The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt.
 |
| Soon to be GONE - per Government Law |
Read more:Congress bans incandescent bulbshttp://www.wnd.com/? pageId=45156#ixzz1Hwtnz3Y5
Back in 2007, President George W. Bush signed a law that mandates the following: “Manufacturers will no longer be able to make the 100-watt Thomas Edison bulb after Jan. 1, 2012, followed by the 75-watt version in Jan. 2013, and the the 60- and 40-watt bulbs in Jan. 2014.” Yes, you read that correctly. Federal bureaucrats are running wild and the nanny state has decided that you are simply not going to have the choice to buy traditional light bulbs anymore. So why the change? Incandescent light bulbs have not been proven to be unsafe and consumers still want to buy them. The new CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) light bulbs are more expensive and are actually worse for the environment. So why was this law passed? The feds passed it because they decided that existing light bulbs use too much energy and have too large of a “carbon footprint”. Instead of giving us choices and attempting to persuade us to change, the federal government is ramming their will down our throats.
Governments around the world have passed measures to phase out incandescent light bulbs for general lighting. The aim is to encourage the use and technological development of more energy-efficient lighting alternatives, such as compact fluorescent lamp (CFLs) and LED lamps. Brazil and Venezuelastarted to phase them out in 2005,[1] and the European Union, Switzerland,[2] and Australia[3] started to phase them out in 2009.[4] Likewise, other nations are planning scheduled phase-outs: Argentina,[5] Russia, and Canada in 2012,[6] and Malaysia in 2014.[7] Although the United States is not phasing out incandescent light bulbs, it has set minimum efficiency standards for lighting which preclude most legacy incandescent designs; these minimum standards phase in between 2012 and 2014.[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs
Fluorescent lighting has made its way into the home in the form of compact fluorescent bulbs, or CFL's, and with it has come a great deal of hype from both supporters and opponents. Since its introduction to the mass market, there is concern that fluorescent light products pose more of a danger than a benefit.
Read more: Dangers of Breaking a Fluorescent Light Bulb | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5392738_dangers-breaking-fluorescent-light-bulb.html#ixzz1Hwuf8leG
So while you're counting the pennies you're saving with the new politically charged illumination, consider the case of Brandy Bridges of Maine, who was charged $2,000 in clean-up costs when she broke a compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb.
Read more: What Are the Dangers of Fluorescent Bulbs? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5044780_dangers-fluorescent-bulbs.html#ixzz1Hwv5pIlO
It is not just the mercury or other toxins that are dangerous in the case of breakage, it is also the type of lighting that is causing health problems.
Sunlight, Lighting And Your Health (Dangers Of Fluorescent Lighting) ~ Chris Gupta
The writer draws the attention to the common claim that fluorescent lights are more efficient than orthodox Edison light bulbs. It is true that fluorescent lamps are more efficient to the tune of some thirty to eighty per cent (30 - 80%) but at a high health risk cost."
"As always of an investigative mind, I decided to search further into this problem pertaining to these lights having found that the entire matter involved the "radio light spectrum" and other light frequencies which are invisible to the human eye whilst, however, radiating high levels of "radio active" energy containing the frequencies of x-ray, gamma and cosmic rays. There is no solution, even with total lead shielding of the starter unit, transformer capacitor sections and the tube cathode areas as it leaves the illuminating area of the tube itself free to radiate all manner of radio frequency and mercury vapour energies. The only way out is to outlaw them completely."
"Too many people, including doctors and general hospital staff, are spending far too much time indoors (an unfortunate occupational hazard as also found within other professions and trades) subjecting themselves to this continuous bombardment of colourless radioactive radiation from fluorescent lights, the worst of which are the soft white economical plug-in bulbs. These bulbs, although physically small, are nevertheless hazardous."
This is an important article given the current efforts to reduce energy. Sadly, this may come at the expense of health.
At great consternation I have switched to all tungsten Sylvania daylight bulbs...And it does make a difference at least in visual acuity. The bulbs I suspect use Neodynium coating to produce a daylight analog and hence are even less efficient than the standard tungsten lights but the better acuity tends to compensate this disadvantage. Further investigation still needs to be done on the effects from Neodynium energy spectrum - never simple is it? At the moment I am looking into tungsten based daylight lamps made by Solux which appear to be the closest to daylight
Chris Gupta
Anti-Aging: Turn the Clock Back!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment