To the editor,
Lezlie Lowe seems happy to relegate the incandescent light bulb to the pages of history ("Light bulb moment," May 3). I view it with more reverence. I would be loathe to see it phased out in favour of the fluorescent bulb. I've worked for hours in various businesses under fluorescent lights, and I can tell you that there is nothing romantic about them. Their rapid pulsation, though not consciously detectable, can still have adverse effects.
Personally, I find them tiring. After eight hours under fluorescent tubes I would head home, with a sigh of relief, to turn on incandescent bulbs. Under these I can read, write, draw, relax and think much more easily.
Who would want to work under fluorescent lights? What gallery would use them to illuminate artwork? What theatre would use them as stage lights?
The new fluorescent screw-in bulb, which looks like soft-serve ice cream in a cone, also has some wrinkles to iron out. Recently the public was instructed to install more smoke detectors because some had spontaneously burst into flames. Shouldn't the price of smoke detectors be taken into account? The fluorescent bulb is also more expensive to buy. That's fine, but burning one's house down would put one's life into major recession and create even more unwanted carbon.
By David Rimmington