"Green energy-efficient" light bulb BURNS DOWN house!

Short answer is yes and yes. But it is a complicated subject and I do not really want to derail the thread. Let's keep the topic on fire dangers.
I posted in two other light bulb threads, answering your questions in more detail.

 

and when I was 13 a very, very, long time ago I nearly died in a house fire caused by an incandescent light bulb...

 

Spiral CFLs have a much greater fire hazard than incandescents. Actually, each type of bulb (including those halogen replacements) has its own unique dangers. But at least incandescents will never just shoot out flames for no reason. If an incandescent bulb cracks open while it is on, there is very little danger. The only danger is using a very high wattage bulb in a fixture designed for a much lower wattage. Some cheap lamp fixtures are only rated for 60 watts. Putting in a 100 watt bulb is not a good idea, but probably nothing bad is going to happen (other than cracking of the cheap plastic base from long-term overheating). I suppose if you were to stick a 150 watt bulb in there it could lead to a fire, but 150 watt bulbs are not very common. Also, sometimes clothes in a closet have been carelessly stacked high to the ceiling up against a bare exposed bulb, which has led to fires in some cases.

But it should be obvious that the new spiral CFLs are far worse. Most of them, especially the ones over 19 watts, are not supposed to be placed in enclosed fixtures, as it could result in overheating. The base is made of plastic and contains sensitive electronic parts that could burn out or melt if it gets too hot. But most consumers just place the CFLs in their regular enclosed ceiling fixtures anyway. And you do not want to have a bare exposed spiral bulb, then there would be nothing to help absorb all that UV radiation.

 

While I am a CFL advocate, I do think that CFLs are in process of being forced on the public. Incandescents are being banned. If that isn't forcing CFLs, I don't understand the idea of forcing. LEDs aren't an economical solution.

That said, I like CFLs. I've never had any problems with them, and I replace all burned out incandescents with CFLs. In the Sunbelt of the U.S., CFL usage is a no-brainer. I had one fixture that I was burning out on average one incandescent every 12-18 months. I replaced it with a CFL about 5 yrs ago, and haven't replaced it since.

 

All the banning is doing is speeding up a replacement process - I am about to re-wire my unit and I can tell you I have every intention of going to LED wherever possible. I have elderly parents who will see better under white light, without the red end of the spectrum there will be less heat and so be cooler in summer and of course a very very long life

 

If you want to try to argue that LEDs are better, this is not the right thread.

Answered your question in another thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/environment-conservation/256129-led-light-output-6.html#post1062376679

You assume that ignorant penny-pinching consumers will not just reluctantly switch over to CFLs, not realizing the hazards. How many homes will burn down because of the phase out ? because progressives/greenies just justify the phase out by trying to focus to conversation all on LEDs, even though not few people are using them to light their homes.

 

If it was a superior solution it would not require government force to compel it. This is a good example of the tyranny we already suffer. Flush toilets, anyone?

 

CFLs were selling well before the law restricting incandescents. If anything, the law made them less popular.

 

Uh-huh. Sure.