Environmentalists are increasingly pressuring us to give up
incandescent lighting in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs and
light-emitting diodes. The public is resisting, talk-radio hosts have
rebelled, and Congressmen have claimed that the government has no right
to tell people how to light their homes and offices.
This will probably be a long battle. But the transition away from
incandescence will surely be quicker and easier than what occurred when
the incandescent bulb first became available.
For many reasons -- health and aesthetics were just two -- people resisted light bulbs for decades.
By 1910, more than 30 years after Thomas Edison invented the
incandescent bulb in 1879, only about 10 percent of American homes had
been wired. Even in the glittering Roaring Twenties, only about 20
percent of homes had electricity -- not because of a lack of electrical
contractors, but because of a lack of consumer enthusiasm.
Advertisers proclaimed that homes with electricity would be brighter, cozier and happier, but the public wasn't buying.
Homeowners without wiring could buy battery-powered lamps, but these
were expensive and unreliable: 16-candle bulbs cost about $1.50 each,
and they burned out quickly. A lamp stand with shade cost $5, and a
socket added an additional $0.25. For most people, the cost of the
battery was prohibitive: $12 for one that would last about an hour and a
half. Only the very rich could afford such a luxury.
Besides the cost, consumers just weren't convinced that this new
technology was safe. Light bulbs seemed so glaringly bright compared
with the soft glow of gaslight. Rumor had it that you could go blind
reading by incandescent light. In fact, doctors identified a new disease
(later debunked): photo-electric ophthalmia, which caused pain and
excessive tearing.
Women preferred the way their skin looked in gaslight, and some were
convinced that electric light caused freckles. The greatest fear was of
electricity itself, emitted by batteries, bulbs and wires: Surely all
that artificially produced electricity couldn't be good for the human
body.
One of the problems in marketing incandescent bulbs was the
then-common association of electricity with animal "life force." In the
late 18th century, the Italian scientist Luigi Galvani, a professor of
anatomy and obstetrics, conducted experiments on frogs to investigate
muscle contraction. Galvani concluded that animal electricity, stored in
the muscles, caused movement. More startling, he maintained that
artificial electricity, stimulating the muscles, caused the same
movement.
Simply put, Galvani’s claims led many to believe that electricity
coursing through the body was no different from electricity created to
power a machine or light a lamp. If all electricity was essentially the
same vital force, then batteries and lamps might upset the balance of
energy in the natural world. Tampering with nature seemed foolhardy;
it’s no wonder that Edison was often depicted in cartoons as a wizard
with almost god-like powers.
Galvani's vitalism gave rise to the idea that the spirit, or soul,
was electrical, too, and such phenomena as mental telepathy, hypnotism
and even ghosts could be explained by the out-of-body presence of
electricity.
Vitalism also made its way into medicine. In the late 19th century,
at the same time the incandescent bulb was being touted, physicians
offered mild forms of electrotherapy as cures for a variety of ailments:
insomnia, anxiety, depression, fatigue. A popular diagnosis of the
time, neurasthenia, or nerve weakness, was often treated by low doses of
electricity in the form of massages, baths in mildly electrified water
or stimulation by belts that contained batteries.
If we look at current reasons for resistance to alternative forms of
lighting, we find that some ideas persist. This time, the light is too
dull, not too glaring; the bulbs are still too expensive; and no one
knows the health impact of fluorescence or diodes.
Anyway, we’re just used to what we have. Incandescent bulbs have been with us forever.
(Linda Simon teaches at Skidmore College and is the author of "Dark
Light: Electricity and Anxiety From the Telegraph to the X-Ray." The
opinions expressed are her own.)
Source: Bloomberg
Monday, January 30, 2012
New Light-Bulb Battle a Breeze Compared With Edison's: Echoes
11:10 AM
No comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)





0 comments:
Post a Comment