Phanerothyme Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 As far as mercury is concerned, the electricity generated from a coal power station to light an incandescent lamp for 8,000 hours produces around 5.8mg of mercury compared to 1.8mg in total from a CFL. So, over its lifetime a CFL is better for the environment as it produces less mercury pollution than using an incandescent. In this country, at the moment. But not in Norway, for example. CFLs are one choice for domestic illumination and have many benefits, but they shouldn't be the only choice because they have as many serious deficiencies as the other methods of illumination. The rush to ban incandescents and compel the use of CFLs has not been an environmentally motivated decision, and their energy benefit is not universal. Also the rated lifespan of CFLs is grossly exagerrated, so calculations of their energy efficiency tend to be heavily skewed. Many people consider the far IR output from incandescent bulbs as wasted energy, because it does not provide illumination. Try incubating chicks under a CFL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 The worst part is the murcury particles in your house. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-506347/An-energy-saving-bulb-gone--evacuate-room-now.html Oh, and don't forget that if the Daily Mail is to be believed (), then you'll get skin cancer too: http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/lightbulbs-give-you-cancer/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julado Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Once all these incandescent bulbs have been banned completely...how am I going to power my Mathmos lamp???? The only thing that gives me a smile about these new ugly energy saving bulbs is.....just how ugly are they going to look in the posh electric chandeliers in stately homes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries22 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I am slowly changing the fittings and buying spot light ones, they give a good light, cant stand the new energy saving ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kal el Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 try the hardware shop in castle market down stairs i got 10 100 wat bulbs for 3 pound just be fore the legislation came in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysticPam Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 There is also another issue that has not been discussed here (unless I have missed it) The light from these energy saving bulbs is very bad for people with poor sight/partially sighted. I sit in my corner at home trying to read my large print library book. I said to hubby this is ridiculous I can hardly see with this daft light he told me to have 2 lamps I replied well that defeats the object of having energy saving bulbs, burning 2 to get the effect of one. omg some men lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mart Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Oh, and don't forget that if the Daily Mail is to be believed (), then you'll get skin cancer too: http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/lightbulbs-give-you-cancer/ The Daily mail may not be a desirable kind of paper to some people, but your comments only serve to shoot the messenger while ignoring what is being stated by an Independent environmental scientist and a dermatologist. Go ahead and breath the murcurry dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The Daily mail may not be a desirable kind of paper to some people, but your comments only serve to shoot the messenger while ignoring what is being stated by an Independent environmental scientist and a dermatologist. Go ahead and breath the murcurry dust. I'm not ignoring it, just suggesting that coming from the Daily Mail, it as usual doesn't give the full story, and exaggerates, or implies dangers that are not really there - so for instance, the nice "WARNING" image has radioactive symbols against each point! By the same token the Mail are guilty of ignoring what is being stated by an independent (I assume you meant "independent", rather than an environmental scientist who works for the Independent. In fact, the Mail's conspicuous use of the word "independent" is just them trying to imply "here's someone, like us, who isn't biased and has no vested interest") Here's a slightly more sensible report of the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7172662.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRTTesting Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I use Hilfoot Electrical Distributors. They have a good selection of lamps (bulbs) and are open to the public. They're just opposite the Farfield Pub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.