Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

[phil-news-nospam]

| Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the | generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg | into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg | contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure | landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas | the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately | pollutes our air, land and water.

But at least those other releases of Hg are not released in my house.

Hg is not by primary reason for avoiding fluorescent lights. But it is one and would be the primary one if the light quality issue gets solved.

That's not to say I like the idea of releasing Hg into the air. For every incandescent lamp used, we should depricate an equivalent amount of coal burned. I'm all for building lots more solar/wind/hydro/nuclear capability (provided it is done in the right way).

[Doug Miller]

More to the point: the lies in the NE are obvious, whereas those in the NYT are much more subtle.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

I've broken a number of fluorescent lamps over the years and when one crashes to the floor I basically follow EPA guidelines; for me, it hasn't been a concern. For those who are uncomfortable about the prospect of cleaning up a broken CFL, an incandescent or halogen source may be a better option.

Some are ok with the light, some aren't, and some of us are willing to trade-off a bit of light quality for the other benefits they provide. You have to decide for yourself what makes sense for you.

I think we have to acknowledge the basic truth that incandescent lamps use, on average, four times more electricity than their CFL counterparts and that over half of the electricity currently generated by U.S. utilities is coal fired and that more coal-fired plants will be built to help meet future load growth. Nothing is going to change that, at least not overnight.

With respect to utilities switching to cleaner sources of power, my sense is that most folks support the idea in principle -- they just don't want to pay for it by way of higher electricity rates. If utilities are going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in these alternate sources (and, at the same time, write-off their previous investments in dirty coal), someone is going to foot the bill and we all know who that is, right?

Cheers, Paul

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Phil,

As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of:

Sorry for my confusion. When you said "What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same reason?" in relation to our other discussion pertaining to Hg, I understood the word "refuse" to be an absolute.

If your primary concern is good light quality, there are fluorescent lamps with a very high CRI such as the Philips TL930 (95 CRI) and TL950 (98 CRI), but if you require something better than that, it's probably best to stick with an incandescent or halogen source. And if you're concerned your access to these lamps may be restricted at some future date, you can always stock up on whatever you use now as a precaution.

Cheers, Paul

[phil-news-nospam]

| As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is | based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide | standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of: | |

Then something's out of whack somewhere. I see far more than 50% of bulbs last beyond 750 hours of usage. That didn't catch my attention before as I did not assume something like the 50% basis.

|>| If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents |>| have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you |>| indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in |>| your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I |>| presume we can rule out metal halide as well. |>

|>That's not my primary concern. It is a concern, and one that _may_ limit |>my use of them. My primary concern is the poor spectrum (not the color) of |>every fluorescent light I have ever seen. What I am referring to is that |>the spectrum is not as uniformly continuous as incandescent. These are |>therefore ruled out for critical task lighting areas (especially kitchen |>and shop). | | | Sorry for my confusion. When you said "What about long tube | fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same | reason?" in relation to our other discussion pertaining to Hg, I | understood the word "refuse" to be an absolute.

It might be absolute. I'm actually undecided at the moment. This applies to the design of my new home, which I have not timeline, yet, for building. I'm refusing to put fluorescent fixtures into that design unless and until I see some solid proof I should not be concerned with it.

| If your primary concern is good light quality, there are fluorescent | lamps with a very high CRI such as the Philips TL930 (95 CRI) and | TL950 (98 CRI), but if you require something better than that, it's | probably best to stick with an incandescent or halogen source. And if | you're concerned your access to these lamps may be restricted at some | future date, you can always stock up on whatever you use now as a | precaution.

My primary concern is an aspect of light quality that has nothing to do with the CRI rating. As I understand it, CRI refers to the balancing of color in the spectrum within the confines of how human eyes perceive it so the color of illuminated objects looks correct or natural. My concern is more with the way the spectrum affects contrast edges given that human eyes, and worse when corrective or magnifying lenses are involved, do not focus the light spectrum at a single point. Under a single visible wavelength, contrast edges always look as sharp as the viewer can see them. Under a broad continuous spectrum of white light, the edges will be slightly blurred, but will be uniform. But, under a the harsh light of 3 distinct single wavelengths, that edge will look like 3 distinct colored edges. That's the worse situation. Fluorescent light corrects this poorly because its spectrum has "hills and valleys" despite the color balance being a reasonable white. LED has the same issue but I think there may be more hope to correct this for LED than for FL (since FL has been around for so long and this hasn't been fixed). Some HID has less of an issue with it. MV and MH are bad, but HPS seems to be OK (though it has very poor color in the eye of many).

As for stocking up, I'm not worried. There will be a black market. There always is. It's not like they are going to put that much effort into this. It's not like pirating software/music/movies.

[phil-news-nospam]

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: | On 25 Jun 2008 07:10:53 GMT, [e-mail] wrote: | |>In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: |>

|>| Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the |>| generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg |>| into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg |>| contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure |>| landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas |>| the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately |>| pollutes our air, land and water. |>

|>But at least those other releases of Hg are not released in my house. | | I've broken a number of fluorescent lamps over the years and when one | crashes to the floor I basically follow EPA guidelines; for me, it | hasn't been a concern. For those who are uncomfortable about the | prospect of cleaning up a broken CFL, an incandescent or halogen | source may be a better option. | |>Hg is not by primary reason for avoiding fluorescent lights. But it is |>one and would be the primary one if the light quality issue gets solved. | | Some are ok with the light, some aren't, and some of us are willing to | trade-off a bit of light quality for the other benefits they provide. | You have to decide for yourself what makes sense for you.

If I get past the Hg issue, I will put FL in some places but not in others. That is, unless the address the light quality issue that I am concerned about. Areas where I will be working for more than 20 minutes at a time will have incandescent/halogen lights.

|>That's not to say I like the idea of releasing Hg into the air. For every |>incandescent lamp used, we should depricate an equivalent amount of coal |>burned. I'm all for building lots more solar/wind/hydro/nuclear capability |>(provided it is done in the right way). | | I think we have to acknowledge the basic truth that incandescent lamps | use, on average, four times more electricity than their CFL | counterparts and that over half of the electricity currently generated | by U.S. utilities is coal fired and that more coal-fired plants will | be built to help meet future load growth. Nothing is going to change | that, at least not overnight.

If they come up with suitable replacements, I'm fine with using them. Maybe the Hg issue won't be much of one. I'm considering the fact that so far I have never broken an FL light outside of some intentional acts when I was a teenager. The spiral of CFLs seems to be a stronger glass than the long tubes, as well.

FYI, I also intend to avoid the E26 screw base in as many places as I can.

| With respect to utilities switching to cleaner sources of power, my | sense is that most folks support the idea in principle -- they just | don't want to pay for it by way of higher electricity rates. If | utilities are going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in these | alternate sources (and, at the same time, write-off their previous | investments in dirty coal), someone is going to foot the bill and we | all know who that is, right?

We have a broad spectrum of people out there that range from wanting to have the lowest price at everyone else's expense, to those willing to pay triple and more to ensure they impact no one else. It will be interesting to watch.

I say "tax it". If you don't want certain things done and can show a good cause why (it impacts others in some way), then tax it. That comes down to electrical usage. Raise the tax on the _generation_ of electrical power that is made from coal. Or just tax the measured pollution produced (leaves open the possibility of developing better cleaning processes). I'm not concerned with the banning of A19/E26 white incandescent bulbs because there are plenty of alternatives. The yellow insect bulbs can be used for reptile warming. I can go with new fixtures that use bi-pin halogens, especially at low voltage.

If I were caught under the silliness of California's law that requires a certain amount of lighting be the high efficacy type, and focuses on the kitchen, where I need good quality task lighting the most (and generally for no more than an hour or two a day, except on 2 or 3 holidays a year), then you will see HPS lights (unused) dominating the kitchen while I still used localized halogen task lighting there.

[phil-news-nospam]

In alt.engineering.electrical Doug Miller wrote: | In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: |>

|>David Nebenzahl wrote: | |>> Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the |>> NYT *is* a certified fool. |> Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you |>aren't always sure with the NYT. | | More to the point: the lies in the NE are obvious, whereas those in the NYT | are much more subtle.

The NE knows that everyone knows they are lying. They don't try to hide it. The NYT tries to make sure people don't know they are lying.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Phil,

A couple possible explanations. One is that although a standard

100-watt incandescent has a nominal service life of 750 hours, the 25, 40 and 60-watt versions are typically rated at 1,000 hours. Secondly, manufacturers have been introducing products that are shifting the balance between higher lumen output and longer life further towards the latter, so you may have noticed the elogic lamps in the above link have a rated life of anywhere from 1,125 hours (95-watt) to 2,250 in the case of the 40-watt equivalent. Line voltage and the use of dimmers can also dramatically affect lamp life.

Fair enough.

If you're extremely fussy about spectral distribution, I don't see any clear winners. Philip's new MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide lamps are arguably the very best the industry has to offer; you can see its distribution graph on page 2 of the following spec sheet and draw your own conclusions.

See:

The spectral performance of their TL930 and TL950 lamps can be found here:

Sounds reasonable.

Cheers, Paul

[terry]

Exactly; taxes and tariffs and import controls for no reason other than to satisfy some lobbyist is why Canadian softwood lumber cost US builders more in the US than it does in Canada; due to protectionist tariffs and import restrictions! (About $2000 per house is one estimate!) Anyway; with the bottom dropping out of the US house market Canadian lumber producers have been market diversifying. Along with increasing demands from China and India but with increasing fuel/energy costs for cutting, sawing and transporting etc. the cost will no doubt be a lot higher if/when US demand returns! Unfortunately the blame game continues; in this instance the US government protecting the US lumber industry, (in the USA many woodlots are privately owned) versus claim that Canadian companies are also subsidized because they are paying too low stumpage fees for cutting on publicly owned forest land. China doesn't seem to care as long as it gets wood!

[terry]

This sounds really odd north of that 'longest undefended' border. Where the USA, rightly or wrongly has a reputation of being one of the most protectionist states in the Americas; whether it is cheaper lettuce from say Chile or taxing imports from elsewhere to 'protect' US industry/agriculture or lumber! Maybe where defence is involved one can understand; the 'Eurofighter' may be a better aircraft but it may be better to have Boeing or Northrupp actually make them??? But the signs are there; other nations are going their own way and depending less on imports/exports from/to the USA as they diversify and rationalize their own industries and agriculture etc. BTW we use cheap light bulbs; about one dollar per pack of four (including our federal sales tax of about 13%) for 40, 60 or 100 watts, in part for heating. Our small bathroom heater rarely cuts in when the six 40 watters (total $1.50) above the vanity are on. And the el cheapo bulbs last for ages. Works fine because we never need (or even own) Air Conditioning.

[krw]

> >>>

You're quite sure with the NYT too, but it's a lot less entertaining.

[krw]

The idea that nothing should be done that "affects the public in general" scares the shit outta me! Such sentiments would make Stalin grin.

It would be impossible to draw all this "little lines". There isn't just one issue here; most of it hyped by the press out of all recognition.

You and I *certainly* disagree here. It is impossible to have an open society and one where people can't have an affect outside their little sphere, as well.

The devil is always in the details. It's that devil I'm afraid of.

Not everything bad that happens is illegal, nor can it be. Nor, indeed, should it. Life is about risks, and should be. Making everything that is bad "illegal" also eliminates the possibility of "good". If you want to live as a drone, move to France. ;-)

benefits

As such they simply are tools to push emotional buttons thus aren't useful, assuming your intent is to exchange information rather than propaganda. The mainstream press is good at this.

[daestrom]

Not to draw too close a parallel, it is worth looking at the stock market crash of 1929. The laws of the time did not prevent ignorant investors from getting into things way over their head. Certainly some brokers encouraged this as a way for the average 'Joe' to make money. Brokers extended lucrative credit to novice investors that bought stocks on margin because 'everyone' was doing it, and nobody defaults, they just flipped the stock and turned it over to another stock. So brokers weren't losing out and actually made money on the commissions. They didn't worry so much about 'bad risk' borrowers because boom times helped all. They 'got away with it' for a few years because the borrower could always just 'flip' the stock for a goodly profit and move on.

Then stock prices fell and borrowers couldn't pay back the margin-calls. Lots of lenders lost money, lots of borrowers lost all their stocks. Money supply dried up.

Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'.

After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a similar thing will happen now with mortgages.

daestrom

[daestrom]

I like that! :-)

There is a lot of truth there too. The desire for backward compatibility (or at least compatibility with the majority of commercial software already out there) has *got* to be holding a lot of innovation back. Sure, some high priced applications can be recompiled for a different architecture, but at what cost?

daestrom

[daestrom]

I've found tubes that are especially low mercury. So low, they are approved for common trash disposal.

daestrom

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi daestrom,

That's correct. In virtually all jurisdictions, lamps that pass federal TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) regulations can be disposed in the regular household trash just like any other light bulb.

Cheers, Paul

[HeyBub]

Won't happen.

If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain off-limits to other classes of citizens.

The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality of outcome.

Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail.

[krw]

That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs" and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative territory. When you start getting defaults...

True, but not really this issue.

That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.

[phil-news-nospam]

In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote: | In article , | [e-mail] says... |> daestrom wrote: |> >

|> > Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage |> > broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'. |> >

|> > After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying |> > on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a |> > similar thing will happen now with mortgages. |> >

|> |> Won't happen. |> |> If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally |> deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home |> beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain |> off-limits to other classes of citizens. | | That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs" | and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add | in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like | the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite | low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative | territory. When you start getting defaults...

Then the banks start cutting back on loans and the demand side of the supply/demand ratio drops, leading to even lower prices, more upside- down mortgages, more defaults, etc.

|> The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality |> of outcome. | | True, but not really this issue.

it will affect the direction of the solution. The solution used in the stock market can't be the same as used in the housing market because of this.

|> Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are |> implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail. | | That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.

Unfortunately, this is true way too often.

[phil-news-nospam]

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: | On 25 Jun 2008 15:08:35 GMT, [e-mail] wrote: | |>In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: |>

|>| As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is |>| based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide |>| standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of: |>| |>|

|>

|>Then something's out of whack somewhere. I see far more than 50% of bulbs |>last beyond 750 hours of usage. That didn't catch my attention before as I |>did not assume something like the 50% basis. | | | Hi Phil, | | A couple possible explanations. One is that although a standard | 100-watt incandescent has a nominal service life of 750 hours, the 25, | 40 and 60-watt versions are typically rated at 1,000 hours. Secondly, | manufacturers have been introducing products that are shifting the | balance between higher lumen output and longer life further towards | the latter, so you may have noticed the elogic lamps in the above link | have a rated life of anywhere from 1,125 hours (95-watt) to 2,250 in | the case of the 40-watt equivalent. Line voltage and the use of | dimmers can also dramatically affect lamp life.

I looked at my spare lightbulb supply today. Most did not have boxes. But one set still did. These are 25-watt and show 2500 hours.

So I guess I should raise the issue not specifically about 5000 hours, but about the 50% basis.

| If you're extremely fussy about spectral distribution, I don't see any | clear winners. Philip's new MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide | lamps are arguably the very best the industry has to offer; you can | see its distribution graph on page 2 of the following spec sheet and | draw your own conclusions. | | See: |

| | The spectral performance of their TL930 and TL950 lamps can be found | here: | | I have not seen good light from MH lamps, either.

A better fluorescent formulation could fix FL lamps. But it would require so many different compounds to make an even spectrum that it would most likely be prohibitively expensive. I have found that LEDs come in enough discrete wavelengths that this might work. But they degrade at different rates over time, and keeping it in color balance would be hard.