LEDs have a place, but they are harmful to our health and I should have the freedom to be able to choose the lights I use in my house instead having to pay a premium to get Incandescent online outside of the country because they are now ban in this country due to Bidens ridiculous energy bill backed by large corporations who profit off our suffering health and there stupid fake ESG rating.
46 Likes
I use incandescent light bulbs for my business because they were cheap and gave off the right amount of heat for newly hatched chicks. I need them back. They are useful for other things too. How ridiculous is it that some nimwit behind a desk would tell all of America that we can no longer buy a light bulb. I’d like to find out the real story behind this “regulation”.
18 Likes
Incandescents have no health risks (that I’m aware of) and should be returned to store shelves as a lighting option.
17 Likes
Incandescent bulbs should have never been banned. They offer the best form of light and don’t cause eye strain or emit mercury poisons when they break.
16 Likes
This is a health issue and not an environmental issue. It’s getting harder and harder to find incandescent bulbs. I’ve got my stash but really need to return this as an option.
11 Likes
SOOOOO NEEDED LED lights are awful for my migraines. I just had to to be incandescent lights off EBay last night…
13 Likes
A decade ago, I was suffering from seizures. During that time period, it was nearly impossible for me to be in a room with fluorescent tube lighting, due to the flicker rate. Incandescent bulbs were the best!
Full spectrum lighting has its place, but there needs to also be the option to be blue light free. My family had to pay extra to have a computer screen that was low blue light. Low blue light should be standard on electronic equipment!
5 Likes
2 Likes
Also incandescent bulbs cannot be shipped to Calif. This is not right these mandates are Unconstitutional.
3 Likes
Ironically I am building a solar electric system for my house. I have a storage cabinet enclosed case for the very expensive batteries. Was informed by the manufacturer that that batteries will not last long, or will burst if their immediate environment drops below 5 degrees. Was told a good remedy is to insulate their enclosure and heat it with an incandecent light bulb to keep them at a comfortable operating temperature in hard freeze zones…
Can you fully grasp the compounded ridiculous irony, the compacted infection of problems these environmentalists impose?
1 Like
Fail. You’re in error. American people did not volunteer to be test subjects.
2 Likes
How am I in error when I just identified where it needs improved? Explain that logic…
You want to polish turds. I want to flush turds. We are not the same.
Ok, so you would rather toss the baby out with the bathwater a a proper reply. Ok, then let’s use a more primitive example where it comes to engineering solutions. I’ll use the three little pigs analogy as an example. Who have a problem ( the wolf ) whom of which is a destructive force that has to be overcome. It’s demonstrated in that proverb that poor, weak solutions do not solve for the problem.
Therefore your take, is instead of using creative innovation to actually “FIX” what is wrong you would abandon any forward thinking and just go back to high current loads on the power grid when energy demand is every increasing. And BTW I might add, incandescent lighting still also flickers at the line frequency of 60hz so how then do you solve that one save for adding capacitor banks that further increases the current draw demand eh?
Never heard of a line load problem. Doesn’t sound real. I can’t acknowledge it’s real. As it is, off line, off grid systems ought not to be bound to inferior mono tech lighting options, and right now that’s what LED is, inferior. You likewise are primarily looking at line loads as the main priority, with personal health and quality of life as an afterthought. You want more chances to get inferior unnatural lighting closer to slightly less inferior and the public to be held hostage while we wait for mad scientists who already have failed to produce a quality product to tinker until THEY are satisfied? F#@& that! You don’t get it. This process of foisting inferior fake “vaccines” , LED’S, that’s detrimental and INSISTING the public not only purchase and accepts this shitty mono tech has got to stop. You must be young. You probably got indulged, patted on the head, and told you had great idea’s even when they weren’t great ideas and given a participation trophy, even when you didn’t win first place, and now the real world is more difficult when people aren’t impressed with your shitty ideas, because you absolutely cannot fathom that your ideas aren’t great. It doesn’t dawn on you the cost put on others to wait for solutions from flawed tech, when the previous tech worked just fine.
Turns out the solution to heavy load lines isn’t to get rid of incandescents, it’s to get rid of 40M illegals! So I’m not buying it, literally.
1 Like
Incandescent is just a more bio compatible form of artificial lighting. Trust sensitive people. You may try to address the identifiable shortcomings of LED lighting, but I highly doubt you could ever make a toxic LED bulb feel like an incandescent bulb. This sounds like scientific arrogance. Why not just bring back incandescent bulbs rather than to try to duplicate them in a lab?
1 Like
If you are unfamiliar with electromagnetic interference caused by HFVT’s, non-linear waveform distortions or how load balancing in power systems works you either don’t have an engineering background or haven’t even bothered to do your due diligence in examining the problem at hand to learn it. And I mean GRANULARLY examining it. Not just tossing around generalized statements you keep making WITHOUT citing studies around the ACTUAL problem ( which I did ) and I CLEARLY spelled out where those deficiencies are in LED technology and HOW TO FIX THEM to meet biological needs. I could care less about your attempt at deflecting to off-grid power systems…run whatever the heck you want on your own terms but don’t apply that same statement to the majority of the population for the preferences of the minority off-grid participation.
But no, you insist on tossing personal insults around like the “woke” crowd that’s been indoctrinated into such debasement for the last four years and quickly turn to such tactics as soon as someone presents a differing opinion than yourself. Gimme a break, that ship has sailed and will do nothing but lower your own credulity the same as the main stream fake news.
Which BTW, being EHS sensitive myself…yeah…I understand full well the effects of inferior and biologically damaging technology from wireless microwave radiation, magnetic fields, electrical fields and the impacts of light on our circadian rhythm and endocrine signaling and the impacts on the immune system. Does that mean I suddenly gave up on tech? NO… I adapted it to meet biologically sound standards so it wasn’t causing me to feel like my damn limbs were on fire everyday. Switched off all wireless transmitters, hardwired with ethernet, filtered my incoming power feeds and devices to remove EMI (dirty electricity for the more generally known term), grounded everything including switching out the wiring in the house to grounded metal jacketed cabling for electrical field dissipation. And INSTALLING LEDs that had a spectral output CRI of 99 ( meaning that lovely blue light you’re so worried about isn’t a thing to be bothered with ) filling in the rest with multiband UV and IR that shifts based on time of day instead of buying the cheapest POS from home depot.
And that is my entire point, you are so dead set on a singular point of view you can’t problem solve for yourself or critically think on how to solve it. The issue lies in the oversight of design standards, just as it was with vaccines. No review of the problem, no long term studies to understand the problem or risks. Just wide generalizations based on assumptions.
So unless you can present a well reasoned response that doesn’t resort to playground speech, go back to watching the view. I’m sure Whoopie and friends would be more than happy to have you on set…
1 Like
I won’t disagree with you that incandescent at present compared to what’s available commonly in most home improvement, grocery, hardware stores heck even much on amazon are inferior products from a biological standpoint. That’s fact looking at any of them…
But generalization as whether or not it can be improved is an arrogant statement in itself. Let’s examine as to how we got here in the first place. First, start with economics…
- Initial Cost: Incandescent bulbs are generally cheaper, ranging from $2 to $3 per bulb, while LED bulbs cost between $5 to $10 per bulb.
- Replacement Costs: Incandescent bulbs need to be replaced more frequently, with an average lifespan of 1,200 hours. This means you’ll spend more money on replacements over time. In contrast, LED bulbs have a much longer lifespan, typically lasting 25,000 hours.
- Operational Costs: LED bulbs consume significantly less energy than incandescent bulbs. For example, a 12W LED bulb consumes 12 kWh of electricity every 1,000 hours, while a 60W incandescent bulb consumes 60 kWh. As of 2019, the average residential electricity rate in Virginia is $0.11 per kWh. This means the operational cost for the incandescent bulb would be $6.60 for 1,000 hours, while the LED bulb would cost $1.32.
Long-term Cost Analysis:
- Over 10 years, incandescent bulbs would cost approximately $93 in replacement costs and operational expenses.
- In contrast, LED bulbs would require fewer replacements and less energy consumption, resulting in significant long-term savings.
Example: Pool Light Replacement Costs:
- Incandescent pool lights are the least expensive option, costing around $450 to $650 per bulb, but they need to be replaced more frequently (every 1,000 hours).
- LED pool lights are more expensive upfront, ranging from $700 to $1,500, but they last longer and require fewer replacements.
In summary, while incandescent bulbs may be cheaper initially, their shorter lifespan and higher operational costs lead to significant long-term expenses. LED bulbs, although more expensive upfront, offer longer lifetimes, lower energy consumption, and reduced replacement costs, making them a more cost-effective option in the long run.
This is just the economics, the shortcoming in LEDs from a biocompatibility standpoint I’ve already stated and is the area that needs to be improved so that they can fit both the economic viability their deployment was intended for without the frequency induced or blue spectral saturation that induces oxidative stress from the reaction of reactive oxygen species.
You should have posted this the first time. You weren’t acknowledging the health/safety issues such as with headlights, you were just posting possible"solutions" to LED shortcomings. And uo until this post, that’s ALL you were saying.
To be clear, my position is. I miss the simple, uncomplicated beautiful warm delicious light from incandecents, and sodium Street lights. Depending on the LED environment, I have differing levels of irritation. I don’t get seizures, but it affects my mood and concentration. If I’m under raging cool blue streetlights, or warehouse lights long enough. I’ll get headaches. Never had any of these symptoms before with sodiums, or halogens.
I suppose on some level I care about the grid load, but it’s somewhere down the priority list after human health.
And MY point still stands. If I’m consuming my own electrical production off grid, why can’t I have the option to light tech that I already know doesn’t upset my biology? That’s a valid point, and you can answer that anytime you’re ready.
Secondly, I don’t have a problem with ongoing LED research and development, as long as the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay for it, AND if incandecents are brought back to market. I’m not OK with them not being available. Not to mention, if the environment is the concern, there’s more toxic waste in an LED, than an incandecent. It seems so far, the ONLY benefit is relieving gridloads. LED’S certainly are not cheaper to buy, or produce. And I’ve replaced 5x more LED’S than I ever did incandecents. So I wonder, if MY 5x estimate is at all accurate…if it takes 5x more LED’S to replace 1 incandecent, how much more energy & resources does it take to produce LED’S?
Just to be clear, so there 's no miscommunication. The topic is unbanning and remanufacruring incandecents. Are you for or against, because that is the vote.
It sounds like you suffer way more issues with LED’S than I do, so I don’t know how you could be against, but your repost of possible tweaks and tinckers to make LED’S better came off like a defense of, rather than just a matter of interest? I can’t tell.
But I’ve seen enough, had enough of them. I don’t care about the Kelvin, I don’t care how close they can get them to natural warm light without side effects, and it sounds like a 5 paxk of such bulbs would cost me $100! and I’m not married to the tech.
If you have an ongoing interest in LED R&D great! I don’t happen to share your enthusiasm. That should go on without taxpayer funding. The topic is unbanning incandecents, which you haven’t addressed or acknowledged. So either we’re on the same page or we’re not.
And to your point of taxtics…you can’t have it both ways. You can’t ignore the topic, defend or promote further research and not acknowledge the points brought up by almost all that are posting on this topic, which is the vote, and then PERSIST in defending LED’S which at this point is still indefensible tech, and then get upset when someone goes ad hominim on you. And there’s really no other option is there?
This is what the left does. They don’t do full accounting. Pass crappy laws, produce crappy tech, double down on bad policy, and then forces everyone to live with it. The left is IRRESPONSIBLE and fails to do full accounting on ALL costs imposed on others. They do not acknowledge costs imposed on others, even when their noses get rubbed in the facts. They either want control, or irresponsibility or both. There’s no reasoning or good faith discussion to be had with what are really the uncivilized. And I’m not above ad hominim to prove my points.
Your best argument FOR LED’S is at best specious, unproven, undemonstrated benefit, at worst it’s a FAILURE of full accounting of costs, not to mention it’s a forced monopoly. When we already had a tech that works just fine.
1 Like
The exact opposite has been my experience. I bought a house 8 years ago with old knob and tube wiring, and a fuse box without breakers. In 8 years I’ve replaced 2 incandecents with new incandecents. My electric bill is $25 a month. I have a friend out of town who runs exclusively LED’S and I’ve replaced 20 LED’S with fresh LED’S a month ago. And just a few days ago was told there’s 3 more bad bulbs to replace… he’s already spending more on LED’S than I spend on electricity for 4 months. I think the “LED’S are cheaper in the long run, and longer lasting than incandecents” is horse shit retoric.
1 Like