CFL Safety Poll

[mxslick]

Ok guys, since there seems to be a lack of clarity/understanding on some of the finer points I have raised on THIS THREAD'S DISCUSSION I have decided to create a poll:

Here's the scenario:

Two makers of CFL's with identical wattage, light output and rated life offer their wares. One of them has a propensity to end it's life with smoke or melting/burning plastic, the other does not.

The one that doesn't end it's life with smoke or melting costs exactly $1 more than the one that does.

Which one would you buy and/or recommend to your customers?

Which one would you yourself purchase again after experiencing it's end of life cycle?

 

[TOOL_5150]

Ok guys, since there seems to be a lack of clarity/understanding on some of the finer points I have raised on THIS THREAD'S DISCUSSION I have decided to create a poll:

Here's the scenario:

Two makers of CFL's with identical wattage, light output and rated life offer their wares. One of them has a propensity to end it's life with smoke or melting/burning plastic, the other does not.

The one that doesn't end it's life with smoke or melting costs exactly $1 more than the one that does.

Which one would you buy and/or recommend to your customers?

Which one would you yourself purchase again after experiencing it's end of life cycle?

wheres the poll?

~Matt

 

[TOOL_5150]

wheres the poll?

~Matt

there it is!


~Matt

 

[mxslick]

It was in progress as you posted Matt..

LOL and I have to add that I was in such a rush I mis-voted already.. DOH!!!

 

[TOOL_5150]

It was in progress as you posted Matt..

there is a spelling error in #4

~Matt

 

[mxslick]

there is a spelling error in #4

~Matt

LOL yep, I caught that too..but I cannot edit the poll, maybe one of the mods would be so kind as to fix that...and maybe fix my bad vote too. (I hit option 1 when it should have been 2...)

This is what happens when you do things after a really long day..

 

[TOOL_5150]

LOL yep, I caught that too..but I cannot edit the poll, maybe one of the mods would be so kind as to fix that...and maybe fix my bad vote too. (I hit option 1 when it should have been 2...)

This is what happens when you do things after a really long day..

and its 11pm to boot. ya going to sleep tonight?

~Matt

 

[mxslick]

LOL actually yes, in a few minutes.

Night all.

 

[iwire]

Tony, I am missing the point here big time.

But I will fix the spelling. :smile:

 

[George Stolz]

and maybe fix my bad vote too.

We don't have the ability to do that. Polls might be a little more entertaining if we could.

 

[mxslick]

Tony, I am missing the point here big time.

But I will fix the spelling. :smile:

Thanks fixing the spelling Bob.

The point is to see what everyone thinks when the position I took in the other thread is broken down to the simple questions of the poll. In the other thread it seems as though some folks are ok with the current state of affairs with CFL's and also think that no one would be willing to pony up for a SAFER product when it costs a bit more.

So the poll will tell what the majority of folks here would do.

We don't have the ability to do that. Polls might be a little more entertaining if we could.

LOL how true.

By the way, you can answer for BOTH questions, either 1 or 2 AND 3 or 4......

 

[LarryFine]

Two makers of CFL's with identical wattage, light output and rated life offer their wares. One of them has a propensity to end it's life with smoke or melting/burning plastic, the other does not.

Is this documented and proven? If so, why is it allowed?

I haven't voted yet, but, if "smokes" and "doesn't smoke" were printed on the respective packaging, it would affect my choice.

As urban legend, it probably wouldn't.

Added: How would I know which brand smokes?

 

[mxslick]

Is this documented and proven? If so, why is it allowed?

I haven't voted yet, but, if "smokes" and "doesn't smoke" were printed on the respective packaging, it would affect my choice. As urban legend, it probably wouldn't.

Larry, the other thread goes into some detail about the whole smoking failure issue. Seems as though UL and other NRTLS are OK with the end-of-life meltdown. That is the main thing I have an issue with.

I am looking into some good ways to gather up a usable amount of data to see if the "smoking gun" is really an issue....

Added: How would I know which brand smokes?

LOL That's the next hurdle..it would as you said most likely take packaging to indicate "smoke-free" end of life.

 

[LarryFine]

Seems as though UL and other NRTLS are OK with the end-of-life meltdown. That is the main thing I have an issue with.

I'm not really questioning whether smoking upon failure is evil; it is. I had one do that once, and it stunk evilly.

My question is aimed more toward how we know that the $1 actually separates the smokers from the non-smokers.

 

[mxslick]

I'm not really questioning whether smoking upon failure is evil; it is. I had one do that once, and it stunk evilly.

My question is aimed more toward how we know that the $1 actually separates the smokers from the non-smokers.

Again, it would be a matter of packaging and of course it would be taking it on the reputation of that maker that they aren't lying.

To keep this on topic, we must for the sake of this poll take it as gospel that the $1 more buys the smoke-free promise.

 

[pfalcon]

<snip>
LOL That's the next hurdle..it would as you said most likely take packaging to indicate "smoke-free" end of life.

Our town passed an ordinance about smoking. I say we prosecute the CFL company.

 

[iwire]

Here are the warnings from a metal halide lamp.

Standard Warnings, Cautions and Operating Instructions for all HID lamps

"WARNING: These lamps can cause serious skin burn and eye inflammation from short wave ultraviolet radiation if outer envelope of the lamp is broken or punctured. Do not use where people will remain for more than a few minutes unless adequate shielding or other safety precautions are used."

If the outer bulb is broken or punctured, turn off at once and replace the lamp to avoid possible injury from hazardous short wave ultraviolet radiation. Do not scratch the outer bulb or subject it to pressure as this could cause the outer bulb to crack or shatter. A partial vacuum in the outer bulb may cause glass to fly if the envelope is struck.

WARNING: The arc-tube of a metal halide lamp is designed to operate under high pressure and at temperatures up to 1000? C and can unexpectedly rupture due to internal or external factors such as a ballast failure or misapplication. If the arc-tube ruptures for any reason, the outer bulb may break and pieces of extremely hot glass might be discharged into the surrounding environment. If such a rupture were to happen, THERE IS A RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, BURNS AND FIRE.

The following operating instructions are recommended to minimize these occurrences.
RELAMP FIXTURES AT OR BEFORE THE END OF RATED LIFE.
Allowing lamps to operate until they fail is not advised and may increase the possibility of inner arc tube rupture.

 

[weressl]

Ok guys, since there seems to be a lack of clarity/understanding on some of the finer points I have raised on THIS THREAD'S DISCUSSION I have decided to create a poll:

Here's the scenario:

Two makers of CFL's with identical wattage, light output and rated life offer their wares. One of them has a propensity to end it's life with smoke or melting/burning plastic, the other does not.

The one that doesn't end it's life with smoke or melting costs exactly $1 more than the one that does.

Which one would you buy and/or recommend to your customers?

Which one would you yourself purchase again after experiencing it's end of life cycle?

Typical of political polls when the questions are phrased to generate the desired results and not interested in decisions based on the fully and unbiasedly informed customer.

This is called intellectual dishonesty.

 

[weressl]

Thanks fixing the spelling Bob.

The point is to see what everyone thinks when the position I took in the other thread is broken down to the simple questions of the poll. In the other thread it seems as though some folks are ok with the current state of affairs with CFL's and also think that no one would be willing to pony up for a SAFER product when it costs a bit more.

So the poll will tell what the majority of folks here would do.



LOL how true.

By the way, you can answer for BOTH questions, either 1 or 2 AND 3 or 4......

OK lets break it down!

You appear to be practicing, or fan of, an inherently unsafe sport, yet championing for a "safer" product that the leading national testing laboratory had determined to be safe for the public. You declared the product to be unsafe, yet offered no technical data to support your claim.

Is it only me that sees a contradiction here?!:roll:

 

[mxslick]

OK lets break it down!

You appear to be practicing, or fan of, an inherently unsafe sport, yet championing for a "safer" product that the leading national testing laboratory had determined to be safe for the public. You declared the product to be unsafe, yet offered no technical data to support your claim.

Is it only me that sees a contradiction here?!:roll:

Yep, it's just you.

I participate in motocross with the full knowledge of all the risks involved, including death, and wear the appropriate protective gear while participating. Then again, I ate foods that were healthy for me (rich in Vitamin K for example) and yet I have nearly died -twice- from blood clots. I was literally putting myself at an unknown risk by eating those foods, as I was unaware I was susceptable to clotting.

I don't see people in their homes wearing PPE or gas masks, or walking around with fire extinguishers 24/7 to protect themselves from a latent hazard caused by an object that 99.999% of the public will ASSUME is reasonably safe.

Again, YOU don't get it..quit comparing apples to oranges!! I don't ride a motocross bike through people's living rooms or homes...and I don't have CFL's mounted on my bike.

As for your comment about offering up no technical data, I can partially agree..I am NOT a fully-equipped testing lab, I can only report on findings done by research online, and by the limited data I get from friends and family who have experienced failures of CFL's themselves. And by the dissection of the CFL that failed, WITHOUT SMOKE OR MELTING, from my own home.

You need to go back to THIS THREAD, there HAVE been cases of a CFL catching fire. Why do you think that thread got started? :roll:

Typical of political polls when the questions are phrased to generate the desired results and not interested in decisions based on the fully and unbiasedly informed customer.

This is called intellectual dishonesty.

How do you figure that? The poll states two very clear options in each case..smoking/non-smoking and preference of continued purchase based on confidence.

If I really wanted to "generate desired results" I would have omitted the options to choose the cheaper lamp and not mentioned the option to re-buy the one that smokes. :roll: