Talk:Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.) 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)

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)