As well, why by a product that contains mercury knowing full well that there is an alternative that does the same thing without the addition of this element and hazard to the environment? One mercury filled light bulb may not be a lot but a million bulbs would be a different story.
You buy a CFL lightbulb because the mercury can be recovered via recycling, vs. the increased demand on coal fired power that spreads mercury everywhere via the smokestack. A CFL, even one disposed in the garbage and broken on the way to the landfill, results in less Hg emissions over its lifetime than an incandescent of the same lumen output.
I prefer office lighting to be dimmer anyway. Indirect window light plus a desk lamp is all that I need. Even at home I'm more of a lamp person instead of lighting up the entire room as it just feels more comfortable that way for me. Obviously not everyone can dictate the amount and type of lighting in their office, but I'll take anything over the big, office-style fluorescent tube fixtures.
Do you have any more info about the GU10 LED lights that you have? Brand, cost, etc.? I have some track lighting in the basement that has some GU10 halogens that I'd like to convert, but as of yet the selection and price point haven't hit that sweet spot for me.
Ours were purchased off of ledlights.ca, a company out of Saskatoon.
They were around $35 each, the prices may have come down since, I don't know. Don't bother with some of the cheap LED bulbs that are available, if you want to switch, make sure they have decent output. A 3.9 Watt LED bulb will have about the same light output as a 35W Halogen.
For other types of LED bulbs, I think I would try earthled.com. They seem to have really good bulbs, but I haven't tried them.
The prices at earthled.com have definately been coming down, while the bulbs are improving. THeir evolux bulbs were 100 bucks a year ago, now they have been dropped first to $80, and now to $50. That's for a bulb that will replace a 100W incandescent. UL listed and FCC approved too.
Last edited by You Need a Thneed; 09-20-2010 at 04:42 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to You Need a Thneed For This Useful Post:
For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers.
The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light.
First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room.
So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a full Dark Sucker.
A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.
There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.
Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating candle.
Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light.
Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.
Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.
The Following User Says Thank You to arloiginla For This Useful Post:
For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers.
The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light.
First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room.
So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a full Dark Sucker.
A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.
There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.
Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating candle.
Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light.
Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.
Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.
Are you attempting to make fun of minorities here?
You buy a CFL lightbulb because the mercury can be recovered via recycling, vs. the increased demand on coal fired power that spreads mercury everywhere via the smokestack. A CFL, even one disposed in the garbage and broken on the way to the landfill, results in less Hg emissions over its lifetime than an incandescent of the same lumen output.
But who do you trust from one of the top wasteful countries in the world to properly recycle? I agree, coal is not a power source I support.
Even if it is less mercury, than a CFL, why have any in the first place if we know better? LED has been around for decades I believe.
ughh brutal comparison atleast between incandescents and LEDs on that site. Yeah if electricity prices were 3 times as high, decent LEDs were that cheap and I lived a extraordinaryily long time in the same house I'd save $14,000 or whatever they suggest.
However here in the real world, long term, LEDs for someone in my situation are probably roughly still twice as expensive as incandescents. probably even more given the frequency I move. Once good LEDs drop down to about the $10 range I'll be switching.
Technology of tomorrow for sure, it's just not the technology of today.
The Following User Says Thank You to Dan02 For This Useful Post:
I guess what I saw was the same as what's already been posted.
As for the math thing, I was an order of magnitude off. They're talking about radiation in the kHz range.. non-ionizing radiation mind you, so at 5kHz the radiation has a wavelength of, oh, 60km.
The simplest radiating or receiving antenna would be 1/4λ where λ is the wavelength.. so 15km. You can of course have shorter antenna but it gets worse as you go, for a radiative antenna λ/10 is about as low as you go, which is 6km. Bends reduce efficiency more.
So if there's a 6km long loop of wire in your house then yeah this noise might actually be detectable in the air.
Of course there are other types of antenna, but your house wiring doesn't really constitute a parabolic or a horn antenna.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
ughh brutal comparison atleast between incandescents and LEDs on that site. Yeah if electricity prices were 3 times as high, decent LEDs were that cheap and I lived a extraordinaryily long time in the same house I'd save $14,000 or whatever they suggest.
However here in the real world, long term, LEDs for someone in my situation are probably roughly still twice as expensive as incandescents. probably even more given the frequency I move. Once good LEDs drop down to about the $10 range I'll be switching.
Technology of tomorrow for sure, it's just not the technology of today.
Take your light bulbs with you when you move.
The Following User Says Thank You to You Need a Thneed For This Useful Post:
I guess what I saw was the same as what's already been posted.
As for the math thing, I was an order of magnitude off. They're talking about radiation in the kHz range.. non-ionizing radiation mind you, so at 5kHz the radiation has a wavelength of, oh, 60km.
The simplest radiating or receiving antenna would be 1/4λ where λ is the wavelength.. so 15km. You can of course have shorter antenna but it gets worse as you go, for a radiative antenna λ/10 is about as low as you go, which is 6km. Bends reduce efficiency more.
So if there's a 6km long loop of wire in your house then yeah this noise might actually be detectable in the air.
Of course there are other types of antenna, but your house wiring doesn't really constitute a parabolic or a horn antenna.
And you are talking to mostfs from a mountain top and we sir are on the plateau!
Really what the heck did you say sir?
Last edited by To Be Quite Honest; 09-20-2010 at 10:52 PM.
But who do you trust from one of the top wasteful countries in the world to properly recycle? I agree, coal is not a power source I support.
Even if it is less mercury, than a CFL, why have any in the first place if we know better? LED has been around for decades I believe.
LED technology has only been approaching usability in the last year or so. The quality was brutal, colour consistency was bad, regulations weren't in place. Even now, I don't trust it completely, because many manufacturers refuse to test using acceptable practices.
I know in the industry I'm in, the LED technology is not where it needs to be to replace the current lighting systems. Soon, but not yet.
The Following User Says Thank You to V For This Useful Post:
Basically the ability of your house wiring to radiate the dirty electricity and your body's ability to receive it are extremely low.
You're an AM radio with no antenna, and the AM radio transmitter is a spoon.
Thank you. After reading your post, again which did not explain your symbol (λ) for what it was, it made sense. I am not a math guy but this extra explanation helped considerably for me.
When my am radio gets low reception I can touch it in a "special place" which gives me the power to hear fan 960...
Is that the devil talking when "Dough boy" speaks? In seriousness I was under the impression we as humans make great antenna?
Last edited by To Be Quite Honest; 09-21-2010 at 12:01 AM.
And for photon's math, assuming the radiation is electromagnetic it obeys the law:
Wavelength=Speed of Light/Frequency
So If speed of light is 300,000 km/s and frequency is 5000 Hz (1/s) then the wavelength of the radiation works out to 300,000 km/s / 5000 1/s = 60 km.
we are affected a 60hz per second? What does that mean? Again, not a math guy. Did extremely well in biological science but I'm an arts guy through and through. I can make magic with editing equipment. I can write a play! I can knock any ladies socks off with a good poem... Excluding the haiku.
Living in the country, I appreciate a good flashlight and so I got an LED Maglite, 2 D cells flashlight. It's great, it gives a really powerful beam and the batteries last much longer. I'll be glad to switch over to LED house lighting when it gets more reasonable.
It seems, however, with any new technology comes a wave of internet fearmongering, and CFLs are now a prime target. YouTube videos are circulating claiming that CFLs cause headaches, mercury toxicity, a host of symptoms from electromagnetic sensitivity, and something called “type 3 diabetes.” Let’s take a look at the claims and the science.
The notion that EMF or dirty electricity causes a health risk, and that CFLs are a significant source of exposure, is not based upon any compelling science. Further, such claims stem mostly from a single researcher who appears to spend most of her time spreading fear about EMF than producing quality research. The media and the public should not be confused by this lone researcher on the fringe into believing that “experts disagree.”
Rather, while there is always room for more research, there is already extensive evidence for the safety of non-ionizing radiation. Special cases, like long term (>15 year) use of cell phones, where the source of EMF is held right up to the skin, are still under investigation.
Exposure from EMF in the home, from light bulbs and other sources, pose no credible health risk. The media needs to do a better job of putting claims for health risks into the proper scientific perspective.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
