The incandescent light bulb ban is this decade’s version of the old 55 m.p.h. speed limit, and sooner or later Congress needs to be pressed into repealing this idiocy. Along with mailing in tea bags to members of Congress, we should send them our compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) for proper disposal in hazardous-waste landfills, since they contain mercury. An unsurprising irony of our time: We’re going to sock it to industry with new air-quality regulations to reduce airborne mercury, but we’re going to subject everyone to increased mercury risk in their homes by forcing them to use CFL bulbs. Have a look at EPA guidance for disposing CFLs and what to do if one breaks in your house.
Well, perhaps we can all use light-emitting diode bulbs (LEDs) instead. Whoops: A new study out this week from the University of California concludes that LEDs contain lead and arsenic. The study found that low-intensity red LEDs (such as Christmas lights) contain eight times the legally allowed level of lead in California, and concludes that “low-intensity red LEDs exhibit significant cancer and noncancer potential due to the high content of arsenic and lead.” The researchers also tested larger LEDs such as car headlights and traffic lights, also finding high levels of toxic materials. Oh, goody. File this one in your “inconvenient truth” folder. Meanwhile, my basement these days is looking more and more like a dragon’s hoard of old-school light bulbs.
I've been reading similar assessments for a while now.
Would someone knowledgable ('plugged in'?) please advise how we take steps to get this nonsense repealed, before I have to start stocking up crates of incandescent bulbs?
We need an action plan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought we didn't believe in junk science and fear mongering, but here we are.
Has anyone died or been made ill from the tiny traces of mercury found in a broken CFL? Has anyone died or been made ill by an LED, in the 50 year history of red LEDs, which no one is going to use to light his house anyway?
And using the standards of the State of California, which places labels warning of toxins on fishing weights and rental car parking parking lots, is especially reprehensible, when Hayward in other circumstances would right inveigh against these things.
Steven Hayward should be ashamed. If he can't feel shame, he should apply for a position at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, as his scare-mongering tactics are indistinguishable from theirs.
CFLs are not going to save the planet from greenhouse gases, but they're not going to poison you with mercury, and as for red LEDS, first developed in 1962 and found in virtually every electronic device, they are safer than peanut butter (which contains aflatoxin, a known carcinogen, and triggers severe allergic reactions in some).
This post is disgusting. We are not going to beat environmentalists by stooping to their tactics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA smart person could make a healthy living doing nothing but dealing in black market toilets, shower heads, light bulbs, and dish detergent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, please repeal this law! CFL bulbs produce an ugly light, don't light up instantly, trigger migraines, don't last long (contrary to the advertising), cost a small fortune, and are hazardous.
Maybe the repeal of the incandescent light bulb ban can be packaged with laws to bring back toilets that really flush, showers that really shower, and dish soap that really cleans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Headlights and Christmas lights are a risk for lead & arsenic? When did people start sucking on them as snacks that there is some problem that demands action...?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is such typical greens nonsense. They focus like a laser on one issue to the neglect of all others, forgetting the law of unintended consequences. Forcing everyone to use twisty bulbs is like ethanol mandates -- they both just add costs and reward rent-seekers while failing to accomplish the greens' stated goals.
Meanwhile, I have been hoarding incandescents for over two years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGE has already closed the last incandescent light bulb factory in the US because of the new law. The new CFL's are made in China. Another win for "Green Jobs"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe true measure of this comes from my 8 year old son. I was briefly out of incandescents, and just for the heck of it, I put in two CFLs ($7 each). He has recessed lighting on dimmer switches in his room.
After a week, he came upstairs and said QUOTE, "Dad? Can you change my lightbulbs? Guess what, they buzz really loud. And guess what, when I turn them on, it takes 20 minutes for them to get bright. And guess what? They're not bright like my old ones."
From the mouths of babes. And yes, I went to the big box store and bought a 24-ct box...two of which went into his room. And yes, I told him that President Obama dictated that he use the CFLs, but we are choosing to ignore him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBtw, Steven, be careful about mailing them to Congress. In the down-is-up, up-is-down world we live in, I could see the Feds pressing charges for mailing a hazardous substance and/or threatening a government official...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI, too, am beginning to accumulate a stockpile of incandescent bulbs, in my attic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe new (R) Congress has already started the repeal process:
External Link
Everyone stay vigilant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat piece. Another question that needs answering is how many CFL's in a landfill before we have super-fund sites all over the country in need of high priced government clean-up from the mercury contamination?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, repeal that stupid bill.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn the other hand, LED lights apparently do last much longer and use much less electricity than incandescents and CFLs. So strictly from an economic standpoint, they should be available. But it should be OUR choice, not the government's.
Unless Congress repeals with veto-proof majorities, presumably Obama will kill the repeal with a veto.
I wonder how many people know about what's coming? I recall hearing nothing about the law at the time it was passed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this were as benign as the 55 MPH change, I would not sweat it. All you had to do was change the signs back. Here, the Edison bulb factories are gone, and it will take a lot more to bring them back. Mercury is also in our landfills, and we'll never get that out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll pop a bottle of champagne if Obama vetoes a twisty-bulb repeal. That has campaign symbolism written all over it. "Barack Obama thinks he's smarter than Thomas Edison. Or, worse, he knows he's not, and that people will never voluntarily embrace his 'bright idea'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"So which is it? Smarter than Edison, or more pettily tyrannical than Stalin?
"He cannot make himself the brightest bulb on the porch by vetoing the competition."
And if government bureaucrats -- or Congressmen, for that matter -- REALLY thinks that everyone is disposing of CFLs as directed, they really ARE even stupider than we think. I can attest -- in addition to stockpiling incandescent bulbs in various wattages -- that the couple of CFLs I've discarded (they didn't last nearly as long as promised!) went straight into the trash, and presumably lay in the requisite landfill.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublicans should champion a repeal of the bulb ban. I'm starting to stockpile bulbs too. I hate the way CLF's look. We're going to have a nation of depressed, zombie looking citizens. In other words, we'll start looking and feeling like liberals do after being bathed in the horrible light CFL's give off.
I still can't believe that this ban won't be repealed. It is going to be repealed, right?! RIGHT?! I just can't believe this insane stupidity will stand. It's just crazy. What are they going to ban next, desktop computers? Seriously. Why not? They use a lot more electricity than laptops. Or should they just ban desktops and laptops and only allow smart phones? Why not? If they can take away your light bulb, they can take away anything.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLEDs contain arsenic and lead! On noes!
Guess what? So does dirt.
Also, the statement that they contain 'eight times the legally allowed level of lead' doesn't make very much sense. What the heck level are the talking about? The level in food? Toys? I don't think anyone will be eating them, and children shouldn't be sucking them, so it's not really a problem. I just don't see an exposure route (although I haven't read the study, although I am wondering if anyone here read it in detail, either).
You can't compare lead and arsenic to mercury, since mercury is not only more toxic but it volatilizes at room temperature, meaning that if you spill it you can inhale it. Lead particulate can become airborne, as can any particulate, but it's a very different exposure,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust a technical note: low-lead LEDs (RoHS) are available. Also, it's a lot harder to get at the lead and arsenic in an LED as it's encased in solid plastic - harmless (aside from the wire leads) if you were to swallow one. LED lifespans are also several times that of CFLs.
On the other hand: NO to curly-fry (tm Mark Steyn) bulbs!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse