Yet another "law of unintended consequences"

[GH2001]

To my knowledge, CFL was created solely for the purpose of indoor lighting.  I don't think that this particular technology was significantly used for several decades in screens and displays with successful results in the lifespan and reliability of the product.  I think the durability of LED lighting has already been proven in other fields.  Again, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if these bulbs are taking some drastic measures to change the way in which the basic concept of how illuminating an LED works, but I would assume that it can't be that different.  You're utilizing a light source that has proven its durability in other fields, and you're plugging into a standard socket that has proven to be stable for incandescent bulbs.  There's no major change in the electricity required or the type of socket utilized for the lighting as there was for CFL.

An LED is just a small diode.  A Russian scientist took note that the diodes would light up when current was being passed through them.  This was in the 1920s.  As a result, we began using smaller diodes as sources of light, but the diode itself has been utilized in electronics since it was invented in the early 1900's.  Regardless of the fact that LEDs have been in our DVDs and VCRs as light displays for decades, they've been in all electronic equipment for much longer than that.  If there was a health issue related to diodes, I would assume that it would have been brought to the public attention by now.  And even if it wasn't revealed simply because of an oversight by the FDA and various researchers, then I'm not really sure why consumers are completely happy with their diode-laden computers, cell phones, televisions, DVD players, gaming consoles, MP3 players, etc., but would have a fear of health hazards from a diode source of lighting.

True, but it's worth mentioning that the ban doesn't mandate that only LEDs be used.  I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the halogen bulbs still meet the standards that the government has set.  A 60 watt incandescent bulb will run you $1.49, and the halogen 50 watt bulb will run you $4.99.  The halogen bulb lasts twice as long as the incandescent bulb, so Joe Sixpack is essentially spending $2.01 more for one halogen bulb ($4.99) that will replace two incandescent bulbs over time ($2.98).

We're talking in dollars over the span of years, in both cost of buying and the electricity they use. Do you know how much energy a standard 40 watt light bulb uses? Yes, more than an LED but still not much in the grand scheme. There were just better ways to look for energy savings. The long term goal is to phase the standard bulbs we have all known out and have everything "green" whether we like it or not.

[Vandy Vol]

Well actually, CFLs are essentially the same as the florescent lights that have been used in most office buildings and shopping malls for decades.  In fact, they're probably more similar to each other than the similarities between the LEDs on your alarm clock and the LEDs in these futuristic non-directional lights.

CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) is fluorescent lighting.  And they are far from being similar to an incandescent bulb or an LED bulb.  They require magnetic or electric ballasts, a resonant converter to stabilize the current, and, of course, mercury and gases.

With light emitting diodes, you have a semiconductor, which operates outside of a vacuum (unlike incandescent bulbs) and without mercury vapor and other gases (unlike CFLs).  Electrons within the semiconductor emit light when current is passed through in one direction.  This is how LEDs operate, and based upon what I'm finding online, this is how the LED lamps work.  There is no futuristic departure from the manner in which current LEDs in other devices operate.

Different purpose...  Different levels of exposure...  Different style, design and intensity...  The solder used in most circuit boards alongside these LEDS also has a high degree of lead, but with exposure being limited, it's of no issue to most consumers.  Just as with florescent lights...  Most of us were unaware of the risks associated with them because we didn't directly deal with them.  There was a maintenance man who took care of them after hours, and we never really got any closer to them than a few feet.

Different purpose, yes, but same technical design that is used for other purposes.  Different level of exposure?  If you're referring to the fact that these are bulbs that will be handled directly instead of indirectly as with electronic devices, not really.  The diodes themselves are encased in the bulb, just as diodes are encased in devices.  Sure, the bulb could break easier than a device, but there aren't any gases inside the LED.  It's a solid state device, so breaking an LED doesn't result in a hazard of any sort.  Unless you're allergic to the metal used for the semiconductor or something.

As far as the solder used in the product, that's not specific to LEDs.  Incandescent bulbs also contain lead in the solder.  This is simply a manufacturing decision.  Most non-lead solders do not respond well to heat; several motherboard companies found this out years ago when the connections on the board started cracking.  Is using lead solder right or wrong?  That's an entirely different argument, but the fact is that it's present in current lighting technology, and even in other electronic devices; this isn't something new that LED lamps are introducing, nor is it something unique that the LED lamps require to operate.

It's still a hardship on Joe Sixpack.  I normally get my incandescent replacements for less than $1 a piece... the benefits of buying in bulk from TheCostcos.  Having to spend 2-3 times more for a replacement to satisfy some gubme't bureaucrat's green fetish is unreasonable.

I understand this from a theoretical point of view, but looking at it realistically, Joe Sixpack has bigger problems than a light bulb if he can't afford an extra $2.  If he's in that kind of dire straits, then he probably can't even afford the incandescent light bulb to begin with.

[Vandy Vol]

We're talking in dollars over the span of years, in both cost of buying and the electricity they use. Do you know how much energy a standard 40 watt light bulb uses? Yes, more than an LED but still not much in the grand scheme. There were just better ways to look for energy savings. The long term goal is to phase the standard bulbs we have all known out and have everything "green" whether we like it or not.

One LED bulb used for 8 hours a day will save you $18 annually when compared to using an incandescent bulb for that length of time.  That's not a huge amount of savings, but then again that's one bulb in one home.  If the average house has 10 - 20 bulbs, then the switch to LED bulbs would result in annual savings of $180 - $360.  Again, nothing to write home to grandma about, but also not something that I would call insignificant.

In the grand scheme of things, which would take into consideration the number of homes across the nation, the savings are pretty significant.  The Department of Energy estimates that replacing regular light bulbs with LEDs could save 190 terawatt-hours annually—the equivalent of lighting over 95 million homes.  At today’s energy prices, that would equate to approximately $15 billion in energy savings.

Could we have saved a lot more by looking at refrigerators, dishwashers, washers and dryers, air conditioning units, etc., and determining how to reduce their electricity consumption?  Possibly, but due to the complexity of these devices, it would likely take more time and money to do that.  And $15 billion, while probably smaller than what could have been saved with other technological advances in efficiency, is still nothing to scoff at.

Additionally, the incandescent bulb is a dinosaur.  I mean, we're operating on the same design that Thomas Edison got to work in 1879.  80% of the energy that it consumes ends up being turned into heat, and only 20% into light.  It's about time that someone got on the ball with creating a more energy efficient solution to lighting.

[AUTailgatingRules]

Additionally, the incandescent bulb is a dinosaur.  I mean, we're operating on the same design that Thomas Edison got to work in 1879.  80% of the energy that it consumes ends up being turned into heat, and only 20% into light.  It's about time that someone got on the ball with creating a more energy efficient solution to lighting.

If a company in the free enterprise system could find a way to mass produce, market, and make a profit off of an alternative to the incandescent, it would have been done years ago.  You reckon there might be a reason for that?  Just because it is old does not mean it does not still work.

[Vandy Vol]

If a company in the free enterprise system could find a way to mass produce, market, and make a profit off of an alternative to the incandescent, it would have been done years ago.  You reckon there might be a reason for that?  Just because it is old does not mean it does not still work.

Well, there's not anything saying that the LED lamps can not be manufactured at that level.  Diodes of magnitude smaller are processed by the thousands for use in most screens now adays.  Most LED computer monitors have a few hundred LEDs, while less popular edge lit monitors have a few dozen along the edges.  Surely these lamps, which only have one dozen LEDs in them, can be manufactured just as quickly and cost efficiently.

The problem is that companies don't want to buy new equipment to produce a new product.  For most of the pieces of equipment used to produce incandescent bulbs, you can't simply alter them so that they now make LED lamps.  And they view it as a gamble to spend money on making a new product that may not catch on with the general public.

In my opinion, this is the reason for the hesitancy to make the product; it's not really a matter of not being able to produce them with financial efficiency and mass production capabilities.  If machines can mass manufacture a computer motherboard with all of its minute complexities, and if it can be done to the point that it's profitable, then surely someone can design machines to make an LED light bulb.

[GarMan]

CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) is fluorescent lighting.  And they are far from being similar to an incandescent bulb or an LED bulb.  They require magnetic or electric ballasts, a resonant converter to stabilize the current, and, of course, mercury and gases.

With light emitting diodes, you have a semiconductor, which operates outside of a vacuum (unlike incandescent bulbs) and without mercury vapor and other gases (unlike CFLs).  Electrons within the semiconductor emit light when current is passed through in one direction.  This is how LEDs operate, and based upon what I'm finding online, this is how the LED lamps work.  There is no futuristic departure from the manner in which current LEDs in other devices operate.

You're ridiculous sometimes...  I don't need the wiki-lesson, and you're completely missing my point.  More to come...

Different purpose, yes, but same technical design that is used for other purposes.  Different level of exposure?  If you're referring to the fact that these are bulbs that will be handled directly instead of indirectly as with electronic devices, not really.  The diodes themselves are encased in the bulb, just as diodes are encased in devices.  Sure, the bulb could break easier than a device, but there aren't any gases inside the LED.  It's a solid state device, so breaking an LED doesn't result in a hazard of any sort.  Unless you're allergic to the metal used for the semiconductor or something.

Wow...  You've totally convinced me!  Well, no you haven't...  You don't know what you're talking about.  We still don't know enough about these devices in mass use for the purpose of generating light.  Nobody knows.  We don't know if they're suseptable to power surges or brown outs.  We don't know how they typically fail.  When I used them many years ago, they emitted fumes when they failed.  And, as mentioned previously, lead and asbestos were great products too, back in the day.  The government has no right pushing us into a technology before it's ready.  Period.

As far as the solder used in the product, that's not specific to LEDs.  Incandescent bulbs also contain lead in the solder.  This is simply a manufacturing decision.  Most non-lead solders do not respond well to heat; several motherboard companies found this out years ago when the connections on the board started cracking.  Is using lead solder right or wrong?  That's an entirely different argument, but the fact is that it's present in current lighting technology, and even in other electronic devices; this isn't something new that LED lamps are introducing, nor is it something unique that the LED lamps require to operate.

You've totally missed that one.  My lead solder example was merely used to show how risks may exist when exposure is increased.  The fact that LEDs already exist in electronics has little to do with the exposure we'll have when we start using them as light sources. 

I understand this from a theoretical point of view, but looking at it realistically, Joe Sixpack has bigger problems than a light bulb if he can't afford an extra $2.  If he's in that kind of dire straits, then he probably can't even afford the incandescent light bulb to begin with.

Well, with Barry's economy, unemployment and tax increases, Joe Sixpack doesn't really need to be kicked when he's down.  There's nothing theoretical about it.  It's reality.  And while it may not necessarily cut into his mortgage or rent payment, it will be cutting into that remainder that he typically reserves for other items like beer, movies, the bolling alley, broads, etc...  Again, something the government needs to stay the hell out of... 

[GarMan]

In my opinion, this is the reason for the hesitancy to make the product; it's not really a matter of not being able to produce them with financial efficiency and mass production capabilities.  If machines can mass manufacture a computer motherboard with all of its minute complexities, and if it can be done to the point that it's profitable, then surely someone can design machines to make an LED light bulb.

Of course, when you consider economies of scale, the picture doesn't look very good for the company.  If the life of these new devices is as long as you seem to be claiming, consumers won't be purchasing them as often.  The company might be killing itself by creating a product that's as good as you claim.  With the government effectively forcing everyone to change over, it could be a boom for them for the first few years, but it could prove to be a loss over the longer stretch.  Just a consideration... 

[Vandy Vol]

You're ridiculous sometimes...  I don't need the wiki-lesson, and you're completely missing my point.  More to come...

I'm not trying to be an ass.  Just pointing out that "CFL" is not "similar" to fluorescent lighting that has been found in offices and stores; it is fluorescent lighting.  And the mechanics of fluorescent lighting is far more different than incandescent lighting, much more so than the difference between LED lamps and incandescent bulbs.  Incandescent bulbs don't use gas, they use a filament, and LED lamps don't use gas, they use a semiconductor.

Wow...  You've totally convinced me!  Well, no you haven't...  You don't know what you're talking about.  We still don't know enough about these devices in mass use for the purpose of generating light.

Diodes produce light regardless of whether that is the purpose of using the diode or not.  That's the reason that diodes have been used for illumination purposes.  We didn't alter the diode to produce light; that's just what a diode does when current is passed through it.  If the diode in an LED lamp is dangerous or otherwise faulty in some way, then the diodes in electronic devices are dangerous/faulty in the same manner.

It's kind of like saying that gasoline engines produce carbon dioxide while they're powering a vehicle, but we don't know enough about them to determine whether they'd be acceptable for producing carbon dioxide.  Well, producing carbon dioxide is a result of powering the vehicle.  Whether or not you use the engine for the sole purpose of producing carbon dioxide is irrelevant; it's going to do it.  If there's not a hazard, health risk, or reliability concern with running the engine for the purpose of powering the vehicle, then there's not a hazard, health risk, or reliability concern with running the engine for the purpose of producing carbon dioxide.

Nobody knows.  We don't know if they're suseptable to power surges or brown outs.  We don't know how they typically fail.  When I used them many years ago, they emitted fumes when they failed.  And, as mentioned previously, lead and asbestos were great products too, back in the day.  The government has no right pushing us into a technology before it's ready.  Period.

It's doubtful that they're more susceptible to power surges than incandescent bulbs, which rely upon an ultra thin filament that can burn out merely from turning on the light switch.  Certainly not impossible, but not likely in comparison to the frailty of incandescent bulbs.  And, as mentioned before, diodes are found in all sorts of electronics, so if they were exceptionally susceptible to power surges, pretty much every electronic device in your house would be inoperable after a power surge.
 

You've totally missed that one.  My lead solder example was merely used to show how risks may exist when exposure is increased.  The fact that LEDs already exist in electronics has little to do with the exposure we'll have when we start using them as light sources.

I don't think I'm understanding what you mean when you say that exposure is increased.  Incandescent bulbs have lead.  LED bulbs have lead.  You replace an incandescent bulb with an LED bulb, and you still have a bulb with lead.  There isn't an increase in exposure.  The lead itself is not a required substance that makes the LED work; it's just the choice of solder that the manufacturer chose.  Either bulb could be made with non-lead solder.  So I'm not sure how exposure is increased when both contain lead.

Now, I think that the mandate was A) too early, as the LED market is just not robust enough yet, and B) not necessary yet because LED bulbs were not given a chance on the market before moving for drastic government intervention.  Given those two concessions, I just don't buy the safety and reliability concerns when the technology in question has been successfully and heavily used throughout virtually all electronic devices for almost a century.

[Vandy Vol]

Of course, when you consider economies of scale, the picture doesn't look very good for the company.  If the life of these new devices is as long as you seem to be claiming, consumers won't be purchasing them as often.  The company might be killing itself by creating a product that's as good as you claim.  With the government effectively forcing everyone to change over, it could be a boom for them for the first few years, but it could prove to be a loss over the longer stretch.  Just a consideration...

Which is why they can (and do) charge higher prices.  Essentially, all they'd have to do is jack up the price enough so that the consumer is still paying slightly less for one LED bulb over 10 years than they would for multiple incandescent bulbs over 10 years.  The consumer wins because they are saving money in regard to the purchase price of bulbs, in addition to the savings in electricity consumption, in addition to whatever "green" tax credit they can claim.

Now, because the company has to price the bulbs at a slightly lower price than what it would have cost to replace the incandescent bulbs, yes, they are likely getting a lower profit margin, but that would likely be offset by tax credits and other forms of government compensation for selling the energy efficient product.

I understand the economical implications that such a product would have for light bulb industries, but I think that the effect can be minimized.  Plus, my point wasn't really geared toward the economical side, but rather the feasibility of producing the product on a massive and cost effective level.

[GarMan]

I'm not trying to be an ass.  Just pointing out that "CFL" is not "similar" to fluorescent lighting that has been found in offices and stores; it is fluorescent lighting.  And the mechanics of fluorescent lighting is far more different than incandescent lighting, much more so than the difference between LED lamps and incandescent bulbs.  Incandescent bulbs don't use gas, they use a filament, and LED lamps don't use gas, they use a semiconductor.

Diodes produce light regardless of whether that is the purpose of using the diode or not.  That's the reason that diodes have been used for illumination purposes.  We didn't alter the diode to produce light; that's just what a diode does when current is passed through it.  If the diode in an LED lamp is dangerous or otherwise faulty in some way, then the diodes in electronic devices are dangerous/faulty in the same manner.

It's kind of like saying that gasoline engines produce carbon dioxide while they're powering a vehicle, but we don't know enough about them to determine whether they'd be acceptable for producing carbon dioxide.  Well, producing carbon dioxide is a result of powering the vehicle.  Whether or not you use the engine for the sole purpose of producing carbon dioxide is irrelevant; it's going to do it.  If there's not a hazard, health risk, or reliability concern with running the engine for the purpose of powering the vehicle, then there's not a hazard, health risk, or reliability concern with running the engine for the purpose of producing carbon dioxide.

You really don't know what you're talking about here.  You're only comparing the wiki-basics for this discussion.  The CFLs and LEDs have been modified in several ways from their original mass-use designs of which we haven't even reviewed.  And, gasoline engines don't really produce much carbon dioxide at all, but your example does illustrate how you're over-simplifying the discussion, at least for those of us with a deeper understanding of the technologies.   

It's doubtful that they're more susceptible to power surges than incandescent bulbs, which rely upon an ultra thin filament that can burn out merely from turning on the light switch.  Certainly not impossible, but not likely in comparison to the frailty of incandescent bulbs.  And, as mentioned before, diodes are found in all sorts of electronics, so if they were exceptionally susceptible to power surges, pretty much every electronic device in your house would be inoperable after a power surge.

Here's a secret...  They are very suseptable to power surges, probably not as much as incandescent bulbs, but they can fail relatively easily.  We just don't know how that will play out with these newer products once they're in mass use.  And with the cost being substantially higher than incandescent bulbs, I'm not going to blindly follow the herd.

I don't think I'm understanding what you mean when you say that exposure is increased.  Incandescent bulbs have lead.  LED bulbs have lead.  You replace an incandescent bulb with an LED bulb, and you still have a bulb with lead.  There isn't an increase in exposure.  The lead itself is not a required substance that makes the LED work; it's just the choice of solder that the manufacturer chose.  Either bulb could be made with non-lead solder.  So I'm not sure how exposure is increased when both contain lead.

Lead was only used for illustrative purposes.  Lead is safe when mixed with products that will never be ingested, but once exposure risks were identified after decades of mass use, it fell under some fairly tight regulations. 

Florescent lights are relatively safe when used as ceiling lights and only handled by maintenance personnel, but once we expanded their use into the home, effectively increasing everyone's exposure levels, risks and other issues began surfacing.  They have yet to be pulled from the marketplace, but the list of issues are significant. 

Now, we're going to use LEDs as light sources.  In electronics, they have been as harmless as lead was in paint... or as asbestos was in flooring... or as an internal combustion engine was under the hood of your car, but now, we're going to expand their use...  Do you get it now? 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm secretly a fan of the new technology, but I don't trust the government here.  Let the free market decide if the product is viable.  I'll jump in after all of the bugs, kinks and poop is figured out. 

The same is true of the first plasma televisions.  When those early models first came out, they cost around $15k and spent as much as half their life in various repair shops.  After 5 years, the technology improved and the prices dropped to around $5k.  Today, you can pick up a new plasma with superior technology for less than $1,000.  LCDs followed a similar progression.  The government has no right phucking around here.

Now, I think that the mandate was A) too early, as the LED market is just not robust enough yet, and B) not necessary yet because LED bulbs were not given a chance on the market before moving for drastic government intervention.  Given those two concessions, I just don't buy the safety and reliability concerns when the technology in question has been successfully and heavily used throughout virtually all electronic devices for almost a century.

I think the mandate is unnecessary and ill-conceived, and I don't think you have enough knowledge or experience to refute any safety or reliability concerns.  No offense intended... 

[GH2001]

One LED bulb used for 8 hours a day will save you $18 annually when compared to using an incandescent bulb for that length of time.  That's not a huge amount of savings, but then again that's one bulb in one home.  If the average house has 10 - 20 bulbs, then the switch to LED bulbs would result in annual savings of $180 - $360.  Again, nothing to write home to grandma about, but also not something that I would call insignificant.

In the grand scheme of things, which would take into consideration the number of homes across the nation, the savings are pretty significant.  The Department of Energy estimates that replacing regular light bulbs with LEDs could save 190 terawatt-hours annually—the equivalent of lighting over 95 million homes.  At today’s energy prices, that would equate to approximately $15 billion in energy savings.

Could we have saved a lot more by looking at refrigerators, dishwashers, washers and dryers, air conditioning units, etc., and determining how to reduce their electricity consumption?  Possibly, but due to the complexity of these devices, it would likely take more time and money to do that.  And $15 billion, while probably smaller than what could have been saved with other technological advances in efficiency, is still nothing to scoff at.

Additionally, the incandescent bulb is a dinosaur.  I mean, we're operating on the same design that Thomas Edison got to work in 1879.  80% of the energy that it consumes ends up being turned into heat, and only 20% into light.  It's about time that someone got on the ball with creating a more energy efficient solution to lighting.

Again, I think we agree more than you might think. I have no issues with LED.  I have issues with the gubment telling me which I have the option of buying all due to this administration's "green" agenda. The free market would have all of them as an option and let each consumer buy whats best for him/her.

[AUTiger1]

I haven't got involved in this thread, but if I may.

Hooray for coming up with something that will use less energy, that isn't harmful (that we know of) and is cheaper over the long run.

Booo gov't forcing you to buy something.  Let the market dictate when it be a standard.

That is all, carry on.

[AUChizad]

I haven't got involved in this thread, but if I may.

Hooray for coming up with something that will use less energy, that isn't harmful (that we know of) and is cheaper over the long run.

Booo gov't forcing you to buy something.  Let the market dictate when it be a standard.

That is all, carry on.

/thread.

[Vandy Vol]

You really don't know what you're talking about here.  You're only comparing the wiki-basics for this discussion.  The CFLs and LEDs have been modified in several ways from their original mass-use designs of which we haven't even reviewed.  And, gasoline engines don't really produce much carbon dioxide at all, but your example does illustrate how you're over-simplifying the discussion, at least for those of us with a deeper understanding of the technologies.

Here's a secret...  They are very suseptable to power surges, probably not as much as incandescent bulbs, but they can fail relatively easily.  We just don't know how that will play out with these newer products once they're in mass use.  And with the cost being substantially higher than incandescent bulbs, I'm not going to blindly follow the herd.

Then, as someone who has a deeper understanding of the technologies, I'd like to know what it is that they have changed on a diode in order to utilize it for lighting purposes.  So far, the only thing I've gathered from your posts is that we don't know enough about the technology, but now you're stating that you have an understanding of the technology, so I'd honestly like to know for my edification what the change in the operation of the diode is for lighting purposes.

Now, we're going to use LEDs as light sources.  In electronics, they have been as harmless as lead was in paint... or as asbestos was in flooring... or as an internal combustion engine was under the hood of your car, but now, we're going to expand their use...  Do you get it now?

Sure, I understand the basic premise that LEDs are going to be introduced in greater numbers, but there are a couple of things to note.  First, there are thousands of more LEDs in televisions, monitors, phones, MP3 players, etc.  The introduction of LED bulbs with 12 LEDs per bulb is not going to increase our exposure that much.  Yes, we will be exposed to the light itself moreso than previously, but I don't know of any risks associated with LED light.  With the number of people who sit in front of computer screens daily, one would think that such an issue would have been brought up prior to the introduction of LED bulbs.

Second, aside from the light, there could be chemicals or materials within the LED that may be hazardous, but so far the only example you've given is lead.  I understand that it was for illustrative purposes, but the illustration doesn't show an increase in exposure given the fact that current bulbs also contain lead.  Unless, of course, the LED bulbs contain more lead, but that hasn't been mentioned yet.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm secretly a fan of the new technology, but I don't trust the government here.  Let the free market decide if the product is viable.  I'll jump in after all of the bugs, kinks and poop is figured out.

I can agree that the mandate was far too early.  At some point in time, however, if the public is unwilling to transition to the new technology simply out of habit or ignorance of the product, then the government may need to intervene in some sort of way.  I don't think that a mandate should be the first option that the government should try, but if it can be shown that the outdated technology has a significant burden or drain on the government and our resources, and that significant benefits can be realized by the use of this technology, then there definitely needs to be a push for the technology...once it's established and reasonably easy to use it to replace the previous technology.  Somewhat like the emissions requirements for vehicles.

[GarMan]

Then, as someone who has a deeper understanding of the technologies, I'd like to know what it is that they have changed on a diode in order to utilize it for lighting purposes.  So far, the only thing I've gathered from your posts is that we don't know enough about the technology, but now you're stating that you have an understanding of the technology, so I'd honestly like to know for my edification what the change in the operation of the diode is for lighting purposes.

OK...  Well, I'm not going to post a multi-page wiki-rant, but let's start with this.  The most common diodes are Zener, primarily used for regulating current flow, and LEDs, usually infrared, visible and ultraviolet.  Not all diodes produce light.  Many are painted black or encased in a black resin.  Focusing more on LEDs, they're usually encased in a translucent epoxy.  Traditional uses have been in the displays on electronics and remote controls, but more recently, we've seen their use in LCD TVs and computer monitors to provide more intense colors and images.  LEDs use a variety of semiconductor material to produce different colors.  Some are coated in phosphorus to enhance color.  Intensity is controlled by voltage, "gap" and the type and amount of semiconductor material.  Some LEDs contain arsenic.  Some LEDs contain other toxic chemical compounds in their epoxy resin casing. 

While the core technology of CFLs are essentially the same as florescent lighting, the key difference is the integrated ballast that is included with the CFL.  One thing to note, mercury is still used and still leaches through glass and metal over time.  This obviously introduces a hazard to the home user now that they have been introduced to the home user as a replacement for incandescent lighting. 

Sure, I understand the basic premise that LEDs are going to be introduced in greater numbers, but there are a couple of things to note.  First, there are thousands of more LEDs in televisions, monitors, phones, MP3 players, etc.  The introduction of LED bulbs with 12 LEDs per bulb is not going to increase our exposure that much.  Yes, we will be exposed to the light itself moreso than previously, but I don't know of any risks associated with LED light.  With the number of people who sit in front of computer screens daily, one would think that such an issue would have been brought up prior to the introduction of LED bulbs.

We don't know, and you're just speculating.  Your assumption above is that all LEDs are created equal.  You brought up the internal combustion engine in a prior post.  Under your assumption above, the engine from a Dodge Viper is the same as that used in a Weed Whacker.  Both use gasoline and oil to create rotational energy, so they're the same...  Not quite.  There's a difference in size, consumption, power output and exhaust.  Similar is true of LEDs.  The higher intensity LEDs are designed with a different purpose than those used in your clock radio, home stereo or LCD/LED monitor.  We're speculating that the light produced will fall within a spectrum that is similar to incandescent lighting, but we thought the same of CFLs too.  We later found that the spectrum is slightly different and can cause headaches and other issues.  Working 8 hours a day in front of a computer, people frequently complain about LCD monitors causing eye stress and headaches.  We don't know if this same issue will continue or even be worse with LED lighting.  Again, we just don't know. 

Second, aside from the light, there could be chemicals or materials within the LED that may be hazardous, but so far the only example you've given is lead.  I understand that it was for illustrative purposes, but the illustration doesn't show an increase in exposure given the fact that current bulbs also contain lead.  Unless, of course, the LED bulbs contain more lead, but that hasn't been mentioned yet.

As mentioned above, some LEDs do contain arsenic, but I don't think there's any real chemical risk with these LEDs.  Of course, the plastic casing could be made of PCB with a higher content of lead, but I think you have to chew on them before they become a risk.  But again, we just don't know right now. 

I can agree that the mandate was far too early.  At some point in time, however, if the public is unwilling to transition to the new technology simply out of habit or ignorance of the product, then the government may need to intervene in some sort of way.  I don't think that a mandate should be the first option that the government should try, but if it can be shown that the outdated technology has a significant burden or drain on the government and our resources, and that significant benefits can be realized by the use of this technology, then there definitely needs to be a push for the technology...once it's established and reasonably easy to use it to replace the previous technology.  Somewhat like the emissions requirements for vehicles. 

Do you really think that the use of incandescent lighting could ever be a significant burden or drain on the government?  Really???  By the time it actually puts a significant drain on our resources, energy prices would have already driven us to more economical forms of lighting among other things, and the free market would have found a reasonable solution.  Maybe even LEDs...  As for emission requirements for vehicles, that's another load of scat altogether.  I don't entirely disagree with standards, but the government goons behind them don't have the slightest understanding about the adverse impacts to auto prices and fuel efficiency. 

[Vandy Vol]

OK...  Well, I'm not going to post a multi-page wiki-rant, but let's start with this.  The most common diodes are Zener, primarily used for regulating current flow, and LEDs, usually infrared, visible and ultraviolet.  Not all diodes produce light.  Many are painted black or encased in a black resin.  Focusing more on LEDs, they're usually encased in a translucent epoxy.  Traditional uses have been in the displays on electronics and remote controls, but more recently, we've seen their use in LCD TVs and computer monitors to provide more intense colors and images.  LEDs use a variety of semiconductor material to produce different colors.  Some are coated in phosphorus to enhance color.  Intensity is controlled by voltage, "gap" and the type and amount of semiconductor material.  Some LEDs contain arsenic.  Some LEDs contain other toxic chemical compounds in their epoxy resin casing.

This is merely a point of semantics, but all diodes do produce light.  The fact that we can't see the light is, as you said, due to the opaque casing (or, in some instances, not visible to us because it's infrared light), but the diode is still producing light during its normal operation.

As far as the chemicals you've mentioned, studies have shown that phosphorus is present in most LEDs currently in use for "other" purposes than indoor lighting, and arsenic is present at much higher levels in red light/laser diodes, such as those used in CD and DVD players.  So, again, it doesn't appear that LED bulbs for indoor lighting are significantly different from the thousands of LEDs contained in other devices, at least not in their usage of chemicals.

Of course, the studies that have shown the existence of these chemicals in current LEDs also indicated that there is no immediate health hazard upon the breaking of the bulb.  Rather, they were only able to produce somewhat hazardous results by simulating acid rain in landfill conditions to produce a “worst case scenario.”  Additionally, they did so with colored LED bulbs included in the test, which are known to have higher arsenic levels than LEDs which emit white light or other colors of light.

This corresponds with what I've said so far:  Current LEDs and these "new" LED light bulbs are not as drastically different as was initially claimed.  Chemicals used in the production of these items have been present in electronics for decades.  Does this mean that no other studies should be done on them?  No, but why would we give the stamp of approval to LEDs with arsenic in DVD players, but not LED light bulbs?  Why say that it's okay to use arsenic in wood preservation products and rat poison, and phosphor in pesticides and industrial waste, but not LED light bulbs?  I don't understand why someone would be completely happy with their arsenic-laden DVD player, and would see no reason to ban the sale/use of these DVD players until further studies are done, but adamantly oppose the sale of an item with the same chemicals until further studies are done.

We don't know, and you're just speculating.  Your assumption above is that all LEDs are created equal.

It's not that they are created equal; it's that they are more similar than they are dissimilar.  Arsenic has been found in these new LED light bulbs.  Okay, well, arsenic is also in LEDs not used for indoor lighting purposes, including higher levels of arsenic in LEDs that are in vehicle taillights and DVD players.  Phosphor has been found in these new LED light bulbs.  Well, phosphor is also contained in virtually all other LEDs.

If there's a hazard present due to the inclusion of these chemicals, then we need to rethink all LEDs, not just those that are being introduced to the market.  My point is that we shouldn't act as if these chemicals are just now being introduced to the market and exposed to humans due to the invention of a "new" type of LED; these chemicals have been used in a variety of products for quite some time, including in some products in which our exposure is much greater.

We're speculating that the light produced will fall within a spectrum that is similar to incandescent lighting, but we thought the same of CFLs too.  We later found that the spectrum is slightly different and can cause headaches and other issues.  Working 8 hours a day in front of a computer, people frequently complain about LCD monitors causing eye stress and headaches.  We don't know if this same issue will continue or even be worse with LED lighting.  Again, we just don't know.

A) Those people with headaches are pussies, B) we have devices that can detect and record spectra, so I'm not sure why we'd have to guess where in the spectrum LED light would fall.

By the way, LCD monitors don't use LED as a source of backlighting.  Well, they can, but if they are advertised as an "LCD monitor," then they use a fluorescent backlight.  An LCD monitor that has LED backlighting will be advertised as an "LED monitor" or "LCD-LED monitor."  Given the fact that LCD-LED monitors are still not that popular (but are more popular for televisions), and given the fact that the initial LCD monitors up until the last few years were backlit by fluorescent lights, I would assume that these headaches are due to fluorescent lighting, not LED lighting.

Do you really think that the use of incandescent lighting could ever be a significant burden or drain on the government?  Really???

I'd call $15 billion wasted annually a financial burden, especially considering that the incandescent bulbs that we are powering are using 80% of their energy consumption on producing heat, not light.

[Snaggletiger]

Damn it.  Are you guys still talking about light bulbs?

[Vandy Vol]

Damn it.  Are you guys still talking about light bulbs?

That depends...are you still cleaning taints for a quarter?

[chinook]

i agree with jarhead...child abuse in the chinook house will dramatically rise...or their college fund account will be depleted.  then my children will live their adult life using food stamps, wear jorts and yell...roll tahd. 

[Snaggletiger]

That depends...are you still cleaning taints for a quarter?

BWAAAHAHAHA.....wait...what does that even mean?