Vakkotaur

I know. All fluorescent lighting uses mercury and I have two dead CFLs to recycle - and I get to wait until sometime in October for the local fluorescent pickup.

LED would be nice if it was 1) cheaper 2) brighter 3) more diffuse 4) truly broad-spectrum. I'm not holding my breath.

From: (Anonymous)

With all new ideas, and most of the old ones there is an abundance of ney (sic)sayers. Does any rational person really believe millons of birds are dying in the turbines. A reporter went to the home of one such ney sayer, while waiting for the sayer to open the door, the reporter noticed feathers on the big window of the house and a lifeless bird on the ground. go figure..
About global warming. in 1919 map makers found that the glaciers on mount killmanjero (sic) were retreating, a half century before we realized the world was burning up. Lets take a good look, stop and think, then look again.
Phil

From:

Older windmill designs, with open lattice style towers were a danger to birds as they presented a bunch of nesting areas and had the blades in the flight path to and from those places. Modern windmill tower designs are enclosed and don't provide apparent nesting areas, thus are much less of a danger to birds.

The glaciers in some areas are receding, though temperature has little if anything to do with it. Where there has been significant deforestation, there is less humidity and thus less precipitation, and so the glacier(s) in the area shrink.

Edited Date: 17 Jul 2009 17:39 (UTC)

From:

nefaria.livejournal.com

Wind turbines are usually placed in the locations with highest windflow, which often happens to be the preferred migration path for birds, for obvious reasons. Full-sized wind farms present a major deadly obstacle course for birds to fly though.

Your reporter story is utterly meaningless.

In the 1970's, scientists warned us that a new ice age was on the way unless we took drastic, multi-billion dollar action immediately. Apparently we were too successful, now we have to spend multi-trillions to prevent global warming.

I have looked, stopped, thought, looked again, and I smell a rat.

From:

There is actually a connection between the 70s "ice age" prediction and the current climate change scenario. Both are derived from the idea of ice melt and rising sea levels. The 70s theory was based on the idea of a tip over point where cold arctic deep water would spill over the threshhold between Alaska and Siberia at the Bering Strait, chilling the Pacific, shifting ocean currents, and altering weather patterns. The known cycles of growing and retreating ice in the Pleistocene era do seem to fit into this model.

Something that is frequently missed in common perception of the current climate change theories is that they do anticipate warming in some areas and cooling in others, along with the rising sea levels. It isn't "global warming" but "global climate shift."

From:

nefaria.livejournal.com

My complaint with the "climate change" hypothesis is that it's unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. Global warming, at least, can be proven true or false. Climate change can never be proven false.

From:

I *hate* CFL.
Haaaate.

From:

I'm curious as to why.

I know I'm not the average person as I have long prefered the more fully white fluorescent light, even before CFL, as long as it wasn't flickering.

I even like the slow turn-on 'fluorescent dawn' of some CFLs, at least at times.

The shape and design can be a nuisance, though that is improving some.

Not trying to convince you of anything. Just curious.

From:

Because their design is inefficient- 50% of the light they produce never makes it to you- it's bounced around the core of the bulb.

And the light they produces SUCKS. It's DIM- much dimmer than an equivalent A lamp.

From:

I'd like to know about the first claim there. I can see it being possible, but wonder if it's really different from any other fluorescent.

The second really has me wondering. I have yet to encounter a CFL that, once up to full output, was not significantly brighter than the incandescent of the "equivalence" wattage.

From:

It's about the design of the bulb itself. It's one of the big topics covered in Lighting Design II. Im sure I have the textbook somewhere.

(It may be in storage)

I will be using A lamps here until they come out with something that WORKS. Also I dislike the CFL light quality. I use full spectrum bulbs here. I work with color. I need to see it accurately.

From:

I did some actual measurements. The CFL does produce the amount of light claimed, but only after a warm up period. Many are quite dim when they are turned on cold, and need as much as ten to fifteen minutes to reach full luminescence.

As for color temperature, they do come in varying spectral variations, just as the old fluorescent tubes did. The trouble is finding the ones that suit you, because the labeling is utterly non-standardized and spectrum classifications are often not marked at all.

We have some that do give a light equivalent to filtered sunlight, as far as I can tell. I find it quite adequate for artwork and color comparisons. But I can't tell by package labeling which ones will or will not have the interior coating that produces this light. Same brand, same type number, with light so different in color temperature that it is obvious to the naked eye, even without measuring instruments.

From:

Maybe Im not being clear. The light produced by the bulb is the same. The light that makes it to your eyes is not. The design of the bulb means that 50% of the light produced bounces around the core of the bulb. Only a portion of that light makes it to you. They appear dimmer to your eye because they are not shaped the same way as an A lamp (or a regular fluorescent tube) and less light is thrown outwards.

From:

I don't think that's really true. Light radiated toward the center of the coil will diffuse and escape, for the most part.

As I said, I made measurements with a photographic light meter, comparing the "equivalent" wattage incandescent bulb to the CFL that claimed the same light output, and found that they were in fact within 10% or so most of the time. This was only true after the CFL had been lit for at least 15 minutes to warm up, though.

From:

Light radiated toward the center would bounce. Some makes it out, but not all of it does. I've always found CFLs to look very dim(I have two in my guest room and the place always seems impossibly dark no matter how long they've been on), and the lighting design industry is mightily pissed about the things because of it- they prefer LEDs.

So glad I didn't go into lighting design.

From:

Prefer LED?! Which are not anything near full-spectrum (a few fairly tight color/frequency bands - it can *look* white, but isn't - makes some artwork look rather odd) and are truly dim... this is preferred??

The most recent CFLs I bought had a listed color temperature (as did many of the CFLs I left on the shelf). My experience has been that, once fully warm and on, they appear far brighter than the equivalent incandescents they replace. Even the ones with a spiral held inside a plastic envelope to appear something near an A style bulb appear brighter to me.

From:

It's not just that. We're finding now that these things are made in huge quantities in places like China and Indonesia, they no longer last as long. One out of five or six seems to fail within a few months. The ballast or whatever it is at the base often generates just as much heat as an incandescent bulb. Worst of all, I suspect that the pollution created by manufacturing them in countries with less regulations about that sort of thing is probably just as bad for the environment in the end as the heat and energy wastage of the old style lighting.

From:

We've had two failures in last few months, both of a local store-brand (made in China). Both have been in the office ceiling fan/light fixture which uses four bulbs and they were different bulbs. They were put into service about two years ago, and did not last any 8000 hours or 7 seven years. They did, however, last much, much longer than filament bulb as I seemed to replace on of those every couple months. I haven't worked out the cost of use including bulb cost, but since I prefer the light quality and the convenience of not changing bulbs every few weeks, I consider it an overall win. I will not be using that store brand any more - even if others are also made in China, the local store prices them higher than I care for.

Edited Date: 18 Jul 2009 01:01 (UTC)

From:

pharwarner.livejournal.com

I'll second Bronxelf. I hate them. The first one I've installed lasted around three months. My second experience with them was last night, in a hotel room. It really bugged me to flip the switch and not have light right there and then.

And what's more, down here, it's now illegal to sell light globes. They're a prohibited import. I'm waiting for them to be sold on street corners by men in trenchcoats. I made sure I bought a good supply before the cutoff date and am now in possession of 84 60 watt globes. And four 100 watt globes. The good stuff, the Dutch stuff, genuine Phillips globes!

The government report on the issue makes disturbing reading. It's laced with expressions such as "to counter public resistance" and "re-education".

When Ezra came over a few weeks ago the best way I could sum all this up was by taking a globe a quoting the late, and much lamented, Mr Heston...
"From my cold, dead hands!"

From: