Light

[webglider]

I have been visiting this website for months. I have found the information on it so researched, so generous, so varied, and so honest, that I found myself spending several hours a day reading one article after another. I have read The Wave and Adventure Series. I have read The History Of The World and How To Get Out Alive. I have read the Abduction Series. One reference has led to another which led to another until I realized that I myself was on a quest and that it was now the time to join the other contributors to the forum.

This then then is my first post, and it comes in the form of a question, about light, specifically about what seems to be a campaign in the United States about switching to flourescent lights "to save energy".

Since flourescent lights contain mercury, and since there isn't a coherent organized effort to dispose of used flourescents safely, I wonder what exactly is behind this campaign?

I would never have even thought to ask this question if I hadn't read in the Wave Series a question that was asked about strobe lights. I have to reference this by memory as I read this a while ago. The answer the C's gave to the question asking about the sudden prevailance of strobe lights is that, if I'm correct, their light helps veil the presence of ufos in the night sky.

Now light has always been used as a metaphor for understanding and knowledge. But recently I have come across some amazing information about light, thoughts and photons:

"Light occupies no volume and has no mass. Thoughts and photons are similar
Both are born in that void which is full of creative intelligence. Both are born in
the region beyond space and time. -Depak Chopra

"The cells of living beings emit photons at a rate of up to approximately 100 units
per second and per sqare cenimeter of surface area. They showed that DNA is
the source of this photon emission." -The Cosmic Serpent

(Both quotes were taken from references given by Michael Tsarion. I didn't note the titles of
the talks they were from.)

The information about DNA actually being able to create photons, if true, sseems to resonate to what Laura has been writing about in The Wave Series. This section, taken from chapter 13J of the online Wave Series makes the connection between light, love, knowledge, and spirituality as follows:

"If creation, the birth of ideas, is the light which comes from love then this light
comes from a great flame...our lives have no meaning whatever apart from
the process of acquiring knowledge.. Moreover, this acquisition of knowledge , which
constitutes our function in the world, is achieved not only by our intellect, but
by all our body, all our life and the whole life of the human society, by its
its organization, by all we know in mankind and even more so by what we do not
know. And we get what we deserve to know. . .

In a man the growth of reason consists of the growth of the intellect, and the
accompanlyling growth of the higher emotions: aesthetic, religious, moral -
which as they grow become more and more intellectuallized; moreover,
simultaneously with this the intellect becomes impregnated with emotionality
and ceases to be cold. Thus "spirituality is the mergingtogether of the intellect
and the higher emotions; the emotions are spiritualized from from the
intellect. -The Wave chapter 13j

From the above quotes, the source of photons, so similar to light seems to come both from outside as well inside the human body. If this is indeed the case, how does an external source of light specifically flourescent light, affect the ability of DNA to produce photons?

So, to focus my question even more, is there more to the campaign to switchfrom incandescent lighting to flourescent than simply a desire to save Will it affect the ability of humanity to raise it collective vibration? Will it serveto dim the ability to love, to develop the intellect, to impede "...the merging together of the intellect and the higher emotions?"

 

[Beorn]

I have been wondering the same thing. Especially here in Australia where incandescent light bulbs are being phased out by 2010.

On top of this one of my friends works at Synergy (Western Power) and says the new globes are not 100% compatible and frequently blow out which I have experienced a few times myself. So much for saving money...

AUSTRALIA will become the first country in the world to phase out conventional light bulbs within three years and replace them with energy-saving globes that use only 20 per cent of the electricity to produce the same amount of light.

Environment Minister Mal-colm Turnbull will announce today that all incandescent light bulbs — which have barely changed since they were introduced 125 years ago and convert only about 5 per cent of the energy they receive into light — will no longer be available to buy in Australia from 2009-10...
Mr Turnbull will say he will work with the states and major global light bulb manufacturers to replace traditional bulbs with energy efficient but more expensive alternatives such as compact fluorescent lamps.

Lighting represents about 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from households in Australia and about 25 per cent of commercial sector emissions and emissions from public and street lighting.

Introduced in the 1980s, compact fluorescent lamps come as circular or linear tubes, or have a spiral shape. Most of the flickering and slow starting traditionally associated with fluorescents has been removed.

While they are more expensive to buy — one Phillips brand energy-saver globe costs $7.98 at Safeway, while a two-pack Phillips brand 60-watt clear globe costs $1.75 — they have a longer life and use less electricity.

Mr Turnbull will today say compact fluorescent lights will pay for themselves within a year, last up to 10 times longer than conventional bulbs and save more than 66 per cent in lighting costs. He will say the phase-out will make a big dent in household emissions and could also have major international benefits.

While fluorescent lights are seen as a crucial part of the fight against greenhouse gas emissions because they use about a quarter of the energy, they contain trace elements of mercury.

This is not enough to pose a danger to users but it could become a concern at landfills, where the mercury from crushed bulbs could escape and contribute to air and water pollution.

Jeff.

 

[tractmec]

Hello webglider and welcome

I would never have even thought to ask this question if I hadn't read in the Wave Series a question that was asked about strobe lights. I have to reference this by memory as I read this a while ago. The answer the C's gave to the question asking about the sudden prevailance of strobe lights is that, if I'm correct, their light helps veil the presence of ufos in the night sky.

Is this the particular session which you are referencing?

Q: (L) Do you wish us to go back to the statement about
strobe lights being used to control minds, and pick up and go
from there?
A: Best not to continuously ask us for advice on how to ask
the questions, or if this or that is okay, but rather just "shoot
from the hip."
Q: (L) Okay. You mentioned the strobe lights. Are these
strobe lights that are used to control minds, are these
something that we would or might come in contact with on a
daily basis?
A: Do you not already know? We didn't say: some strobe
lights, we said: strobe lights, i.e. all inclusive!
Q: (T) Strobe lights come in many forms and types. TV is a
strobe light. Computer screens are a strobe light. light bulbs
strobe. Fluorescents strobe. Streetlights strobe.
A: Police cars, ambulances, fire trucks... How long has this
been true? Have you noticed any changes lately??!!??
Q: (F) Twenty years ago there were no strobe lights on any of
those vehicles mentioned. They had the old flasher type lights.
Now, more and more and more there are strobe lights
appearing in all kinds of places. (L) And now, they even have
them on school buses! (T) And the regular city buses have
them too, now. (L) Okay, is the strobing of a strobe light, set
at a certain frequency in order to do certain things?
A: Hypnotic opener.
Q: (L) Can we say that this is something we are being
acclimated to, so that other things that happen to us in terms
of our interactions... it just keeps one in a continual state of
hypnosis?
A: Assumptions restrict the flow!
Q: (L) What is the purpose of the hypnotic opener being used
in this way?
A: You don't notice the craft.
Q: (L) Ohhhhhhhh! So we may be being continuously flown
over by alien craft...
A: Assumption!
Q: (L) Sorry! (T) Okay, we don't notice the craft because we
see the strobes. They are hypnotic openers and are inducing a
hypnotic effect...
A: Assumption!
Q: (T) Okay, continue, then.
A: Well, ask a question, then!
Q: (L) Okay, they are telling us not to assume, but to ask. (T)
Okay, what craft are we NOT seeing?
A: Opener. Is precursor to suggestion, which is auditory in
nature.
Q: (T) What suggestion?
A: Put on your thinking caps. Networking is not making
assumptions. Bold unilateral statement of "fact" is.
Q: (T) Oh. Phrase your statements in the form of a question!
I'd like "Hypnotic Openers" for $200, Alex! Cosmic
Jeopardy! (L) Okay, you said the "suggestion is auditory in
nature." If this is the case, where is the suggestion coming
from auditory?
A: Where do you normally receive auditory suggestions from?
Q: (L) Radio, television... (T) Telephone... (L) Is that what
we are talking about?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) If you encounter a strobe while driving, or you are
sitting in front of your television, then the suggestions can be
put into you better because of this hypnotically opened state?
Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What are these suggestions designed to do, to suggest?
In a general sense?
A: Review.
Q: (L) Not see the craft?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Do we get these signals from the radio in the car even
if it is turned off?
A: Depends upon whether or not there is another source.
Q: (T) Another source such as?
A: ELP, for example.
Q: (L) What is "ELP?"
A: Extremely Low Pulse.
Q: (T) ELF, Extremely Low Frequency, and ELP, Extremely
Low Pulse - is this the same thing?
A: Sometimes.
Q: (T) This would be an external pulse or frequency?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Would it be originating from the source of the strobe?
A: No. They act in unison.
Q: (T) Two separate sources acting in unison?
A: Close.
Q: (L) And this process prevents us from seeing something,
such as craft flying in our skies at any given time?
A: Or maybe see them as something else.

Notice in the above session that the Cs answered questions on Ufos and Aircraft with "ASSUMPTION!"

Also if the word "craft" is researched it is found to not only mean aircraft but also could mean craft as in "work" or Craftsman. Therefore, "do not see the work", or see it as something else?

Or i could be way out to lunch but it is something to thing about?

You might be interested in this thread in which a discussion of DNA and its relevance to light is in progress. http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewforum.php?id=16

 

[webglider]

Tractmec wrote:

Thank you. This is the section of The Wave that I was referring to. The concept of hiding "the craft" meaning "the work" seems very plausible to me, and I would never have figured that out for myself, so I really appreciate your pointing it out.

I will follow up by reading the threads you suggest.





webglider wrote:
I would never have even thought to ask this question if I hadn't read in the Wave Series a question that was asked about strobe lights. I have to reference this by memory as I read this a while ago. The answer the C's gave to the question asking about the sudden prevailance of strobe lights is that, if I'm correct, their light helps veil the presence of ufos in the night sky.

Is this the particular session which you are referencing?



session 951118 wrote:
Q: (L) Do you wish us to go back to the statement about
strobe lights being used to control minds, and pick up and go
from there?
A: Best not to continuously ask us for advice on how to ask
the questions, or if this or that is okay, but rather just "shoot
from the hip."
Q: (L) Okay. You mentioned the strobe lights. Are these
strobe lights that are used to control minds, are these
something that we would or might come in contact with on a
daily basis?
A: Do you not already know? We didn't say: some strobe
lights, we said: strobe lights, i.e. all inclusive!
Q: (T) Strobe lights come in many forms and types. TV is a
strobe light. Computer screens are a strobe light. light bulbs
strobe. Fluorescents strobe. Streetlights strobe.
A: Police cars, ambulances, fire trucks... How long has this
been true? Have you noticed any changes lately??!!??
Q: (F) Twenty years ago there were no strobe lights on any of
those vehicles mentioned. They had the old flasher type lights.
Now, more and more and more there are strobe lights
appearing in all kinds of places. (L) And now, they even have
them on school buses! (T) And the regular city buses have
them too, now. (L) Okay, is the strobing of a strobe light, set
at a certain frequency in order to do certain things?
A: Hypnotic opener.
Q: (L) Can we say that this is something we are being
acclimated to, so that other things that happen to us in terms
of our interactions... it just keeps one in a continual state of
hypnosis?
A: Assumptions restrict the flow!
Q: (L) What is the purpose of the hypnotic opener being used
in this way?
A: You don't notice the craft.
Q: (L) Ohhhhhhhh! So we may be being continuously flown
over by alien craft...
A: Assumption!
Q: (L) Sorry! (T) Okay, we don't notice the craft because we
see the strobes. They are hypnotic openers and are inducing a
hypnotic effect...
A: Assumption!
Q: (T) Okay, continue, then.
A: Well, ask a question, then!
Q: (L) Okay, they are telling us not to assume, but to ask. (T)
Okay, what craft are we NOT seeing?
A: Opener. Is precursor to suggestion, which is auditory in
nature.
Q: (T) What suggestion?
A: Put on your thinking caps. Networking is not making
assumptions. Bold unilateral statement of "fact" is.
Q: (T) Oh. Phrase your statements in the form of a question!
I'd like "Hypnotic Openers" for $200, Alex! Cosmic
Jeopardy! (L) Okay, you said the "suggestion is auditory in
nature." If this is the case, where is the suggestion coming
from auditory?
A: Where do you normally receive auditory suggestions from?
Q: (L) Radio, television... (T) Telephone... (L) Is that what
we are talking about?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) If you encounter a strobe while driving, or you are
sitting in front of your television, then the suggestions can be
put into you better because of this hypnotically opened state?
Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What are these suggestions designed to do, to suggest?
In a general sense?
A: Review.
Q: (L) Not see the craft?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Do we get these signals from the radio in the car even
if it is turned off?
A: Depends upon whether or not there is another source.
Q: (T) Another source such as?
A: ELP, for example.
Q: (L) What is "ELP?"
A: Extremely Low Pulse.
Q: (T) ELF, Extremely Low Frequency, and ELP, Extremely
Low Pulse - is this the same thing?
A: Sometimes.
Q: (T) This would be an external pulse or frequency?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Would it be originating from the source of the strobe?
A: No. They act in unison.
Q: (T) Two separate sources acting in unison?
A: Close.
Q: (L) And this process prevents us from seeing something,
such as craft flying in our skies at any given time?
A: Or maybe see them as something else.

Notice in the above session that the Cs answered questions on Ufos and Aircraft with "ASSUMPTION!"

Also if the word "craft" is researched it is found to not only mean aircraft but also could mean craft as in "work" or Craftsman. Therefore, "do not see the work", or see it as something else?

Or i could be way out to lunch but it is something to thing about?

You might be interested in this thread in which a discussion of DNA and its relevance to light is in progress. http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewforum.php?id=16

 

[webglider]

Webglider wrote:

Sorry, Webglider wrote the following not Tractmec.

Thank you. This is the section of The Wave that I was referring to. The concept of hiding "the craft" meaning "the work" seems very plausible to me, and I would never have figured that out for myself, so I really appreciate your pointing it out.

I will follow up by reading the threads you suggest.

 

[webglider]

Today I found some information about the effects of flourescent bulbs on mood and physiology. I have been doing some research on this topic since my first post, but the information that I found was too technical for me to be sure that I was understanding it correctly.

An article earlier today on AOl connected flourescent lights to migraines, epileptic seizures and skin cancer. The aol article is already gone, and I cannot find it. However I did find this one from a site called somebodyhealme.dianelee.net for people suffering from migraines and depression. The above article also has information about legislation in the United States to phase out incandescent lighting.

The lost aol article linked flourescent lighting to skin cancer which I the technical articles I was attempting to read seemed to be making as well.

So now in addition to mercury being added to landfills, we have evidence of links to migraines, epileptic seizures and possible skin cancer.

Why this concerted effort to mandate flourescent bulbs?




House Sends President An Energy Bill to Sign


One portion of the bill sets new efficiency standards for appliances and will make the incandescent bulb -- invented two centuries ago and improved and commercialized by Edison in the 1880s -- virtually extinct by the middle of the next decade. The bill will phase out conventional incandescents, starting in 2012, with 100-watt bulbs, ultimately ceding the lighting market to more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs and light-emitting diodes (LEDs).


You may be wondering why I'm writing about energy standards on a blog about migraines. Bear with me while I explain.

As you may or may not know, fluorescent lights are an extremely common migraine trigger. The long tubes often found in offices and businesses flicker, triggering negative health effects for many migraineurs and others with health conditions such as epilepsy.

When the bill discussed above takes effect, the process of phasing out incandescent light bulbs will begin. The idea is that they will be replaced with more efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) and LED bulbs. This is a problem because some migraineurs attacks' are triggerd by CFLs, not just the tube-shaped fluorescent bulbs.

Since this law has already been passed by Congress and signed by the President, we must determine how to react.

One idea is to be vocal about how CFLs affect you and request that your office and other places you spend time use devices with LED bulbs instead.

Another thought is to be more vigilant than ever about keeping good quality sunglasses with you. Don't be ashamed to whip them out whenever you feel the need. They do help, and it's better to get funny looks than to experience even one CFL-triggered migraine.

Finally, it may be appropriate for the migraine & headache community to speak out and seek a change to this law. It certainly will not be an easy fight, but it may be necessary to protect our quality of life.

If you have other suggestions for coping with this change or thoughts on the new law, please share them in the comments.

Sources:
Energy Star Canada
How Fluorescent Lamps Work
EERE Consumer's Guide: Compact Fluorescent Lamps
Energy-Saving Light Bulbs 'Are Threat to Epileptics'

Technorati Tags: polls, policy, news, depression, migraines, chronic illness, health, somebody heal me

 

[Mr. Premise]

Proposals to ban incandescents make me want to stockpile and fill my basement with incandescents!

 

[mada85]

There's quite some hysteria being whipped up over energy saving light bulbs, connected, imho, with the trends described in this article which appeared on the Signs page the other day; here's a quote:

The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis

I suggest that we can see the focus of the next US administration by paying attention to Al Gore. He's going around preaching the gospel of climate change, and that is rapidly becoming the new cause celebre for the 'international community'. It's more than a campaign by Gore, we're seeing a campaign being supported by the mass media, by the powers that be. We are clearly being prepared for a 'new show', after the 'Bush show', and the 'new show' is going to be about carbon taxes and credits, new energy sources, more efficient cars, biofuels, and all those other things that are allegedly related to climate change and peak oil.

Concerning 'energy saving' bulbs, I read this article recently. Russ Andrews, the author, is well-known for his research into improving the sound of hifi equipment. Speaking from my own experience, his methods work. I've posted the article in full, minus the last paragraph which isn't so relevant. Russ Andrews' findings directly contradict what we are being told about the energy saving bulbs. Are there any forum members with the expertise to either confirm or deny what he is saying?

How green are low energy bulbs?

The EU has ruled that ordinary 40W / 60W / 100W incandescent lamps will be banned from 2012. The decree is that domestic lights will be replaced with ‘energy saving’ lightbulbs (or, more correctly ‘compact fluorescent lamps’ or CFLs) in the interest of energy saving and reducing our carbon footprint. It is claimed that these CFLs use 25% of the energy and last eight times as long as the equivalent incandescent lamps – and so will help “save the planet”.

To understand more, some key things to know about are apparent power, real power and the power factor. Apparent power is the amount of energy an electricity company needs to supply to produce the real power required by a component or a piece of equipment. Electrical equipment where the apparent power is the same as the real power has a power factor of 1. If a piece of equipment requires more apparent power to produce the real power, it has a power factor of less than 1. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that equipment with a power factor nearer 0 is not as ‘green’ or ‘environmentally sensitive’ as an electrical component with a power factor nearer 1.

Knowing this, I’ve tested several CFLs with surprising results: taking a sample 60W light bulb as a reference against the equivalent 13W CFL, the CFL used more than twice as much apparent power as real power. Compared with ordinary incandescent light bulbs, CFLs have a poor power factor because they require more than the minimum apparent power to supply the real power.

My tests have shown that the CFLs use half the power of a 60W lamp, not quarter as stated and that’s before taking into account the extra power the supplier must generate.

The power difference between the real power consumed by the CFL (in the case of the Osram, it’s almost 15 watts) and the apparent power is wasted in more ways than one. The electricity supply becomes less efficient because it senses the difference between the real and apparent and becomes unbalanced by the redundant currents swilling around. The result is that it must generate more power than is really being used and the system needs to be upgraded to handle it. The cost of generation goes up and so the cost to the consumer goes up with it. The net result of using CFLs is that there is no saving whatever… quite the opposite; the electricity supply system has doubled its output and doubled its carbon emissions. The more people use CFLs, the worse the problem will become. And that’s before we’ve even talked about the fact that CFLs use mercury in their construction, which leads to more issues in their disposal. Utter stupidity… isn’t it better just to switch off a few lights?

 

[alwyn]

I have been solar powered since 1990, and using flourescents, and CF's since then. I know that on a solar system you can run a whole houseful of CF's, but if you used regular light bulbs, you would drain your batteries quickly. So, I'm not really understanding the camparison between apparent power and real power as posited by Mr. Andrews, at least in terms of practrical application.

What I have noticed, however, is a rapid deterioration of my eyesight. Some of this may be due to old age, but I noticed a couple of years into my solar sojourn that I would have trouble reading in dim light flourescents, and I was not that old then. I switched to full spectrum CF's, which helps, but there are times in my kitchen under the cf's (even so called 'daylight' ones) that I lose white ojbects on a white counter. There's something about the rate of flicker.

I would gladly use incandescants if I could, but our power system will not support it. The alternative, is beeswax candles...first find the bees...

 

[Miss Isness]

Donald J Hunt wrote: Proposals to ban incandescents make me want to stockpile and fill my basement with incandescents!

I wonder if switching to full spectrum energy saving bulbs would be a better alternative? You can find one brand sold at Dr. Mercola. I've also found a place that sells them in Italy, but haven't ordered them yet. Has anyone here tried them yet?

 

[mada85]

In his book, Light; Medicine of the Future, Jacob Liberman discusses flourescent lighting and quotes correspondence her received from one Dorothy A Bernoff.

In the middle '70s, during the energy crisis brought on by the oil 'shortages', I was working for the state Department of Employment as an employment counsellor. Word came down from the state capitol to all managers that electricity was to be conserved by shutting off alternate banks of overhead fluorescent lights. At first the relative dimness seemed depressing, but I noticed that almost immediately the sound level had diminished: we all seemed to speak in lower, more modulated voices. The applicants who sometimes had to sit and wait to be interviewed, whether for unemployment eligibility or job possibilities, also seemed to have less hostility toward us when we finally got to them, and the noise level from the waiting room had decreased. At the day's end, I for one felt much less tired. I remember speaking to some of my colleagues, who also felt the difference, except that they objected to the 'gray lights'. I mentioned the welcome change to our manager and suggested that perhaps we could function more efficiently with less glaring fluorescents overhead on a permanent basis, and even recommended that he report this to the powers in the state capitol. I was told not to rock the boat, and as soon as the 'crisis' was over, the lights came back on, and so did the noise level, the angry voices, and that tired feeling by the middle of the day.

Mr Liberman goes on to say:

More recently, it has been found that full-spectrum lighting in the work place creates significantly lower stress on the nervous system than standard cool-white flourescent lighting and reduces the number of absences due to illness. These findings seem to indicate that full-spectrum lighting may act to boost the immune system in the same way as natural sunlight.

What's the use of saving money on electricity bills if we cannot see? And perhaps, symbolically, that is the whole point. The PTB do not want us to SEE.

 

[Mikey]

So, I'm not really understanding the camparison between apparent power and real power as posited by Mr. Andrews, at least in terms of practrical application.

What he talks about are terms from electical engineering, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power#Real.2C_reactive.2C_and_apparent_power. But I agree. While the explanations of Mr. Andrews sound reasonable, he seems overreact in the following statement because he is contradicting his own measurements:

The net result of using CFLs is that there is no saving whatever… quite the opposite; the electricity supply system has doubled its output and doubled its carbon emissions. The more people use CFLs, the worse the problem will become.

If his measurements are correct, CFL consume about twice the energy than the value written on them. That is still less than Incadescent Lamps of the same light output. According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_lamp and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp one can calculate approximately:

Incandescent Lamp: 55W x 14.2 lumen/W ~ 780 lumen
Compact Fluorescent Lamp: 13W x 60 lumen/W ~ 780 lumen

Even if CFL consume twice as much (in this case about 26W), it's still less than IL (in this case 55W). That's not to say I appreciate the arrival of mercury-releasing CFLs in my home. I just removed mercury from my teeth for god's sake...

What I have noticed, however, is a rapid deterioration of my eyesight.

Maybe this sharp spectra peaks from FL do nothing good to optical receptors?

 

[Miss Isness]

Alwyn wrote: What I have noticed, however, is a rapid deterioration of my eyesight. Some of this may be due to old age, but I noticed a couple of years into my solar sojourn that I would have trouble reading in dim light flourescents, and I was not that old then. I switched to full spectrum CF's, which helps, but there are times in my kitchen under the cf's (even so called 'daylight' ones) that I lose white ojbects on a white counter. There's something about the rate of flicker.

Oops! Looks like I got an answer before even asking... I visited an Optician this year to find out about getting reading glasses. He told me that ability to read fine print starts deteriorating between the ages of 40 - 45. I'm now 45 and I've been using non full spectrum fluorescents, which I hate, for the past two and half years at the insistence of my husband. I have spoken to another person who said he started needing reading glasses at age 45 too.

I read two opposing statements in two different sott articles regarding the matter. One said reading under low light doesn't affect vision. It was on a list with other medical 'old wives tales'. Another article that had been posted earlier said the opposite.

edit: I just can't seem to get the slashes in the right place today - maybe it's the lighting :P

 

[Mr. Premise]

I think the issue is whether the bulbs strobe or not. I was under the impression that any flourescent bulbs strobe, even the full spectrum ones.

Donald J Hunt wrote: Proposals to ban incandescents make me want to stockpile and fill my basement with incandescents!

I wonder if switching to full spectrum energy saving bulbs would be a better alternative? You can find one brand sold at Dr. Mercola. I've also found a place that sells them in Italy, but haven't ordered them yet. Has anyone here tried them yet?

 

[Tarri]

Mom and I have been using full spectrum lighting for several years now. We found a site that has many different types. I like the Torchieres because the light faces the cealing, so its not so bright. You can certainly read better and see many colors you could not see with even regular bulbs. We have a full spectrum floor lamp that we use for our indoor plants and they thrive under it.
Here is the link to the site I ordered our lamps from. They are a little spendy, but we just waited until tax refund time and ordered. We also ordered an extra light for each lamp. Just remember when changing the light, to use a towel, for you can't touch the lights with your hands. It does something to the bulb.

Here is the link. http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/