by 
Loading ...
Last week we noticed it had been a bad week for low-energy light bulbs.
We noted that there have been concerns over their effects on people with migraines, over their effect on people with light-sensitive skin, over the way they are disposed of, and of their toxic hazard to human health.
The first and second worries relates to the quality of the light the bulbs give off, while the last two relate to the presence of toxic mercury in the bulbs’ design.
It led one Greenpeace blogger to wonder about the sudden incidence of several bad news stories - though he does specifically say he is not “a conspiracy theorist”.
He points to a very useful FAQ published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, which is pretty reassuring over the general safety issues. That said, their observation that there has been “a rash” of media stories probably won’t impress those concerned about the effects of the light bulbs on their skin.
Whatever the news, it hasn’t stopped a light bulb amnesty from going ahead. Under the scheme, Londoners can bring one or two of their old-style bulbs into B&Q and exchange them for shiny new ones.
Perhaps one of the most useful outcomes of the current debate will be the realisation that fluorescent bulbs are an interim solution to our lighting needs, rather than an ideal.
LED lights, tipped to come into the mainstream this year, use a fraction of the energy and are more durable. Oh, and they don’t contain mercury, or anything else likely to pose a hazard to health.
IMAGE by Flickr user * Minette
