Seeing the light
Stephen Colbert satirizes the upcoming ban on incandescent light bulbs but finally brings a small bit of attention to a very serious subject for me (starting at about 1:12):
I've blogged about this before elsewhere, getting no response whatsoever, but as the date looms ever closer, I'm getting increasingly concerned about the federally mandated switchover to compact fluorescent bulbs. For one thing, I'm hearing by word of mouth that this is a kind of "hoax" designed to send people running to the stores to stock up on light bulbs before it's too late (I'm even seeing "stock up now" signs in certain stores!) and that compact fluorescents won't really become mandatory, that they're actually coming up with something better since compact fluorescents contain small amounts of mercury, which, if you break one, can't be good. Not to mention what happens when millions of burnt-out CFs all containing small amounts of mercury end up being concentrated in landfills? Or are we supposed to use up precious auto fuel and emit more carbon into the atmosphere bringing them to special recycling centers?
But this isn't really my main concern. I'm all for conserving energy as best I can, but first of all, I think light bulbs are a red herring in the big global-warming picture. Improving public transportation and car and industry emissions around the world are the way to make a real dent in global climate change, if it's not already too late--not forcing individuals to change out all our home bulbs when people are already voluntarily switching to compact fluorescents. And, like I was taught to do back in the 1970s, we can all help by simply turning off the lights in rooms you're not using. In fact, I've willingly switched to compact fluorescents outside my house and in rooms I don't use shortly before bedtime.
Some people argue against being forced to switch to fluorescent lighting purely on the basis of its aesthetic appearance and little more. However, the real problem that I haven't heard anybody in the media talking about is that many people, especially people with autism and ADHD (like me), are physically hypersensitive to fluorescent lighting. I can literally see the flicker, and the longer I'm exposed to them, the more they affect my vision to the point where I become "snowblind" and dizzy. Exposure to fluorescent lighting within a few hours before bedtime also exacerbates my tendency towards chronic insomnia.
So what are folks like me (and it's not just me!) supposed to do? Sit in the dark for three or four hours before bed? Use the TV, which uses up way more energy, as a light source? Studies have shown that fluorescent lighting contributes to hyperactivity in children with ADHD, and in my own adult ADHD support group, every last person there said they experience the same trouble with fluorescent lighting that I do. (They also can see computer-screen flicker that no one else can see. This was a problem for me in my last permanent job because I was discouraged from increasing my screen's refresh rate so that it would stop flickering for fear I would damage the monitor. But when I tried to explain this to my boss, I was treated like I'd just told him I'd been abducted by aliens. I also routinely got in trouble for turning off the overhead lights and "working in the dark" when I'd stay late to get my work done in peace and quiet after everyone else without ADHD had gone home, even though my desk was right next to a huge picture window that illuminated the room perfectly for me, and I had a desk lamp for when it got dark. I also have trouble sleeping in hotels, which all seem to have switched over exclusively to fluorescent lighting in every possible light source; there's no escape from them short of bringing your own lamp! In fact, even regular 60-watt incandescents give me eyestrain; I never buy bulbs over 40 watts and use a 15-watt bulb next to my bed for reading to help me get to sleep. And a 4-watt nightlight because sensory deprivation also seems to contribute to my insomnia. Probably why I sleep better during the day than at night. Which is related to another medical condition I have called Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome.) Anyway ...
This seems to me a very serious issue that should be covered under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) signed into law by George Bush I and much praised even by Democrats/Liberals/Progressives. Why is it not being "brought to light" in the controversy? Stephen Colbert may be joking about the rest of us getting our lighting from Yankee Candle Company (and not sneaking bulbs across state lines, wink wink), but that may end up being the only option for people with certain disabilities for whom this impending law is severely detrimental. And candles are not only an inefficient light source but a prohibitively expensive "option" for people attempting to survive on endangered Social Security payments! Unless we all move to South Carolina. Or this issue gets brought into the discussion about freedom of choice.
I've blogged about this before elsewhere, getting no response whatsoever, but as the date looms ever closer, I'm getting increasingly concerned about the federally mandated switchover to compact fluorescent bulbs. For one thing, I'm hearing by word of mouth that this is a kind of "hoax" designed to send people running to the stores to stock up on light bulbs before it's too late (I'm even seeing "stock up now" signs in certain stores!) and that compact fluorescents won't really become mandatory, that they're actually coming up with something better since compact fluorescents contain small amounts of mercury, which, if you break one, can't be good. Not to mention what happens when millions of burnt-out CFs all containing small amounts of mercury end up being concentrated in landfills? Or are we supposed to use up precious auto fuel and emit more carbon into the atmosphere bringing them to special recycling centers?
But this isn't really my main concern. I'm all for conserving energy as best I can, but first of all, I think light bulbs are a red herring in the big global-warming picture. Improving public transportation and car and industry emissions around the world are the way to make a real dent in global climate change, if it's not already too late--not forcing individuals to change out all our home bulbs when people are already voluntarily switching to compact fluorescents. And, like I was taught to do back in the 1970s, we can all help by simply turning off the lights in rooms you're not using. In fact, I've willingly switched to compact fluorescents outside my house and in rooms I don't use shortly before bedtime.
Some people argue against being forced to switch to fluorescent lighting purely on the basis of its aesthetic appearance and little more. However, the real problem that I haven't heard anybody in the media talking about is that many people, especially people with autism and ADHD (like me), are physically hypersensitive to fluorescent lighting. I can literally see the flicker, and the longer I'm exposed to them, the more they affect my vision to the point where I become "snowblind" and dizzy. Exposure to fluorescent lighting within a few hours before bedtime also exacerbates my tendency towards chronic insomnia.
So what are folks like me (and it's not just me!) supposed to do? Sit in the dark for three or four hours before bed? Use the TV, which uses up way more energy, as a light source? Studies have shown that fluorescent lighting contributes to hyperactivity in children with ADHD, and in my own adult ADHD support group, every last person there said they experience the same trouble with fluorescent lighting that I do. (They also can see computer-screen flicker that no one else can see. This was a problem for me in my last permanent job because I was discouraged from increasing my screen's refresh rate so that it would stop flickering for fear I would damage the monitor. But when I tried to explain this to my boss, I was treated like I'd just told him I'd been abducted by aliens. I also routinely got in trouble for turning off the overhead lights and "working in the dark" when I'd stay late to get my work done in peace and quiet after everyone else without ADHD had gone home, even though my desk was right next to a huge picture window that illuminated the room perfectly for me, and I had a desk lamp for when it got dark. I also have trouble sleeping in hotels, which all seem to have switched over exclusively to fluorescent lighting in every possible light source; there's no escape from them short of bringing your own lamp! In fact, even regular 60-watt incandescents give me eyestrain; I never buy bulbs over 40 watts and use a 15-watt bulb next to my bed for reading to help me get to sleep. And a 4-watt nightlight because sensory deprivation also seems to contribute to my insomnia. Probably why I sleep better during the day than at night. Which is related to another medical condition I have called Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome.) Anyway ...
This seems to me a very serious issue that should be covered under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) signed into law by George Bush I and much praised even by Democrats/Liberals/Progressives. Why is it not being "brought to light" in the controversy? Stephen Colbert may be joking about the rest of us getting our lighting from Yankee Candle Company (and not sneaking bulbs across state lines, wink wink), but that may end up being the only option for people with certain disabilities for whom this impending law is severely detrimental. And candles are not only an inefficient light source but a prohibitively expensive "option" for people attempting to survive on endangered Social Security payments! Unless we all move to South Carolina. Or this issue gets brought into the discussion about freedom of choice.