In 2008 I wrote the post about CFLs that worked for me at the time, and have updated it with the latest models since then.

The topic is recommended CFLs to replace incandescent bulbs. I think I found five or six positive use-cases, and I still stand behind them. I still haven’t found use-cases for dimmable bulbs, for example, and don’t feel any need to discuss refrigerator bulbs (40W, on for perhaps 5 minutes a day: simply not relevant).

If you or others wish to discuss the merits and limitations of legislation, please feel free to do so but not on this comment thread.

I hate to be such a jerk about this, but for the first time in the 6 year history of this blog, I am going to see if it’s possible for me to close comments.

Tom

There is a worthy debate to be had of the issues around all forms of lighting we use, and for that matter all forms of energy we use. While I am very happy, and generally thrilled to hear others comment, or engage in conversation whether or not I agree with the views stated, back-and-forth comments or arguments are not really that useful.

And even if they are, they do not serve the purpose of my blog. As it happens, in addition to the time I spend writing, I pay a modest monthly fee to handle the 10,000 or so visitors I get monthly. So I get to be king :-). My goal is unabashedly to provide information and opinions to those who are hoping to find ways to live their lives using less energy.

So I apologize if I have hurt your feelings by deleting your words. Let’s keep the comments open, and on point, please.

Thanks,

Tom Harrison

Thanks for all short, insightful, fact-based, on-topic and helpful comments. By on-topic, I mean relating to the specific CFLs I reviewed in this post over two years ago.

Thanks,

Tom Harrison

BTW I reiterate that I would rather see a tax imposed than a ban even on regular incandescents. That would make them available for those who want for specific purpose but the discouragement would cut sales enough to produce the major long-term energy savings.

All good information. And actually one reason manufacturers are using less mercury is that it results in faster cold-start time, a complaint of some about first and second generation CFLs.

Anyone concerned about the mercury in their CFL’s should really read the informative article posted here:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/harvard/news/lifestyle/columnists/x497782485/IDEAS-FOR-SUSTAINABLE-LIVING-The-truth-about-compact-fluorescent-lights#axzz1HZ391fhl

It appears Karen is mistaken when she claims that “Each Bulb contains 5mg of the deadly and extremely dangerous Mercury”. In fact the amount is considerably less than that. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“For example, did you know that electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the United States since mercury is emitted when coal is burned to generate power? According to the EPA’s Energy Star division, the U.S. is “responsible for the release of 104 metric tons of mercury emissions per year. Most of these emissions come from coal-fired electrical power.”

“The mercury in the air settles into waterways and accumulates in fish which then gets into our own food stream.”

“CFLs generally use about 70 percent less electricity and last 10 times longer than incandescent light bulbs. Therefore, over the life of the bulb, the CFL will generate only 20 percent the mercury emissions of its incandescent light bulb equivalent (assuming the CFL is properly recycled when it is finished). Even if the CFL isn’t properly disposed of and ends up in a landfill, the mercury emissions would still only be 27 percent of the incandescent equivalent so it’s still much better for the environment.”

“To get some perspective on the amount of mercury we are talking about, a typical CFL contains about 4mg of mercury which is about the size of the tip of a ball point pen. According to Energy Star, over the past year many manufacturers have reduced the amount of mercury in CFLs by at least 20 percent and some even further, so they contain only 1.4 to 2.5mg of mercury per bulb. A standard 4-foot fluorescent tube contains 40mg of mercury or 10 times as much, a neon sign contains 100mg, and a standard residential wall-mounted thermostat contains 3000mg or 750 times as much as one CFL light bulb.”

“You may already be exposed to mercury from the metal dental fillings in your mouth. This isn’t often in the media but many of us are already exposed to mercury and have been since childhood. Also, in the 90s, sneakers which had heals that lit up when children walked on them contained mercury as well. Mercury is still used in various cosmetics, so check http://www.ewg.org for the cosmetic database to make sure your products are safe.”

Jack

Since you were so gracious about my blatant self promotion regarding the Magic Toob product, I thought I should reciprocate and offer you some samples to try for yourself. If indeed you like them and they work as advertised, I would be happy to supply a free sample to any of your readers who request one. Any thoughts?

Jack

So again… about flicker.. Turn off all the lights, stand away from a monitor with a bright picture and sweep your hand across in front of you. You will notice that your hand seems to jump across your field of view. That is because the monitor has low persistence so that you can get natural motion. This may not work on some LCDs as a transistor turned on, stays on the whole time. So if you don’t see your hand jumping (LCD) then it is not flickering (try this with a CFL on in the room to see if your hand jumps due to flicker… it won’t, since the flicker is very low). Flickering was associated with the older tube type displays from just a few years back.

I am not sure what your annoyance is coming from, but is probably is not from what you stated above.