SIR - I felt that the misinformed letter by Mark Starr (Worcester News, Friday, January 11), about the so-called dangers of low energy lamps (correctly known as CFLs, compact flourescent lamps) needed to be replied to. To answer his points, flickering action is a feature of older and cheap light bulbs.
Those available now do not suffer with this problem. If there is an issue with skin problems and potential sufferers require bulbs emitting different wavelengths, the legislation will allow for this as the intention is not to totally phase out conventional bulbs.
With regards to heavy metals, facilities are available to dispose of CFLs as they end their life and will become increasingly common along with other facilities to recycle batteries and other electronic equipment.
Life cycle analysis of CFLs against conventional bulbs comes out in their favour as they last longer, use less energy, and their environmental impact is far less than conventional bulbs.
There is no need to get paranoid about breaking a single CFL at home. There is more risk to health from broken glass than there is from the mercury.
TONY PRIVITERA, Worcester
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article