i agree with him...I dont mind if someone supports one or the other...but banning that other one...is just stupid.

All this garbage is because of one guy...who ignores science...Gore.

While I do not agree entirely with the previous poster, let me relate a little tale of my own. Looking in the mirror i suddenly grew concerned as my skin seemed yellowy and i feared jaundice. I got out of the room and in a different room to look at that mirror there. It turns out that I did not have jaundice but that the flourescent light made my skin look ill, i did not like that. And as i have a table lamp with flourescent lights when i am burnin g the 3 am oil i can see it flicker and am actually thinking of replacing it and going with incandescants again but led seems a great advice thanks.

Indeed, this change in our habits of daily consumption has many parallels in the move to ban (tetra ethyl) lead from gasoline in the 1970s. The naysayers will always be around to play there part, even when the benefits to all involved, including environment, consumer's pocketbook, and in the case of energy-efficient light bulbs, our finite energy reserves.

Market forces are obviously at work with GE (and others) working fervently towards creating more efficient products. They obviously recognise the imperative at play here and doubtless government will also play its part.

Certainly, unleaded fuel was more expensive, automobiles with catalytic converters were more expensive, but the long-term benefits of healthier citizenry, longer-lasting automotive components due to the reduction of harmful lead-related residues causing premature failure, and an industry that committed itself to finding additives and measures to make gasoline more efficient during combustion have paid dividends that vastly outweigh the short-term inconveniences.

Change is scary, even good change. But change will happen nonetheless, and we can only hope for the better.

I just wonder, I keep hearing about how wonderful for the enviroment the compact fluorescent lightbulbs are....however, no one has explained to me the exact manufacturing processeses for both of these kinds of lights. What unreplaceable resources are being used in the creation of these new lights and is it truly better or different then the old fashion kinds?
In the long run, in your home...maybe the CFL's are energy efficient, but I find they don't produce enough light so I am forced to have 2 bulbs for every 1 normal cheaper lightbulb. Therefore, nulling their supposed eco-friendly nature. But thats just mine and my family's experience. I'm sure someone is devoted to these things.

Will these "compact fluorescents" work in an oven?

I disagree with the idea of a ban.no one's mentioned the amount of mercury used in the gasses of the lamps. i prefer less mercury in my local landfill. CF lighting is anternative, that's all. LED has a way to go. As does the O-LED's. So, if anyone really wants to save electricity, turn off the lights when you aren't using them, and quit worrrying, your TV and sound system uses alot more energy than the lights.

I disagree with the idea of a ban.no one's mentioned the amount of mercury used in the gasses of the lamps. i prefer less mercury in my local landfill. CF lighting is anternative, that's all. LED has a way to go. As does the O-LED's. So, if anyone really wants to save electricity, turn off the lights when you aren't using them, and quit worrrying, your TV and sound system uses alot more energy than the lights.

Couple of points....Edison didn't invent the incandescent lightbulb...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

Secondly whether you believe or do not believe the Gore hyped theories on Climate Change or the more logical reason that our sun is the driver and we are just passengers. Incandescent Light consumes vast levels of energy resources and if not contributing to at least 5% of CO2 emissisions and very inefficient with most energy lost in the conversion as heat. It makes sense to drive the incandescent light from the home or office to where it is truely needed and where it no other replacement light source is available.

Yes there is still a need for the incandescent lightbulb but not everywhere for everything which is still seems to be mentality.

I can't help but chuckle whenever the idea that this or the other lifestyle change (in the realm of replacing lightbulbs) is touted as helpig to defeat the serious threat of global warming by reducing CO2 production. According to the recent UN report, the biggest green house gas is methane, whose production is a direct result of the demand for livestock. It seems to me that if one were to truly believe that the Earth is going to Hell in a greenhouse gas handbasket, and the 'science' held in the UN report validation of that, than the only substantial lifestyle change would be to go vegan.

Anything short of that might is a cynical reponse to the 'threat.' So while you're pontificating about letting the nanny state tell us what products we should use to light our homes, you might consider the end of that rode where the nanny state bans bacon cheeseburgers and leather jackets.

Interesting that the statement was made that they can't be battery powered. Seems Coleman has done that for quite sometime with it's battery powered lanterns with floresent tubes in them... go figure. As for the flicker, most may not percive it but, setup a computer monitor at 60hz refresh rate and you will see, in most cases a flicker on the screen while under florescents. Some see this easier than others but the results is the same, headaches by days end.

CFLs aren't battery powered, but there are some battery powered lamps available. I've had some for about 12 years. CFLs can put out more light if sized correctly. Environmentally they will work down to zero F but not exactly what you may want near the shower. I've been replacing most of the common bulbs with CFLs as I don't want to make ComEd/Exelon any richer. The problem with CFLs are that most of the units fail to hold up to claims of long life - cheaply made in China. Failure modes include flicker, overheating and failure to ignite. I assume that all of Oz will need to use LED Christmas lights, better stock up now. Miniature base CFLs are very uncommon, so what happens to the decorative fixtures? Dimmable CFLs are uncommon and expensive. (not just 3way, full dimming.) Where is the recycling program to pick up the dead bulbs? If it's RoHS/WEE, doesn't that make the mfg responsible? Ban the Incandescents, no. Tax them, yes.

Banning seems awfully radical to me - why not just encourage the flourescent bulb makers to improve their products, broaden the variety and reduce the cost closer to that of incandescents.

Proof or no proof - flourescents give me headaches and bring on migraines. It took me years to figure it out - but once I turned off my office lights and got a little 60 watt desk lamp - my head stopped hurting.

About 1/2 of my house fixtures are flourescent - my bf isn't bothered by them so he uses those lamps. If I'm going to be in the room for any length of time, I switch them off and turn on the regular ones.

If the governments are going to ban incandecents - then I guess I'll be sitting in the dark. Maybe they'll let us get doctor's notes?

Thank you Dr_Grok, I made a pledge at Care2 to replace my incandescents with CFLs, seemed like a great idea until I went shopping for them! Not only are they made in China which is at odds with my boycott of cheaply-made imports from the country that won't let us export anything to them, but they are unreliable! I didn't realize that they fail below 0 degrees, which explains some of the problems we had. I put one in the light outside in the fall and I've replaced it 2x since then, so that was user error but the one in my dining room DOES FLICKER, actually it doesn't just flicker, it STROBES! I am not exaggerating a bit. I have it in a 3-way light and I paid extra for the 3-way CFL and on 2 of the settings it strobes. Actually, it's really noticable when you turn the light off because it continues to pulse for about 10 minutes... It looks just like the fire alarm in my office when it goes off. I am looking for CFLs made somewhere other than China so if someone knows of a product not manufactured in China, please let me know.

p.s. animals would still produce methane whether we eat them or not, for that matter so do the bajillion people on this planet... some more than others :)

One thing not addressed by this whole idea is the long term effects of UV radiation from fluorescent bulbs on eyesight. Has this been studied somewhere?

Mellen333: We wouldn't be raising the same numbers of livestock if there were less (or no) demand to consume them. It actually says, in the UN report, that as an individual, going vegan would be multiple times more effective in reducing greenhouse gases than driving a Prius instead of a Hummer.

I think people should be able to decide what lights they want to use... I dont think banning one for the other is right.

by the way, I tried one of those light bulbs in my bathroom & the bluish hue, not only makes you look sick (as VxPhobos's comment says) it also kinda makes you want to go crazy. I had to take it out, i thought i was in a mental institution!

Banning just smacks of Socialism to me.

Look. If the product (incan. light bulbs in this case) is harmful to one's health, then get the word out, and convince the buying public that the product isn't worth buying. But don't take that freedom from us.

Enforcing a BAN takes away the rights of the people to choose. It's the same, hell- it's even worse on the smoking issue. Smoking IS hazardous to your health, but we have a right to CHOOSE to smoke or not. Freedom. You'll have to pry my light bulb from my cold dead hands... :-)

Amazing yet not surprising how many blow hards "know" so much about global warning(GW)but nothing of basic science 101. Check out solar weather and it's impact on not just terra firma, but the rest of our neighborhood. GW is also occuring on Mars. Does any thinking person believe that is also our fault? The SUN is a varible star, and that is factor numero uno when it comes to global warming. Mankinds impact on GW is no more than spittin' in a furnace by comparison. If people want to make the world a better place, they need to get educated and stop listening to self serving idiots such as politicians. BTW, Oxygen is also a greenhouse gas.
Orion314

I don't know about anybody else, but those flourescent lights give me a headache...I think they're way too bright and my eyes start to get sore after working under one for more than a few minutes. I may be unnaturally sensitive to those lights, but until something less imposing than flourescents comes along, I'm sticking with my incadescent lights.

Try using flourescent lights in a garage in a northern climate. They don't come on at lower temperatures. Below 15 degrees I have to burn a gallon of kerosene in my heater just to get the lights to go on. Global warming is a myth. The earth was a tropical climate when the dinosaurs lived. And they ruled for 100's of millions of years. We can't ban incandesent light bulbs. We do need them.

Say good by to the entertainment industry as we know. As a stage technician, for both plays and touring concerts, I know that 99% of the lighting fixtures that we use are incandescent. As of yet there is no technology that is able to replace their abilities. Simply put you can’t dim or focus a fluorescent light build. LEDs are not the answer because they are unable to through light over a long distance. So you won’t be able to see your favorite band, or musical, if incandescent light bulbs are banned.

i'll separate my paper and plastic trash for the recycle system in my town all day long. i'll go for a more hydrologically efficient toilet. BUT no one has fully proved to me how the fluorescent bulb is definitively better than the incandescent, and things in this forum have been strangely quiet about the waste products of the production process, etc.

to blame the globe's current cycle of change on the bugaboo of 'global warming' has a trendiness and mental laziness attached to it that makes me break out in hives. please employ more science before you outlaw my light bulb and make me buy what may well be the lumenal version of the nehru jacket.

I also get headaches from fluorescent bulbs. I can't even spend half an hour in the grocery store without dealing with a major headache. I heard about this on the news this morning and was just hoping it was some kind of a bad joke.

I haven't tried LED yet but has anyone who has the headaches from fluorescent tried them and how did they work when compared to incandescent lights?

Polkastria

Sarge,

Actually, the key to switching from incandescents (and dimming in general) will probably be varying the quantity of lit lamps to change the intensity of the light. Not nearly as easy or as effective in most cases, but it IS possible. Almost makes the digital light boards easier to integrate.

As far as spotlighting goes, we can always go back to carbon arcs! Are the Trooper series still used these days? I have been out of the loop for 20 years. Those things were a hoot, and their effect on global warming cannot be underestimated.

Lastly, from another source I have been informed that the UV radiation from a household flouorescent bulb is almost negligible.

You know, I think we really are too stupid to vote.
What is the history of benevolent government? Can somebody give me even a single example that lasted more than a single generation?
How many laws are without unintended consequences that make the medicine worse than the disease? (I can think of only Ten)
What's the percentage of politicians that we'd trust enough to let them babysit our kids? (of course, we entrust them with their health, education and welfare...)
How important is this stupid, waning technology (about to be replaced by vastly superior LEDs) that we want to give our creepy politicians even more power?
Sheesh.
We might as well have them vote for us and call the American Freedom experiment a bust.
Oy vey.

We have already replaced the incandescent WHERE WE CAN. But note that emphasis. A fluorescent light bulb in the overhead light in our bedroom knocked out the setbox sitting on top of the tv. It would literarily go completely nuts and need to be unplugged before it would work again. The incandescent bulb went back in. I still have to be careful of the fluorescent bulb in my bedside lamp, making sure it doesn't point toward the setbox.
In winter, the two incandescent bulbs that keep our storage modules dry and slightly warm by their heat are more efficient for that use than an electric heater could be. And there is light when one goes into the modules in the darker days. Bonus!
Our old chandeliers, wired with those funky small bases, etc. Yes, they have finally come out with a limited number (read expensive) of fluorescent bulbs for those bases, but the temperatures are not the right ones for dinner. Who wants grey food?
Some times there still isn't a good substitute.
Meanwhile, I'll drive my Prius and do some real good for the environment.

One of the biggest dangers about writing an opinion column is that you may be wrong because of lack of research.

1. Fluorescent bulbs CAN run on battery power, unlike the author states - we bought one from Target for camping.
2. Banning incandescent doesn't mean ONLY fluorescent bulbs other light-emitting technology exists.
3. LED light also can be used.
4. LED light can be focused into a concentrated beam (ever see a laser pointer?).

Some folks are complaining about the colors, but I just switched my home (live in Texas) to fluorescent, and Home Depot has about 4 different colors to choose, including some that give off the exact same color as incondensable light. I replaced all the lights in our living room, kitchen, ceiling fans, bathrooms, and there's zero difference by the color or amount of light, but it's saving me $$$ each month. I did go with the ones that mimic the sun outside, and those are nice!

I don't know if I agree on a full out ban on it, but since fluorescent bulbs are there and cost wise not any cheaper then the alternative (when you factor in live of the bulb)... so why not?

Fluorescent lights can work in a garage in a nothern climate. What you need are "high-output" fixtures and tubes to work in the cold environment. I live in Wisconsin and had two 8 foot flourescent fixtures with two tubes each installed in my garage when our house was built in 1998. They produce much more light than two incandescent lights. See http://www.servicelighting.com/library/high_output_fluorescent_light_bulbs_from_service_lighting.cfm for more information on high output flourescent lighting.

This post isn't about lighting technology; it's about politics and the efficacy thereof.
How'd the War on Drugs do?
How about the War on Poverty? Has that one been won yet?
Oh, and how've we done since the War to End All Wars?
No, thank you. I want government to be simply and only the pitbull junkyard dog that it is. It's there to bite bad guys on the wrong side of the fence, and that's it.
We need give it no more authority over us than we'd give an angry dog.
Haven't you guys read A Brave New World? ...1984? ...Or anything by Heinlein?
How about a history book?
Give me just one, single example of a regulation that worked as advertised, and I'll say go ahead and ban incandescent lightbulbs.

Yet again, there is ignorance on the mercury issue. CFLs contain mercury. However, they contain FAR less mercury than is emitted into the atmosphere by power plants producing the extra power required by incandescents. And that's even if they are never recycled. So you're getting mercury either way. CFLs give you an opportunity to greatly reduce that.

Bans in the modern age do not make sense or cents! If the government would add a tax to bring incandescent bulbs up to the price of florescent bulbs and then rebate or decrease the florescent bulbs then people would go for the less expensive florescent and incandescent bulbs could still be had for those specialty areas. The greenhouse gases would be nearly eliminated and everyone would benefit. To make something "illegal" is to make new criminals!

Thought I'd reply to davodd since he/she made claims about my 'lack of research'.

"1. Fluorescent bulbs CAN run on battery power, unlike the author states - we bought one from Target for camping."

I clearly stated in the article that modified CFLs can run on battery power, you may want to read more carefully next time before you make an accusation against someone’s writing.

"2. Banning incandescent doesn't mean ONLY fluorescent bulbs other light-emitting technology exists."

This is an editorial about CFLs, not light bulb alternatives. I know all about LEDs, I even mentioned them in the comment section of the editorial.

"3. LED light also can be used."

Again, LEDs are not the topic in my editorial.

"4. LED light can be focused into a concentrated beam (ever see a laser pointer?)."

Again, I was never writing about LEDs. There are benefits to LEDs but there are also drawbacks - I'm not about to write a book here on that subject.

People such as yourself are so focused on the positive aspects they ridicule and attack anyone who says "Hey, this isn't going to work for me."

That is not progress, that is control and I do not support it. The government cannot account for every situation that a traditional bulb is used in thus a blanket ban is completely illogical. As I suggested in my editorial, governments should offset the cost of CFLs so they can compete directly against traditional bulbs. It would work far better as it will not create this needless political standoff and also gives the PEOPLE a choice as to which bulbs they will use in their specific and unique situations.

Let's not forget the environmental and health problems that flourescent light bulbs cause.
Flourescent lights give off UV and UVA rays like the sun does, which causes skin cancer and sunspots. So even when we're indoors, we can't get away from harmful UV rays if in a building lit by flourescents.

And besides that, because flourescents don't have a focused beam and because they do have a harsh blue/white light instead of the incancescent bright yellow, they don't emit as bright a light. This makes reading for me more difficult. My eyeglass prescription never changed all the years I had glasses until I started working in an office lit by flourescents, which is very dim. Then after a year or so, my eyesight began to get weaker, and even when I wear my glasses I can't see as well, because my prescription is no longer strong enough. I bring a reading light that I clip onto my desk, but it's still not enough when the room in general is dim. There are better, more effective ways too reduce global warming without causing skin cancer and blindness.

I use compact fluorescents in my house in most places because of the energy efficiency.

****HOWEVER****

What most people don't realize is that you can NOT use this type of light for every application. I am a lighting designer, and I have designed lighting for numerous theatrical performances. I have also lit numerous museum exhibits for The Smithsonian Institution.

There are countless reasons why CFLs will not work for theatrical or exhibition lighting, but here are a few or the most important reasons;

Incandescent lights emit a warmer color temperature than can be achieved by CFLs. Some would argue differently, but I would wager that they are not artists that depend on light for their medium. Also, you cannot focus the light beam of CFLs, nor can you dim them in any aesthetically useful way. Most CFLs cannot be dimmed at all. Dimming is essential for any theatrical lighting design application.

I believe that anyone endorsing a blanket ban is doing so ignorant of the ramifications.

Good words on some of the benefits of the flourescents but HORSE HOCKY on the global warming feldercarb. I'm all for saving energy but this banning business is over the top and if put in effect here in the states, worthy of rioting in the streets. Vote for freaks in office and they get what they deserve. Just don't expect the rest of us normal people to casually let you in the door just to see if we are using incandescents, or my guns for that matter....I for one will gladly see to it that their remains play an active part in fertilizing my garden and I'd sleep better for it.

I obviously do not buy into jumping on the "global warming" band wagon. I know for certain that a single active volcano kicks out more CFC's and other such greenhouse gases in one day than all of humanities burning of everything from the first pieces of wood, when we first began to use fire, to all the coal, oil, gasoline, diesel and every other activity we've done since the beginning.

Many geologists and climatologists agree that the earth has been in a period of continued warming since the end of the last ice age. I say GOOD! Bring it on. I for one hate the cold and I wouldn't mind seeing the palm trees waving in the breeze and the ladies sunning themselves in 75 degree farenheit temps on the northern shores of Lake Superior... in the middle of January. It was like that at one time in the distant past and its likely to be like it again....wether be burn anything at all or not. And furthermore wether we use incandescents or not, the generator plants that produce the electricity will still be shoveling in the same amount of coal, oil or natural gas each day.

Guaranteed hands down, when it comes to the weather and the incredibly vast amounts of energy needed to heat the incredibly vast atmosphere we live in, the SUN has us beat every time.

My point is....buy flourescents to save MONEY on electric bills...not to save the PLANET...we are just too small and insignificant to change planetary temps by even a half a degree.

Do the math and you find out just how much energy is needed to heat an atmosphere the size of ours and you will find out how short we fall in doing that. Currently there are always volcano's active in many parts of the world. As I said before, they kick out more gases in one day than we have since men have been around. Active volcanos are what is required to create enough gases to change climate temps gradually over long periods. Humans can no more do this then we can stop a volcano from erupting...at least with our present state of technology...nuclear weapons not withstanding.

Am I saying "Ok..so lets just burn, be wasteful and party for tomorrow we perrish?" Not at all. Too much of anything is never good...including REGULATION, RESTRICTION, and CONTROL. Which is what the whole "Global Warming" political machine is all about. So on the next "Earth Day", pop open that vintage can of freon and celebrate with the rest of us (soon to be) renegades and fugitives from eco justice and LIVE LARGE.....LOL

Best Regards,
Richard
Bradenton, Florida

Perhaps, instead of focusing on the amount of energy the bulb produces and banning one or the other, we should turn our focus on how that energy is produced and the alternatives for that. We use solar panels to generate our electricity in our house, so the government has no right to ban my use of incandescent bulbs with the "eco-friendly" excuse. We use both kinds of bulb in the house, as both have their use. They should ban their energy production methods and have them come up with an alternative.

Don't punish the user, punish the producer.

P.S. You can even store wind energy now. General Compression is doing a project in Iowa which allows wind power to be stored underground when the wind is blowing at its peak and using that stored energy to produce power when its needed. So, there are alternatives.

Regarding andrewhorning's post: Give me just one, single example of a regulation that worked as advertised, and I'll say go ahead and ban incandescent lightbulbs.

One word: seatbelts.

For the person who said the UV rads from flourescents is neglegible, with all due respect, there is no such thing as neglegible UV rads.
And once again, flourescents are terrible for the eyesight. They are harsh but not bright enough for reading. My eyes have gotten worse and my skin has gotten blotchier since working in an office lit by flouescents. And I work at night and sleep days so I'm never in the sun. So the only UV rays I'm exposed to are indoors. It's dangerous and unhealthy. Flourescents should be banned if anything. And energy saving incandescents are on the way, so let's just use them.

There are more ways to illuminate that what has been posted here. I have at least one of each type at home, and they all have their place and need.

1. Incandescent - bedroom, dining and living room (all with dimmers). I "live" only a few hours in each, and the dimmers adjust the light according to the mood I need.
2. Fluorescent - kitchen, bathrooms, closets, halls, and garage. I chose the correct size and color for each area. I can leave them on for many hours while I am using that room or area.
3. LED - small lamps, flashlights, nightlights and exterior floodlights. They give area or spot illumination, can be dimmed, are waterproof and rugged.
4. Arc lamps - exterior and wide area illumination. The Sodium is the most efficient, most pleasant, and long lasting. I use one about ten hours a day for ten years. Public illumination uses them, so we should, too.
5. OLED - relatively new, presently use on watch face illumination, soon to replace CRT (incandescent), LCD (fluorescent backlight) and Plasma HDTV displays and computer monitors.
6. Natural illumination - living, dining, kitchen, bathroom, bedrooms, and all external areas. Glass windows, glass doors, and light pipes allow more sunlight to illuminate homes, and reduces use of artificial illumination. We forget that sunlight is free and available all day (except for clouds and solar eclipses), and we should use as much as possible. If we could store sunlight as well as we can store heat, we may not need more artificial illumination.

Raymond

get rid of all illegal aliens and we would save a lot in this country, dems wont let us though.

I wish to add a new use of LED lighting in my home. This year, all of my Christmas internal and external light were with LEDs. I have two outdoor trees with about 200 lamps each, all using LEDs, and I decorated the front door with four LED battery powered sets. I bought all sets at a retailer whose name starts with a "K". Last month I bought at an Internet store a set of automobile illumination lamps made with LEDs and they are very bright and waterproof. These lamps replace ther dashboard and exterior marker bulbs in my 24-year-old car (it is an American brand).

So LEDs are geting better and brighter. Soon we could have interior illumination with LED lamps that will really replace the incandescent bulbs in our homes. As all technologies, the first ones will be expensive but as the market grows, there will be more suppliers and better products.

Merry Christmas!

Raymond

Quickly, lets ban things before doing the propper research on the side effects, Or lets ban 1 product cause it contains this substance, but leave another alone (which contans the same)

Leaded solder has been banned in Manufacture, high Tin solder forms "Whiskers" that can short between pads over time

Mercury Vapour lighting is being banned, as it contains Mercury, Strange, Fluro's are excluded?? there are more of them used..

Question, do LED's give off more heat than Fluro's per watt of light, these could replace the heating for eggs and lizzards.

Yes, LED's give off heat, place your hand/finger over the face of a LED torch, and the 1,000 mCd ones, have a look at the heat sinking required, they are not as cool as you think, and the heat is not widely advertised..

I am against it for now. Ever try to dim a flourescent bulb? It does not work. I know the dimmable ones are available, but besides the excessive cost for one of them, A dimmed flourescent just doesn't cut it. Maybe there will come a time when the bulbs improve, but until then, incandescent is the only way to go.

Hail to the NO on the ban. After centuries relying on candles, I welcomed the use of incandescent light bulbs. If they are banned I'll have to go back to candles and torches. I can stand those UV rays, they are not good for my skin.

ascendedmaster, the reason for removal of lead from fuel was due to the fuel companies wanting to save money at the refinery. therefore they wanted the consumer to buy a catalytic convertor, which meant they could no longer accept lead additives to the fuel - the fuel companies hyped up the risk of lead so we would bring in legislation to save THEM money (unleaded fuel contains far more carcinogens btw)

yeah, everyone is for this new fluorescent bulb. i tried them in my office, but found that i could not adjust to the light. my eyes were always burning, watering, and could not figure out why. one day, i was looking around, and found that i did not have the same lighting. i quickly changed my bulbs to incandescent, and WOW. what a difference! i could see better again, i was not straining my eyes to concentrate. sorry, i will NOT go back to the fluorescent bulb, i don't care if it does save me money. i care more about my eyesight than that "money-saving, energy-efficient bulb".

it does not seem real smart to me to ban either one. yes you sabe some money on power and greenhouse gasses, we will not die of skin cancer maybe but instead we will be drinking even higher quantites of mercury in our water due to landfill waste. Also, most of the lights in our house are on ceiling fans and i can not get the flourecents to last more than a couple weeks in those. I guess i just dont like it when the govement tells me i can not buy one or another of anything.

I hate flourescent bulbs, they make me naseaus anytime I work in that envroniment, so I always used my own halogen bulbs while at work as not to make me feel sick. Stupid is an understatment. Wait till we have a better solution. I just don't think it is realistic or practical to ban the incandescent bulbs and to be honest, it sounds impossible to do something like that.

The CFL's are all right and fine in their place, but I refuse to work on my computer under fluorescent lighting. It just produces too much eyestrain for me. Even reading by fluorescent light bothers me. I really prefer the whiter light of quartz lights when it comes to my artwork and reading. And, I am not a great fan of Chinese products, especially the quality control of their manufacturers. Plus...what about all that mercury that is going to come into the environment when they have to be disposed in landfills. Plus, insects and swamps produce more methane, CO2 than we ever will, not to mention all of the SO2 and CO2 from volcanoes. Man made CO2 is pretty miniscule in comparison. What people seem to overlook, is that we are in a warming cycle...a repeat of the last arctic warming that facilitated the Norse explorations of Greenland and even parts of Canada & the US...not to mention northern Russia, too, 500 years ago. It was even warm enough back then that they were raising cattle and sheep in Greenland. It won't be long before they'll be preaching that we're in global cooling and heading for another ice age. So, I'm going to keep my incandescents for those cold nights so I can warm my hands...:)

The government has no business controlling commerce in -- much less banning -- any type of lightbulb, unless perhaps it is simply dangerous to use. The moment you authorize the government to strong-arm some aspect of life because you think the way you live is best and you don't want to deal with anyone's "whining" about having to do it your way, you guarantee that someday, when the political winds blow in a different direction, the government will strong-arm YOU to do things you don't want to do because the group currently in power says so. The fact that the author seems so cavalier about acquiescing to -- even welcoming -- a government ban on incandescents, demonstrates that he is clueless about this simple fact of politics, and thus is willing to sell out his fellow citizens. Take away his pundit card, please. Anyone who would so blithely restrict the decision making options of his neighbor doesn't deserve one.

The market is a completley sufficient mechanism to get people to switch to more efficient, less polluting alternatives for lighting if they are really better. The problem is that what is "really" better is a much more complex issue than the pundits and political agitators will tell you.

I use CFLs in my home, as well as a couple of LED lights. My family hates the light quality of the CFLs, and I worry about CFL recyclability, given the mercury and other materials used in their production. I'm not very impressed by the light quality of the LED bulbs, either, but I still entertained the idea of switching over to them completely, despite the expense, because I figured I would recoup the costs in energy savings over the long haul, and I liked the idea of not needing to change a bulb more than once every ten or 20 years. Unfortunately, LED technology hasn't yet produced an affordable light bulb that is a direct replacement for the 100-150w incandescent bulbs that we most often use at our house. And mind you, I have watched the LED bulb websites closely and hounded CCRANE company mercilessly for a couple of years, asking "are we there yet?"

We aren't there yet, and the best answer I can get to my question is "real soon now" -- the same answer I have been getting for some time.

If industry can produce a long-lasting, high-brightness, good light-quality, high-recyclability bulb -- especially one based on LEDs -- I'm in, even if the bulbs are a little pricey. I don't think I'm alone in that, and the manufacturers know it. So my guess is that they WOULD have produced such a bulb if it were possible. There would have been no need for subsidies, incentives, or bans to "prime the pump." And that leads me to conclude that a ban on incandescents won't make the right product appear at the right price any sooner than it was coming anyway; government strong-arming will only inconvenience those who wish to continue to use incandescents.

The proper way to "regulate" a switchover to more efficient lighting is to let the price of energy rise. The demand for energy-consumptive lighting will go down gradually, to replaced by demand for energy-efficient lighting. Manufacturers will have more time to "get it right" and make sure that people currently employed in producing incandescent bulbs can be retrained and redeployed to meet the demands of the modern lighting industry. I don't think a strong-arm ban of incandescents will fare any better than the strong-arming of digital TV, and probably a lot worse. Better to let the marketplace handle this, instead of giving the government more and more power to control your daily life.

Time to Stock-Up on a wide variety of the old incandescent bulbs & there various types. I have never seen a Dining Room aesthetic dimmable CFL. How a CFL make a home feel warm & friendly; looks like we need to stock up on candles too.

Nothing whatsoever justifies the notion that the government has a right to dictate what sort of light bulbs I use in my own home. To hell with all environmentalists!! They will be the ruin of us all.

"maybe the nanny state isn't such a bad idea after all" - Bullshit. Nanny state is always the wrong choice. The lawmakers are technological nitwits.

The economic incentive is sufficient. I've replaced my incandescents as they burn out, starting with the lamps I use. I will opt to
leave the decorative incandescents in the bathroom. They look better, the color rendition is better for makeup, and they are not on all that much. Incandescents may be a good choice for rarely used lights - the one in the storage shed, for instance.

"They don't produce a focused beam of light"

Neither does a standard incandescent bulb. Focusing is usually a function of reflectors and
lenses, although LEDs incorporate focusing into the structure of the device; the lens is integral to the package. I've replaced an incandescent spotlight with a compact fluorescent spot light. You probably mean a focused beam in a small package.

"don't work well in extreme temperatures"

It seems that you could design a fluorescent system that operated at extreme temperature.

"can't be battery-powered"

Where did you pull that up? I own a twenty-some year old fluorescent flash light from Sears. Also have a fluorescent black light flashlight. They use short straight tubes, not the helical bulbs.

"pose a waste-disposal challenge due to mercury content"

That should be a big concern.

"are too bulky for some light fixtures"

Right. Reason enough to allow incandescents;
unless you want to mandate that all such equipment is obsolete. That includes almost all projection equipment ever made. If you want to get silly, old cars have to be retired.

"don't quite duplicate the golden glow of incandescents"

Right. Reason enough to allow incandescents. Photographers and ladies applying makeup.

"and have higher sticker prices (though they're cheaper to run)"

Cheaper life cycle costs, including maintenance. Fluorescents are supposed to last much longer, so even the device cost is balanced out. So far, the track record is good on mine. I've had some in service for over two years, haven't had to replace one.

"And, uh, they can't be used to incubate an egg or keep your lizard warm, because they run cool."

Right. Reason enough to allow incandescents. Screw the Nanny State mentality. As if a lawmaker was some how smarter than the average bear.

Al, no Nanny State mandated that you discard your vacuum tube devices and use transistors. It just happened on it's own, didn't it? No muss, no fuss, no federal agency sniffing in your knickers.

FWIW, LEDs are more efficient than fluorescents, last longer, are mechanically stronger, are tiny, so making small devices is easy, are used in groups, so failure is gradual, and can potentially be very cheap. The low cost white ones are fluorescent (use phosphors to render color balance), so still suffer from color rendition issues. A higher cost white LED might be made up from color LEDs, but it will still have an emission spectrum consisting of narrow spikes.

Some people have siezures induced by fluorescent tube pulsations. By all means laws should be passed to force these people into being subjected to these pulses, we can all sit around and be entertained by their suffering. Makes sense to me

Should the government ban incandescent light bulbs? NO! First it's light bulbs, then it's firearms. Let the people decide which light bulbs that they choose to use. Try turning on your cost efficient fluorescent light bulbs in your garage when it's -10° outside. They don't work. They also don't work with a dimmer switch. They are expensive and pose a hazard if broken. The only good place for fluorescent bulbs are for hard to reach places. Global warming is a myth anyway. It's the sun. Right now the sun is producing a little more heat than it did a few years ago. The government just wants more tax money. I'll continue to run my kerosene heater and drive my 32 year old truck that gets 10 mpg because it's cheaper to buy gas than pay for a new truck. I guess i'll just have to stock up on incandescent bulbs.

I am against forcing people to use the new spiral bulbs by stopping the production and sale of our normal watt lightbulbs. I perfer the lighting of our good 'ol light bulbs, especially while watching tv and reading a magazine. The spiral ones flicker. For me, our old light bulbs are tougher. I tried to get a spiral out of the light socket when it was stuck. It broke in my hand and left one h### of a bleeding cut. I was also concerned about the mercury. I need my old fashion lightbulbs. I also use a decorative, auradescent GE crystal clear light bulb (40 watt) for my small tiffany-like touch lamp. I cannot use a spiral light bulb in it.
Another thing that angers me is the cable industy and congress forcing people to convert to digital tv and taking off the analog broadcast channels (CBS,NBC,ABC) by February 2009. If you don't have a digital tv and digital cable (which is very, very expensive) by Feb. 2009, you can't watch tv anymore the old-fashion way. All you will see is a snowy picture.

to Radiospotz:
Yes, every time I walk into my flourescent lighted office I get nauseous! Somehow the sick blue light makes me ill and it doesn't go away till I leave work. So banning incandecents and forcing flourescents will reduce global heat and increase skin cancer, mercury poisoning, seizures, eyesight loss and nausea which may lead to god knows what. I'm an environmentalist and I think this is disgusting--- yes, along with the digital tv law in 2009. It's just and Orwellian workd we live in!

In reply to Deafwolf. Seatbelts???? You are delusional if you think think this regulation worked as advertised. Many of us still refuse to wear our belts, for many reasons. If you look at factual numbers, a high percentage of fatalities are wearing their belts. The numbers people just won't publicize all the people in potentially fatal wrecks are NOT wearing belts. All this regulation accomplished was to give The Man another reason to harrass normally law-abiding folks.

USING COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHTS (CFLs) WILL NOT SAVE ANY ENERGY during the heating season. You may save on electricity, and you may even save some money, but your overall energy consumption will go up, not down. Let me explain.

All the energy "wasted" by a conventional light bulb is given off as heat. Therefore, the heat not produced by the CFLs will need to be replace by your home's heating system.

If you have electric heat, which is 100% efficient, there is no energy savings. For example: 1 kwh (kilowatt hour) saved by your light fixtures will be replaced by 1 kwh of electric heat. Unfortunately, most other heating systems are less than 100% efficient.

Unlike electric heat, a furnace that burns fuel is not 100% efficient. If you heat with natural gas, propane, or fuel oil, you will need more than the equilivant of 1 kwh of energy to replace 1 kwh saved on your electric bill. Even if your furnace is 85% efficient, it will require 17.5% more energy to replace the "wasted" heat saved by using CFLs.

You can probably save money by shifting some energy use from electric to natural gas which is typically a cheaper way to heat your house. However, don't delude yourself into thinking that by doing so you are using less energy and therefore going to save the planet. Doing so will use more energy, not less.

nbc news said that broken flourescent bulbs contain harmful mercury and cleanup can be dangerous to your health and expensive for cleanup by professionals.

GE if your reading these comments You and every one else that makes CLFs need to make Places where these Bulbs can be recycled so the mecury doesn't end up in the land fills. and the bloody circuitry needs to be better so it doesn't freaking RUST the contacts between the transformers and the Bulbs god.

0perating cfl with bulb down such as soffet lights wil cause the heat from the bulb to over heat the electronics in the base and fail and possibly cause a fire.

How will I light my ham radio shack? Flourescents interfere with certain amateur radio frequencies.

Thomas Edison was a corrupt individual, I'm glad to see his work gradually disappear, especially in favor of Tesla's better alternative.

suck on that you grubby capitalist

How fun! I love reading about the little things I can do to save energy. I currently have done 3/5 of the list. I just need to plant some hedges now and I am in good shape. Check out these recycled light bulb fixtures that I found.