Keep in mind how bad of shape our fragile power supply system is, doesn’t is seem stupid to “lock in” to bulbs that may not work under bad power conditons?

Also, if grandpa wants to read by a particular type of bulb, he has the right too! If my eyes can see better with a particular bulb, I am going to use that particular bulb, legal or not.

Lighting is also important for depression – some people with depression problems need to make sure that their lighting is the right type.

The UV radiation found in fluorescent lighting is present in two forms: UVA (320 to 400 nanometers [nm]), and UVB (280-320 nm). UVB rays pose a much greater risk of causing skin cancer than UVA.

UV radiation has long been known to cause a myriad of health problems. Some sources indicate that fluorescent lights emit more UVB than the sun. In the 1992 edition of the American Journal of Epidemiology, it was found that fluorescent lights emit “10-30 times” more UVB radiation than the sun does. UVB radiation has been found to be carcinogenic (cancer causing).

Chronic effects from long-term exposure to UV include premature skin aging, stronger allergic reactions, cataracts, blood vessel damage, a weakened immune system, and skin cancer.

You should also know that there are over 125 commonly used medications classified as photosensitizers that actually make your body UV-sensitive. Photosensitizing products can cause certain autoimmune diseases, such as lupus (in which the body’s auto-immune system mistakenly destroys itself) to worsen.

Seasonal Affective Disorder (S.A.D.)
Seasonal Affective Disorder, also known as S.A.D. is a mood disorder associated with episodes of depression and related to seasonal variations of light. This disorder usually abates during the spring and summer months.

The typical symptoms of S.A.D. include:
• Lack of energy
• Depression
• Increased desire for sleep
• Craving for sweets and weight gain

Melatonin, a sleep-related hormone secreted by the pineal gland in the brain, has been linked to S.A.D., which may affect over 10 million Americans this year. S.A.D. is often treated with “Phototherapy.” The goal is to fool the body’s melatonin manufacturing mechanism into thinking that it is spring or summer through the fall and winter, and many people respond to this therapy.

I’m Ecuadorian and here CFLs are becoming popular, with the help of the media, the government and the industry. Some people is getting CFLs for free, with poor or nonexistent information on how to dispose them or manage a broken lamp. I see a lot of irresponsibility and a lot of economic interest.

Does everybody know they have mercury inside, and the health related issues?

Personally I don’t want mercury over my child’s head.

But banning light bulbs is not the way forward,
and I think people who are less in agreement with
the background arguments will just be turned off from cooperating in more important environmental measures.

Let’s think about this:

Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves were banned… they were bought less anyway.

Supposed savings don’t hold up for many reasons:
(http://ceolas.net#li13x onwards)

Just a few examples here:

Brightness problem of CFLs:
Supposed equivalents are not actually equivalent in brightness, so
higher energy using CFLs needed for adequate brightness.
See recent testing of CFL brightness versus ordinary bulbs:
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6110547/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-offer-dim-future.html

CFL Lifespan is lab tested in 3 hour cycles. That does not correspond to real life usage and numerous tests have shown real life type on-off switching reducing lifespan. Leaving lights on of course also uses up energy, as does the switch-on power surge with CFLs
Also, CFLs get dimmer with age, effectively reducing lifespan

Power factor: Few people know that CFLs typically have a power factor of 0.5 – that means that power stations use up twice as much power than what the CFL rating shows. This has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.
Although consumers do not see this on their meters, they will of course have to pay for it on their bills.
This is explained with official links including to US Dept of Energy here:
ceolas.net/#li15eux

Heat benefit from using ordinary incandescent light bulbs
ceolas.net/#li6x
A little bulb near the ceiling may not seem like much, but
room heat substantially rises to the ceiling (convection) and spreads downwards from there. Half of more of supposed switch savings are negated in temperate climates, as shown via the above link with American and Canadian research references.

Also: Much greater energy in CFL manufacture, transport (from China) and recycling, compared to ordinary simple light bulbs.

Conversely,
if energy use does fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans and electricity companies make less money,
they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate:
(not least in USA, power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise…

Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

A direct effective way to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
ceolas.net/#cc10x

The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would make much more sense, since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

However, taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply better than bans also for ban proponents, in overall emission lowering terms.

Of course a ban is underway, but in phases, with reviews in a couple of years time…

The strange and unpublicised EU and industrial politics that went on before the ban took place:
ceolas.net/#li1ax

Maybe the rising controversy of it will influence American and Canadian debate?