Energy saving light bulb

boss2007

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/healt ... sing-chemicals.html

zuesel

回復 1# boss2007

Thank you for posting this. It's sad that our electric company and manufacturers have people believe that CFL is the greatest and the best. There have been many studies to prove that it's actually a health hazard. True, it's good on money saving but think of the health risk in the long run. People may say that lots of things give you cancer anyway. However, the thing with lighting is that you and your family spend hours dining, reading, playing, whatever, whenever you are at home (or even at work). So, it's not as avoidable like food choices and life style.

When CFL's first came out, BC hydro was promoting it like crazy! People lined up to get them, watched and jumped for sales. They were very expensive too but people believed it was worth it although they are ugly as hell. However, notice that BC hydro, although doesn't disclose the harmful effects, no longer promo them. You can get CFLs at dollar stores nowadays. I once saw them for $0.99 in a overstock bin at a drug store!

As an Interior Decorator, we would never, ever promote CFL's to any clients. Seriously, if you want energy saving, safe, and pretty looking lights, go for LED'S!!

Here are some readings of interest.

http://www.scientificamerican.co ... ightbulbs-dangerous

http://www.squidoo.com/truth_about_cfl_bulbs

http://unhypnotize.com/health/26 ... mful-radiation.html

Above are just a little bit of all the links and studies of bad effects of CFLs

fm9610

回復 2# zuesel

My home has been using fluorescent lamp for long. I thought CFL is the same thing, but just smaller? BTW, do we not have FL as the backlight on LCD monitor/TV? So no TV or computer monitor?

peter236

But LED are still very expensive. If health is a concern, still getting LED is worth it.

zuesel

Yes, considering the harmful effect (more study has been done on CFL) and it's becoming more and more apparent the negative impacts. I urge people to really google them. Some of the main points to remember are:

• Should not be used with people who have migraines or diabetes
  
• Contains 5mg mercury/bulb
  
• Not biodegradable. The mercury will continue to be present in our landfills.
  
• Should not be used in moist environment ie: bathrooms and enclosed light fixtures.
  
• Easy to explode which is even more dangerous as large amount of mercury will leak.
  
• They do not last as long as they claim coz they have to be left on at least a couple of hours and on/off reduces lifespan.
  

This is an excellent read:
http://lowenergylampsinfo.wordpr ... -saving-lamps-cfls/

B2L2

Yes, fluorescent light tube is the same technology as CFL (compact fluorescent light lamp).  i.e. they both have the same concern.

Quote from wiki : "Development of fluorescent lamps that could fit in the same volume as comparable incandescent lamps required the development of new, high-efficacy phosphors that could withstand more power per unit area than the phosphors used in older, larger fluorescent tubes."

Does this high-efficacy phosphors make the situation worst, I don't know.

For LCD TV/monitor, I haven't read any bad report about their radiation and EMF rating.  Maybe they put extra shielding into these hundred dollars equipment.  Plus I'm assuming their energy level is much much lower then the smallest CFL light bulb.

In my company, there are rooms that are special for over-light shift workers.  These rooms are all equipped with special ordered fluorescent light tube to simulate the day-time environment.  This way we could keep them working harder....  

zuesel

回復 3# fm9610

It's kind of technical and hard to explain...
Although fluorescent still isn't the best choice, it is still better than CFL's. The key is in the physical make up of the bulbs/tubes.
Fluorescent Light is emitted from a glass tube filled with mercury vapor and argon, lined with a phosphor coating and sealed at the ends with cathodes. The ballast (not biodegradable) which controls the current, voltage and connection is housed in the casing of the lighting unit. Where as CFL's have the ballast built right into the bulbs.

As with your concern of monitors and such. The effect is different and isn't as damaging because you won't be able to stare at a light bulb for hours.

zuesel

回復 4# peter236

Actually, LED lights are energy saving too!
Check this out! New 100W-equivalent LED Bulb Only Uses 16W of Power
http://www.mobilemag.com/2011/05 ... -uses-16w-of-power/

Turning on/off doesn't affect the lifespan
It's cold to the touch
Has no harmful chemical
Can last up to 50,000 hours
save up to 90% of energy consumption
free of infra red and UV
can be used under water

For us decorators, we like it because it provides great color rendition (effect of a light source on the visual appearance of a colored surface)
A good color rendition light temperature is 2700-3500 kelvin.

So when doing light planning, keep in mind what to use to bring out the best in your home, paintings, decors, etc.

Other light sources that are energy efficient are Halogen and Xenon

fm9610

回復 7# zuesel

But I stare at my 2 LCD monitors the whole day and they are only a feet from my head!

zuesel

回復  zuesel

But I stare at my 2 LCD monitors the whole day and they are only a feet from my head! ...
fm9610 發表於 2011-5-20 21:28

Maybe you should google for your concern. I didn't study about lighting on monitors as a part of Interior decorating. I think it's common sense that either way, sitting for prolong hours in front of the monitor doesn't do people any good. Not only the light but also one's posture could have negative impact.