
Trump Administration Is Rolling Back Rules Requiring More Energy-Efficient Bulbs - clumsysmurf
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/climate/trump-light-bulb-rollback.html
======
teslabox
Last night I stayed at a hotel with horrible blue lights. The hallways were
too bright and too blue. The parking lot was lit up with “daylight” blue-white
LEDs. It looked like someone decided the lot wasn’t bright enough, and they
added supplemental LED floodlights (not even compliant with state law, let
alone city code) to the poles to fill the lots with extra light.

The free standing lights in the room had proper shades and pleasant 2700K
“warm” CFL bulbs. The ceiling light at the door was blue, the bar light above
the bathroom mirror was blue, and the light over the toilet was blue.

The hanging lights in the lobby were fine, but the spotlights in the ceiling
were obnoxious.

I wonder if the hotel got ripped off by a fly-by-night energy efficient
retrofitter.

Science has determined precisely how blue lights hurt people. It’s too bad the
country replaced safe light bulbs with fundamentally defective bulbs
prematurely.

I’d like the legislatures to protect the public from blue-white LEDs.

~~~
atonse
This is a good point. While there’s no real logical reason to buy non-LED
bulbs anymore (thankfully we have mostly transitioned so this silly change by
the Trump administration won’t gave any effect), the fact that LED bulbs came
in so many temperatures has resulted in a proliferation of blue light
everywhere.

Hopefully as the effects of it in our sleep patterns etc become more apparent,
more people will buy lights with 2700k or lower.

~~~
i_am_proteus
Here is a logical reason to buy a non-LED bulb: you prefer black-body light to
narrow-band light. Even if the LED is rated at 2700-3000K, it has spectral
peaks. Even the "high CRI" bulbs-- CRI only tests eight spectra!

At night, our home is lit with tungsten halogen when entertaining, and red
LEDs when it's just us. I would like to reduce my carbon footprint, but I
refuse to do so at the expense of my sleep and health.

------
torpfactory
I have a theory that at this point there exists a subset of decision makers
who _want_ massive climate change to happen and are actively pushing for it. I
assume they want to be ready to take advantage of the new world we’ll all be
living in. To be king of the ashes, as it were.

~~~
juliemao
Sell me on this. How do you see this shaking out?

------
BubRoss
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Incandescents should never have been
banned. Electricity is already a commodity with a price tag. Halogens get
labeled as energy efficient even though they use a lot of lower and produce a
lot of heat. LEDs are great, but the light isn't the same. Phillips
unsurprisingly lobbied to get bulbs banned. Making certain light bulbs illegal
solves nothing. People can make their own decisions.

