How Many Politicians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb? California May Find Out
from the but,-why? dept
There's been a lot of buzz today over the news that a California state politicians is probably getting to introduce the amusingly named "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act," which would ban the old classic incandescent lightbulb from California by 2012. It's no secret that fluorescent bulbs use up a lot less energy and last a lot longer than incandescents, and are becoming quite popular -- but that still doesn't quite explain the reasoning behind the legislation. In part, it's probably just to get more attention for fluorescent bulbs, but it's really an education issue, not a regulatory one. As people realize just how much they save by going fluorescent, they're making the switch anyway -- and adding legislation to ban the incandescent bulb doesn't make much sense, other than as a way for a politician to pretend he's making a difference. It's great that this legislator wants to get more people to make the switch, but this highlights how politicians use the hammer of regulation to view every problem as a nail.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hopefully...
They need to improve the flourescents first. They are not suitable for replacing incandescants everywhere just yet.
A state law mandating eye strain is a little... uh... stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really the right idea
Legislation isn't the answer, education is. I don't even think California would pass a law banning unnecessarily large vehicles even though it's quite obvious a lot of gas can be saved an emissions reduced. Through education incandescent bulbs will become a luxury just like gas-guzzling cars, boats, and planes (though on a slightly smaller scale).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not really the right idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And something more to think about, what happens if this ban goes through? What the heck is going to power all the bulbs inside the Californians refrigerators and stoves - not to mention the Lava Lamps as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reading by low watt bulbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
I can see hollywood flipping out over this when the colors in their videotapes become all distorted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
Also fluorescent lighting has been used in many photo studios and it does work well in small studios for video as well. That's not to say they will be able to replace those 20,000 watt flood lights or even many 1000 watt light boxes, but different applications, different needs. A fluorescent studio setup does cost more, however, for the same light output, but then it saves on energy costs in the long run, usually lasts longer before each bulb needs to be replaced, won't burn you, and people who work under the lights for hours on end would appreciate cold lamp setups.
As for dimmer packs, it does seem dimming fluorescent lights are more difficult, with most dimmer switches completely not designed to dim fluorescent lights anyway. I would think the solution to that would be to use LED lighting instead, if being able to use a dimmer is required.
In fact I would love to see High Intensity LED lights replace compact fluorescents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Great.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saving the planet...BAH HUMBUG...
an incandecent lightbulb really doesn't contain any toxic chemicals, florecent bulbs have mercury, the balasts for the CFLs often have lead based solder, and i have no idea what the phosphor is made of/contains.
according to the earlier article it says that incand. bulbs are only 5% efficient. wrong. they ar more in the realm of 20-30%.
these are the same people who passed a bill here in washington that effectively declares hydroelectricity as NONRENEWABLE.
what about those electric cars they have been pushing. they use batteries that have to be replaced every 5 years or so for optimum performance. oh, and what about charging them? you have to plug it in and in many areas that electricity comes from hydrocarbons. they have just created more problems rather than fixing any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saving the planet...BAH HUMBUG...
If you've ever felt how hot a incad. bulb is, you'll realize that if it is 20-30%efficient, then CFL would be 100-120% efficient, which is impossible.
So we'll stick with 5% for incad. and 20% for CFL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Saving the planet...BAH HUMBUG...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welllll...
I'm not saying that I'd support something like a government-sponsored holocaust, but I'm just thinking that if the name was funny enough... well, you never know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid is as stupid does...
I just wonder what kind of bonus the fluorescent light industry is going to pay their lobbyists?
Here is an example of how California improves their local world:
1. "California" determines that there are some hazardous chemicals that outgas from building materials.
2. Legislation is passed to label buildings, so if you are sensitive, you can stay out. (Like the peanut warnings on candy bars.)
3. The law is interpreted as vague as possible.
4. Every building has a generic sign that indicates it "...may contain chemicals determined by the state of California that could be hazardous to your health".
5. Sign companies make a good profit from these signs.
6. Consultants that did the studies walk away with a chunk of cash.
7. Nothing else changes - except you had better have one of these signs on your building with a vague warning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid is as stupid does...
BTW, California isn't the only state to print "warning, might cause cancer" on the packages of cigarettes, "warning, may cause birth defects" on the labels of soda and other distilled drinks.... yeah, but do people always read these labels and follow them 100%?
So you point about the warning signs on the outside of SOME buildings in California falls into that same category. The warning is there if you actually care - or in your case, it's there to bother over-sensitive people like yourself... and it works, wouldn't you say so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stupid is as stupid does...
And, I never said anything that would lead you to think that California mandates the cigarette warnings, that is federal stupidity.
The signs don't bother me - it's the govt mandates, especially those that cost private citizens and corporations money, or federal mandates that force local schools to spend more, for instance. Unfunded mandates.
The bottom line, some where behind this promotion is a lobbiest representing some interest that is going to make money from this legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Light Bulbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
devils advocate seeing the light...
That being said, I doni't think this legislation will be useful not because of the underlying intent, but it seems very apparent that flourescent light bulbs != incandescent light bulbs in all functional areas. Until that happens, they should look for other ways to get energy savings, but you have to give credit for at least attempting to deal with the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Start somewhere
I say use legislation, why not. It isn't like choosing a light bulb is a sacred right that every man, woman , and child should fear losing.
Outdated and polluting technologies such as these should not be allowed onto store shelves. Let the educated people make this decision and pass the legislation so the rest of the uneducated don't have to teach themselves about the differences between light bulb technologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Start somewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad point of Flourescents
With regard to the colour temperature, using warm white (3000K rather than 5000K) are more like incandescents, and so more suitable for some rooms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on the head
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flourescent bulbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fluorescent bulb eye problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My eyes can't survive florescent lighting and I am
My eyes are filled with pain that nothing relieves. The pain moves on to redness that seems to up the pain level even more.
Is anything going to be done for the few of us that seem almost to be allergic to florescence. Normal soft light bulbs and halogen bulbs even more, permit me to have a reasonable quality of life. I am so concerned that with the rush to legislate everything under the sun that people like me will end up living at night with candles - which by the way are expensive and with their smoke throw Lord knows what into the air.
Does anyone know if those of us with opthamalogical probems will be permitted to use the less green but so much kinder though not very greenish bulbs that are available today?
Many thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
incandecent light bulb ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Light bulb ban
Take apart a CFL bulb sometime and look inside the heavy plastic (petroleum-based) case. Here's what's inside: A printed circuit (PC) board with copper traces, 10 capacitors, 6 diodes, 6 resistors, 2 small IC's (I think), 2 aluminum brackets, 1 small magnet with aluminum coilwire around it, 2 heavy multilayer copper wire coils on black plastic cores, an iron frame around one of the coils, 2 steel screws, 2 steel nuts, 2 non-conducting plastic (petroleum) safety washers, 2 tungsten filaments (for start-up of the bulb I presume), 4 long filament stand-wires, 2 heavy-gauge plastic insulated power-supply wires, a great deal of wiring for all the components and a great deal of lead-tin solder to affix each component to the board, plus the standard aluminum threaded base and base contact (which, incidentally, is all there is to an incandescent bulb).
The whole thing weighs 4 to 6 times what an incandescent bulb does and costs $4.95, as opposed to $0.25 for an equivalent incandescent bulb. So let's see, it's bigger, heavier, costs 20 times as much, requires a great deal of petroleum-based plastic, and also substantial amounts of semi-precious and even exotic mined metals and complex electrical equipment. (I.E.: Copper, lead, mercury, tin, silver, gold, aluminum, silicon, iron, steel, cobalt, samarium, kaolinite, polymers, adhesives, resins, carbon, rubber, etc.....). So it costs much more to produce and ship (greater weight implies more diesel burned to move anything), and it is hazardous to dispose of legally. Compare how much mining and oil exploration have to occur to make one of these CFL bulbs to the same considerations for the old incandescent bulb and it is very clear that the incandescent is the less environmentally damaging choice. Even though it burns more energy when used, much of that lost heat is not lost at all because it helps to heat your home, and most homes in the US require some heating at night...when the lights are turned on! Additionally, our generating network is moving rapidly toward cleaner sources (Nuclear/wind/solar), so mandating a much more materials-intensive CFL will only increase the need for mining and oil exploration. As I see it, this CFL law is a great bonanza to anyone in the metals mining, oil exploration or electronic components industries. I'm all for these industries, but doesn't this defeat the purpose of a promised "environmentally-friendly light bulb"?
One last thing: In a supposedly "free country" like the US, the central (federal) government has no right to ban ANY type of light bulb. and you should be offended at this gross overreach by both the Congress and this President. (It reminds me of the alcohol Prohibition experiment of the 1920's-30's.) If you understand the principles that the Founding Fathers based this Constitutional Republic upon, you cannot support or tolerate any ban at all.
Is anyone out there interested in petitioning to get this portion of the ridiculous knee-jerk energy bill repealed? I'm working with my congressmen and Senators in Colorado right now to generate such a movement. Predictably, only the Republicans have even responded to my phone calls--and they are outraged by the ban as well.
"They that will sacrifice even one libery in order to secure safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
I couldn't have said it better, Ben.
--Steve Davis
Denver, Colorado
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fluorescent bulb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mandating CFLs is evil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you know?
Now that Australia has been rudely transformed into a scientifically sound Watts and Lumens place of Friday the 13th Lighting Expedition due to the PROFIT motives of PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV NEDERLANDS, we need proper assessment of lighting needs. Namely the art of lighting, the human factors of lighting, and the FIGHT for APPROPRIATE lighting practices other than those of the CARTEL members of the PHILIPS GIANT.
Q. Who started the BAN OF INCANDESCENTS?
A. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV NEDERLANDS.
Q. What was the motive behind the ban?
A. PHILIPS was pushing the SALE of it's baby the CFL but was up against the constant client preference to INCANDESCENT lighting. Americans in a 2003 study kept going back to INCANDESCENT. Only 2.5% take up.
Q. Why is Australia hushing up those apposed to the BAN?
A. Unlike Canada and USA where this is not allowed, Australia have very bad policy of white-washing the just opinions of its citizens. This is due to the CRAFTY bribes of PHILIPS and members of persuasion (to put it mildly). Woolworths is part and parcel of this collusion.
Q. Why such a push?
A. Huge profits. The INCANDESCENT can only sell for $0.50 to $1.00. A poor profit item. CFL and LED can pull in approx $6 and $20 accordingly.
Q. What is incandescence?
A. It is light produced by the 'black-body' heating of an object.
Q. Why is this preferred?
A. Incandescence produces an INFINITE range of FREQUENCIES of smooth composition of light. This kind of light can take all the reflections and refractions and filtering after bouncing off all the objects in a room lit by this quality of light. It is also a favorable yellow-white warm light of INFINITE FREQUENCIES that maintains its quality under all the transformations of dimming and reflections and refractions and filtering that normally occurs in the process of ambient lighting conditions.
Q. What is the common problem with CFL, Fluorescent, and white-LED?
A. They all produce their light using a selection of approximately 5 different pigments excited by UV or BLUE LED light. The spectrum is like that of a dead forest of spiky trees with little fill in. Very poor rendition. Very sensitive to manufacturing and to other conditions. Resultant lighting becomes very distorted after only a few (if only one) reflection, refraction or filtering. Many view the light as 'strange' or 'eerie'. Low quality. Most often rendered as COLD white light. Some 'WARM' pigment versions are still very strange and vary between BLUE-PURPLE-GREEN-VIOLET off white. Unstable rendition.
Q. Has anyone taken into consideration the human factors of lighting?
A. Not PHILIPS. Not those with VESTED INTERESTS in PROFITS. There is HUGE margin for profits. Human factors are an annoyance to PHILIPS and they rather use the MEDIA to propagate FALSE MISINFORMATION about the entire issue. False mentions that people will get used to this kind of light (absolutely not possible) and false uptake numbers.
Q. Why the hush campaign?
A. Many people DO NOT LIKE the new forms of lighting. It is a natural response. You don't paint walls pure white. You don't paint them blue-white. You paint off-white with warm colors for warm effect. No different than the choice of INCANDESCENT lighting. This includes the use of fire-place lighting, candle lighting, kerosene lighting and incandescent lighting.
Q. Is it worth abandoning warm, calm, inviting INCANDESCENT lighting just for the sake of more energy efficient options of poorer forms of lighting such as CFL, Fluorescent and white-LED?
A. If quality of light, quality of life, quality of health, quality of tourism, quality of relaxation are of concern, then the answer is simply no. Everything is to be taken in balance. The most efficient lighting is the most annoying kind of lighting. It is BLUE light and devoid of BODY (the billions of frequencies of INCANDESCENT lighting).
Q. Why is it important to choose quality lighting?
A. You spend all you life under lighting. Choose INCANDESCENCE (fire-place, candle, kerosene, INCANDESCENT) lighting and you will never suffer from the ills of bad lighting. You don't have to limit your exposure, you don't get headaches, you don't have biological stresses from this kind of lighting. It is safe. You're body knows it is safe. But choose poor lighting (CFL, Fluorescent, white-LED) and you suffer from any number of issue including BLUE light, UV, Flicker (even new CFL: one at 40,000 Hz and one at 39,990 results in 10Hz of annoying sickly feel), biological stress from the light and the EMF from unshielded clipping power supplies in the near radio frequency 40,000 Hz range, the strange incorrect reflections, refractions, filtering of 5 frequency spikes resulting in eerie and strange lighting effects. And the UVA, B, C, D, E so on that is NOT filtered from atmosphere, ionosphere, ozone layers that normally shield us the the Sun's generation of these UV spectrum (the CFL/FLU is direct to you).
Q. What does Canada say about CFL?
A. Not to be exposed closer than 30cm for no longer than 3 hours per day (or 1 hour for larger units).
Q. What does Australia say about CFL?
A. (Hushed up).
Q. What does USA say about breaking CFL?
A. Proper guide to all clean up steps to be taken. Step one is to leave the area immediately, FIRST. Then follow all remaining steps (including NOT to vacuum or sweep with a broom).
Q. What does Australia say about breaking CLF?
A. (Hushed up).
Q. Why is Australia not backing down?
A. PROFIT.
Q. What does artists and photographers think about this fiasco?
A. Many simply change to in-house studio with their heavily guarded collection of INCANDESCENT bulbs. Some are upset they cannot take night photography anymore in Australia outdoors. Many artists have a similar issue with LED. Colored monochromatic lights for display (not ambient room lighting) is great, fantastic. When lighting white off-white and moody, use INCANDESCENT only. When general room lighting: Only INCANDESCENT for art. Fluorescent ok when using machinery to cut things but otherwise not. But white-LED is NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE what-so-ever. The only exception is non-art. Friday the 13th movies with eerie scenes: COLD CLF, COLD Fluorescent and EERIE white-LED is perfect for those 'DEAD' scenes.
Q. What do interior decorators feel about CFL and white-LED?
A. They are very angry. I know one in particular who now has a site about how they cannot properly design because an important tool has been taken away from them: THE INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULB.
Q. Why does Australia gov't not care?
A. PROFIT.
Q. Where are OHSA complaints about lighting directed?
A. 1st attempt. Sorry, their is no department to handle such a complaint. 2nd attempt. You have to contact Australia Lighting (aka PHILIPS).
Q. Why have they eliminated all avenues to oversee lighting in Australia?
A. PHILIPS controls the lighting in Australia.
Q. Why are there very few courses for human factors of lighting?
A. PHILIPS educates kids in schools. They want total control of lighting and the resulting sales and PROFITS.
Q. You've got to be kidding.
A. Do your own research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]