"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
"JANA" wrote in message
...
If the switch that is series with the light bulb has a night light in it,
the current pass of the night light will cause the CFL to flicker.
If the CFL is connected to a switch that is electronic, the small leakage
of
the electronics will cause the CFL to flicker or in some cases to not
turn
off.
Regular CFL's cannot be used on standard light dimmers and many of the
electronic timers. This is a big inconvenience for many people.
When regular lamps become unavailable, I can see a lot of problems with
these new types of lamps. The biggest one will be the pollution from
their
disposal. They use mercury, phosphors, and many types of materials that
are
very harmful for the environment. There is also the electronics circuit
board, which contain components that have the same recycling problem as
used
in most electronics. Even though they last longer, when they are
eventually
put out in to the garbage, they will eventually end up in the land fills.
They are going to be a very big problem compared to the simple light bulb
that was made of simple glass and metals.
Regular light bulb materials are about 85% recyclable. There are almost
no
materials in these that are bad for the environment. Most CFL's materials
are not recyclable, and their materials are very polluting.
It looks very strong that the government is pushing the CFL's to save
some
electricity to sell to large industry. This is the only answer that is
logical. There are NO green house gasses from using regular light bulbs.
When more electricity is sold to industry, the pollution problems from
its
generation will actually increase, unless the generation is from water
power, or nuclear power.
--
JANA
_____
These are my (well known) views also, but I fear we are squeaking like
little lost mice in the dark ...
The general public are not told - and would not understand anyway - the
wider implications of these knee-jerk government interventions in our
lives. All too often, they are poorly thought through, and are dreamed up
as a response to the latest bit of pseudo science to hit the news stands.
At the moment, anything with the words 'green' or 'eco' or 'environment'
or 'global warming' are fair game for this sort of nonsense, and to add to
its 'validity' in the public's eyes, they've already started inventing new
bits of techno-babble like 'carbon footprint' and 'carbon offsetting' to
justify what amounts to little more than opinions by a vociferous band of
scientists getting paid large amounts of money and credibility ratings, to
promote the government line. As you say, these CFLs are just trading one
form of alleged pollution, for another definite one ...
Arfa
Arfa
Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the whole
principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional bulb, much of
the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room, and
consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or otherwise.
Putting in a low-energy lamp mean that there is less heat being put into the
room, and consequently, more heat has to be supplied externally. The only
way that Low Energy lighting makes a positive difference is if people change
their lamps when they stop using external heating. As in Northern Europe we
usually have to have our heating on for at least 7 months of the year,
typically 8 months, low energy lighting doesn't make a lot of sense. Also,
how much energy does it take to make a low-energy lamp compared with a
conventional one? When this is factored in, together with the extra energy
required to dispose of it safely, I doubt very much whether low-energy
lighting helps at all.
S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com