Results from a Daily Mail Readers poll conducted in January 2009

My bathroom will be very dim with one of these new bulbs. I don't mind energy-efficient bulbs in most rooms room but they are not very good in some situations
Ade, London, 6/1/2009 23:47
       
Another decision we were not consulted about. I hate the new light bulbs. They take ages to light up to full capacity and they give me migraine. So what am I supposed to do now?
Maureen Hackett, Hitchin, 6/1/2009 23:53
       
"Ordinary compact fluorescent lights also do not work properly in dimmer switches. Those with dimmer switches have to buy a specialist dimmable CFL, which costs around £12, or opt for a less efficient halogen light. "

Or replace your dimmer switch with a simple (i.e. non-dimmer) switch, so you can use a standard compact fluorescent.

I had a dimmer switch in my living room. Since the building regs seem to allow it, and since I knew how to turn off the mains electricity, I changed the switch myself. I now have a perfectly accetable 21W compact flourescent in my living room, in place of a traditional 100W bulb. I don't miss being able to dim the light.
Richard Hancock, Bracknell, UK, 6/1/2009 23:56 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and downright ignorance. Not to mention the environmental wackos who have now succeeded in banning Edison's superb invention. Fluorescent bulbs have 3 problems:

1. They are 3 times the price. 2. Less light efficient. 3. You need a hazardous waste team to invade your home if one breaks because they contain mercury.

Since they also flash on and off at 50 times per second which to humans is subliminal, other health effects may be possible such as headaches, seizures, migraines, etc.

Hoard as many as the Edison types as possible until the EU comes to its senses which might be a long long time.

John, ex-pat Brit, USA. - John Humphrey, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA., 7/1/2009 0:07

The future is LED (light emitting diode) bulbs.
By the time these fluorescent bulbs wear out
we will be replacing them with LEDs, any colour
you like.
Peter, windsor UK, 7/1/2009 0:39
       
MERCURY, MERCURY, MERCURY everywhere

It's in my fillings, my vaccines and now my light bulbs - clearly i'm not getting enough exposure to this toxic substance
David, London, 7/1/2009 0:52
       
'The low-energy fluorescent bulbs can trigger skin rashes, migraines and epilepsy.'

Traditional light bulb contribute to climate change which can cause death of millions and widespread famine. I'll have the energy saving lightbulbs any day thank you.
Joe, UK, 7/1/2009 0:53
       
These energy efficient ones are rubbish - how are you supposed to read or study with them when they don't give out enough light? May as well go back to candels.
A.N, Greenwich, 7/1/2009 0:55
The new energy saving bulbs give off mercury vapor and if broken release dangerous chemicals. They may save money but how many people's health is going to suffer due to yet more meddling by the EU and this rotten government?
Chris, S.W.England, 7/1/2009 1:01
       
the so called new light bulbs do not give sufficient light;they are a strain on the eyes when tryng to read causing headaches and irritation.the light seems to be weaker than normal light bulbs. Futhermore the public are the customers who should receive the service which they ask for;suppiers and manufactures should not be dictated to by government ruling, in aby case why should we be dictated to by e laws that are later recinded after public condemnation and punishment was the case with measuremnt regulations.Tom.
thomas hibbert, winchester hants GB, 7/1/2009 1:02
       
The New Zealanders have the right idea and will lead the way of the world. The global warming team have really ramped up the excuses now. The new "greener" bulbs are dangerous. If you drop one and it breaks you must leave the room closed up for 3 hours before going in to clean it up due to the mercury and other damaging products they are made from. They are not green at all but dangerous and more damaging than our current ones.
Wayne K, Kent, UK, 7/1/2009 1:14
       
I've been involved in the manufacture of both kinds of bulbs.

The manufacturing process of the so called "energy savers" is actually far more energy intensive than for the old style bulbs.

I believe any gain is lost there, and that far from saving energy more will be used in the more complicated process of manufacturing them than these bulbs will ever save.

I think you'll find that those involved in the industry are well aware of this.
Alan Stewart, Norwich, England, 7/1/2009 1:49
       
We are phasing these out in Australia too. You can actually buy the new type of bulbs that are brighter than the old 100W types. Since they made the decision, and I guess demand has increased here, the new type of bulbs have dramically improved in quality. All types of shapes and sizes and natural light colour too instead of the harsh white light.
Luke, Brisbane Australia, 7/1/2009 1:51
       
CFLs give off a harsh, bluish tinged light as opposed to the nice, warmer light from traditional bulbs. A bigger problem is that each CFL contains mercury. I wonder how environmentally friendly they are once they wind up in landfills or break on your kitchen floor whence accidentally dropped.
Kelly Van Rijn, Arnhem, Netherlands, 7/1/2009 2:02
       

this is a very good thing, the little 12V halogen dichroic lamps should be banned too, once upon a time this was the only available electric light technology but using electricity to heat a length of wire until it gets so hot it emmits visible light is just pouring money down the drain.

a 'normal' lightbulb that consumes 100W of power WASTES 90 watts of this electricity as heat, bearing in mind that the electricity used to heat it has been generated by the burning of fossil fuels and has already wasted 70% + of the energy in the fossil fuel as HEAT!!!. some people say that you loose 90w of heat from your house that has to be made up, this is true but heating your house by burning fossil fuels IN YOUR HOUSE is more efficient than using the power from the power station.

energy saving fluorescent lamps have come along in leaps and bounds and its a false economy not to use them, this is a GOOD thing the government has done.

if you dont ban incandescent lamps, make them £10 each!!
jez smith, rugby, 7/1/2009 2:08     
               
The human body is not robust enough to withstand the forces of travelling by rail. Horseless carriages should be limited to walking pace and be preceded by a man with a red flag. There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.

Incandescent bulbs were a great idea but have had their day. I'm gradually replacing them throughout the house. The light from them is fine - bright enough, and no flickers. They are nothing like the old-fashioned fluorescent strips - the light is warm and no different from a filament.

They take 30 seconds or so to warm up - I use this time as a reminder that I'm saving money on electricity, saving money on replacements and reducing emissions.
Droo, Perth, Australia, 7/1/2009 3:04
       
Not sure what all the fuss is about, I have been using energy saving bulbs all over my house for years now and I reckon they have saved me a heap of money, they also seem indestructible, I have never had one 'conk'. I admit that they are ugly but they are not seen behind a shade and if you think they don't provide enough light, just get the higher wattage ones. A few years ago Sweden (I think) needed another power station to provide electricity for the country, they opted instead with supplying free energy saving bulbs to all households, making another expensive, and polluting, power station unnecessary.
Robert Phillipart, United Kingdom, 7/1/2009 3:30
       
Utter nonsense. Not only do they have a much larger overall carbon footprint than incandescents (due to their complexity), fluorescent lights of any kind are a toxic hazard if broken (because the rare earth inner coatings can promote lung cancer if inhaled). The only rational low-energy lightsource will be LEDs - when they come of age (as in 'are bright enough to do the job').

It's high time we were out of the EU, and finally rid of their stupid diktats - and if CO-GENERATION was a legal requirement at power stations, we could make rational savings on fuel that would far exceed anything achievable from idiot moves such as this one.
Philip, Shetland, 7/1/2009 3:59
       
Because of warming up times, they are unsuitable to illuminate the stairs for example. The older GLS lamps give full brightness immediately.
This EC decision will undoubtedly result in falls & accidents, and as per normal totally panders to green lobby & ignores average consumer.
Gel, Nr Newbury, 7/1/2009 5:26
Have we become so vain as to put the asthetics afforded us by dimmer switches above energy conservation especially when temperatures are minus 20% and there are gas supply issues.
The energy saved from banning incandescent light bulbs can run the UK's entire street lighting or reduce generating capacity by the equivalent of a DRAX sized power station.
Neil, Warsaw, Poland, 7/1/2009 6:28
       
The new bulbs are terrible, we tried them in our house in NZ and they failed after only a few weeks, so we had to replace them more often. You cannot beat the traditional bulb for good lighting and reliability. We very quickly stopped using the new bulbs and reverted very happily to the old faithful incnescent bulbs. Thankfully with a change in government in NZ the stupid law banning incandescent bulbs has been thrown out.
Tania Smith, Auckland New Zealand, 7/1/2009 7:02
 

Warning over eco light bulbs - October 2008 (CFL Bulb Warning)

Some energy-saving light bulbs emit ultraviolet radiation that could be harmful if placed too close to the skin.

New research has found that some unencapsulated fluorescent light bulbs - where the shape of the coil is clearly visible - emit UV radiation that could make the skin red if used for long periods of time closer than 30cms (one foot) to the body.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) issued the warning to people who use a reading lamp or desk lamp close to their body and the tens of thousands of people suffering from medical conditions that make them sensitive to UV light.

People whose work involves close work with their hands under a light bulb, such as jewellery makers, could also be affected.

The HPA said people should not use the light bulb closer than 30cms to the body for more than one hour a day or should switch to an encapsulated style of energy saving light bulb, where the outer layer of glass looks more like a traditional bulb.

But it said families should not remove energy saving light bulbs from their homes, adding that there was no risk of skin cancer.

The agency's chief executive Justin McCracken said: "We are not saying these could cause cancer.

"At the exposure levels we are talking about the worst effect that we believe there is as result of our investigation is that people could have some short-time reddening of their skin.

"We do not believe that these lights pose any significant risk in terms of skin cancer. This is precautionary advice and people should not be thinking of removing these energy saving light bulbs from their homes.

"We are advising people to avoid using the open light bulbs for prolonged close work until the problem is sorted out and to use encapsulated bulbs instead. In other situations, where people are not very likely to be very close to the bulbs for any length of time, all types of compact fluorescent light bulbs are safe to use."

Source PA News