Subtitle: The dimbulbs are at it again
In the name of the environment, a California politician wants our state to be the first to ban the use of incandescent lightbulbs in favor of florescent ones.
Mind you, I am a big fan of the environment. I recycle religiously, try to conserve gasoline with my driving habits, and turn off lights at home that don’t need to be on. I keep my thermostat at a reasonable temperature and don’t use air conditioning much in the summer. But I have to draw the line at being forced to use fluorescents inside my home.
I understand that they use less energy. That’s a good thing.
But as a migraine sufferer, I don’t like the subtle flickering effect that fluors have. I have suffered many a headache at work when the light above my desk began to wear out. The “temperature” of the light is annoying too. I love the golden glow my incandescents emit, it makes my home cozy. I just can’t see fluors providing soothing light.
If anyone chooses to use these lights in their homes, more power to them. But the underlying concept there is “choice”. I don’t see the government forcing car companies to produce cars that conserve gas. Of course the consumer has the choice to buy energy efficient cars or not (which of course will either drive the market forward or kill it).
I just don’t think it’s right to make me use a light source that is harmful to my health.
For the full story, click here: California Light Bulb Legislation