Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

["Robert Green" <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"aemeijers" <aemeijers@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

<stuff snipped - sorry I am so late in responding - been away>

> > CFL, the resultant energy savings would eliminate greenhouse gases equal
> > to the emissions of 800,000 cars..."
> >
>
> Not saying that CFL's aren't a good thing. But press releases full of
> SWAG numbers like that irritate me. Way too many uncontrolled variables
> for them to come up with a hard number. How many hours a day is this
> 'one bulb per house' supposed to be on and what wattage? What type of
> cars are those 80,000 cars, and how many hours a day are they lit up,
> and at what speeds? And so on and so on...

Precisely.  There are SO damn many variables to consider that a hard and
fast number like 80K is immediately suspect, especially coming from a
government that was so sure Saddam had WMDs we bankrupted the US trying to
find them.

While both LEDs and CFLs clearly cut down on energy use, only LEDs do it
without adding mercury to every house and business in the nation.  The
analysis is really quite simple.  Choose the product *without* the deadly
neurotoxin in every box.  For the people unhappy about the color quality or
the harshness of the light, consider this:  The Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution were both written with the help of candlelight.  I
don't know how many people on earth still live without electricity, but I've
seen estimates that say that it's more than 1.6 billion that live in
darkness.

Yes, LED bulbs are more expensive now, but what will it cost us to clean up
all the mercury from CFLs in the future?  If it's like some of our other
former "miracle substances" like asbestos, the cost will be substantial.
Remember, the Feds also urged people to insulate their home with asbestos
until they found out it was a deadly carcinogen.

--
Bobby G.