Talk:Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs/Archive 2

Article title

Ban is a strong word, especially since some of the measures, actually a lot of the measures noted in this article are voluntary agreements and not being done via legislation and therefore not an actual ban. I propose a more suitable, less sensationalist title, e.g. Phasing out the incandescent bulb, etc. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that "phasing out" is better than "banning". Johnfos (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In almost all cases mentioned here, there is legislation that forbids selling incandescent bulbs, or will forbid it in the near future. These are effectively "bans". It doesn't seem that many measures noted here are "voluntary agreements". Moreover, I think that "phasing out" should refer to the temporary allowance of incandescent bulbs while waiting for the "ban" to be enforced; so using "ban" in the title would be more appropriate. Filipporiccio (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. There may be people voluntarily phasing out incandescents, but the focus of this article is on countries that have banned them. Binarybits (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The process in which they're being banned is through phasing out, thus I'm not sure changing to a more POV title would be appropriate. The end result is the same. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What kind of banning doesn't happen "through phasing out?" Bans of consumer products almost never take place instantaneously. "Phase-out" fails to make clear that what we're talking about is a legislative prohibition on the use of incandescent bulbs. Binarybits (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What kind of phasing out doesn't result in "banning"? I agree with nja. The term "ban" is misleading and unnecessarily POV. Bob A (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Banning" is compulsory. "Phasing out" is often voluntary. Businesses have phased out the use of typewriters, but typewriters haven't been banned. What's misleading about "ban?" Are we not in fact talking about legislation that makes it illegal to sell incandescent bulbs? Binarybits (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, does the article include *any* examples that are not compelled by legislation? I'm not seeing any. Binarybits (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, the end point is the same, and to use dramatised wording only serves to add POV. As for examples, for one, in the UK, the phase out has been made voluntarily by large retailers to stop carrying certain wattages of bulbs in stages, ie a phase out. A ban would imply they're somehow illegal or illicit, which from what I can tell no one anywhere will be prosecuted for possessing or selling old bulbs. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The possession of incandescent bulbs is not being made illegal (like some kind of recreational drugs are 'banned substances'). Many are still needed for specialist uses like inside domestic ovens etc. It is a 'phasing-out' of manufacture and sales, by the large companies and retailers who manufacture and sell them to the public for normal, everyday lighting of their homes and workplaces. --Nigelj (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its absolutely correct to say communist 'ban' instead of 'phase out', bus conductors have been phased out in many cities around the world...but havent been banned...you can have a bus conductor if u can afford it. With these light bulbs...you cant buy them even if you are ready to pay $100 tax on each bulb. So it is in fact a totalitarian ban. Tri400 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Ban" is the correct word. There are no opinions invloved here, only facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.144.78 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This article's title is nonsense. The article mostly discusses bans enacted through law. The map shows places that have either "A full ban" or "A partial ban". Phase out is not an accurate title to describe this article. Colonycat —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your change in the article title. There does not appear to have been consensus for the move. The discussion above is quite old. If you want to move the article, I suggest you start a new discussion at the bottom of the page. Personally, I find "phase-out" more neutral than "ban".--Srleffler (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Colonycat's argument that the title should be "Banning" rather than "phasing out". And by the way, "phase-out" sounds like Chinese-American English, i.e. Chinese grammar does not use the English gerund ending "-ing" (just like " the no-fly zone" instead of "the no flying zone"). 86.170.123.2 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you notice the dates on this thread? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Spam or not ?

Does the link currently at the end of the "Cost and existing fixtures" section count as a spam link or not ? It proves that dimmable CFLs can be purchased, but it's also an advertising link...... CultureDrone (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I considered WP:SPAM, and the way this is used does not seem to be a blatant example of it. It makes the point that the general statement that CFLs do not dim is not true in all cases. Being a reseller does not in itself mean they cannot provide relevant facts. If this ref wasn't used as a citation, but rather was an external link saying "Buy dimmable bulbs" or even something less obvious, then I would believe it to be more akin to spam. As with most policies, when the potential offending text is not a clear cut example, the policy becomes open to interpretation and the context in which it's being used must be considered. In my opinion, as it stands I do not think it is an obvious example of spam as it's being used as a citation and not to advertise directly. And whether they indirectly get a sale of two from someone actually checking the reference and following the link is not particularly the biggest issue Wikipedia has. If a better ref can be found that would be wonderful as well. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally i think "phasing out" is weasel-wording in situation that legislations _effect_ in a BAN of TRADE. perhaps just mere change of 'phasing out' to 'trade ban' could be more 'compromise', but personally i think ban is enough clear word, and article should just explain mechanism and range of the ban.

"Phase-out" is also 'weasel-wording' in my opinion because it occurs not as phenomenon due to developing of superior technology, none of 'new' technologies really replaces old one. customers do not pick new technologies by themselves. Legislations to remove classic lightbulbs are not introduced by customers themselves. main arguments of ban creators are that when there will be greater market interest in alternative light sources, they will be developed, and their prices more affordable. this means effective ban of lightbulbs in specific area of their usual use. this basically means sponsoring of specific industry branches out of pockets of consumers, which are not willing to do otherwise, and as method of violence which makes them do it - ban is introduced. i do not see 'phase-out' as correct definition for that, as choice of light sources is not any 'process' govern by any national or international bodies, it is often compromise inbetween aesthetics, efficiency , and cost, made by individual consumers or companies, thus individual social phenomenon, not just a branch of governments bodies.

83.18.229.190 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

adverse reactions US, Mercury, headaches

http://www.purepowercanada.ca/InvestigativeReport2.htm

only the led's are safe. the old bulbs that are 'not environmentally friendly' release much less UV radiation.

The very dubious web page you show seems to have nothing to do with lamps at all. Nothing is safe - after all, LEDs contain deadly arsenic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Leds can also emit a lot of UV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.216.169 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Panic buying?

"There is evidence of panic buying of incandescent bulbs ahead of the EU lightbulb ban" Is it accurate or NPOV to describe this as panic buying? That terminology implies an irrational and fear-based reason for buying things that you think is going to be in short supply (often causing such shortages in the process). However, in this case, it is a known fact that the bulbs are going to be banned, so it seems entierly rational for people who prefer them to the alternatives to buy a supply of them while they can. 62.172.108.23 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "panic buying" is a generally wrong term in this case, but since the article uses also the terms "bulk purchasing" and "stockpiling" I think that overall it is OK. I "stockpiled" some types of incandescent bulbs due to a (in my opinion) rational decision, but I hear also of lamp sellers here in Italy saying that some people (especially older people) went to buy incandescent bulbs out of fear that they wouldn't be able to find "equivalent" bulbs in the future; some would describe this as "panic buying". Filipporiccio (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Howard Brandston's opinion

We now have a whole sub-section on the opinions of this bloke. He is an irrelevance in my part of the world, but what is he in the US? Is he some important government advisor or leading public opinion shaper in that country? Or is he just an acquaintance of the anon editor who added all the new material? (Or was that actually him?) I removed some of the worst self-aggrandisement and personal editorialising, but I don't know if he has a public standing and world influence that means we ought to keep the rest. --Nigelj (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

His notability seems doubtful to me. I would recommend removing the paragraph. Bob A (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In the US, he's widely acknowledged within the lighting profession. I am a former associate of his, and I am the author of the original paragraph, though I have had no connection or communication with him since I ran into him at a wedding of a mutual friend more than two years ago. I apologize if you found my original contribution to the page to be inappropriate. That was not my intent. Apologies also for the formatting errors, as this is the first time I've ever contributed to the wiki world. If there are formatting errors in this reply, then apologies in advance. [edit - cannot get this to indent, for instance...]

I think that his contributions as an opponent to the ban of incandescent lighting are an asset to the wikipedia article. I also thought that I'd included his qualifications in that original paragraph. Perhaps I phrased them poorly, because you seem to have interpreted much of them as "self-aggrandizement and personal editorialising" and removed them. Perhaps he needs his own wiki page so he can simply be referenced from this article.

In that vein, some of what you excised from the original paragraph was actually a demonstration of his qualifications. For instance, you excised the fact that he presented his paper on 'phasing out the incandescent light bulb' at the 2009 "Light Fair International." If you are unaware, Light Fair International is the world's largest annual architectural and commercial lighting trade show and conference. So, when this information is excised from the article, his qualifications as an opponent are also diminished. Somebody must think he's relevant and qualified, since they invited him to present at Light Fair.

For futher demonstration of his qualifications as a lighting authority, Mr. Brandston has been honored by a long list of professional associations. Heck, CIBSE honored "this bloke" with an Honorary Fellowship (apparently it's highest honor and limited to just 25 living people). Last I checked, CIBSE was a British group. He has been practicing lighting design for 50 years, and has been a professor at several architectural schools and lighting programs for much of that time. He is widely published in the architectural trade. Some of his firm's highest profile projects include lighting for the renovated Statue of Liberty (New York City), the Petronas Towers (Kuala Lampur), the Osaka Aquarium, and the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center (Washington, D.C.). He presented to Congress during the energy crisis of the '70s (as part of the committee).

In summary, I'd put forward that Mr. Brandston is relevant, and you would be hard-pressed to find a more qualified voice from the lighting industry to have joined the opposition to this "phase out." I hope the wiki community finds that Mr. Brandston's postion, qualifications, and efforts are relevant in regard to his public opposition of the phase out. 66.234.232.42 (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) BR, NYC.

What contributions has he made? The only thing the article mentions is something about the american department of energy's formulas. The paragraph makes him look like the equivalent of a global warming denier. How prominent is he in the controversy in the united states? Have there been any major publications about him? Bob A (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He has presented at Light Fair to lighting professionals; he's been interviewed by the New York Times and FoxNews; and he's published an alternative proposal in the Wall Street Journal, as cited. You may disagree with his position, and you wouldn't be the only one to do so, but he's credible and published as being opposed. Does that not meet the criteria for inclusion under "Public Opposition?" 72.225.153.177 (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

His credentials as a lighting designer don't contribute much to his notability on this particular topic. All the publications you've mentioned are self-published, self written or interviews. These don't really establish enough notability for him to be mentioned without giving wp:undue weight. By the way, "bloke" means "guy"; it's not really derogatory. Bob A (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'topic' is phasing out the use of one of the available light sources, which are the tools of lighting designers who use them to transform architecture and public spaces. Howard Brandston is at the top of that profession and world-recognized for his contributions. And, he helped establish the first energy efficiency guidelines in the U.S. He is a lighting expert with 50 years experience and recognized by just about every lighting organization in existence. He is as notable as any other opponent mentioned in the article, though where none of the others have any relevance in the U.S, Howard does. If he weren't notable, then he wouldn't have been invited to present at Light Fair or interviewed/published by credible sources in our national media. Not just anybody gets an interview or editorial in the NYTimes and Wall Street Journal.

However, I do agree that this paragraph should not be about him, but about the efforts to raise public awareness of the pitfalls he anticipates. Perhaps the paragraph can be edited further to avoid wp:undue weight, removing some of the irrelevant material about his background:

"One opponent of the phase out in the United States is the lighting design expert Howard Brandston. -insert citation- He opposes phasing out the incandescent light bulb because he believes the replacements provide an inferior quality of light and that the energy efficiency gains have been overstated by the Department of Energy. He has used his position as a lighting expert to raise public awareness of the phase out and he has asked people to write their congressmen. -insert citations- He has offered an alternative proposal. -insert citation-" 72.225.153.177 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And the use of "bloke" or "guy" in this context is derogatory. It demonstrates bias about the author's opinion of Mr. Brandston or his position. Otherwise the sentence would have read "We now have a whole sub-section on his opinions," instead of "We now have a whole sub-section on the opinions of this bloke." The use of "bloke" or "guy" is a common linguistic tool for dismissing the person being referenced. 72.225.153.177 (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm...that's an example of restraint, compared to what pops to my mind on reading the .PDF file cited as a reference. Not exactly an exhaustive scientific treatise, is it? "This number is no good. You've got to use this number instead, which I like better. Some random light fixtures have a higher CU with incandescent bulbs than some other random light fixtures have with unspecified CFLs. " Unconvincing in the extreme. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Google "Brandston" and "Lighting Expert" and you get 93 hits. He does know his stuff. Perhaps this link needs to be added to the citations: http://www.tedmag.com/news/news-room/special-report/Special-Report/Special-Report--6-4-2009.aspx It provides an unbiased trade-review of Brandston and his presentation at Light Fair, and also one by a representative from EPA's Energy Star program. Each opposes the phase out. 72.225.153.177 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As big-scale 'lighting designer' he might even have a vested interest in the status quo - maybe he has a large amount of stock to shift before the US phase-out begins. I think we need more citations of his work than we've got before giving him WP prime time. --Nigelj (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Check the 93 google references you get above. I think you need to admit that he's an expert with whom you were unfamiliar, and with whose opinion you disagree. 72.225.153.177 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Bloke" is informal. It's nothing to do with your opinion of the referent. Bob A (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeepers. Motion sensor lights. We shouldn't phase out incandescents because CFLs don't work in motion sensor lights. My goodness, now I'm convinced. That's got to be about 0.3% of all household lighting energy use, after all? I'm sorry,I'm not finding these arguments believable. Sounds like some much repsected but evidently cranky 50-year industry veteran is having a little trouble adapting to the brave new world of 25 cent a kwh electricity. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So does anyone else support removing mention of him for the time being? Bob A (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has been a learning experience for me about Wiki, and I respect and appreciate your viewpoints. As of this writing, the article includes one sentence demonstrating his expertise in the industry and another on his efforts to raise awareness of the issue. Three citations are provided from national media and another is a favorable trade review of his presentation at an international trade show. If the three (or more) of you decide to completely remove mention of Mr. Brandston's efforts, then I'd be curious to know what you would consider 'notable' enough for inclusion? Simply put, what would be your minimum criteria to be included under "Public Opposition" to the phase out? Thanks in advance. 71.168.231.173 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already linked to the page about undue weight. That's the guideline. The criteria for inclusion of articles about people are listed under wp:bio. Bob A (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, and I've read the page you referenced. This section of the article is about the public opposition to the phase out, and so I'm asking what you believe is 'notable' in this context. Thanks in advance. 66.234.232.42 (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

@66.234.232.42: the way we decide is by discussion and consensus. Watch and learn. @Bob A: Well, I'd never heard of him and there's nothing I've seen here that makes me think that he is a major player in US (let alone world) politics, policy shaping or public opinion formation, so yes, I'd remove mention of him. --Nigelj (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that he is a very big deal in architectural lighting design worldwide. He's practically a founder of the profession as it is practiced today. His position on this or any lighting-related topic is usually known within our industry, and his stature therein is such that national media will trouble themselves to publish his interviews and/or editorials.

It is also fair to say his opinion on the phase out is controversial, even within the industry. However, those who disagree with him usually preface their disagreement by saying, "With all due respect to Mr. Brandston," etc.

I guess the root of my confusion is that this sub-section of the article is about "controversy" and "public opposition" to the phase out. That would seem to invite representation of minority views. I understand widespread stockpiling by the public is inherently public opposition to the phase out. But why are the charities mentioned in the previous paragraph? Are they major players in UK/world politics, policy shaping, or public opinion formation? Or are they another unheeded minority voice, similar to Mr. Brandston? 66.234.232.42 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Flickering

The article omits mention of the 60 or 120 Hz flickering of fluorescent lamps in general and CFLs in particular. Research into the effects of flickering on humans, if any, has not yet been performed. David spector (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out the fluorescent lamp#Disadvantages and compact fluorescent lamp articles, also Light sensitivity; flicker has been known about since 1937 at least, longer if you count incandescent lamp flicker. Fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts don't flicker. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Most consumer grade CFL's have a 120hz flicker superimposed over the otherwise invisible high frequency flicker due to the ballasts not being adequately filtered. It is enough you can see it in fans. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Got a reference for this? My own experiments with an oscilloscope and a phototransistor were inconclusive...I didn't detect any 120 Hz flicker. I have not tried a fan, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The flicker is due to the ballasts are not adequately filtered, also their voltage output is not strictly regulated. It happens to be at 120hz because it's just twice the mains frequency. So in 50hz countries, the flicker is at 100hz. Also the lamp doesn’t go completely out. Just think of the way AC current is actually at 0 volts part of the time, and the way the ballasts are not strictly regulated so it will intentionally let the output voltage vary. And then you have the filter capacitors are not big enough to prevent all of the varying output. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Shorter lifespan

I have observed that CFLs operated inside lighting fixtures that have insufficient means of cooling/ventilation have a dramatically shorter lifetime than that of incandescent bulbs. Since this is original research, a citation needs to be found so this information can be added to the article. The relevancy is that CFLs are much more expensive than incandescent bulbs (due to more expensive materials, including the required electronic ballast circuit). David spector (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the CFLs in my kitchen globes to burn out - it's only been a couple of years so far, and the kitchen lights aren't usually on more about than 8 hours a day. (One 30-watt lamp is inside a 1 foot glass globe that used to hold a 100 watt incandescent, the other is a 23 watt in a small glass "jam jar" globe that had been rewired once because the incandescent lamp burned out the socket. The label says not to do this. As soon as they burn out I'm returning them to the store with a complaint about the shoddy quality of CFLs.)

Update- the 30 watter burned out April 16,2010 after about 2 1/2 years. The 16-watt is still working.--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The bad effect of heat on CFLs is listed in the Compact fluorescent lamp#Design and application issues article.

I agree, a $2.00 CFL is much more expensive than a $0.50 incandescent bulb (it's 400% of the cost!). It takes all of 215 hours to make up the difference in electricity cost (100 watts - 30 watts is 70 watts, at 10 cents/ kwh it takes 214 hours to use $1.50) - so for the first couple of months, you're being ripped off!

Tell the world of the great CFL conspiracy - not content to merely return to the new-fangled 1910 vintage tungsten-filament bulb, I don't doubt we'll see a resurgence of the true, original and authentic carbon filament lamp (which is a much more warm, organic, natural source than the harsh metallic glare of the tungsten incandescent bulbs, and which only take 2 or 3 times as much electricity as a tungsten bulb). (As you may have noticed, electronics these days are rather cheap.) --Wtshymanski (talk)

I have some very nice Panasonic commercial grade CFL's in my house operating in enclosed fixtures that I estimate have roughly 20,000 hours on them and still working. They were put in around August 2005. They haven't lost much light output either. They were 8-9 dollars per bulb. Unfortunately these aren't common. They *CAN* make very nice CFL's that would put LED to shame - ironically still cheaper than LED would be. It comes down to you get what you pay for, and as long as people keep demanding $2 CFL's, the mass retailers will continue to provide $2 CFL's to the people. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Opposition

Can't wait till we start seeing stories of the UN black helicopter troops, on instructions from the New World Order and the Bilderberg Group, using no-knock warrants to break into our homes and sieze our incandescent bulbs. You'll read it here first on the Wikipedia, provide there's no left-wing media censorship. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think they'll acquire no-knock warrants first? 72.225.153.177 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows they always acquire no-knock warrants; they're bad guys, it's what they do. 86.130.20.24 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not covered in the article, but I've seen it enough to think that it could warrant a mention in this article. At least in the United States, there are people who object to being forced to by the CFL bulbs because they are all made in China. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Another factor in opposition to CFLs in the USA is the larger issue of the federal Leviathan once again dictating to the people "the way it's gonna be from now on". People see this as illustrative of FedGov overreach, and when you add in other factors such as 'Made In China' as S.K. noted; you have a recipe for something ugly. I know only that it won't involve the smashing of these Chinese CFL's because of all the mercury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.147.213 (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Electron stimulated luminescence

I see we have a section on this here now, and there's an article about ESLs too. They only seem to be manufactured by one company in the world (Vu1), and don't seem to be on the market yet. I can't find out anything sensible about them. Do they only fit in recessed ceiling fans? Do they use more or less energy than a CFL or an LED? Are they available in normal domestic brightnesses? Are they available anywhere at all? Prguy72 (talk · contribs) seems to be their main protagonist, in several places. One blog commenter said they are just a variety of LED lamp. They don't look notable enough for a whole section in this article, I don't think. --Nigelj (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

ESLs are available now through the manufacturer's website www.vu1.com - they cost $20 each and are available in minimum quantities of 8 bulbs. These are R30 reflector-type bulbs for recessed "cans." Retail availability will be announced within weeks. I am curious why the ESL photo was removed from this page (possibly along with the ESL reference) - I have permission from the copyright holder to post and I believe I tagged the photo correctly. Prguy72 (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires a declaration of fair use in the image file for each article that uses the image. It would e better if you could snap a picture of a bulb and GFDL license it, so as to prevent this nuisance. Gotta be litigation resistant, all it takes is one dog food maker to allege copyright infringement and the Foundation could be facing millions in legal expenses. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a little bit of description at the WIPO patent site (see Talk:Electron stimulated luminescence for the link.) Works pretty much as you'd expect it to, there's a DC DC converter in the base to give a few KV of accelerating potential. It's been press releases for the last two years. I've found nothing with a lumens/watt figure yet. No product in the stores yet. No Energy Star tests. No explanation as to how you dim it. The company Web site is useless (they could at least give as much technical description as they must have had in their patent applications), but like all good stock promotions there's a place you can sign up to become a dealer. It's not an LED lamp, unless you want to generalize "diode" to include "thermionic vacuum diode" as well as "semiconductor diode". Interesting concept. If there was product on the shelves it'd be worth noting here, but so far it's just vaporware. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, they're like a TV tube with no scanning. Like much brighter versions of those 'magic eye' tuning and level indicators that I remember from childhood radios and tape recorders. Well, if they ever get onto the market, there'll be plenty of coverage I'm sure. --Nigelj (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I would get from the patent application. If only their web page was more..."illuminating"? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

United States Efficiency Standards Not a Ban

This is in response to an edit by Wtshymanski, but I think it's good to have the conversation in general.

There has been a lot of news coverage calling the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) a "ban" on incandescent light bulbs. This isn't exactly true, and this article needs to be careful with how claims about what is going on in the U.S. are phrased. Let's look at what EISA actually says about incandescent bulbs. The language does not ban any technology or mechanism of light production by name; it simply sets minimum standards for efficiency. The relevant information comes from Pub.L. 110-140, Subtitle B, Section 321 (a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(cc); the important columns from the table are:

Lumens	Maximum Wattage	Effective Date
1490 - 2600	72	2012
1050 - 1489	53	2013
750 - 1049	43	2014
310 - 749	29	2014

The four lines in the table correspond roughly to modern 100, 75, 60, and 40 watt incandescent bulbs respectively. Those are certainly aggressive compared to the incandescent technology that we're using today. But it's not a "ban on incandescent bulbs" any more than recent U.S. automobile efficiency regulations are a "ban on internal combustion engines."

In fact, you can already buy, right now in 2010, a number of incandescent bulbs that meet these standards [1][2][3].

On top of this, we've seen some extremely promising advances in incandescent technologies, including laser treatment of filaments [4] and coatings that turn waste heat into visible light [5]. These are both incandescent technologies (in the same way that halogen bulbs are incandescent). Either of these alone would completely blow the short-term EISA standards out of the water, beating them by a margin of more than 30%. And there's no reason to believe that they can't be combined with each other for additional efficiencies.

Long term, there are additional EISA provisions that kick in January 1st, 2020; these require an efficiency of 45 lumens per watt or better. This will be more difficult (just like current gas engine fleet efficiency standards looked difficult in the '80's), but the kinds of advances I cite above are already close to this standard -- the laser technique gets you to 35 lumens per watt -- so even the 2020 provisions are unlikely to be a de facto ban on incandescent bulbs.

So, for the time being, could we please stick to the facts of the law and correctly refer to the U.S. legislation as efficiency standards? It seems that any editorializing to consider them a de facto ban falls squarely under the area of original research. -AdamRoach (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I know the chocolate ration has been raised to 50 grammes this week and all, but "ban" is a nice compact way of saying "you can't buy these old inefficient bulbs any more". From what I've read you can't make an incandescent bulb that gies 45 lumens/watt, GE and others have tried with various infrared coatings, etc. and tungsten at its melting point falls short. The days of four-for-a-buck 750 hour 100 watt hotwire bulbs are severely limited. If it wasn't a ban, it would have no more effect than the Food guide pyramid does in preventing obesity. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's still your personal opinion that it constitutes a de facto ban, and therefore OR. If you can cite an expert in the field, that would change matters. As it stands, the legislation sets minimum standards. This is an encylopedia; we're supposed to stick to facts. The facts on the ground are that the U.S. is not banning any lighting technology by name. If you want to include anything else, find a source. (P.S. you might want to add the two articles I cite above to the list of "from what you've read.") --AdamRoach (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is interesting. Looking at the earliest history, this article was created under the name Incandescent lightbulb bans and looked quite 'pointy' in its earliest versions, "Belgium's Minister of the Environment Bruno Tobback is intent on banning incandescent light bulbs", "These proposals have met criticism due to shortcomings of CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) including consumer safety, environmental issues (CFLs contain small amounts of the toxic element mercury), the emission spectrum of fluorescent lamps, slow cold-weather starting, the increased costs of replacement, and the higher cost of dimmable fluorescent lamps.[citation needed]". Many editors have toned down the POV and it has been renamed a few times since then, of course. I wonder if Changes in electric light efficiency standards, or something, might be a better approach considering the wording of the kind of legislation we are actually discussing here? --Nigelj (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the sort of discussion that you can only have on Wikipedia. The Marijuana Tax Act didn't "ban" the purchase of pot, you just needed to get a(n unobtainable) tax stamp to do it legally. I bet the legislation behind Prohibition didn't use the word "ban" anywhere. Auto companies aren't "banned" from selling vehicles such that their CAFE falls below thus-and-so, they just take advantage of light trucks not being considered passenger vehicles. You can sell a mercury battery but you'd better have cradle-to-grave tracking of it. And so on. Why whitewash this? The net result is four-for-a-buck incandescent bulbs will disappear from the stores by decree of the government, not due to (unregulated)market forces. I for one welcome our new laser-treated infrared-trapping halogen hot-wire bulb masters, and wish to remind them that as a Wikipedia editor I can be a useful drone. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a whitewashing, it's just reporting facts without editorializing. Your edits are comparable to claiming that the US Government has banned the $3,000 Tata Nano, rather than more truthfully pointing out that the Nano doesn't meet efficiency and safety standards. (For what it's worth, the 18th Amendment didn't use the word "ban;" it opted for "prohibited.") --AdamRoach (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> Yep, the "one lakh" car has been banned, effectively, by the legislation. What's the hangup with "ban" ? It's a perfectly good word and summarizes all the euphemisims in three letters. Plain language is not editorializing. Sometimes bans have good reasons. I imagine the legislation that prohibits using white lead to whiten bread doesn't say it "bans" it; but the activity is definitly banned. The point of the legislation is to wipe out the 4-for-a-buck bulb. If it doesn't forbid that, what is it doing, exactly? We expect our governments to ban things, that's one of the things we elect them for. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is talking about banning a specific technology. And many countries do exactly that. In the U.S., the legislature has taken a very different approach: it has set difficult but obtainable goals for incandescent light bulbs to meet in order to be sold. Now, if you want to argue about the pricing, do keep in mind that six years ago, before the U.S. government raised the efficiency standards for A/C units from 9 SEER to 13 SEER, it was outrageously expensive to purchase a 13 SEER unit -- on the order of two to three times as much as a 9 SEER unit. Within a year of the new provisions going into effect, the price difference between what the older 9 SEER units cost and what the newer 13 SEER units did was scantly more than could be accounted for by inflation and an increase in copper prices. Even within the past year, the price for 65-watt equivalent LED can lighting has dropped by 50% (from ~$100/can to ~$50/can), and that's in advance of the regulations. Economies of scale is a staggeringly powerful market force. Your precious $0.25 light bulbs will probably be back, adjusted for inflation, before 2015 is out. And they'll be incandescent, too. You can already buy the Philips bulbs I cite above at Home Depot for about $2.50 each. Once they ramp up production, it'll be tons cheaper than that. Anyway, that's all a rather lengthy diatribe, the upshot of which is even the "4 for a dollar" light bulbs you're pining for aren't being banned. They're just moving forward to new technologies. --AdamRoach (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you could do 21 lumens/watt with a 72 watt bulb right now...should last about 250 hours. *That* will be popular. "Moving ahead with new technologies" is a pretty mealy way of saying "So long, cheap 1000 hour bulbs". That's the whole point of the ban; energy is saved, and money is transferred from the consumer's pocket to the bulb makers pocket. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And carbon that could have gone into the atmosphere remains in the ground. I don't know why you're getting aerated about this, it's not a conspiracy by communists or anything, there is good thinking behind this. It's just that maybe we should tone down any conspiracy theory slant to our wording, if we have unintentionally picked one up from previous editors. This is on the basis of reading the sober sources, alongside the over-exitable tabloid press. --Nigelj (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why Wikipedia prefers circumlocutions to direct speech. It's compact and descriptive to say "ban". Governments ban all sorts of things; fully-automatic weapons, trafficing in teenage girls for immoral purposes, etc. One word is hardly evidence of a conspiracy theory. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I grant that it has the benefit of being compact. It carries with it the downside of being incorrect. Most of the countries discussed in this article have legitimately banned incandescent lights, regardless of their level of efficiency. The U.S. is taking a radically different approach: rather than cutting off the technology wholesale, congress has set regulations in place designed to foster innovation and progress. it is useful to contrast this to what is going on elsewhere in the world. Your desire to gloss over the efficiency standards as a "ban" throws them in the same basket as the short-sighted and heavy-handed regulations being put into effect in most of Europe. --AdamRoach (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Got your stamp before you lit up that reefer? It's a water-dwelling egg-laying flying animal that goes "quack" but it's NOT a duck. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of the reduced wattage lamps introduced within the last 5 years are disappointingly dimmer than the standard bulbs. Miles well install dimmer switches. They can make a 72w bulb just as bright and last just as long, but as usual they choose general cheapness over quality. It's to do with the gas fill. Bigger gas atoms slow the evaporation of the filament. And yes, as pointed out earlier, a 72w bulb made to be as bright as a standard bulb, but with standard gas fill would only last 250 hours. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's fill the bulbs with radon - big heavy atoms, though it might be hard to tell if it was turned off. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE all the articles about the PLAN to phase out incandescent bulbs in the US are meaningless-- the phase out DID NOT OCCUR (except in California). Citing an abandoned plan overcome by events is not a factual basis. Rest assured that in the US 49 states in April 2013, almost all stores selling light bulbs have 100w, 75w, and smaller standard base incandescent bulbs. HiTechHiTouch (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Environmental Issues

The statement that: a 70% reduction in mercury output of power plants would result from the use of CFLs needs to be either removed or substantiated by reference. This statement assumes ALL power plant production is used for incandescent lighting whereas most is used in industrial processes, heating and cooling.--Xxam.mmm (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

An original interpretation of the text; where does it say that all power plant output is used for incandescent bulbs? However, the energy (and mercury) portion *used for incandescent lighting* can be reduced if more efficacious lighting is used. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is serious neutrality violation in such comparison. Even coal power plants contain filters and use techniques to reduce mercury emissions. that's first. second - coal power plants are not only source of power to power the lightbulbs. Nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric sources - do not emit any mercury into environment.

There is also rising tendency to build sustainable housing, i.e. equipped with own energy sources, which reduces costs of energy transmission, and avoids customers being taxed by environmental taxes imposed into coal power plants (i.e. carbon tax) . also in some countries, coal power plants have no longer monopoly over the grid - customers can freely choose from who they can buy their energy from. this means that responsibility for i.e. mercury emissions lies solely in hands of the customers, and any effective bans of light sources make no real difference.

83.18.229.190 (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Heat ball

Where would mention of the "heat ball" fit in the articles about incandescents? -- SpareSimian (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• https://www.heatball.de/en/
• http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/10/15/oukoe-uk-germany-heatballs-idUKTRE69E33320101015

Created an article at Heatball and added a section here Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs#Heatball. Nsaa (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Arsenic and old LEDs

There really is more arsenic in a human being than in an LED. Let's do the original research here. Chemical makeup of the human body says there's 7 milligrams of arsenic in a 70 kg human. Assume a power LED die is a 0.5 mm cube made of solid arsenic (it isn't), then it would be 0.66 milligrams of arsenic. Human beings are a menace to the environment and should be disposed of as toxic waste. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally Biased - this article

It says "encourage" the use of CFL and LED...when traditional light bulbs are banned, they are banned, we are being FORCED, not encouraged to use them. So we need to change the article to stop using gentle and incorrect words like "encourage" because this is a totalitarian ban. 210.50.36.46 (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

One word that you don't like does not make the whole article 'totally biased'. The sentence, before you started altering it, said, "The aim is to encourage the use and technological development of more energy-efficient lighting alternatives, such as compact fluorescent lamp (CFLs) and LED lamps." There are several statements in there, as is fitting for one of the opening sentences to a lead section, that summarises a whole encyclopedia article. First, there are many millions of incandescent bulbs already in use, no-one is phasing them out, they continue to exist. The new measures in many countries reduce (not prevent, as there are always exceptions) the importation and sale of these wasteful lamps. That is encouraging the use, because people can always use the old ones they have, stockpile more, and find alternative supply routes via the internet etc. No-one is forced to use anything, you don't have to buy the new lamps, and no one will ever force you to, regardless of which country you live in. Secondly, there is another clause to the sentence, "and technological development". The word encourage applies to both clauses. For some decades, the technologies of CFLs and LEDs have existed, but there has been little to no encouragement on the lamp manufacturers further to develop the technologies, so they have not progressed at the rates they could have done. No one is forcing these manufacturers to develop these technologies, but if they can't sell massive quantities of the old stuff, they may feel encouraged to do so. No, it is the right word, and your personal opinions don't stand up to prolonged scrutiny, I'm afraid. Someone else here may wish to take the time to look into the sources we cite to see what language they generally use in this respect. --Nigelj (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban is the correct word based upon the actions being conducted. A phased Ban of something is still a Ban. The rate that the ban is conducted makes no difference. The test is easy to perform. A phase out is voluntary no one is volunteering to use the newer (long term less expensive) dirty light sources (dim, flickering, off-color CFLs with high mercury content) over the older (slightly more expensive long term but much cheaper short term) clean light sources. The Ban is actually directing the legal action of making it illegal to ship the clean light source of choice for several generations. It is not necessary to say whether this is good or bad only that it is a ban because it is in correct terms just that: a Ban. Opinion doesn't enter in to it. If you want to debate whether or not it should be so be my guest but the statement that "The ban is not a 'ban' it is a 'phase out'" really should never be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.68 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

source Politics of the United States, States' rights

A States' Rights Battle over Light Bulbs. Conservatives challenge the federal law requiring incandescent bulbs to be replaced with fluorescents and LEDs. The bottom line: Politicians in Texas and three other states are invoking the 10th Amendment to defy a federal law phasing out incandescent bulbs.

November 10, 2011 BusinessWeek by Chris Christoff 141.218.36.56 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

An excerpt would be helpful ...

In 2007, George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, requiring light bulbs to be at least 28 percent more efficient by 2014. Three-way bulbs and some specialty versions are exempt, but otherwise the law virtually guarantees that LEDs and compact fluorescents will gradually replace incandescents, starting with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the result will be lower energy bills and less pollution.

See related Talk:Tea Party movement#Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole, U.S. Lighting Energy Policy, Energy in the United States, Energy Lobby, United States presidential election, 2012, Joe Barton & Tea Party Caucus, Michigan House of Representatives,

Some of the states, including Michigan, aren’t currently home to a light bulb manufacturer. The three largest light bulb makers—General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Royal Philips Electronics —either don’t make regular incandescent bulbs in the U.S. or will phase them out in favor of technology that meets the new federal standards, according to the American Lighting Assn. “The future is LEDs,” says W. Lawrence Lauck, the association’s vice-president of communications. “That’s what the lighting industry is gearing its investments toward.” McMillin says that if his law passes, the birth of a light bulb industry in Michigan “could happen.” ... In May the Texas legislature adopted a measure almost identical to McMillin’s, despite opposition from environmental groups that argued it made Texas look like it was marching into the last century. Governor Rick Perry signed it into law in June.

99.181.147.59 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently these various groups are unaware that the federal government has constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe they cling to the belief that States when conducting their own business have the obligation to decide for themselves what to do in their own state. Interstate comerce doesn't enter into in state production so the statement is a non-sequiter Bugs.

Those states' efforts to not be interstate commerce will fail if they cannot get all the raw materials (etc) entirely within that state.

Also, here are some related WSJ article links, Kate Linebaugh, November 30, 2011...

• The Math Changes on Bulbs; Modern LEDs, While Expensive, Save Companies on Labor.
• related video 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/132.3.37.68 and User:Baseball Bugs, see Commerce Clause. 99.190.86.93 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

NEWSFLASH: Wattage Requirements Repealed!

As noted by editor AdamRoach above, the portion of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which aims to regulate incandescent bulb wattage comes from a table located in Pub.L. 110-140, Subtitle B, Section 321 (a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(cc).

According to the bill these regulations were to be added to Section 325(i)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295). However, a quick look at Section 6295 the U.S. Code will confirm that these regulations never became law.

The reason for the exclusion of the wattage table becomes immediately apparent once we read the References Section for 42 U.S.C. 6295 which reads:

Subsection (i), referred to in subsec. (l)(4)(F)(ii)(I), was amended by Pub. L. 110–140, title III, §322(b), Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1588, by striking out par. (1) and adding a new par. (1), and as so amended, subsec. (i)(1)(A) does not relate to maximum wattage requirements.

Hence, another section of the EISA bill - section 322(b) - acts by striking out Section 325(i)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and overwriting it. Therefore, due to an obscure legislative error, the very same bill that wrote the light bulb wattage requirements, also repeals them! So, what do other Wikipedia editors think? Should this article reflect what the law objectively is? Or, should it reflect what nearly everybody (outside of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel) believe the law is? Lenschulwitz (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I feel like I'm in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The day after I expose this legislative error on Wikipedia, and two days after I post this on YouTube, congress claims to have overturned the light bulb ban. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A bill or a law? See I'm Just a Bill. 99.181.136.19 (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.153.29 (talk)

Washingtontimes.com link above. 99.181.153.29 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Both a bill and a law. In order to understand the law, you need to understand what the bill says. The 2007 EISA bill both writes (section 321) and repeals (section 322) the wattage requirements. Hence, when the bill was signed, the wattage requirements never became law. Lenschulwitz (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

the Washington times article above is an incredibly BAD reference. Sensationalist propaganda. After reading the majority of the article, it actually states "The spending bill doesn’t actually amend the 2007 law, but does prohibit the administration from spending any money to carry out the light bulb standards..." Blocking government monies for enforcement isn't "overturning" anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crankyfrank (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How is the Washington Times article in any way relevant to your edit? In your edit, you claim that the quote and reference to the US Code concerning wattage requirements is "incorrect" with no supporting evidence. I would encourage you to read both the 2007 EISA bill and the references section for title 42, section 6295 of the US Code, both of which are quoted and linked above. Lenschulwitz (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit by Crankyfrank: Section 322(b) relates ONLY to INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS, commonly referred to as spot lamps or heat lamps, and specifically excluded in Section 321(D)(ii)(XI). Section 321 is intended for GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS.

You are correct, but by reading just the title of the section and not the legislation itself, you're leaving yourself ignorant of the changes the bill makes. Please note, that the first sentence of section 322(b) strikes out the wattage requirements (which were to have been written in Section 325(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act). Furthermore, please note that this change is not merely my opinion. It has been noted and codified into law by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel and is documented in the references for section 6295 of the US Code. If you need any further proof, just download a copy of section 6295 of the US Code for yourself, and you'll see very clearly that there are NO WATTAGE REQUIREMENTS. I'm not really sure how anyone can dispute this...Lenschulwitz (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not enough discussion of LED lighting

Almost all the information on alternatives to incandescents focuses on CFLs, LEDs are mentioned as an afterthought. More information needs to be included about LEDs, including about their produced light spectrum (which I believe can substantially match that on an incandescent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeknub (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There is not enough discussion about how LED's are detrimental to human eyes and specifically to human night vision, in applications such as LED street lighting. One of the claims made in the article is that "LED lighting also better matches the wavelengths of light to which the human eye is most sensitive in low-light conditions, providing a low energy lighting option for street lighting, outdoor floodlighting, etc." That's apparently taken from this citation, but the link doesn't work and since it's false, it should be removed from the article.[6]

The claim is also totally false. The response curve of human rod cells is approximately the same as the spike in the spectral power distribution of white LEDs, but scotopic(rod) vision [7] is not useful for driving, making WLED street lights the worst possible kind. Blue light of the frequencies emitted by white LEDs is also detrimental to human vision [8], and should be noted. This is why certain LEDs are in a different optical risk category from standard bulbs and they have not been allowed in street lights in Europe because of the ANSES study mentioned in the LED street lighting article [9][10].

High pressure sodium street lights have a higher luminous efficacy and a spectral power distribution that allows for mesopic [11] vision without photobleaching the retina like bluish LED lights do. Opticalexpert (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much to say about the substance of your complaints, but I do have a comment on how Wikipedia works: we care much more about whether a statement is well-sourced than about whether one editor feels that the statement is "false". There is good reason for this: we have no way of knowing whether you are an optical expert, and even an expert can be mistaken. The policy is that statements must be supported by a reference to a reliable source (as defined on the linked page). A reliable source trumps any editor's opinion of whether a statement is true or false. Conversely, if a statement is not supported by a reliable source and its veracity is disputed, it must be removed unless such a source can be found.

The link being dead is irrelevant. A source does not lose validity merely because it is no longer online. --Srleffler (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The referenced paper is available here and here.--Srleffler (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

no mention of disposal or recycling requirements for CFLs as well as safety concerns

There really should be some mention of the disposal requirements for recycling of CFLs at an approved facility. Also no mention of the spontaneous combustion incidents of various CFLs. I know this to be true because one of mine caught fire. Wondering if there is any data on mercury release in those circumstances. Since these topics are somewhat addressed in the main page re: CFLs pehaps there should be some links. Thses are among the reasons for objecting to the phasing out of the incandescent bulbs. Rmgangawer (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed in the article on CFLs at some considerable length. Once the resident environmentalists lost the argument, they 'sanitised' the discussion to make it look as though they won (and somehow managed to remove it from the history). Briefly, the enviromentalists were forced to concede that in spite of all the frenetic activity of organisations collecting spent CFLs (or fluorescent tubes in general), there is currently no facility anywhere on the planet to actually recycle the lamps. The cost of recovering the mercury is substantially greater that the cost of the lamp itself. This is because in a spent lamp, the mercury is adsorbed [correct word!] into the glass, phosphor and electrodes. The lamps just end up in landfill.

Once conceded, the environmentalists tried to recover, by claiming that burning the extra coal to light an incandescent bulb releases more mercury than a CFL contains. It might have been true if all the world's electricity came from coal, but it isn't. Also, the mercury released by burning coal is evenly distributed (courtesy of the winds). But one million CFLs chucked in a landfill is around 5 kilogrammes of mercury. If I put 5 kg of mercury in a landfill, the environmentalists would be the first to shout, "environmental disaster". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

EPA has stuff on this. Cite it and write it.. "Catching fire" <> "turning brown around the top and making a bad smell". In the real world, we don't have the luxury of ideologically pure sources of light and we have to make choices that provide the least damage. If there were 100 CFLs for each North American resident and they all broke at once, that would release less than 200 tons of mercury - and the Inco smelter at Thompson used to dump that much mercury into the air every year or two. Why all the hysteria? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

One should also look at the real figures on lamp efficiency. Low voltage halogen (LVH) lamps can be as efficient as 23 lumens/watt. They contain no environmentally hazourdous material at all and are 100% recyclable (in fact 2 of the component parts can be resued as recovered. This compars favourably with the real luminous efficiency of CFLs. Although figures of 60 lumens/watt are often touted, this is in fact a figure based on a lamp using a rather blue phosphor with a (roughly) 8000 K colour temperature.

The warmer phosphors contain less of the more efficient blue phosphor and more of the relatively inefficient pink phosphor. The phosphor mix most used is the one that closely emulates a filament lamp and has a roughly 2700 K colour temperature (known as 'incandescent white' in Europe and 'warm white' in the US). As it is only has a relative efficiency of approximately 40% of the 8000 K phosphor, this means that a CFL with this phosphor has an efficiency of 24 lumens/watt, only slightly more than the LVH. Further, the CFL dims considerably in use (The Underwriters Laboratory measured it as 38% reduction in the first 10% of the lamps life). The LVH does not dim at all. Which lamp looks better now? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Coverage of US spending bill, December 2012

I recently reverted three edits by HiTechHiTouch (talk · contribs) because I did not think that they presented adequate coverage of this recent US fiscal policy development. HiTechHiTouch altered the lede to say that there was resistance to CFLs (in that context, presumably worldwide) "for many reasons", and cited [12]. The thrust of this news story is the complexity of current US government spending legislation, and how a recent Republican amendment "will block funding from going toward the new standards' implementation." There was almost nothing about the "many reasons" that the lede then went on to list. In the body of the article, HiTechHiTouch added that "Consumers are also upset that inferior bulbs are failing too soon" in the present tense, but referenced a NYT blog piece from January 2009[13]. Another reference there was to an archived bulletin board discussion from 2009[14] that would not be allowed under WP:V. The news that the Republicans have scored a political victory regarding US spending may be relevant, so I have re-instated a sentence about this in the relevant US section, with a quote from the Bloomberg source.[15] --Nigelj (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal advice synthesis?

I reverted an edit that said that US federal "regulations never became law, [...][44] Despite the fact that the wattage standards never became law,[45] the federal government continues to enforce them, as though they had.[46]" Two of the references were to raw and complex legalese, and the other was to an entire FAQ page, without specifying which question refers to this. On the principle that extraordinary claims need extraordinarily good references, I was not happy with this. If the US government is actively enforcing laws that everyone agrees do not exist, I would expect better secondary sourcing than this. I would expect a well publicised media outcry. --Nigelj (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

User Nigelj states: If the US government is actively enforcing laws that everyone agrees do not exist....

Ah...but not "everyone" reads the references section of the U.S. Code do they? I have not performed original research or an original synthesis here. The synthesis was done by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel which details exactly why the wattage requirements are not part of the U.S. code. Just because you didn't take the time to understand the cited U.S. Code references - dismissing it instead as "complex legalese" - is not evidence of my having performed original research/synthesis. The U.S. code is compiled by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, certainly they should be considered the experts on whether the wattage laws are included in the U.S. Code, don't you think? Lenschulwitz (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Power factor

I see that we now have a slightly breathless section on power factor. "A device with a power factor of 0.5, for example, requires that twice as much power be supplied as is actually used by the device." Where is the evidence that CFLs currently on sale have a power factor of 0.5? If twice as much power were supplied than actually used, where is the extra power going? By the conservation of energy, something else must be getting very hot and something must have an efficiency of only 50%, rather than a power factor of 0.5. From a second angle, where is the similar coverage of all the dire PF problems being caused by computers, televisions, stereos, chargers and so on that use similar circuitry at their power inputs. Ah, there is no organised campaign against the use of these things, is there? Somewhere we have a figure that pre-CFL lighting amounted to 7% of the US grid, so full CFL take-up would represent only a few percent in total. Thirdly, does the author of this section, and the author of its sole reference, even understand the difference between linear load PF and non-linear load PF? First we get a badly worded lecture about one, before applying all that we have (not) learned to CFLs, saying "and many of them have power factors that approach 0.5". This is not WP:NPOV coverage. --Nigelj (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick rewrite of the section, removing the glaring errors and adding some citations. It is better now, but it still needs work; I wasn't able to find enough free time to do a proper job of finding citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still irrelevant to phase-out of incandescent bulbs; any power system that supports X watts of incandescent lighting will support X/3 watts worth of CFLs, for any practical power factor of CFL lamp. "Energy star" lamps must have at least 0.5 pf; don't know what the Europeans do, but surely they have an EC directive for this. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You may think that how much energy is actually saved is irrelevant, but the question is, is there anyone on earth that agrees with you? There are many web pages that make various claims about CFLs and Power Factor. Readers will come here looking for the information. There is no reason why we shouldn't give it to them. And, BTW, you are violating a Wikipedia policy again -- this time it is WP:PRESERVE. Please stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The re-write was no better, I'm afraid. Even if we do need coverage of the PF debate in this article (and I don't think we do), we do not need to give a tutorial about PF here, that is what wikilinks are for. Secondly, it is a debate, and therefore there are at least two sides. The way we cover things like that is with attributed statements: "A says B, but X says Y", provided, per WP:NPOV, the different views are being given WP:DUE weight. Thirdly, when we cite sources, we should stick to the overall conclusions of the source, not quote-mine it to make it seem like the author is saying something different. Lastly, per WP:OR we should only use sources in such a section that, in their own words, make a specific point about PF in relation to the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. The first source cited concludes "Class A CFL rating demands a power factor rating of at least 0.9 and THD of less than 33%. When used according to their specifications, electronically ballasted, screw-base CFLs can provide energy efficiency and a long bulb life"[16] - hardly negative - and contains both-sides-of-the-story coverage from e.g. Oliver Morse, Alex Boesenberg, and a 1999 paper from NEMA. The second reference appears to be a personal blog, so is probably not WP:RS, but anyway concludes that we can "peacefully ignore the power factor issues of CFL's. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply pushing an agenda."[17] The third ref mentions CFLs: "compact fluorescent light bulbs that use a fraction of the electricity used in conventional bulbs to produce the same amount of light",[18] but not in the context of any PF problems they cause, actually in the context of how irrelevant they are in the bigger picture. To use this source to have Wikipedia's own voice say "The cost of this additional wasted energy is borne by the utility, not by the residential customer.[19] The amount of energy lost depends on the quality of the electrical grid; 6% to 8% is considered normal.[20]" is very poor WP:OR and misrepresentation of the facts and the sources. The "additional wasted energy" in the first sentence is not in any way related to "amount of energy lost" in the second: the 6% to 8% has absolutely nothing to do with CFLs or PF, but is given as the routine total losses in the whole distribution grid, no matter how many CFLs get used. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Politics of Manufacturing

I'm not in favor of statements about the human conditions in factories producing light bulbs. Further, these issues, being linked to generally factories and not to specific items produced, do not apply to only certain type of bulbs. The conditions of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th world factories are almost universal, no matter what they produce. Light bulbs don't deserve to be singled out any more than computers, clothing, or food.

Yes, there is a valid issue with worker health and safety, but this article isn't the place (IMHO) to air it. HiTechHiTouch (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Mercury in CFLs

I've reverted an edit [21] claiming that the mercury content in CFLs is "a small amount". This is a statement of opinion, whereas a specific number like "4mg of mercury" is factual.

Ontario did briefly introduce an "eco-fee" tax on these bulbs in 2010 due to their mercury content, then backtracked in response to public pressure. This "fee" was covered by Toronto Star and other newspapers of general circulation, so WP:RS that this is an issue should be possible to find if the incident is noteworthy here. Would it be worth digging this up and including it? K7L (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

LiveRail (talk · contribs) has been altering the article text related this point too, but I have reverted them. The question seems to be whether the article should give the impression that 4 mg is a small amount, or a large amount. We cannot decide this by arguing, let alone by edit warring. The only way to settle this will be to find references that tell us whether this is a small or a large amount in this exact context. It must be noted that the article also says that when broken, a CFL "will release about 4% of its mercury content" or 160 µg. It could be that this statement also needs challenging (with specific and reliable sources, not just by assertion, or by WP:SYN). Until we have new sources that we agree here are suitable and reliable, the long-term consensus article text should stand. Please provide suggestions for new text, with citations that support it, here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Compact fluorescent lamps each contain a few milligrams of mercury.[22] In the event of bulb breakage, the US Environmental Protection Agency advises to leave the room and ventilate leaked mercury vapour for ten minutes before cleaning up the pieces.[23] Ontario attempted to introduce an "eco-fee" on the bulbs in 2010;[24] Washington State imposed a recycling fee on CFL manufacturers in 2013.[25] LEDs, while currently expensive, could potentially become a mercury-free alternative.[26]"

Adequately sourced? K7L (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I have been altering the article, but not to claim that the level is a large or small amount as such but to merely remove the double reference to miligrammes in the same sentence. I have also endeavoured to provide context that even though the amount might be considered 'small' by some, the amount is relatively large compared with the levels generally permitted in other products. CFLs were given a specific exemption from the regulations (as you will find at paragraph 5 of Annexe A of the new reference that I have provided - CFLs are out of scope because 'electric light bulbs' only refers to incandescent bulbs, though in theory they will be in scope after 23 July 2019).

Why do you believe that 'milligrammes' should appear twice in the same sentence and how do you think that it improves the content? –LiveRail < Talk > 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph of Annexe A in https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236285/bis-13-1142-restriction-of-hazardous-substances-regulations-guidance-2.pdf ? Can you provide a page number for, or a quote from, that PDF? I may be being thick, but I cannot find the relevant part of the document. You have hit the nail on the head, thought: you are editing the article to try to make it clear that "even though the amount might be considered 'small' by some, the amount is 'relatively large' compared with the levels generally permitted in other products." The trouble is, this appears to be only your opinion, as so far I have not found a suitable WP:RS citation that agrees with that specific point. Maybe when you help me find the relevant words in this gov.uk document, it will be clear. There is no version of the article that I can find where 'milligrams' appears twice. WP:MoS tells us to "Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence", and so it is normal to use the word milligram in the same sentence as the first use of the abbreviation mg, as it is not that commonly used, especially in the US. --Nigelj (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Annexe A is on page 16, towards the end of the document where one would expect to find it. As for the the quantity being large by what is permitted elsewhere, it is not my opinion, but what the regulations state. The regulations state that the amount of mercury in the homogenius materials may not exceed 0.1% by weight (para 3.12 - on page 8 if you are having difficulty finding it). Since the homogeneous material in question here is the gaseous filling of the bulb, you might have a hard time convincing anyone that the argon and other gases comprising the filling has a mass of 4 grammes or more (the only way that the material could possibly comply). Or are you misinterpreting the regulations that the mass of the mercury must not exceed 0.1% of the total product mass? If that was so, then everyone could keep on using leaded solder in almost every domestic product as I doubt that the total mass of the solder comes close to 0.1% of the total mass in any product.

Both of your reverts contained the following sentence, "CFLs, like all fluorescent lamps, contain milligram (sic) amounts of mercury as vapor inside the glass tubing, averaging 4.0 mg per bulb.". The abbreviation 'mg' means milligrammes. Thus the sentence contain a reference to milligrammes twice. If you are wanting to spell out an abbreviation and then include the abbreviation, then they should be adjacent and not in different parts of the same sentence. It should not be necessary to spell out 'mg' as an abbreviation because its meaning is well understood even in the resolutely imperial US. In this case, it is clear that the word 'millgram' is not an expansion of the abbreviation 'mg' but an adjective describing the noun 'amounts'. In any case this is not the first occurence that 'mg' appears in the article and all of the other occurences are not spelt out so your point is moot. –LiveRail < Talk > 14:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The objective is to avoid inserting our own opinions into an otherwise factual article, whether to claim 4mg is tiny or to claim 4mg is huge. As long as the article sticks to just the facts in terms of RoHS, "eco-fee" or manufacturer taxes, recycling requirements and handling of mercury from broken bulbs instead of saying outright "that's small"/ "that's huge", I doubt the question of whether milligramme and mg both appear in this paragraph is of importance. K7L (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

One source used in that sentence states:
"CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing – an average of 4 milligrams (mg). By comparison, older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury – an amount equal to the mercury in 125 CFLs."
(My bolding).TMCk (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So what? Take the argument further, and old mercury barometers contained even more than that (several tens of grammes). Both of these items have been banned from domestic sale in Europe for some time. What is important these days is the quantity of mercury compared against what is allowed - and that ain't small in relative terms. 86.145.140.90 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, LiveRail, I found that bit: "Existing categories continuing to be within scope: [...] Lighting equipment, (including electric light bulbs and household luminaires)." That doesn't say anything about milligrams, let alone whether 4 mg is a large or small amount. If light bulbs are within the scope of this regulation, and these light bulbs are available in the UK, then presumably they pass the requirements. Trying to work out what they mean by 'homogeneous materials' on page 8 is neither relevant nor for us to do: the light bulbs are not illegal. We need to reflect what sources actually say. I propose that your alterations be reverted from the article again, as they are not supported by the source provided. Personally I prefer the wording used in the energystar.gov ref quoted by The Magnificent Clean-keeper above, which used to match our wording prior to an edit from 79.133.3.212 on 28 September, which seems to have started all this. --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree to revert those changes and the addition per the existing source I pointed out above and Nigelj's rationale in regards to the source used for the addition. CFL's are sold in Europe, incl. Britain within the law, right?TMCk (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
BTW, we already "watered" it down from "very small to just small amounts. Guess that's plenty of water already.TMCk (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are either not comprehending what I have said or what the regulations themselves say. 'Light bulbs' sold in Europe (those that are still available) comply with the requirements because they are fundamentally free from mercury, lead and whatever (any traces most likely being small impurities in the materials used). The regulations do not say whether any specific quantity of mercury is in compliance or not and neither I nor anyone else has claimed otherwise. The requirement is that for any homogeneous (i.e.component) material, the amount of mercury may not exceed 0.1% of it by weight. For the CFL these materials are for example; the glass tubing; the phosphor coating; the electrodes; the gaseous filling; the electrode coating; the plastic body; the circuit board; the copper coating of the board; the wire used to wind inductors; the cores of those inductors etc. etc. etc. In this case the gaseous filling does not comply with the regulations because 4 mg is around 90% of the weight of this filling (a result of mercury's comparatively much higher density). However, the CFL is currently out of scope of the regulations and thus the regulations do not apply - yet. Although any claim as to whether 4 mg is of itself a large or small amount is entirely point of view, but it is certainly very large when measured against what is allowed in other products. It should also be borne in mind that 4 mg is an average amount, the actual weight of mercury in any lamp being a function of the wattage (and hence size). –LiveRail < Talk > 11:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"...they are fundamentally free from mercury,...". Just like the moon is made out of cheese. You seem to make your own facts which are detached from reality.TMCk (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well now - let's see. Glass bulb substantially mercury free. Tungsten filament; much the same. Lead out wires: fernico or cunife - ditto. Tinned brass base - again ditto. Soldered connection - once again ditto. I would say that 'fundamentally free of mercury' is probably an understatement but I will let it pass. Which part do you beleive has a mercury content high enough that causes you to dispute Liverail's claim? 86.145.140.90 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

So they have no filling that contains mercury you think??????? Crazy idea and not a basis for discussion.TMCk (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. I read the context of Lightrail's comment with respect to standard filament bulbs (which is explicitly what he said). What makes you believe the filling contains mercury? AFAIAA, the only filling is low pressure argon. 86.145.140.90 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This thread is about CFLs and his response is to CFLs sold in Europe. If he really is talking about regular light bulbs he's quite off topic and his response makes even less sense.TMCk (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you read my entire post in its full context before posting pointless observations. My post was about the levels of mercury in CFLs when measured against what is permitted in other products INCLUDING light bulbs. As such it is entirely on topic. I can only assume that you are one of the ranks of, so called, environmentalists who are desperate to underplay the unacceptably high levels of mercury contained in these lamps. Contrary to claims otherwise, the mercury is not recovered when the lamps are recycled because by the time they are disposed of, almost all of the mercury has been adsorbed into the glass from which it is virtually impossible to recover economically. –LiveRail < Talk > 08:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent reverts introducing OR/synth again

For those not familiar with policies, please see wp:OR and wp:synth.
A recent addition that was rejected at the article and talk page was quickly reverted by one or more persons w/o using the talk page's discussion on the topic. I've placed an OR tag on the sentence in question to avoid edit warring but that just highlights the problem with this edit w/o being the solution of course. I urge "those" who think the statement in question is backed up by the source given to provide a quote from the source that shows that the policies mentioned above and in my edit summary are adhered to and not violated. We have those policies for a good reason and w.o them any editor could place any kind of comparison to other products, like I.e. tanning lights that have a way higher content of mercury (and are part of domestic equipment). Also the problem starts right at the beginning of the added sentence since the source is only about Europe and doesn't mention any other "jurisdictions" at all. Talking in general, I can follow and understand the frustration of some editors, me included, but that's not an excuse not to follow WP policy. Also in case it comes up again, being a "small" or "very small" amount [of mercury] doesn't say anything about the toxicity of the compound. I'e., some snake's venom is deadly in extreme small amounts and I don't think anyone would argue about it [being very small amounts].TMCk (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We really can't have unsourced scare-stories in Wikipedia articles. WP:NPOV is a central policy and it says (among many other things), "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". We have established above that the cited source does not say that the "amount [of Hg] far exceeds the levels permitted in other domestic products" - there is no text in that document that could be construed even to imply that statement. --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Any statement that the cited reference does not support the claim that the levels of mercury in the gas filling of a CFL are in excess of those levels permitted for other products is just plain nonsense. There is text in the cited document that more than supports the claim once a bit of simple arithmetic is applied. Liverail pretty well referred to it, but not necessarily all in the same post. So for the benefit of those that missed it:

The cited document states, "... a maximum concentration value of up to 0.1% by weight in homogeneous materials for ... mercury, ... will be permitted". There is also adequately cited material in the article that establishes the weight of mercury in the gas filling is an average of 4 milligrammes. Assuming a 50/50 mix of argon and neon as the main gas constituents (the exact ratio does not affect the argument at all), this mixture has a density of 1.342 g/l at STP (source of density: any half decent book of physical constants). The mass of neon/argon in a 12 microlitre tube (source of volume: Philips technical data for CFLs - average size of tube) at a pressure of circa 0.003 Bar (Source of pressure: Alok K Kulshreshtha. Basic Electrical Engineering: Principles and Applications) is 26.8 nanogrammes. The maximum permitted amount of mercury under the RoHS regulations would thus be 26.8 picogrammes (ignoring the minute increase in total mass once added). Since 4 milligrammes is nearly two billion times larger than 2.68 picogrammes, the statement that "[4 mg] far exceeds the levels permitted in other domestic products in some jurisdictions, notably Europe" is proven without resorting to original research.

The only thing Liverail got wrong was the proportion of mercury (he put it at 90% by weight). Introducing 4 milligrammes of mercury into 26.8 nanogrammes of neon/argon means that the mercury is 99.99% of the filling by weight (ignoring the negligible reduction in weight of the neon/argon) - again 99.99% is much larger than the 0.1% that is permitted by the regulations. CFLs are currently exempt from the RoHS regulations, but it seems that they will be required to comply in 2019 (which effectively means CFLs will be banned from sale as the mercury is essential to their operation). --I B Wright (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have just proved that all CFLs and other fluorescent lights, tubes etc, are already illegal under the UK Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS) Regulations 2012, as it explicitly includes all 'electric light bulbs and household luminaires'. Everyone who owns them, sells them, imports and manufactures them should be immediately prosecuted and fined or jailed. Clearly this is not happening, and that is why we have policies and guidelines like WP:V and WP:OR. None of this is helpful for improving the article. As we've been saying for weeks, we need a source that actually says, in words, something about the point being made in the article. As I said above, WP:NPOV says, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" --Nigelj (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Both your self and I B Wright are wrong in all of your arguments.

The relevant clause in categories in scope of the RoHS regulations is "5. Lighting equipment, (including electric light bulbs and household luminaires)". 'Lumunaires' is not the subject of this debate. 'Electric light bulbs', as already stated in the previous discussion is interpreted as filament light bulbs. Compact Fluorescent lamps are outside of that scope. Compact fluorescent lamps have a specific exemption. Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (the RoHS Directive), specifically allows a mercury content in CFLs not exceeding 5 mg per lamp (the mercury exemption for CFLs is listed as no. 1 in the Annex to that Directive - though curiously all other lamps are exempted at no. 4). This is somewhat reinforced by the fact that the regulations are due to be all encompassing by August 2019, but there is no evidence anywhere that CFLs will cease to be available after 2019.

IB Wright's piece on the proportion of mercury in the lamps is also based on a false assumption. He has assumed that the mercury vapour is a constituent part of the gaseous filling forming a 'homogeneous material'. That is not the case. The mercury is an entirely separate substance introduced into the lamps at manufacture as liquid mercury (the small droplets can be observed clinging to the walls of a cold discharge tube particulary in uncoated germicidal lamps). Thus the mercury is a 'homogeneous material' in its own right. To comply with the regulations, the mercury cannot contain more than 0.1% mercury by weight - clearly absurd. The phrase in the article, "but even [4 mg] far exceeds the levels permitted in other domestic products in some jurisdictions, notably Europe" is not strictly correct. 4 milligrammes of mercury would be allowed if it was a part or impurity of a homogeneous material weighing 4 grammes or more. What is not allowed is the inclusion of liquid mercury in any quantity and para 3.1.2 of the regulations clearly covers this. I have amended the article accordingly. I suspect that the jurisdictions in which this is the case extends well beyond Europe, but the scope can be extended as reliable references are uncovered. I am certain that the Scandewegian countries and Australia are almost certain to have similar regulations. 86.145.136.49 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Having thought about this carefully, I am forced to conceed that you are correct. My post would have been accurate had the mercury and gas mixture been introduced as one single homogeneous material which I erroneously considered it to be. However, you are right when you point out that because the mercury exists as droplets inside the tube when the tube is cold, it clearly cannot be a homogeneous material with the gas, but a separate material which would have to comply in its own right had the entire lamp not been exempted. I B Wright (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

39 Watt bulbs

40 watt bulbs have now been banned in the United States. Does that mean that someone could manufacture 39 watt bulbs and it would still be legal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.194.191 (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The 'ban' was not specific to 40w bulbs, but the efficiency that created the same amount of light, as a 40W Reference bulb. Halogen Bulbs consume 75% the energy (Current), as Standard bulbs do for the same amount of light. Now, if there was a 29W light bulb that put out the 33% Brighter amount of light (measured in Lumens) (310-749), then it would be allowed in 2014. If someone invented a brighter filament compound that gave 33% more light (and lasted for 1000 hours), then the Light Bulb manufacturers of the world would beat a path to your door (IMHO). Richard416282 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My question was: did they ban all inefficient incandescent bulbs or just those 40 watts and over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.194.191 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The law works the other way around: it says that a light bulb which produces between 310 lm and 749 lm of light, must consume less than 29 W of electric power. That means you can't get around the law by just making a 39 W old-style bulb. Bulbs that emit less than 310 lm are not covered by the new rule, though, so a 25 W incandescent bulb is allowed.--Srleffler (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing about the US ban being bought and paid for by the bulb suppliers?

So shocking there is no mention of anything regarding the light bulb companies wanting to sell higher priced, higher profit margin bulbs and funding this movement. As the New York Times reported in 2011, “Philips formed a coalition with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council to push for higher standards.” Democratic congressman Steny Hoyer defended the rule by saying, “The standards are supported by the lightbulb industry.” Joe Romm at the Center for American Progress pinned repeal efforts on the “extremist Tea Party wing of the party, which opposes all government standards, even ones that the lightbulb industry itself wants.” Competitive markets with low costs of entry have a characteristic that consumers love and businesses lament: very low profit margins. GE, Philips and Sylvania dominated the U.S. market in incandescents, but they couldn’t convert that dominance into price hikes. Because of light bulb’s low material and manufacturing costs, any big climb in prices would have invited new competitors to undercut the giants — and that new competitor would probably have won a distribution deal with Wal-Mart.

So, simply the threat of competition kept profit margins low on the traditional light bulb — that's the magic of capitalism. GE and Sylvania searched for higher profits by improving the bulb — think of the GE Soft White bulb. These companies, with their giant research budgets, made advances with halogen, LED and fluorescent technologies, and even high-efficiency incandescents. They sold these bulbs at a much higher prices — but they couldn’t get many customers to buy them for those high prices. That's the hard part about capitalism — consumers, not manufacturers, get to demand what something is worth.

Capitalism ruining their party, the bulb-makers turned to government. Philips teamed up with NRDC. GE leaned on its huge lobbying army — the largest in the nation — and soon they were able to ban the low-profit-margin bulbs. http://washingtonexaminer.com/industry-not-environmentalists-killed-incandescent-bulbs/article/2541430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I just placed a long-overdue neutrality dispute on this article. Right now, it reads like a superficial, anti-informative anti-phaseout rant-fest. Here are the main issues I see top to bottom:

• Nothing is written about rationales for the phaseout (hereafter PO). Nothing.
• Nothing about the history leading up to PO, who initiated it, etc. Only the years when various governments started it.

From these first two points, the reader is led to perceive the PO as some faceless, mindless government overreach.

• Most of the article is dedicated to problems and concerns due to the PO, "mitigation" efforts, and opposition. No room to any upside, whether expected or already measured. One might think we are talking about some major catastrophe here. And of course, little or no mention of citizen groups and/or leaders in support of the PO, and what they say.
• The relatively long discussion of various bulbs' aesthetic aspects, apparently assumes that incandescents are the absolute definition of beauty. Not to discount problems people might have with other bulbs, but this is not a neutral discussion in any sense.

Beyond all that, the quality and up-to-date-ness of most of the article is rather pitiful. I intend to put some time into remedying both the bias and the general quality. When I have the time, of course :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayZine (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the main focus of the article is about opposition to any other bulb type. Even the very first paragraph of the "Alternatives to incandescent bulbs" dose not explain any alternative and instead says that incandescent bulbs produce superior white light. -- 104.158.6.132 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried to remove that paragraph, but somebody put it back. I don't have any problem with the content itself, but it is in the wrong place. The section on alternative bulbs should lead off with an explanation of alternatives. It should address the pros and cons of each type, but should not lead off with an entire paragraph on the light quality issue.--Srleffler (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090611064407/http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/energyefficiency/lighting.html to http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/energyefficiency/lighting.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120215012109/http://www.foxnews.com:80/wires/2008Feb05/0,4670,PhilippinesBulbBan,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb05/0,4670,PhilippinesBulbBan,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100911214952/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/02/28/ns-lightbulb.html?ref=rss to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/02/28/ns-lightbulb.html?ref=rss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Modern Lightbulbs go hand in hand with wastefulness

I just thought there might be something in the article about the efficiency of lightbulbs and their usage. The reality is that people use more individual bulbs and leave each bulb on longer than they did in the past. Just because something lasts longer, does not make it more efficient.

There are in fact many places of business that leave lights on for 24 hours a day, even when no one is inside the store, and there are sometimes more than 20 visible bulbs turned on in a single room in many places of business. Many streetlights are still on several hours after dawn or before dusk. I even see people driving their cars with the headlights on during the daytime! If you had to worry about a bulb burning out by misusing it, you wouldn't do that. Not only are LEDs dangerous to the eye, they turn into mountains of toxic landfill waste because people buy and discard them very flippantly (just like all other electronic junk that is manufactured for the mass-market moron.)

I am by no means a great Wikipedia editor so I'm not going to attempt to change the article. I was just hoping to find some information about the issue of folks needing to reduce their WASTE of lumens as a more effective remedy than the tremendous waste that manufacturing new lightbulbs and LEDs has led to so far. It is a much more wasteful industry than incandescent lightbulbs (not to mention hazardous to the eyes, and toxic when discarded in large quantities.) Maybe someone who is more skilled at editing can address this point, as there a lot of "cons" in the modern lightbulb issue. Thanks. Yakksoho (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources for this information before we could include it in the article. --Srleffler (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The waste topic is not well addressed. If the location is primarily an air conditioning area, then any heat given off is not only wasted, it is doubled by adding a load to the air conditioning. If the location is primarily a heating area, then any heat given off is useful and the question is about efficient heating. In Quebec for instance, electric heat is the norm and any reduction in lighting just increases the electric heat. Low energy lighting achieves nothing there, and it is not electricity being wasted, but the investments in CFL and LED bulbs. Dougmcdonell (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The article not only addresses this issue, it has a reference to a Natural Resources Canada study that contradicts your argument that low energy lighting "achieves nothing" in Quebec. In fact, they found that in all areas studied the net effect year-round was a cost savings, with the CFL bulbs paying for themselves in two to six years. In Quebec city the CFLs saved $12 per year. The study was done in 2008 when the bulbs cost $8 each; it's clear that the cost-effectiveness of energy efficient lighting is not really debatable now that you can buy name-brand CFLs for $1.70.--Srleffler (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The study included "space cooling" for all locations, Quebec City for the month of August averages 4 degree days, no one in Quebec is going to buy air conditioning because of a four degree rise above room temperature. So represent the real world by subtracting the $4 for "space cooling" and you get $5 a year savings. In my book that's not worth the drive to the store to buy CFLs even if they cost 10 cents. Dougmcdonell (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you feel quite strongly about this, because you aren't making a rational argument here. The economics are clear. If you have to make a special trip to buy light bulbs, you'll be making that trip eight times more often if you keep using incandescents, and you'll spend at least $12 more per year overall at today's prices. There is no economic argument that can be made to justify continuing to use incandescents now.--Srleffler (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I find the lighting issues a distraction from the bigger picture. If the same house in Quebec City was to install an efficient heat pump they would save about $600 annually. The part of all this that I feel "quite strongly about" is the consumer belief that they're "helping to save the planet" by going after their lighting consumption, they get this satisfaction from a little change, while huge consumption goes unaddressed. There's all this feel good stuff going on while we're on our way to a dismal future. I'd be delighted if the cold countries totally dropped the light bulb conversation and looked at the big stuff. Dougmcdonell (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly lots more we should be doing, but we might as well get the low-hanging fruit while we're at it. Eliminating incandescents saves some energy, saves money, and is easy. It's a no-brainer. It doesn't matter whether the energy savings is large or small; we might as well save this energy. That takes nothing away from larger efforts to save energy and protect the environment. --Srleffler (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Atmosphere/ClimateChange/LightBulbsPublicConsultation/LightBulbsFAQs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101115211248/http://www.cbc.ca:80/consumer/story/2007/04/18/ontario-lightbulb-ban.html to http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/04/18/ontario-lightbulb-ban.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121023220521/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6814913.ecebs to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6814913.ecebs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Incandescent's "waste" heat is not wasted if other heating is in operation / required.

This is an important factor that is not given enough prominence in the main entry. In a situation where the lit area is in need of additional heating, then the "waste" heat from incandescent bulbs can make a significant contribution to the total heating requirement. This form of electric heating may be more expensive and not in the ideal place, but its heat does not go to waste. This is also true of many other appliances which generate heat as a byproduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.39.83 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is discussed in the article. It's not really an important factor. If air conditioning is used in the summer, the energy waste in the summer is much greater than the energy used by the bulb, since the heat generated by the bulb has to be pumped out of the building by the air conditioner. In nearly all climates the extra energy wasted in the summer exceeds the energy not wasted (since it contributes to heating) in the winter. It is always more efficient to use a more efficient lighting source, and then use a system designed for heating to provide heat.--Srleffler (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

the world map needs an update

Phase out of incandescent light bulbs around the world

  A full ban

  A partial ban

  A programme to exchange a number of light bulbs with more efficient types

there are the other countries need to be updated to the map, for either partial or full banned. please help to change --Esilence (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The map is four years out of date. I'm removing it from the article.--Srleffler (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Srleffler thanks for your interest. I have now updated the map as much as I could. For notice, here are some sources I found that could be adapted to the article texts

• http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/brazil-sale-of-incandescent-light-bulbs-prohibited/
• http://www.esi-africa.com/news/zambia-maintains-banning-incandescent-light-bulbs/
• http://www.southafrica.info/about/sustainable/lightbulbs-071211.htm#.V3T7mGiLSHs

and so on for the EU and North America. India and Venezuela still remains unsure. Please feel free to add changes/updates. Lots of countries could be easily googled & added, if anyone has time --Esilence (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070426184034/http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304074611/http://www.chem.unep.ch/MERCURY/Toolkit/UNEP-final-pilot-draft-toolkit-Dec05.pdf to http://www.chem.unep.ch/MERCURY/Toolkit/UNEP-final-pilot-draft-toolkit-Dec05.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151127003128/http://www.ultra-leds.co.uk/index.php/2015/06/23/whats-the-best-way-to-dispose-of-your-light-bulbs/ to http://www.ultra-leds.co.uk/index.php/2015/06/23/whats-the-best-way-to-dispose-of-your-light-bulbs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329191437/http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/cfl.htm to http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/cfl.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• LED BULB.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)