It would be really nice if someone i.e. one of the "dipsticks with a calculator" would put forward the definitive reasons why this idea is being rammed down our throats.
There have been plenty of claims about the cost savings in use but I have not found any published data to back this up. The manufacturers appear to be very shy of providing information other than the fact that they are cheaper to run i.e. the metered costs are lower.
The concept of the effects (real or possible) of these new lamps is just shrugged off. For example the effects on people who suffer from migrane or lupus.
It appears that when any objection is raised, there is simply an attitude being adopted of "we know best - so accept it".
I have no objection to the adoption of improved technology on the basis that it is an genuine improvement - but is this such a case?
And that is, of course, before we even start down the road of disposal of the used product.
Stuff the E.U., stick with Mr. Swan's invention. In anycase, if the E.U. have their way, in a few years time it will be a very theoretical discussion as it looks as though we won't have the generating capacity to use any of them.
Candles anyone?