On 26 Jun, 14:17, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"JANA" wrote in message

...





If the switch that is series with the light bulb has a night light in it,
the current pass of the night light will cause the CFL to flicker.

If the CFL is connected to a switch that is electronic, the small leakage
of
the electronics will cause the CFL to flicker or in some cases to not turn
off.

Regular CFL's cannot be used on standard light dimmers and many of the
electronic timers. This is a big inconvenience for many people.

When regular lamps become unavailable, I can see a lot of problems with
these new types of lamps. The biggest one will be the pollution from
their
disposal. They use mercury, phosphors, and many types of materials that
are
very harmful for the environment. There is also the electronics circuit
board, which contain components that have the same recycling problem as
used
in most electronics. Even though they last longer, when they are
eventually
put out in to the garbage, they will eventually end up in the land fills.
They are going to be a very big problem compared to the simple light bulb
that was made of simple glass and metals.

Regular light bulb materials are about 85% recyclable. There are almost no
materials in these that are bad for the environment. Most CFL's materials
are not recyclable, and their materials are very polluting.

It looks very strong that the government is pushing the CFL's to save some
electricity to sell to large industry. This is the only answer that is
logical. There are NO green house gasses from using regular light bulbs.
When more electricity is sold to industry, the pollution problems from its
generation will actually increase, unless the generation is from water
power, or nuclear power.

--

JANA
_____

These are my (well known) views also, but I fear we are squeaking like
little lost mice in the dark ...

The general public are not told - and would not understand anyway - the
wider implications of these knee-jerk government interventions in our lives.
All too often, they are poorly thought through, and are dreamed up as a
response to the latest bit of pseudo science to hit the news stands. At the
moment, anything with the words 'green' or 'eco' or 'environment' or 'global
warming' are fair game for this sort of nonsense, and to add to its
'validity' in the public's eyes, they've already started inventing new bits
of techno-babble like 'carbon footprint' and 'carbon offsetting' to justify
what amounts to little more than opinions by a vociferous band of scientists
getting paid large amounts of money and credibility ratings, to promote the
government line. As you say, these CFLs are just trading one form of alleged
pollution, for another definite one ...


I also have qualms about the overall value of these bulbs. They are
complex devices and I have not heard of any schemes for recycling or
safe disposal. It is very hard, as an end user, to judge the pros and
cons. From a selfish point of view, I can look at the cost to me.
The low energy bulbs cost considerably more. The hope is that the
longer lifetime and lower energy use compensate for this. The longer
lifetime seems to be linked to the physical size. The larger ones do
indeed seem to have a long life. The first ever ones I bought, about
15 years ago, are still working but they are huge by modern
standards. The larger of the newer ones have a good life time but I
have had a few failures. The small new ones, which are required for
some applications, seem to have a noticeably shorter life time. In
this case, is not so obvious that I am spending less on the bulbs than
on incandescent ones. Also, I find the energy saving not as great as
claimed. I usually don't find them as bright as the claimed
equivalents. I guess that the equivalence claims are true in some
sense but not in my subjective judgment. If I replace an incandescent
bulb with a low energy with the same claimed equivalent power, it
usually looks dimmer. I often have to buy one step up from the
claimed equivalent power and hence make a smaller saving. An
exception to this last point is the one that inspired this thread. It
actually seems brighter than the incandescent that it replaced despite
having the same claimed equivalent power. Of course, I have no idea
of the life time yet.

On the heating point that same raise. I am aware that the heat from
the incandescent bulbs will be slightly reducing the heat required
from other sources. However, even here in the UK, I am not running
the heating all the time, and electricity costs me more per joule than
gas. Even when using the heating, I like the cooler running of the
low energy bulbs, I hope that it reduces the fire risk in some of the
cramped places that bulbs are used. I have seen lamp shades scorched
quite worryingly by incandescent bulbs (even when within the stated
limits of the shade). I have never seen this with a low energy bulb.
Finally, not everyone lives in a cold country. I have a house in the
Philippines, there heating is unknown but air conditioning is
desirable. The stray heat from incandescent bulbs is a double waste
since it is increasing the load on the air conditioning.

I have dropped the long list of apparently irrelevant groups.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair