Should the old style, cheap light bulb be phased out?

Alex (Mt Eden)
Thursday June 19, 2008 Yes I am annoyed that the government is telling me what kind of lightbulbs I can have in my house. We have mostly all the energy saving types now but my most beloved wrought iron light which is above the dining table is going to look hideous with those curly things! Also - is there any truth to the rumour that these bulbs contain mercury which means they will need to be shipped to Australia for recycling or else fill our dumps with toxic waste? How good will this be for the carbon footprint?

Leo (Auckland Central)
Thursday June 19, 2008 I'm afraid I have more to worry about than light bulbs!

Moot (Auckland Central)
Thursday June 19, 2008 Yes, why the government has to resort to banning everything instead of educating the mass and help make NZ a smarter place?
And to make things worse, systems that are only compatible with incandescent bulbs (dimmers, bathroom lights, security lights, etc) will be made obsolete. Would the government compensate this?
This move is again a proof that NZ is being governed by the minority (Green party) since the governing party cannot stand on it's own feet. What a senseless government system!

A Surfer (Piha)
Thursday June 19, 2008 Yes. Governments around the world are banning energy inefficient light bulbs in an attempt to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases. However, the energy efficient light bulbs that are currently available may be harming both the environment (mercury content of bulbs is high) and human health (electromagnetic pollution).

The main function of light bulbs is to generate light, which is part of the electromagnetic
spectrum. The original incandescent light bulbs also generate heat (infrared radiation, also part of the EM2 spectrum), which makes them energy inefficient.
The newer compact fluorescent light bulbs generate radio frequency radiation as well as
ultraviolet radiation and many still generate heat although less of it.
These frequencies (RF3 and UV4) have been associated with adverse health in numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies and a growing number of people are complaining that these bulbs make them ill.
Instead of promoting compact fluorescent light bulbs, governments should be insisting
that manufacturers produce light bulbs that do not produce radio frequency or UV
radiation and that are safe.

A Surfer (Piha)
Thursday June 19, 2008 Yes. Most definitely annoyed.
Yes, the energy efficient fluorescent lightbulbs use less electricity so everyone from the current government to the Greens are jumping on the bandwagon. Yet have they done any reading or research re these fluoro bulbs?! And I am not just taking about the hazards to our landfills when these bulbs containing mercury get thrown out! I am also talking about the hazardous health effects. There is much research to back this up.
I object to the government dictating to me what kind of light i must use in my own home!

Chris (Wellington CBD)
Thursday June 19, 2008 When are they going to stop telling us what to do, when to do and how to do it?
The "Eco-friendly" light bulbs are rubbish. I already feel for people with poorer eyesight - not only will it make it difficult for them but it will probably deteriorate it more too.

I'm tired of the greenies forcing everything on everyone. $6 per bulb - tell me where the poor folk are going to justify $6 for a light bulb when they're struggling to spend $3 on milk.

This has to stop.

Frustrated (Wellington City)
Thursday June 19, 2008 So we all have to change lightbulbs, in order to be energy efficent here's what we are getting:

Bulbs with mercury in them! (Hang on a minute in order to be energy efficent we will be compromising our health).

If they break you do not touch them, sweep up with gloves. Do not put in normal rubbish and seal in a glasss container. Oh and do not breathe anywhere near them.(What does the Govt say about that health risk)?

Tell me how we are being efficent about recycling and not hurting the environment? (People will just put them in the normal rubbish)!

They take longer to break down in the environment much more so than normal bulbs! (How is this sensible and why would you swap normal bulbs that that don't pose these risks for these bulbs)?

They are dimmer so your house will look like a dungeon!

They take ages to warm up. (There's a saftey issue there)!

They are extremely ugly! (Come on can anyone say they look good in lighting fittings)?

There are issues here. Has no one bothered to think this policy through? Especially the fact of disposal and break down in the environment. This needs to be thought through properly. Are we not throwing out the baby with the bath water?

JF (North Shore)
Thursday June 19, 2008 Why not introduce a levy on older-style bulbs to make them cost more than energy-savers? That way consumers would be more inclined to buy the more efficient bulbs. Hey, maybe the revenue from the levy could be put towards a new power station.

Energy saving bulbs are great, but not in every application. I shall be stock-piling incandescent bulbs for this reason if they are banned.

Submit a comment

More Articles:

Next Your Views Story: Was the decision to end the second England vs Black Caps one-day game fair?

Your Views Homepage

---