EG: http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadAr ... leID=36269
Is this really a positive environmental practice? Some scientists are questioning this assumption"
- •are manufactured using at least 10 times as much energy as used in making incadescent bulbs.
•contain poisonous mercury and therefore have to be disposed of as a hazardous waste
•produce electrosmog (electromagnetic radiation like cell phones, computers, TVs...) that is many times greater than the TOC standard for video screens (according to the Swiss magazine K-Tipp No. 18, 2007) - the effects of electrosmog on plants an animals is not really understood.
•produce an unnatural and inhomogeneous light spectrum with irritating light flicker frequencies, many distinctive harmonics and strong blue pulse peaks. (hard on the eyes, not anti-seasonal depression and causes headaches in some)
•have light output that greatly decreases over their lifetime due to the number of switching actions. They don't last as long as claimed.
Environmental concerns are never simple nor do simplistic laws and regulations ever consider the whole story (which has never been written). What is the real environmental cost of switching bulbs. Even using silicon in LEDs has a carbon footprint that must be considered. Silicon has to be mined, refined, wafers grown... all in expensive environmentally controlled factories.
My point in bring this up is that one must be cautious when embracing a new technology and look beyond the hype and politics. And, all of this ignores the real problem. There are just too damn many humans on this planet.