16:9 presents “Dirty Electricity”
11 Comments
Eco-friendly light bulbs are making people sick, or at least that’s what hundreds of Canadians claim. See the encore presentation of this exclusive story. Plus- since these stories first aired, we’ve been flooded with reaction. You wanted answers on the safety of these bulbs, now see what the Health Minister has to say about it.
Processing your request, Please wait....
August 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
As a note, one RSL in UK (Registered Social Landlord) have generously allowed the supply of many such bulbs to tenants with absolutely no information apart from ‘energy efficiency’. Think I’ll alert the Environmental team at the local communist Council office and ask about safe disposal methods – should prove amusing. If anyone knows what these ‘readers’ are called and how to obtain them in UK, please let me know – will commence a search.
August 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 am
AND who promoted these bulbs – HA HA HA – FAKE AL GORE traitor NWO SHILL – BLOOD SUCKING SATANist. LIAR, WANNA BE SCIENTIST – how about the 50,000 scientist who want debate FAKE AL GORE about the FAKE GLOBAL WARMING. The biggest liar, and the stupid sheeple lap it up and go and buy the poisions light bulbs designed to kill you. Break them and your house becomes a crime scene. FULL OF MERCURY, they forgot to mention that. Take them back immediately to where you bought them (unbroken) and get them to dispose. Tell your neighbours and friends these light bulbs are bio-terrorism by the NWO. WAKE UP and do your research.
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 am
pick your choice of side efects here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=energy+saving+bulbs
August 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Great information. It’s really useful. Thanks
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Interesting, I have installed cfl throughout my home, many years now. I have never had any ill effects. And have lowered my light bill, and these cfl’s last for years. I just replaced one that was on my front door entry, it lasted five years!
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:35 am
I have to wonder about the person who contributed that they “just” replaced a compact fluorescent lamps “on my front door” when in the same sentence saying it was “just” installed, they indicate it has already lasted 5 years. Sounds like the science fiction of a Star Trek time warp. What is credible about that?
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
We use some of these at work – not only are the bulbs about 6 times or more costs, but then we have to pay to have them recycled due to the mercury in them. Also, 6 year lifetime expectency? Ha. We’re lucky if they last 1 year. Give me the incandescent bulb any day.
September 13th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I have these lightbulbs all over my house. They save a lot of electricity. My body has a bunch of sores. Ordinary lightbulbs on dimmer controls put out some radio waves too. I use an electric blanket. I’m sure that makes some radiation. I could live in a cabin with a woodstove, with no internet and no tv. Might die even sooner.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
They ‘give’ these away in the less-affluent minority neighborhood’s supermarkets here in the San Joaquin Valley, Ca. (small purchase required, of course)
Health Minister was on the phone as soon as the interview ended, ordering his servants to remove any CFL’s remaining in his own residence.
April 12th, 2010 at 1:07 am
“The life of a CFL is significantly shorter if it is turned on and off frequently: In the case of a 5-minute on/off cycle the lifespan of a CFL can be up to 85% shorter, reducing its lifespan to “close to that of incandescent light bulbs”.[13] The US Energy Star program suggests that fluorescent lamps be left on when leaving a room for less than 15 minutes to mitigate this problem.”
So if that is the case, then we can’t save much . With all these things in mind , and mercury as a pollutant ( it’s inevitable), then perhaps we need to really consider what is really going on here. The light bulbs must be making the producing companies very wealthy,yes?
April 12th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Lamp manufacturers, makers of what the public refers to as “light bulbs”, but are correctly known in the industry as “lamps” are in business to make money. This is certainly no surprise. The problem is that the public does not have the full product performance info that those in the industry have. Typically, a “rated” or “average life” of a lamp is the point at which there is a 50% failure rate, when the product are burned under the most advantageous conditions for extending that product’s life. Typically, found in the small print of the manufacturer’s catalog are statements or footnotes that indicate fluorescent lamps are tested with between a 3 to 8 hour “on” cycle and often burn in rooms well air conditioned as it is known that the heat lamps produce is counter productive to their life ratings. So, if a lamp comes with an advertisement on the box or in print that says it should last 8000 hours on “average”, by definition, that means that in home or business usage, you can expect at least 50% of the lamps to be non functioning by that time. Consider the application you have for a lamp and then make the most educated decision for what would best be served in a buying decision. Keep in mind that people offer “long life” incandescent and halogen lamps, but typically these are 130 volt lamps and you simply don’t have 130 volts to power them, so they’ll give of 28% less illumination while lasting approximately twice as long, but the corresponding reduction in power consumption is only 14% (simple physics here). Since one pays about $1 for every watt consumed in electricity for lighting over a period of 1,000 hours (about a month and a half at 24/7 operation) if you’re cost per kilowatt hour (including taxes and surcharges) is 10 cents. How smart would it be to get 28% less of what you’re paying to get (light) if you only save 14%. The only saving is the purchase price of another lamp, because the one wasting all the electricity can last twice as long as the correct lamp giving you more light.
Look at it this way, a lamp costs a buck. 28% light loss due to wrong voltage but corresponding reduction of only 14% on cost of electricity; so would you pay me $28.00 if I could save you only $14 and a buck for the next lamp. That makes you the “biggest loser”. I could write a booklet about this if anyone knows a publisher who’d pay me to do so. It could sell in every lighting store in the country, sharing all the caveats of the major types of lighting.