Nexus - 1004 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

INCANDESCENT LIGHT THE HEALTHIER ALTERNATIVE? INCANDESCENT LIGHT HEALTHIER ALTERNATIVE THE Since incandescent light really is a higher-quality light and so many people dislike fluorescents, why are we still being persuaded to use more and more fluorescent light and less and less incandescent? Part 2 of 2 Lighting at Home e lighting advice given in home decorating books and magazines is usually very good, except on two accounts: uplighting and the so-called "energy savers". When the compact fluorescent (CFL) or "energy saver" was introduced in the late 1980s, lamp manufacturers enlisted the aid of energy authorities and producers, environmental authorities and organisations, and large companies such as IKEA to get as many people as pos- sible to replace their top-quality incandescent bulbs with these ridiculously expensive class II CFLs—which initially cost over 30 times more (and, as with some of the top brands, still do). And so this very unfair and persistent campaign against the light bulb was launched and is still being kept up by a steady stream of ads, brochures, special offers, articles and websites that cap- italise heavily on our growing concern for the environment and for our own personal economy. Usually a few simple catch-phrases are used—often intermingled with useful lighting tips and information about other lamp types—and are repeated over and over again by so many dif- ferent, seemingly independent, unconnected and reliable sources that one can easily get the impression that they are actually true. For example: 1. The first argument is that the CFL lasts 8, 10, 12 or 15 times longer than a standard 1,000- hour GLS (general lighting system) bulb. First of all, if you really need a long-life lamp at home, there are GLS lamps with thicker tungsten filaments that are also designed to last 10,000 hours (although at a slight reduction in output), so long life is not unique to CFLs. Secondly, a test by the Swedish Consumer Agency (2000-2001) revealed that surprisingly few "energy savers" really did function for as long as they claimed. Of one brand that was far from inexpen- sive and which promised 8,000 hours, not a single lamp lasted longer than 663 hours! And even though many of the pricier top-brand CFLs burned as long as stated or longer (but very much weaker), not all of them did. Of the most expensive lamp type meant to last 12,000 hours, half had gone out by 8,000 hours! 2. The CEL is also said to produce a light that "looks just like incandescent light". Although in recent years there really has been an improvement in some of the least efficient models, the (composite) light from most CFLs is still more of a pinkish white. 3. The third and main claim that has been chanted from the start is that the CFL gives "five times more light" and thereby "saves 80% energy" (not 80% of your total energy consumption, of course, but of the tiny part of it that light bulbs use). Since lamp manufacturers must be well aware that most CFLs actually don’t give off five times more light, an "up to" was later inserted in this mantra (some replaced it with "four times more"), but by then the catch-phrase was already so well established that it is now often (mis)taken for a fact. To see for yourself that CFLs don't give five times more light, you only need to compare, for example, a 60-watt GLS with the recommended 11- or 12-watt CFL that is meant to replace it, and it will be obvious that the latter is less bright. Even the manufacturers’ own catalogues con- firm that while a good 60-watt GLS gives 730 lumens (Im), the most efficient (and ugly) naked- tube CFL only gives 600 lumens at 11 watts. In globe- or bulb-shaped models (advertised as giving "four times more light"), the outer bulb further reduces the amount of light that gets through to only around 450-500 Im, according to the catalogues. And the abovementioned test revealed that although the three top-brand lamps really did give as much light as promised (in the beginning), most other brands did not. The worst lamps produced only 214 lumens? This test also confirmed that "energy savers", just like other FL (fluorescent) and HID (high- intensity discharge) lamps, lose output as they age, most of it during the first 2,000 hours? After 8,000 hours, the light from some models was reduced by as much as 40%! JUNE — JULY 2003 NEXUS = 41 by Inger Lorelei © 2003 Email: ingerlorelei@tiscali.se www.nexusmagazine.com