Bulbs / Miliband

[webofevil]

Possible bad news for migraine sufferers: Energy-saving light bulbs could trigger migraines [BBC]. Those fluorescent darkbulbs that take about quarter of an hour to reach their semi-luminescent state, one of which led me on new year’s eve to misread, albeit at a distance, a product on my esteemed colleague’s bathroom shelf as “Foaming Fascist Wash” (rather than “Facial”), turn out to be not only annoying but actively harmful for a select few.

My concern is that the government (1) seem to take at least four years to absorb new information anyway and (2) are puritanical enough at heart, even without David Miliband heading Environment any more, to press ahead with banning normal light bulbs with no regard to what that could do to migraine sufferers. Prove me wrong, envirowonks!

Incidentally, now that “the Mil” has inserted himself into this post, I am slightly disturbed by the number of my female acquaintances who have A Bit Of A Thing for the Foreign Secretary.

[Poll #1114522]

Comments

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

are puritanical enough at heart, even without David Miliband heading Environment any more, to press ahead with banning normal light bulbs with no regard to what that could do to migraine sufferers. Prove me wrong, envirowonks!

Hmm. The allegations in that story don't really seem to imply that banning conventional light bulbs is going to lead to an epidemic of migraines. The "evidence" presented in the report that energy-saving bulbs are doing so is pretty sketchy and anecdotal, and only seems to apply to certain bulbs anyway. And is it really "puritanical" to make a change that would make an enormous dent in carbon emissions?

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

> don't really seem to imply that banning conventional light bulbs is going to lead to an epidemic of migraines

Well, no, not in people who aren't already prone to them. And yes, sketchy and anecdotal the "evidence" is, but there's a strong argument for at least looking into it first.


> is it really "puritanical" to make a change that would make an enormous dent in carbon emissions?

There's a definite puritanical streak to a whole load of the solutions and behaviour modifications demanded of us in the face of global warming. Maybe they will help stave it off or solve the problems facing us, but even if they don't, we will have been put firmly in our place. Of course, making us all install darkbulbs is by no means the most extreme of these, but they are slightly worse than what we've had in the past and that certainly satisfies something deep in the puritan breast.

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

Well, no, not in people who aren't already prone to them.

Or in the people who are, either. Looking into the matter is fine, but as far as I can see from that story not all energy-saving bulbs produce the "flickering" effect mentioned anyway.

There's a definite puritanical streak to a whole load of the solutions and behaviour modifications demanded of us in the face of global warming. Maybe they will help stave it off or solve the problems facing us, but even if they don't, we will have been put firmly in our place. Of course, making us all install darkbulbs is by no means the most extreme of these, but they are slightly worse than what we've had in the past and that certainly satisfies something deep in the puritan breast.

Sorry, but I think you're way, way off beam here. Not all energy saving bulbs are as dim as the one experienced on NYE, and the idea that people wanting to replace conventional bulbs with energy saving ones are doing so to satisfy some puritanical impulse just doesn't ring true to me. I mean, by lobbying for less energy consuming light bulbs, just who is trying to put "us" in our place? I know plenty of people who would support such moves - including me - does that make us one of this group trying to put everyone else in their place?

There are areas of Government policy that can be seen as potentially restrictive or repressive, but it's a bit of a stretch to adduce this one as an example.

(and FWIW, I do agree with you that a puritanical streak is present in a great deal of Green thinking, but in this case, I'm not convinced.)

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

> Not all energy saving bulbs are as dim as the one experienced on NYE

That's true, but—although, as with most things, I'm prepared to be convinced—I haven't yet encountered a fluorescent bulb that's any serious rival for a normal one.


> the idea that people wanting to replace conventional bulbs with energy saving ones are doing so to satisfy some puritanical impulse just doesn't ring true to me

Not primarily to satisfy that impulse. I know that normal light bulbs are energy-hungry and need to be dealt with. I'm just saying that the fact that the alternatives are currently a little worse gives that impulse a reassuring little scratch under the chin.

[chiller.livejournal.com]

I should point out that there is a small but significant chunk of society (of which I am, unfortunately, a part) who absolutely cannot function with some types of low energy bulbs (or fluorescent tubes). The flicker is visible and while it doesn't provoke migraine for me, I do find it distressing.

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware of this problem before I read that story, but if low energy bulbs are available that don't flicker - and presumably these will be more popular in the long run - then a long-term replacement of conventional ones with energy saving ones should be okay. I would imagine that ways will be found to make them brighter, too. We've just never had to really think about it before.

[chiller.livejournal.com]

Hey, if they actually invent one that doesn't flicker and that - you know - sheds a bit of light, I'm all over that.