i recognize that this would seem to be a frivolous topic, but i don't think it is.
in 1988, when i was planning my dream house, one of my stipulations was what i termed, "invisible lighting". with the rare exception of some noguchi akari lights and some lightolier fluorescent fixtures in my kitchen and utility room, all the rest of the illumination is from "in ceiling" cans[down lights].
where necessary, artwork is illuminated by in ceiling "wall washer" cans.
though 100 watt incandescent r40[br40] work, i have found the 120 watters the best. in fact, in my living room, study, the 1600 lumens of the 120's are mandatory if you are going to do any reading[and i am a reader].
the other day, i had some of these terminate. and i went to buy some replacements.
all i could find was 65watt incandescent r40's[br40]. at lowe's, home depot, i was told that all i could get above that incandescent wattage was a cfl simulacrum.
i think that the cfl promoted as a 100 watt incandescent replacement was a 23 watt fluoro.
how many lumens? less than 1100. you cannot read by it.
that was failure one. so i tried one in a wall washer illuminating a bit of art. how horrible. all the vibrancy of the work was lost. failure two.
so, i have been looking for incandescent 100w/120w r40/br40 bulbs.
very interesting....seems that the congress of the usa[on a rethug watch] coerced ge, sylvania, philips to stop manufacturing them. before the initiation of the official ban in 2010.
if you were a conspiracy theorist, you might think that the usg was trying to stop the populace from reading.
this virtually unknown ban on 100w/120w r40/br40 lighting i find very odd.
principally because it is not as if other bulb designs of higher wattage were banned[they weren't]. just these r40/br40's.
it puzzles me how it was that this ban was promulgated and enacted by the congress. because in my appraisal, the only user of these bulbs, this style of illumination, are the wealthy. and as i understand it, this occurred on the bushit watch.
the most amazing thing is that halogen versions of these r40/br40 bulbs was not prohibited. knowing what i know about the temperatures of bulbs, anyone substituting a halogen 100 watter for an incandescent 100 watter is risking a fire hazard.
then, i care to conclude this way, the fluoros that have been mandated to replace the incandescents have this mercury component. so, the disposal of the fluoros is going put more mercury into the watershed.
that this has occurred is more proof that there is already too much mercury in the environment....that there is more than enough brain impairment already.
i suppose it has been the cfl lobby that bought the congress for this marketing "gift".
sold to us as "energy independence".
the "free market?" hah.
no such animal.