The toxic "mercury bulb"
Many of us suppress it: The popular, environmentally and eye-friendly light bulb will finally die in September after the will of the EU this year.
The mortality indicator lights for the following types:
- the 100 and 75 watt bulb (clear)
and ALL frosted bulbs,
- 25 W,
- 40 W,
- 60 W,
- 75 W
Who had ever screwed with a "energy saving lamp", it will have been noted: The life holds not what it promises. This personal experience of many a has now been reviewed by Ökotest in a test series. Conclusion: The life specifications of the bulb manufacturers do not correspond to reality. Supposedly live the "energy saving lamps" namely 12 times longer than a standard bulb. "Wrong," says Ökotest.
In the endurance test they kept at most two times longer. In the stress test (frequent switching on and off) went to them the light of life already "much earlier" than indicated from!
The alleged savings potential thus turns out to be rather than a huge profit potential for the lighting manufacturer.
The mercury problem is still unsolved: A fluorescent bulb takes about 2 mg of mercury, to ignite. Fears are now cheap imports from the Far East that are in the production not quite up to date technology and up to 5 mg or can contain it.
Another problem area: electrosmog. The "energy saving bulbs" have NO limits of electrical radiation. In an assay, they were compared with the limit value for computer monitors. Result: Your radiation is about 12 times higher than that of PC screens. Therefore, it is unsuitable as a desk lamp, because they should not be used in the vicinity of the head.
Energy saving light bulbs give off light synthetic. This is harmful to eyes. In was already at this point here and here reported. The conventional bulbs therefore have a healthy, even healing light spectrum that replicates sunlight.
Here you go to a remarkable documentation of Spiegel TV (25/02/2011)
Here is a document of the district government Cologne v. 06.01.2011 that a dealer which prohibits "placing" under penalty of a fine of 5000 €.
- Advertisement -
Tags: energy saving lamp , result Ökotest , bulb
[...] Becklog writes: 'Many of us repress it. The popular, environmentally and eye-friendly light bulb will finally die in September after the EU will this year' According to a study Ökotest saving lamps do not live longer * 12, as claimed by the manufacturers, but only 2 * longer. But they are welcome to cost 12 * more. In addition, a saving lamp contains mercury 2mg. In clinical thermometer branded as highly dangerous, when saving lamp is easy to clean. But the worst is that 'energy-saving lamps that generate massive electromagnetic pollution. Limits are 'wisely' not set. And energy saving lamps are even harmful eyes. [...]
Love Friedericke I've read your dossier Guttenberg and would like to order collegial exchange time chatting with you. The problem of the argument put forward here is known to me. I can fllgendes help. 1 I am naturopath and the mercury problem is considerably especially since the people do not know how toxic this stuff is. I Grrnpeace several times angeschriebenud get why no answer. 2 A real enrgeisparlösung would be the LEDs but somehow redetselzten ejemand on and which are also not encouraged.
The third agnze stupid we energiediskussionnkönnten save us as if finally had the free energy technologies !!! In SE 4th book I have read that the Ergiesparlamen are sndermüll not only because of the mercury. Neien be any saving lamp radio. All offers can also send I geernt Can it be that they help with the saving lamps mass surveillance in every room eavesdropping or sending option ??? 1984 Orson Wells says hello! Kara Püttmann
Is for this juggernaut called "EU" ever been anything useful or even people close up come or has been decided by him?
Eben. Since this garbage fits with the light bulb only into the picture.
Without wishing to criticize the content of the article I would like to point out that there is no luminous fruit.
Those things hot light bulbs, not Glühäpfel, umm pears.
And ...
Well, Kara, why hardly anyone is talking about the LED technology and why it is not supported?
Because Led bulb converts electricity almost exclusively in light and not primarily in heat; So thus is extremely frugal and that is not really in the sense of the energy companies.
[...] More https://becklog.zeitgeist-online.de/2011/02/27/gluhbirne-in-september-comes-the-aus/ [...]
What a transparent action! Just in time for From the best-selling 60-W incandescent lamp increase Philips and Osram to 1 September 2011 their prices for their energy-saving lamps. Supposedly, because the raw materials (europium, terbium and yttrium) for preparing the poison lamps were expensive. But just around 20-25%? Who believes it is saved. Now, as the competition disappears from the market, you can run profit maximization again. And we consumers are what we save on electricity consumption, pay directly to the manufacturer. Thus, the overall balance tilts back in favor of the now banned incandescent lamp. Although this has a higher power consumption, that's right, but because the long lifetime of energy-saving lamps can only be achieved if they are not continuously cycled on and off together with the price increase at a much higher financial expense of the consumer. There is hardly any consumer knows that much more important is the number of duty cycles for the lifetime of an energy saving lamp. And then these poison bombs in the house! We load is still fucked.