thank god Aircraft are not required to change their Aircraft landing lights from the 24 volt incadescent type that has been landing planes for years…
October 13th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Mikhail Says: I hope that LED lights will eventually replace fluorescent bulbs…they are WAY better!
Wrong again friend….
I work with LED elements and incadescent bulbs every day…
LED last long, and look bright if you look at them, but an LED can only throw good light for 20 feet…that is why they are used for brake lights and not for headlights…….
4 incandescent ACL’s can land a plane….. (28volt 250watts)
that is over a thousand feet of throw
October 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
laurie Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Juntawatch ….Shut your misinformed pie hole…
You are rude, impolite and probably A SHILL sent to discredit what I say. Your so-called science and your writing ability are both dreadful – read on:
[Quote]
“I work in the lighting industry, and Incanescent lighting is the cleanest and safest and cheapest to manufacture … ”
[Comment]
Whoops another nervous keyboard twitcher who can’t spell INCANDESCENT— Go back to school.
[quote]
” … the Myth that a energy saver lasts longer is a myth…. They contain mercury and require extreme caution at disposal …..”
[Comment] ‘The Myth that the myth .. ‘
Thanks for double negating your own statements. Something that the average reader you presume won’t pick up on. You are saying my Truth is True? I certainly hope, for your sakes.
[Quote]
“The lumens that a energy efficient replacement bulb creates to be equal to the incadescent are measured within 5 feet of the throw of the fixture….
What they don’t tell you is the lumen field dispersess logrythmically (more rapidly) after 5 feet than with incadescent (exponentially), thus needing secondary fixtures plugged in every 10 feet for a flat field of light……..
[Comment] That’s not how ONE SPELLS either LOGARITHMICALLY nor INCADES .. Oh, I don’t know. And what does it mean this ‘phrase’ of yours? I’m a student at University, am 52 yrs, have previously studied Physics, Maths & Computer Science. I am not aware of different types of light that attenuate at different rates &/or distances.
“What a PACK OF LIES AND GIBBERISH. Boy, the quality of SHILL and TROLL on these comment boards is even worse than at PP Forums. What do they pay you — PEANUTS?
Nuts!
October 13th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
[Quote] “I am not aware of different types of light that attenuate at different rates &/or distances.”
[Comment] Referring to normal light as defined by Visible Light travelling in Freespace or a vacuum. I’m sure light of different ºK in different atmospheric conditions can be shown to attenuate at different rates. But We Are Not talking about Car Headlamps, Airstrip Landing Lights or even Street Lamps here. Are we not talking about Domestic Living/Bedroom and hallway lamps?
PS. I find the incandescent bulbs annoyingly bright, glaring with ‘flares’ and blind spots in their projected areas.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
IN RESPONSE TO Juntawatch
October 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I am all for cleaner air, cleaner water etc. But have you looked at the Mercury issue. Oh , yeah, you’ll save some power and may cut back on “emmsions”, but when you look at the big picture, the residential sector does not use anywhere enough power to be the issue, it is the businesses, but changing light globes is not going to save the world, it may be a good start. But concidering the fact of Mercury in fluros all we are going to do is posion the soils and water systems for future generations. And don’t try and tell me, “oh but they get recycled”, how many people are going to go for a drive to a hazardus waste removal depo, just for one light bulb. What if like, Peak Oil is Real October 12th, 2008 at 10:25 am, you break one in your kids room……….. what the gov and state gov need to do is change the rules when building homes. Lets say that from next year, that all new homes to be built must have rain water tanks, solar hot water and their own source of power generation (ie. small wind turbine / solar). By doing this they will cut down on on non-renewable sources, and they will increase the “damand” for these items, which in turn will make these items affordable for the existing homes to have modifications done.
The only problem with this idea, which is the same problem that is with wind power, i that when the wind dies off / picks up, that large steam turbine which keeps the base load for the power and the freq etc, then needs to ramp up and then ramp down, which in turn it losses its “economy”, ie it is no longer running at its best point for power output to coal burnt. So, by installing more wind turbines we can actually make the all the coal and gas stations less efficient, therby increasing the CO2 outputs.
Also, with the home generation is the issue of batteries……… disposal……
Please respond to me if you have any comments / ideas etc
October 14th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Sean Ellis Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
IN RESPONSE TO Juntawatch
October 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am
“I am all for cleaner air, cleaner water etc. But have you looked at the Mercury issue”
Hang on, WHY I just understood. Energy Saver Bulbs are really NWO secret weapons that explode in my house and poison me, my kids and pets. OK, I must have been mad to think otherwise. I have been corrected, I have left the Dark Place & Returned to the well Illuminated one.
PS in order to recant my science, I had to remember about decades of all those little mercury activated AA & AAA batteries we used in our homes.
We were asked to dispose of these Mercury batteries in special facilities. What facilities?
My God, they’ve taken my freedom and left me with low light, super economic, highly resiliant stealth weapons.
Shit, I’m signing up with ‘The Conductance’, I mean ‘The Resistance’ … Hilk!
October 14th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Inresponse to
Juntawatch Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Ha, Ha…. You proved my point, even batteries, we all just throw out they don’t get recycled, and now we are going to add to the problem but adding more mercury to the waste sites. Whats wrong Juntawatch, don’t like clean water?? And like I said, residentail propertys changing light bulbs is not going to make a bit of difference, they have to look at the larger picture. It was like here in Western Australia, when the gas crisis, they kept telling everyone not to turn on heaters, don’t waste hot water etc… at full peak the residential sector uses less than 2% of the entire states gas supplies. So by everyone backing off a little bit, do you really think that it would have had an impact??? They have to look at better ways for the large energy users to back off. OOooh, we’ll have everyone change to Fluros as a must, but we will sell bigger and more powerful computers, mobile phones, Plasma/LCD Tv’s, air conditioners……. and Carbon Taxing is really not going to help the situation, its is really going to hurt small businesses.
NWO, ….. Fluros, ……? OK, i think you’ve gone a bit far, it’s not the fact that they going to explode in you house etc… Its the fact that bulds to sometimes get broken, when moving things around, kids playing games…. its more so the fact that it is, for a short time, aerated. So, that your kids can breath it in, it can be on their pillow waiting for them to go to bed, Yes, I agree it is unlikly, the odds are small, but we just keep adding more and more things to our homes and work places, things that have the potential to over time, to have long term health effects. As adults we all accept the risks, our bodies have a higher tolerance to alot, but children don’t, there bodies are trying to grow, and develop. I won’t let my daughter anywhere near mobile phones for this reason, let alone start adding other items to her enviroment that don’t need to be there.
Juntawatch….