I for one agree with Rosenberg. Incandescent light is more aesthetically pleasing than fluorescent light, and gas light was more so than incandescents. One may, I hope, still wish for beauty while settling for utility. Or have the Environmental Correctness police outlawed the expression of opinion?

Obviously, the other Fraysters who posted here disagree with me: utility trumps any aesthetic consideration and the ne plus ultra of attractive lighting for the EC set is the "warm fluorescent" (a term undoubtedly concocted by the Ministry of Beauty).

Obviously they, and everyone who thinks that replacing all our light bulbs with fluorescents - and minimizing the number of TP squares we use while we're at it - will save the planet. Here's a news flash: It won't.

As Rosenberg points out, there are environmental problems with fluorescents, just as there are problems with incandescent bulbs. Nearly every action we take to mitigate damage to our environment and conserve our natural resources (while maintaining our plugged-in, souped-up lifestyle) raises a different set of problems that will ultimately require mitigation. There is no possibility of "solving" the environmental crisis anytime soon; it's like the horizon - always visible, but never attainable. To imply - and worse, to take ultimately irrevocable political action to ensure - that eliminating one type of heat source will "save" the planet is ridiculous. The best we can do is minimize our collective impact and consumption, and hope that it's enough and in time.

Fluorescent bulbs may be one way to minimize our impact. Then again, so is the use of dimmer switches, which is my choice for mitigating the amount of heat generated by my light bulbs. I also use lower-wattage bulbs in areas where I do not need bright light, and I turn off lights in unoccupied rooms.

When I dim my incandescents, I use less electricity and generate less heat. Fluorescents, even those "warm" posers, cannot be dimmed.

Those who rant about saving the planet one TP square - and one light bulb - at a time are engaging in fear-mongering on a scale that would impress Rudy Giuliani. It is only our *collective* will, and our *collective* action, that will ultimately determine whether our planet is saved from the ravages of humanity.

Of course there is a better way; there always is. Why should we be made to sacrifice beauty to utility? We can surely find a light source that is aesthetically pleasing and low-impact. Marrying the two is merely a matter of discovery of the middle ground and adoption of thousands of better ways on a planetary scale. Until we figure out how to do that, however, I'm stocking up on those lovely, glowing glass orbs.

Dimmable fluorescents are, in fact, available. They are hideously expensive though. Maybe, like with compact fluorescents, the cost will come down as they become more popular.

There is a very practical way to "dim" most fixtures using CFLs: Install a switched lamp socket Y extender. so you can use two small CFLs in the same fixture. CFLs are available in very tiny formats these days, so this can work in many fixtures.

Keep one of the CFLs switched off until you need to double the light output. Or you can install a small CFL in one of the sockets and a brighter CFL in the other. This gives you a three-way lamp.

strive:

Most people handle pesticides, oil products, cleaning fluids, and bleach without a care in the world. Yet you, and Rosenberg, are concerned about fluorescents? Now there are some real intensive environmental issues with those chemical categories and yet no one gives a rip about the handling and disposal of dangerous chemicals for the most part. Less dangerous than the handling of chemicals, the EPA does give a really simple method of cleaning up after a breakage of a CFL. Pssssst Rosenberg . . . there has been a procedure and the means for disposal in place for the handling of fluorescent disposal for years now; except no one follows it, not even the companies who are ISO14000 certified.

For years, we have had fluorescents and nobody gave a hoot about disposal before. How many landfills do you think have the popular fluorescent tubes in them from your kid's schools, libraries, and churches? All of them broken up and scattered under tons of dirt. Why is it ok to be exposed to fluorescents in schools, libraries, work places, stores, etc. and not in the household? Hell, you are already living with fluorescents 50% or more of your time awake in this world. I suspect that with the mandate for a new light source, which will lower the usage of energy and the use of raw materials due to the longevity of the product, the real issue is about being told what to do.

"Don't tell me what to do! I love my yellow light as it reminds me of fireplaces and wagon-training across the western prairie.”

If you are really concerned about the hazards; then why not lead the charge to eliminate them from all public places, as it presents just as much of an environmental and health hazard there also. I suspect you and Rosenberg are rebelling against the mandate more so than the CFLs.

When you dim your lights, are you dimming them by 50% or more? Fluorescents use ~25% of the energy that an incandescent would. And if you do dim incandescent bulbs by that much, how safe is the environment within your household to work? Planning on eye doctor bills after all of those dimmed lights?

Nobody ever claimed the CFL or fluorescents would save the world. However they did claim that the usage of them will reduce the need for coal-fired electric plants which emit tons of mercury yearly. 2006 resulted in over 50 tons of mercury being emitted or enough to make 9 billion CFLs at 1 to 5 milligrams/CFL. Now lets try the positive argument . . . if each home in the US replaced 1 incandescent with 1 CFL light, the electricity saved would light 3 million homes or be the equivalent emissions of 800,000 cars (Popular Mechanics). Not a bad savings if one CFL replaces once Incandescent

Again, I suspect it is all about being told what to do. Rosenburg is the fear-mongering writer in the bushes using nostalgia in his article. He presents a lot of melancholy supposition and few facts to support his contention. MBTU “loki,” he had a factual argument that supported the quality of lighting, which neither you or Rosenburg present. Kind of makes one wonder what people may do if they are forced to give up those 1-ton capacity chariots-of-steel, with dualities, and the v-8, or the v-10, that never haul anything but their fat asses around at 80 mph. Then, you will hear some real screaming and whining.

I propose the monitoring and regulation of the use of the Internet to save energy instead of changing to CFLs. Green Weenie Poobah Al Gore, who was, by his own admission, instrumental in the advent of the Internet, should be ashamed of his self for glossing over the impact the Internet has had on energy consumption.

How about a compromise: Limit Internet usage by everyone worldwide to 1-2 hours per week but keep the Incandescant bulb around?

OIFVet:

How about we do both and save double what could be achieved by the implementation of CFLs alone. We can also channel some of that hot-air of yours to make steam and run turbines.

I'm in- now get the hypocrites also known as Green Weenies on board.

I would add some more smart-assed commentary but as you can see I am already living up to my half of the agreement. Gotta go burn my ILB all night!

OIF:

This wearer of the green did so for a few years. What I wrote is true. What is being dispensed in this article is little more than fear mongering. So feel free to answer.

I have one word for you that comes to mind when someone mentions fear mongering: Algore!

Then dispute my words other than conjecture and supposition. You have offered up nothing yet to me.

another vet