apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Can you imagine people smuggling incandescent bulbs into their states...I would die laughing.

I vote no...because it's insane. There would be mercury all over the alleys and in the streets. People are too lazy to take them to recycling centers, and I'm one of them. I'd just throw them right out my windows...because I love to hear them shatter on pavement. It's childish and silly, but it's the truth...and I'm sure that I'm not the only lazy one out here.

Plus I look horrible in flourescent lighting.

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking fluorescent light bulbs.

It comes down to do you believe that the government should force you into using a specific product.

Not to mention there are drawbacks to CFL There are still applications where CFLs just aren't a good choice.

1. There are dimmable CFLs but they only dim so much and not very smoothly.
2. Not recommended for enclosed fixtures.
3. Not recommended for use with photocells.
4. And sometimes they just don't look right in that Eames era killer mod light fixture.. :)

Also CLF contain mercury. This is not a problem when it is disposed of properly..but what happens when this becomes a problems... more legislation and poof ...you now pay an extra disposal fee every time you buy a lightbulb.

Again it comes down to choice. If I choose to use a inefficient bulb then I should be allowed to do so.

If you want to start banning something due to inefficiency lets start with politicians. I assure you they only work 5% of time.

my 2cents.

A HUGE NO ! I'm shocked that such an aesthetics-concious group is on the YES side. I'm all for green technology, but lighting is such an essential and influential element, to be limited to non-incandescent sources would make for a lot less options.

I agree with wanting a choice. I use CFLs in some light fixtures and incandescents in others, where I care a lot more about the quality of the light (like my bedroom...harsh CFLs have no place there). I'm all for conservation, but until a better bulb is available, I'm not for being forced to totally give up my old bulbs.

Plus, as was mentioned, CFLs contain mercury. Right now, it's not a big deal because most people who are environmentally-conscious enough to use CFLs also are environmentally-conscious enough to dispose of them properly. However, I can almost guarentee that if CFL use became law, a majority of the population won't make the effort. It's not the type of thing that can really be monitored.

I can't believe that 13 people have voted to support this on the poll. This is just plain absurb! I agree with all the comments posted above mine.

I am sick and G-D tired of people wanting to BAN THINGS!!! God almighty, where will it end?? With the present majority in Congress (hint: elitists who think they can run your life better than you can), we should expect to see plenty more hysterical banning going on. Grrrrrr do NOT get me started.
~Monica

I prefer a choice and agree with all the comments posted here.

As with the reasons Jason pointed out, #1 and #2 cover most of the lights in my house. Another thing I'd like to mention is that I spend the day in an office lit with fluorescent light. When I'm at home, I want a warmer light than at work.

I'd vote NO: I have these fluorescent bulbs throughout Los Angeles apartment (for 2 years now), but I think the government should keep out of it. California has way too much bureaucracy already!

Awesome! The state of California already has some comprehensive regulation around energy efficiency in new construction (Title 24), so consumer "choice" is already in some ways being pre-chosen - you just don't see it because the decisions have already been made by the architect and builder.

As for the CFL, two thumbs up! Climate change is hear. The air we breathe in California, esp. for you SoCal folks, while better than 20 years ago, is still heavily polluted. Oil is running out. Our society needs to get serious about these issues. One of the best and easiest means to addressing them is throug energy conservation and increased energy efficiency. And based on the self-centered responses so far, its pretty apparent that individuals, left to their own devices, are NOT going to do what is necesary to address these problems.

Climate change, peak oil, air pollution - these are what economists refer to as classic "collective action" problems - the solutions require coordinated effort amongst many individuals, but the benefits from the cost accrue to the group as a whole, and not directly to the individual. Which just encourages free riders and a tragedy of the commons result. Thus, the need for govt. regulation.

We used to have lead in our gasoline folks. Then we banned it, cause its poisonous. Same principle.

If there was a single joule of electricity left in the world, I would burn it up with an incandescent bulb before I'd put in a flourescent. C'mon people. The color is hideous. They pulsate. They make noise. If you want to talk about LEDs, I can go there, but keep the CFLs out of my home. If such legislation passes, I'm either buying black market or stocking up on candles.

If there was a single joule of electricity left in the world, I would burn it up with an incandescent bulb before I'd put in a flourescent. C'mon people. The color is hideous. They pulsate. If you want to talk about LEDs, I can go there, but keep the CFLs out of my home. If such legislation passes, I'm either buying black market or stocking up on candles.

I agree with the majority of comments. I vote NO, hands down. Gov't should not be allowed to legislate consumer choice. I have 6 of those spiral GE CFL bulbs in my home. I also have lights that require other bulbs due to size and shape.
(I, embarrassingly, didn't know they had mercury so Thank You for posting that fact).

Instead of banning things, gov't should consider giving tax break incentives to large corporations when they switch to energy efficient bulbs and office products. And maybe making the purchase of CFL's tax-free to the consumer? There must be other ways to increase usage of CFL's besides banning other products all together.

It is not self-centered to want choice. It is, however, scary to think how far gov't banning of personal items could go. Hopefully this proposed ban is a means to attract attention to a serious issue, and Levine does not seriously want to take away our basic choices for a dang lightbulb.

In Europe these 'new' bulbs are much ore expensive and, I think, less pleasant than the 'old' kind. So how many hours do you have to work to buy a 'green' light bulb as opposed the 'old' kind?

I'm actually a NYC person, and am just visiting this LA site, but I have to say that, while being green is a very good thing, and perhaps projects that are going to receive government-regulated funding might do well to be required to be outfitted with things that are as completely green as possible, a ban on incandescents MAY be the only way to get this stuff going, but I think that the dumping of totally incompatible light fixtures into landfills this is going to cause will be even less green, ultimately, than the current situation.

I hope that they'll also require all apartment buildings to upgrade their wiring and sockets, so that I don't have to put up with a whole home full of the flickering lights that are now in my kitchen. Not all older systems sync up well with compact fluorescent.

I have no problem with them in the sockets where they do work--the quality of light is much better than that provided by the fluorescent tubes that are above me right now at work, for example.

There are a lot of reasons we want to buy, but one of them is so that we can have a more environmentally sound structure than the one we're renting. But someone else will rent it, or an apartment very like it, later on--and I can't imagine they'll enjoy the ministrobe any more than I do.

>If there was a single joule of electricity
>left in the world, I would burn it up with
>an incandescent bulb before I'd put in a
>flourescent. C'mon people. The color is
>hideous. They pulsate. They make noise.

Only if you're buying the cheapest models available, or still using compact fluorescents from 20 years ago. Modern bulbs are available in a broad range of color temperatures, from soft white to daylight (they can come a lot closer to producing full spectrum light than most incandescents, save some expensive halogen bulbs). Modern bulbs do not "pulsate", unless there's something wrong with your wiring (in which case, you should have it fixed before your place catches fire). Modern CFL's use electronic ballasts which cycle the bulb 20,000 times a second, way past not only the limits of human perception (television sets only refresh 60 times a second - film delivers just 24 refreshes a second), but I'm guessing beyond the latency of the phosphorescent coating used inside the bulbs themselves (in other words, they don't have time to dim fully if at all between cycles). And I haven't heard a good one that buzzed in years - even the cheapies from IKEA.

>I think that the dumping of totally
>incompatible light fixtures into landfills
>this is going to cause will be even less
>green, ultimately, than the current
>situation.

Except there aren't many fixtures that are "totally incompatible" with replacements for traditional incandescent bulbs. Between compact fluorescents and the emerging LED bulbs, replacements are now available in a broad array of shapes and sizes. Although they could skirt the issue by making odd sizes exempt from the ban . . .

As for the issues involving mercury, CFLs save so much electricity over standard incandescents (they use 2/3rds less energy) that their total mercury contribution to the environment remains lower. Burning coal and other fossil fuels releases mercury and other toxins - including radioactive pollution - into the environment. Also, CFLs can - and frequently are - recycled, further reducing the amount of mercury pumped into the environment vs. incandescents.

Yet another half baked idea that shows what a laughingstock the Left coast is.

Most light fixtures can't take them.

Personally I use them where I can, like vanity lights in the bathrooms.

My lamps won't take them. My recessed lights with their eyeball trim won't take them.

They can't be used on dimmers.

This is a problem the free market should solve, not half-baked, dim-witted, technologically-ignorant "legislators".

It's really simple - when technology comes out that's *reliable*, *simple* and *cheap*, then it will take off.

The current generation of CF products is none of the above.

As to the power ngeneration problem - build more power plants. Gee, what a concept.

Better yet - hibernate your PCs when they're not in use. I save $10 a month by keeping my PC in hibernate mode except when I need to use it. That's way more than I'd save buy buying crappy bulbs - plus rewiring my home.

We have started switching our bulbs over as the old ones die. I really don't get the big deal - they don't flicker, make n oise, or cast unusual light. I am a trained artist/art teacher, so lighting is important to me. And, bonus - help the environment and save money! Plus, less bulbs to change. This is a no brainer.
A ban? Stupid, except - look how many people are resistant to changing something that we know will help the environment.

I'd love to know more about these amazing non-flickering, dimmable, noisless CFLs.

I have one dimmable CFL in my home, as the main light for my kitchen. I bought the bulb last year. It's not a cheapie, it's supposedly quite good. It can't dim much, flickers when it is dim, and makes a humming noise. I'm no super hero, so I doubt that I have special senses above and beyond those of a normal human. My electrical work is brand new and flawless, so I doubt it's that.

I'd use more CFLs, but there's no place else in my home where I can get away with that type of performance.

>Most light fixtures can't take them.

That's just wrong. CFLs are available in a broad range of sizes and styles at this point. The largest percentage of light fixtures in use take conventional 60 or 100 watt light bulbs, and the bulk of those most certainly can take CFLs. There are still fixtures which can't, but that's an ever-decreasing number as CFLs become available in more and more sizes and types.

CFLs are not the only alternative to incandescent bulbs, either - LED-based replacements are also becoming economical alternatives. The proposed ban isn't set to go into force until 2011 I believe, giving manufacturers plenty of time to deploy these additional alternatives.

>They can't be used on dimmers.

There are CFLs which can be used on dimmers. They cost more, but are still more economical in the long run than incandescents.

>It can't dim much, flickers when
>it is dim, and makes a humming noise.

I have a dimmable CFL from GE that I purchased a few years ago. No hum and no flicker over its normal operating range, and a pleasant color temp, but it can't be dimmed past a certain point. I've read about designs that get around this limitation by switching tubes off and on as the bulb is dimmed, dramatically widening the range of output, but haven't seen one yet in stores. Given the progress made in the past few years, I'm pretty sure any remaining issues can be addressed before 2011.

>As to the power ngeneration problem -
>build more power plants. Gee, what a
>concept.

And you're going to fuel these with what, exactly? Building power plants won't do much good if you've got nothing to burn in 'em.

Thanks for countering all these myths about CFLs. Most of the protestations come down to: "Waaaah. But I don't waaaaanna change. Someone else should do it."

The icecaps are melting, folks. Oil is going to run out. Our air is still too polluted with both smog and carcinogenic particulate matter. There is no magic bullet solution. We MUST pursue multiple fronts - even if that means you can't buy energy wasting light bulbs anymore.

I'll give you another, more appropriate analogy than my leaded gasoline one - low-flow toilets. When the low-flow toilet laws first went into effect, people cried bloody murder - now, no one remembers what is was like not using them.

I can get regular lightbulbs for less than a buck. Dimmable CF bulbs are $30 each on average and can't be bought at local stores. Nobody offers a money back guarantee. With economics like that there's no way I'm going buy even a one-bulb trial, much less run out and put these things in every socket. Like the other guy said - when the price is right and the technology mature, the market will sort things out.

I have close to a dozen cheap IKEA CFLs in my apartment. I do however have some incandescent bulbs, but only in lamps that are occasionally used and two lights with a dimmer on it. All of our main lights have CFL bulbs and they work fine. The lighting is not overly harsh or cold and we certainly do not hear any buzzing nor is any flickering apparent.
We like 'em!

IKEA's CFLs are so inexpensive, there is no reason for us not to buy them for our fixtures.

Making a change doesn't have to be all or nothing affair. In our household, we mixed CFL and incandescent bulbs to create a hybrid warmth in our living room and bedroom. In the kitchen, stairway and closet, we've used CFL's completely.

The truth is people won't give up conveniences until they're forced to. Remember when California's drought forced the state to enforce conservation? I doubt people would have willingly curbed water use enough without enforcement. Sad but true.

Thanks for countering all these myths about CFLs. Most of the protestations come down to: "Waaaah. But I don't waaaaanna change. Someone else should do it."

That's an unfair summary of the discussion here. Many of the arguments people here are presenting don't come from hearsay myths, but actual, personal experience. Plus, most of us who are pointing out the shortcomings of CFLs use them in some, of not most of our fixtures. I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't use them, just that a law banning all incandescents is not the way to go. As gregory said, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

I'm glad that there are some people who have had no problems with a complete switch over, but not everyone has had the same experience. While there are those who find the bulbs perfectly steady, warm, silent, and inexpensively dimmable, there are others of us who haven't been so lucky.

And for the record, Dave, I remember the big switch to low-flow toilets. While I agree that they are a good idea, it still annoys the hell out of me whenever I have to double flush (or find that a guest has not...ew).

I also can't understand the resistance people have to them. Yes, they don't dim. How many lights can you possibly have on dimmers in your house? We use them everywhere except in our chandeliers with exposed bulbs (two rooms.) I'm very very sensitive to buzzing and flickering lights, and don't have this problem with any of ours.

Everyone has at least one place in their house they can use a CFL. Porch light? Closet? Kitchen? Hallway?

Also, there is nothing greater than knowing that I'm not going to have to get the ladder out and unscrew the porch light fixture for at least 7 more years.

I don't think anyone (here at least) is resisting using CFLs. There's a big difference between refusing to use CFLs and not wanting a ban on incandescents.

There is a noticable and measurable differnce in the color and cast of the light compared to incandesent. One such measurable quality is the color rendering index (CRI). This is a measurment of how accurate color reproduction is under a given light source. A full spectrum source, such as an incandescent has the maximum attainable CRI of 100. A sodium light, which renders everything in mon0tone has a CRI of nearly 0. Standard industrial fluorescents are around 60, and newer compact fluorescents are about 80. Which is to say, you see about 4/5 of the color information that you can under your incandescent.

Which is a fancy way of saying CFIs create ugly light.

I'm a graphic designer. Color is something that I'm sensitive to. Until better lighting technology emerges, I'm not going to use fluorescents.

Aren’t there other things more harmful to the environment we should ban? Maybe we should start with idiotic lawmakers and their stupid ideas.

“It's really simple - when technology comes out that's *reliable*, *simple* and *cheap*, then it will take off.”, Posted by Keith at 02/01/07 10:42 AM

For those who don’t see the “big deal” in switching over please read Harlie’s post as well as Keith’s before commenting. No one is voting “NO” against CFL’s, we are voting “NO” against the idea of giving up our rights as consumers to choose between two products.

>Dimmable CF bulbs are $30 each on average and can't be
>bought at local stores.

Maybe at your local stores, but for most Americans dimmable CF bulbs are vastly cheaper. A quick Google search reveals Sam's Club selling a 3-pack of dimmable 65-watt equivalent R30 floods for $27. I picked up a 100-watt equivalent GE bulb at a local retailer – Lowes probably, or Home Depot or Target – a couple of years ago for something like $15. I found a 75-watt equivalent Phillips bulb online for just $9.

Even at $30 a bulb, the electricity savings and extended lifespan of a CFL will still result in a lower overall cost of ownership and operation than traditional lightbulbs. Sam's is claiming a 3-pack of 60-watt equivalent bulbs will save well over $100 in electricity expense over the life of the bulbs. A 10-pack of 100-watt equivalent bulbs would save almost $600 in electrical expense.

I'm not sure why you'd even need to shop local stores for these. They last 8,000 hours each. Have a bulk box shipped to you once a decade and be done with it. If you don't like 'em, ship 'em back and try another brand. Lots of online retailers have money back guarantees, and many post user reviews, allowing you to research the product before you buy.

And again, I just want to point out that the proposed California ban on the sale of incandescents would go into effect until 2011. That's plenty of time for manufacturers to flood the market with alternatives, including LED fixtures and newer CFL designs, some of which don't even require the traditional ballast used in existing designs, and are inherently dimmable as a result.

>A full spectrum source, such as an incandescent has the
>maximum attainable CRI of 100.

The typical incandescent you find in the home has a pretty low color temperature though, which also drastically distorts color rendition vs. daylight, or the fluorescents you typically find in offices and stores. If anything, most people would probably be better off getting dressed or doing their makeup under fluorescent light, since that's where most of us spend most of our time – under fluorescent light. Many newer fluorescent bulbs use 3 or more phosphors, trading a bit of efficiency but gaining CRI's up to 90, which is typically close enough for all but the most exacting professional work that's designed to be seen under a full-spectrum source like daylight.

The CRI is also a somewhat flawed metric in and of itself. A bulb with a CRI of 85 won't necessarily produce more accurate color rendering than a bulb with a CRI of 80 for example, if there are many spikes in the spectra of the higher-rated bulb. Also, our perception of color isn't linear – we're more sensitive to the imprecise rendering of some tones than we are to others (for example skintones). It's possible to have a bulb with a CRI of 85 that renders skintones about as naturally as a black body radiator like an incandescent bulb.

There's talk of using nanotechnology to make the phosphors in fluorescent tubes more accurate, I think in part by blocking certain spikes in the spectrum. Efficiency would probably suffer a bit, though it's possible nanotech could also be used to counteract that by making the phosphors more efficient.

The whole problem with California is the excessive desire to ban this that and everything.

Ban politicians instead. Even the Mercury News thinks it's a stupid idea.

The free market is a much more powerful force than people give it credit for.

As for "burning fossil fuels in power plants", there's nuclear power, hydoelectric power, wind power...

Finally... *finally* a palatable market alternative to incandescent lamps is about ready to hit the marketplace (that being Hi-Intensity LED lighting).

So what happens?

The Big-Box stores (and now the gov't) begin flooding the marketplace with the flawed "alternative" CFL product that no one wants.

Gotta dump the product somehow before the consumer gets to see just how good LED lighting is!

Hmmm.

Please help clear up a question:

Are regular fluorescent lighting and compact full-spectrum fluorescent lighting equally deleterious to health?

Please see: http://alzheimersolutions.stores.yahoo.net/prevention

The article is not clear about the differences between:
1) regular fluorescent lighting
2) compact full-spectrum fluorescent lighting
3) regular incandescent lighting
4) full-spectrum incandescent lighting

Please help. Then let's communicate to the California Legisture.

Thank You,
LAnne