We see through a bulb darkly

On the debate between fluorescent and incandescent light bulbs: two letters (subscription required) on A9 of today's WSJ. Both condemn Congress as silly for promoting the former; each comes from a different standpoint.

Writes Roger B. in Tucson, Ariz.:

...Congress has now dictated phasing out the incandescent bulb starting in 2012. Think of the hardships and costs that law will force on the public. Ponder your current incandescent bulb usages that do not readily adapt to compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) or others.

Incandescent bulbs can operate on low voltages such as three volts (flashlights) and 12 volts (autos) but compact CFLs cannot. No more flashlights...no more power-on and indicator lights on your auto dashboard and your large and small (coffeemaker, iron) home appliances...no more holiday lights such as on Christmas trees and outdoor decorations. What would you use for bicycle head and tail-lights? How about roadside distress and warning lights that plug into cigarette lighters or dashboard power sockets? Also mood lighting for parts of your home and some commercial establishments, since CFLs do not readily adapt to dimming...

While some of the above uses are for convenience, others are for safety and life-saving reasons. Although decades in the future scientists may develop other sources of light, in the near term we do not have reasonable replacements for most of the above uses.

Quoth Charles G. Battig, M.D. in Charlottesville, Va.:

Reflecting upon the editorial "Dim Bulbs" I feel that a more illuminating title would have been "Dim Wits."

Does Congress understand that their beloved compact fluorescent light bulbs are miniature toxic bundles of mercury just waiting to pollute your local land fill? Does the public understand that their conventional light dimmers do not work with these bulbs? Just read the warning labels on the package.

Practicality, utility, toxicity. Personally, I figure that if Edison invented the incandescent, it can't be all that bad...