Writers' Community!
Home Page Two Columnists Q&A Submit an Article FAQs Contact Author Login
Article Submission
We Need YOUR Articles!
We'll Promote Them for FREE!

Author Login

New Authors
Register Here


Now Serving 7,781 Authors
70,490 Quality Articles
& 7,810 Current Users Online!
Featured Authors
Bruce Horst (142)
Joel Hendon (16,285)
Michael Ramzy (633)
E. Raymond Rock (3,068)
Ira Coffin (6,669)
Connor Davidson (5,131)
Ben Morrish (7,936)
Steve Kovacs (4,545)
Sandra E. Graham (7,883)
Fran Larson (2,271)
Shari Vaudo (418)
David Tanguay (9,577)
Missing Link (766)
Gregory Lewis (1,603)

View All Featured Authors
Most Recent
Top 10 Electric Space Heater Safety Tips

Recycling Computers and Cell Phones: A How-to Guide

What is Fire? - Why Choose a Fire Pit?

Wow! Talk About Smart Technology!

Pointers to Using Your Dishwasher Efficiently

Spa Discounts: 7 Ways to Save Money on Your Favorite Spa Treatments

Sony Bravia KDL46V5500U LCD Television Review

Laundry Detergents and Hair Shampoos

FAQs About Falling Furniture and Furniture Tip-overs

Bar Soaps

Home » Categories » Home Life » Consumer Information » The Truth About Fluorescent Lighting » Printer Friendly

Nancy Daniels

The Truth About Fluorescent Lighting

Rated 4 out of 5
Rated an Average of 4.5 by 10 Readers ?
Rate It  /  View Comments  /  View All Articles submitted by Nancy Daniels
Submitted Saturday, January 24, 2009
Nancy Daniels (1,550)
Nancy Daniels

Voice Dynamic
Log in to become a member of Nancy Daniels's Fan Club!


Come 2012, America will begin phasing out incandescent lighting in favor of fluorescent lighting; and, I am disheartened at the brainwashing that has taken hold of the American public in regards to the energy savings that will result from the use of fluorescents.  Please understand that I like fluorescent lighting given the right situation.  What I am against is the use of it in every single room, in every single situation.

What is completely unbeknownst to most people is the fact that unless you leave the fluorescent light on for at least 15 minutes (or longer), it is more expensive to use than the incandescent bulb.  What this means is that for a short of amount of time; i.e., using the bathroom for less than 15 minutes, turning the light on to check the TV guide for less than 15 minutes, entering your walkin closet for less than 15 minutes, turning light on in your basement or garage for less than 15 minutes or using light in any situation for less than 15 minutes is much more expensive with the compact fluorescent bulb (CFL) than with the incandescent one. 

The reason is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to ‘start' the fluorescent light bulb.  The real problem with this type of lighting is that it is an expensive, wasteful choice for short term lighting.  Over an extended period of use, however, it is cheaper to run the fluorescent bulb because the amount of energy it uses is much less than the steady running of the incandescent bulb.  So, if you plan to study or sew or work on a hobby for a few hours, great choice.  But if you turn it on and then turn it off again, you just wasted a lot of money and a lot of energy!

On the health sides of fluorescent lighting,   do you know what happens if you break a bulb?  The EPA will tell you to air out the room for a quarter of an hour. Wear gloves. Double-bag the refuse. Use duct tape to lift the residue from a carpet. Don't use a vacuum cleaner, as that will only spread the problem. The next time you vacuum the area, immediately dispose of the vacuum bag.  What are the harmful products in the CFLs?  Mercury and phosphorus. 

[What happens if your Lab puppy eats the CFL bulb?  Lab pups are known for eating light bulbs as well as everything else.  Of course, not to worry.  Labs eat everything because they know they can always vomit later!  Incidentally, my lab pup ate an incandescent bulb so I speak from experience; but, if she had gotten her paws on a CFL, I don't know if she would have survived!]

Did you know that the radio frequency output of the various types of fluorescent lighting is dangerous to one's health and for some people induces headaches?  Because the electronics in the fluorescents produce an RF signal as well as a constant flickering that is unnoticed by the human eye, many people report headaches after long term exposure to this type of lighting. 

Fluorescent bulbs will not work in oven or dryers because the heat will damage the electronics and melt the casing which encloses the CFLs.  (I plan to stock up on incandescent bulbs because I like seeing inside my dryer and oven!)  And, I'd love to know what they plan to do with my refrigerator.  I don't like keeping my refrigerator door open for 15 minutes at a time.  And how many times do we open the refrigerator every day?  Of course, we could just build our refrigerators so that that bulb inside stays on permanently whether the door is open or closed! 

As you can see, fluorescent lighting certainly has its good point:  over an extended period of time, it will save you money.

But for practical reasons, it is not the answer.  Why not try something my mother taught me?  When you leave a room, turn off the light and then make it a habit.  Add fluorescent lighting to areas in which you will be using light for extended periods of time; but, leave the incandescent bulb alone.  We have enough problems in this country.  Just wait until you see what happens when we become ‘fluorescentized.'

If Al Gore really wants to save the earth, he should turn off his air conditioning, install fans, and hang his clothes out to dry because our clothes dryers and air conditioners deplete our energy a lot faster than the simple light bulb!
 






Reprint Rights

Log in to become a member of Nancy Daniels's Fan Club!

Comments on this article:


» left by Joel Hendon (11,085)
Joel Hendon
(259 days 6 hours ago.)

Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
Hi Nancy,
 
You are absolutely right. Personally, I like flourescent lighting and we do have it in all rooms. But, not for Al Gore and his radical stance. But I, like you, think it is downright stupid to even think about eradicating the incandescent bulb. Even with our room lighting flourescent, I suspect we have as many incandescent bulbs in use as we do the other. thanks for a great article.

Respond to this comment
» left by Nancy Daniels (259 days 5 hours ago.)
Joel,
 
Thank your for reading my article.  I understand that Al Gore uses between 12 - 20 times the national average (depends on the source); I guess his mother didn't teach him to practice what he preaches!

Respond to this comment

» left by Ben Morrish (9,070)
Ben Morrish
(259 days 6 hours ago.)

Reader Rating: 3 out of 5
"The reason is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to ‘start' the fluorescent light bulb" -
 
- this isn't true, but it is a very widespread myth...the energy required to "fire-up" a flourescent bulb is equivalent to the amount used about 5 seconds of on time (even less with some of the newer designs, down to about 1 second of on time).
 
If the light is to be off for more than 5 seconds, you're saving energy by turning it off - so unless you're just sat by the switch turning it on and off repeatedly, you're going to be using less energy if you have a fluorescent lamp rather than an incandescent bulb.
 
The reason behind the 15 minute figure is actually to do with the fact that turning the fluorescent lamp on and off can shorten its operational life slightly, meaning you have to pay for a new one sooner.
 
The actual "minimum time" for best economy depends on several factors - cost of the bulb, the cost of electricity etc (if you pay a high rate for your electricity, the time could be reduced to ~5 mins).  But each time you have your light on for MORE than 15 mins you're saving money every minute after than compared to the incandescent bulb. Have just one light on for 3 or 4 hours and your savings with a fluorescent lamp will massively outweigh the cost of the few times where you've turned a light on for less than 15 mins.
 
Unless you *regularly* have *most* of your lights on for less than this minimum time you will be saving money overall by using the fluorescent lamps.
 
Unless you turn them on and off more frequently than once per 5 seconds you will be always be saving energy by using the fluorescent lamps.

Respond to this comment
» left by Nancy Daniels (259 days 5 hours ago.)
Ben,
 
Thank you for your comment...I really wish you were right; however, the United States Environmental Protection Agency US Dept of Energy has stated that:  "Energy Star qualified CFLs provide the greatest savings in fixtures that are on for a substantial amount of time each day.  At a minimum, ENERGY STAR recommends installing qualified CFLs in fixtures that are used at least 15 minutes at a time or several hours per day."  They further state that the best places to use qualified CFLs are in family and living rooms, kitchens, dining rooms, bedrooms, and outdoors. 
 
Incidentally, you can find this information on the energystar (.gov) page.  While today, especially, I am not in total agreement with what the government says or does, on this one I tend to think they are right.  My question is why this information hasn't had more attention?  I like fluorescent lighting; I just don't want it everywhere. 
 

Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish (9,070)
Ben Morrish
(259 days 4 hours ago.)

Even in that quote they say "at a minimum", as the *biggest* savings (in terms of energy AND money) come from the fixtures that are used at least 15 minutes at a time or used for several hours per day.
 
However, there can be smaller savings (mainly energy, rather than money but sometimes both) on other fixtures as well.
 
I agree that there may still be a place for incandescent bulbs (although probably LED lights would be best in many of those cases), but I don't think it is helpful to repeat the myth about fluorescent lamps using large amounts of power when you turn them on.
 
This myth is confirmed on the energy star page (in the FAQ) that you mentioned:
 
"You may also have heard that CFLs use a lot of energy when turning on and off. While there is a brief surge in energy use when a CFL is turned on, with today's starting technology, that surge usually lasts about a tenth of a second and consumes about as much energy as five seconds of normal operation"
 
Lights that are regularly used for less than 15 minutes (but more than 5-10 seconds) and rarely or never used for much longer durations will cost you slightly more *money* with a fluorescent lamp than with an incandescent bulb, but will still be likely to *save energy*.

Respond to this comment
» left by Nancy Daniels (259 days 3 hours ago.)
Ben,
 
Thank you for your comment on a comment.  Yes, I read the FAQ; however, if the government recommends placing the CFLs in areas where they will be on for 15 minutes or longer, why are you so intent on the entire replacement of our incandescents?  Should I walk into my closet for 10 seconds to grab my shoes (and need light to do so), would it not be wiser to turn on an incandescent bulb in this particular situation? 
 
Besides the debate over energy savings (which is not fully resolved because of the additional erergy use required to manufacture CFLs),  I personally do not want to surround myself with additional RF emissions, buzzing ballasts, or the potential health hazards of broken CFL bulbs.
 
I've got another one for you Ben...I am a firm believer in recycling; however,  do you know how much energy is depleted in the recycling process itself? 
 
Sometimes issues are not entirely black and white.  (One of the reasons I am not in favor of the extreme left nor the extreme right.  Both sides are extreme.)   If only we could all see a little gray. 
 
 

Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish (9,070)
Ben Morrish
(258 days 9 hours ago.)

I'm not intent on replacing all incandescent bulbs with fluorescent lamps, far from it... I just wanted to set the facts straight about the energy used in powering up a fluorescent lamp, and clarify the differences in savings when looked at in terms of energy or money.

The additional energy required to produce a CFL is offset by its (much) longer lifespan, but I agree about the potential hazards when they break, and also have concerns about their mercury content (which has been significantly reduced in recent years but is still a worry) in terms of safe disposal.

Another concern I have with CFLs is the fact that they give out a small amount of UV, so prolonged exposure can be equivalent to a couple of minutes in the sun. Not a major problem for most people, but certainly worth being aware of!

I agree that incandescent bulbs are still a better choice overall for certain situations, but those situations are ones with minimal light use and so don't really use much energy either way. Even so, incandescent bulbs are extremely inefficient - I think other technologies like LED might be better replacements for them than CFL in certain circumstances...especially in closests and fridges where there's a need for instant light, but only for very short periods.

One other problem with CFL lighting is that, I think, they can cause problems for partially sighted people, due to the delay in reaching full brightness and the diffuse nature of the light they give out.



Respond to this comment

» left by Gary W. Halsey Sr. (4,850)
Gary W. Halsey Sr.
(259 days ago.)

Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
What a wonderful article, and I have learned things that I didn't know about the fluorescent lighting. Wow, it contains Mercury and phosphorus? I do not like fluorescent lighting that much, it always reminds me of a Chinese Cafe. Bright, containing absolutely no soft hues for that ambiance of atomspheres. I like "soft" lighting, not harsh, and I am with you, I think I will stock up on the regular light bulbs. I found this article, as usual, very educational, and well researched. I look forward to reading more of your work!! Well done. That is why I just became a fan of yours!!!

Respond to this comment
» left by Nancy Daniels (256 days ago.)
Gary,
 
Thank you so much.  I appreciate your kudos and plan on a lot more of the 'opinion' pieces.  (Wish I could just write for SearchWarp as I enjoy it so much!)  I plan to stock up too, buying cases of incandescents.  Without a doubt, an underground system is underway.  I can just see what people will be buying on Ebay!
 
Again, my thanks

Respond to this comment

» left by Susan Thom (11,833)
Susan Thom
(258 days 22 hours ago.)

Reader Rating: 4 out of 5
hi nancy,
 
this was a well written, interesting article with a lot of facts most people are probably not aware of. thanks for keeping us informed,
 
my best regards,
 
sue

Respond to this comment
» left by Nancy Daniels (256 days 1 hour ago.)
Sue,
 
Thanks for reading this.  I appreciate it.

Respond to this comment

» left by Ronyae (4,587)
Ronyae
(258 days 1 hour ago.)

Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
Nancy,
 
Very good article, and helpful as well. Good job! Thanks for sharing it with us.

Respond to this comment
» left by Nancy Daniels (256 days 1 hour ago.)
Ronyae,
 
You are welcome and I thank you for reading this article.

Respond to this comment

» left by Doris Canova (105) (258 days 1 hour ago.)
Reader Rating: 4 out of 5
Well lot of info and not really sure about the saving of energy.

Respond to this comment
» left by Nancy Daniels (256 days 1 hour ago.)
Doris,
 
I'm not really sure what you mean by the saving of energy.  Suffice it to say.  Use fluuorescent for long term lighting and use the incandescents for brief lighting.
 
Thank you for reading this.

Respond to this comment

» left by Gregory Akerman (800)
Gregory Akerman
(257 days 20 hours ago.)

Reader Rating: 4 out of 5
Very interested article. I had no idea this was going to happen. However, I believe both light bulbs will still be around for a long time.

Respond to this comment
» left by Nancy Daniels (255 days 23 hours ago.)
Gregory,
 
I'm not taking any chances.  I'll be stocking up before 2012. 
 
Thanks for reading my article.

Respond to this comment

» left by Peter Alfieri (571)
Peter Alfieri
(257 days 4 hours ago.)

Reader Rating: 4 out of 5
Nancy, excellent article. You have a great argument backed up with facts. I never knew many of the details you mentioned.
 
Thanks for making this interesting and informative. :)

Respond to this comment
» left by Nancy Daniels (256 days 1 hour ago.)
Peter,
 
I guess we should be thankful they won't be phasing out ovens, a big source of energy for those of us who cook!
 
Thanks for your comment.

Respond to this comment
» left by Ronyae (4,587)
Ronyae
(256 days ago.)

I second that, Nancy and Peter!

Respond to this comment
» left by Nancy Daniels (255 days 23 hours ago.)
Ronyae,
 
Now I know something more about you!
 
Do writers for SearchWarp ever do a big get-together?

Respond to this comment

» left by Teresa Ortiz (12,195)
Teresa Ortiz
(253 days 13 hours ago.)

Reader Rating: 4 out of 5
Hi Nancy, thanks for this great article. Filled with facts and info I wasn't aware of. I learned something new today :-)

Respond to this comment

» left by John S from Stow, OH (249 days 23 hours ago.)
Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
Yes. Let's hear more about issues and products that directly affect the masses. Also, let's suggest more practical ways to save energy, time and resources.

Respond to this comment

» left by ErnieGs from Columbus (14 minutes ago.)
Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
   New Comment!   
First, I did not read all of the comments. The toxic nature of the CFL, is extremely dangerous to use around children or pets. Our landfills will soon be overcome with extremely high levels of Mercury Poisoning. Also, I am attempting to find the nature of the Phosphors in bulbs. Articles are all over the place as to whether it is phosphorous or a synthetic phosphor. I believe we have at least 2 issues to address Phosphor and Mercury.
 
This is an older article, but tells the TRUTH about the cost of the TOXIC Mercury cleanup. Also, witness the Glenn Beck cleanup video.........  and the article in Natural News (com)  regarding the cleanup cost of one bulb for a lady in Maine - she has to pay $2,000 for the cleanup.
 


Respond to this comment

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:

This Article has been viewed 290 times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on 1/24/2009 7:03:58 PM.
View other articles written by Nancy Daniels (1,550)
Nancy Daniels


If you found this article interesting, you may want to check out:

Disclaimer:  All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional or organization.


Today's Most Popular
What Is the Best Vacuum For Pet Hair?

A Guide to Platform Bed Plans

The Many Uses of Borax

A Review of Popular Snow Blower Products

The Truth About Honda Pressure Washers

Choosing a Furnace Humidifier

What Type Of Coffee Filter Should You Use?

Sony Bravia KDL46V5500U LCD Television Review

A Review of Popular Wood Stove Manufacturers

Advice on Building a Bunk Bed

Viewed from Cache. Load Time: 0.109.

Home  |  Page Two  |  FAQ's  |  Contact  |  Terms of Service  |  Article Submission Guidelines  |  Questions & Answers  |  Privacy  |  Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2009 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company