Re: Dissecting CFLs

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp#Mechanisms_of_lamp_failure_at_
>end_of_life
>
>Good job!   It seems quite fair and balanced to me, and I see something I
>can add:  lots of migraine sufferers are bothered intensely by the light of
>fluorescent lamps of all types.  Long before a dying fluorescent's flicker
>is noticed by me, it's giving my wife migraines.

The FDA has a web page that says fluorescents cause problems for those who
suffer from migraines but they don't provide supporting evidence (or, if so,
I missed it).

     http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_pain.html

The earlier cited wiki page would seem to support my contention that the
numbers promulgated by CFL proponents are wildly exagerated. It notes, as I
did in similar fashion based on having run a business and having visited
thousands of commercial and industrial sites, that "businesses find the cost
savings of fluorescents to be significant and only rarely use incandescent
lights". That means most of the savings from switching to CFLs must come
from residences and since residential lighting in the US only uses 3% of
total electricity, there's not a lot to be gained from replacing all
(remaining) residential incandescents with CFLs. The CFL proponents'
arguments appear to consist predominantly of inflated claims, chest thumping
self promotion, name calling, and character assassination of those who dare
disagree.

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

Perhaps they've been breathing mercury fumes from broken fluorescents. ;)