The Dreamwidth Journal of zdashamber

My experience is that you get used to the fluro lights after some time, just a couple of weeks. It's irritating at first - but to be honest, I found computer screens irritating when I first saw them, and wouldn't get a PC for years as a result. I was also irritated by the ubiquity and nagging possibilities of mobile phones, and resisted them, too.

It's true that incandescents are closer to natural sunlight than fluros, but surely that should make you prefer natural light to incandescents, rather than incandescents to fluros? By adjusting your work hours and other living habits, it's quite possible in middle and low latitudes to spend most of your day under natural sunlight.

I think that we ought to judge our politicians on a wider range of issues than their support for or opposition to incadescent light globes. Like everyone else with power to make decisions, they must judge things on balance of risks. So, fluro globes may harm people's health in a small but significant way; but allowing incadescents may make a small contribution to global warming, which will be infinitely worse for people's health.

Which carries the greater risk is a matter for insurance actuaries. Their entire professional lives are spent in the study of relative risks. Those actuaries tell us that if we want to insure against tornadoes, droughts and floods, we need to pay higher premiums than in the past; this tells us that the risk of extreme weather events has increased. On the other hand, those who have fluro lighting in their homes do not need to pay higher health insurance premiums than those with incandescent; this tells us that the risk of health effects due to fluros is not teribly significant.