# compact fluorescents: a turn-off for wives (article)



## Paul_in_Maryland (Apr 30, 2007)

Check out the Washington Post article, "Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity: Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives" (print-friendly version here). It exactly describes our house! My wife prefers the "warmer" yellowish light of a 2700K to 3000K bulb. I prefer 5000K. I've had to replace the 5000Ks over her sink, my daughter's, and my mother-in-law's with 3000K.

So the Pacific Northwesterners use more compact fluorescents (CPFs) than the rest of the country. Does that make them better people? Yes, it does.


----------



## ACMarina (Apr 30, 2007)

My house is in the process of converting. Wife didn't like them at first, but she likes the energy-saving aspect of the bulbs and the newer ones aren't quite as harsh. She still won't budge on the lights over her mirror, though


----------



## nethiker (Apr 30, 2007)

There's a good Best Compact Fluorescent Bulb article over at popularmechanics.com. I didn't realize how much these have improved lately.


----------



## yuandrew (Apr 30, 2007)

I remember my first time trying to purchase a compact fluorescent bulb except my mother, at that time, didn't want to spend 12$ for a light bulb and we already had a stock of 60 and 100 watt incandescant bulbs that my dad got for cheap. 

My dad had a 170 watt bulb sold as the GE "Reader Light" just for his newspaper and I tried to replace it with a lower wattage bulb. His eyes were sensitive enough that he could tell the 150 watt bulb the from 170 watt and a CFL's color was just too "pink" for him. I pointed out my energy saving concerns but he just told me that the time I spend using the computer or watching TV uses more energy than that time he spends reading with his light bulb. (He still thinks just because my computer has a 300 watt power supply means it draws 300 watts all the time) The bulb eventually burnt out and was replaced with a lower wattage Philips Halogen bulb and he has gotten used to that.

When I started replacing the rest of the lights in the house with compact fluorescents, one of the main concern was the warmup time on certain models. There are some in my house which take several seconds to reach full brightness and the initial reaction from my mom upon turning on a light was "why is the light so dim ?" I had to move the bulbs around so that the main living areas have ones that reach full brightness quickly while bedrooms had the slower ones (so you don't blind yourself getting up in the dark.)


----------



## Tritium (Apr 30, 2007)

Before everyone gets too excited about CFL's you might want to look at this link and ponder:

http://tinyurl.com/2pk9d7

Thurmond


----------



## ACMarina (Apr 30, 2007)

Ikea will recycle them for me for free, so I don't worry about disposal. And I haven't broken a bulb in a really, really long time..


----------



## hank (Apr 30, 2007)

Two comments, on mercury cleanup; and on pleasing the spouse.

1) Here's what you need to clean up a mercury spill:

--a good flashlight!
--remove any jewelry, gold ring for example
--Powdered zinc metal (I think grinding off a US penny would do fine.

This is worth knowing. You basically want to make a "dental amalgam" -- the solid form.

This page has it very clearly explained:

http://entropy.brneurosci.org/info/mercury.html

It's worth reading the whole article --- it's from a lab; they note that they had an ultraviolet light source in a glassware oven. A mercury thermometer broke, and the UV excited the "mercury vapor, producing "big plumes" that leaked out despite attempts to seal up the oven to contain the spill.

------excerpt-------
"The problem with any mercury spill is that mercury easily vaporizes at room temperature, where it can be breathed or absorbed through the skin.

"... standards are based on an exposure for an 8-hr day.

"It takes very little mercury to create an unsafe environment. Quantities as low as 1 mL can evaporate over a period of time and contaminate millions of cubic feet of air to levels in excess of allowable limits."
-------

2) On color rendering, and pleasing the spouse: two things.

-- Look at the spectra. Most CFLs have a really big spike in the blue range (below about 500 nanometers), this is typical: http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/fifth/nik1.gif

I've sent several different bulbs to Craig at LEDMuseum.com, to find out what the actual emission is, for several reasons. Sleep and health effects (some specific to women) are well described in the abstracts collected here:

https://sleeplamps.com/Sleep_research.asp?id=2

That site emphasizes lights that block everything below 530. My spouse wanted better color rendering (she knits and sews) ---- but we still wanted to use CFLs to save electricity.

We found a compromise by using the GE "Post Light" shielded bulbs that have a polycarbonate shell over them. They cost about us about $7 (half retail price) -- amazon.com, look for +truevalue +GE +"post light" +"bug light"). 

The "bug light" version of that lamp is low-blue:

http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/eighth/gecflbl.gif
(decent color rendering for evening use, and low enough in the blue spectrum for evening use)

GE "Post Light" models have a plastic cover that contains and protects the bare glass fluorescent tube. The polycarbonate blocks the UV from the fluorescent. The "bug light" model has a very light yellow tint, which blocks the typical CFL excess blue emission; the result with these is a very comfortable warm light ---decent color rendering. 

These are a really decent evening light source for us.


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 30, 2007)

Paul_in_Maryland said:


> Check out the Washington Post article, "Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity: Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives" (print-friendly version here). It exactly describes our house! My wife prefers the "warmer" yellowish light of a 2700K to 3000K bulb. I prefer 5000K. I've had to replace the 5000Ks over her sink, my daughter's, and my mother-in-law's with 3000K.


I still think it has less to do with color temperature and more to do with color rendering. Most of the commonly available CFLs regardless of color temp have a CRI of around 80. This is good enough for a utility area but it can distort some colors to the point that a person finds it annoying. It also to some extent has to do with what people are used to. Many people are just used to having their houses with that awful yellow tinge of incandescent at night. Most of these same people will even openly say they prefer the way their house looks under daylight but few light sources can match daylight closely enough for them not to be able to tell the difference.

Have you tried any of the high-CRI full spectrum CFLs? Better yet, there are linear tubes with CRIs as high as 98. I defy anyone to tell the difference between those and natural daylight. Sure, these options may "look" difference than incandescent, but one advantage they have is that colors look the same day or night. Trying to decorate when you're dealing with two light sources which look very different (daylight and incandescent) is at best a compromise.

Another reason I think CFLs may not be catching on is precisely because they're trying so hard to match the incandescent bulb with a fluorescent source. The only way to get warm white is to decrease the amount of blue phosphor while increasing the red one. The problem with this approach, especially in a bulb with spiky emission spectra and medium CRI like a triphosphor CFL, is that there is still a disproportionate amount of blue in the spectrum even though the light color appears yellow. Since the light source is yellow, the eye expects a spectrum similar to that of a broadband source at the same color temperature. This means very little blue in the spectrum. Ever notice how blue looks purple under incandescent but still relatively blue under warm white CFLs? This is at the heart of the problem. Higher color temperature CFLs, even with mediocre CRIs of 80 or so, don't suffer as much from this problem because the eye expects a higher proportion of blue. This is why we would be better off if they would just stop selling CFLs with color temperatures less than about 3500K (better yet 5000K), and also focus on getting CRI into the 90s as cheaply as possible (those full spectrum CFLs are ridiculously pricey for what they are). Ditto for recent attempts to create "warm white" LEDs. Stop trying to imitate what is quite honestly a less than ideal light source with other technologies! The result is destined to be mediocre at best, and not well accepted. I think the wide acceptance of CFLs in Japan has more to do with the fact that 5000K is what is used to light residences there, and high color temps are what fluorescent does best.


----------



## brickbat (Apr 30, 2007)

jtr1962 said:


> ...This is why we would be better off if they would just stop selling CFLs with color temperatures less than about 3500K (better yet 5000K)....



WE would be better off? Speak for yourself. 

Where I happen to live (3rd rock from sun) the daylight color temperature isn't constant throughout the day. In fact, at dusk, it generally gets warmer, and makes for a nice transition to my yucky 2700K lamps, which suit me quite nicely, thanks.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Apr 30, 2007)

jtr1962 said:


> I still think it has less to do with color temperature and more to do with color rendering. Most of the commonly available CFLs regardless of color temp have a CRI of around 80. This is good enough for a utility area but it can distort some colors to the point that a person finds it annoying.


Both color rendering and color temperature are significant. For example, I consider halogen lamps at 3100K vastly superior to long-life incandescent lamps at 2650k, yet since both are essentially black body radiators, they are both CRI of 100. 

In most places around the house I've replaced lamps with 3500K CFLs. Those only have CRI of 80, yet I greatly prefer them to incandescent lamps of CRI 100 -- I'm not just "putting up" with something inferior to save money, I actually prefer them (the fact they use less power and generate less heat is a big improvement as well).

I find that I have poorer perception of contrast and detail when working under lights with excessive red/amber output. In many cases I've replaced 65W incandescent lamps with 15W 2700K CFLs. Those seemed "too dim". I replaced those with _9 watt_ 3500-4000K CFLs in the same fixture and all of a sudden could see a lot more clearly with less light. IMHO 3500K is probably the best compromise for a situation where the wife wants 2700K, and the husband wants 5000K. Anywhere in the 3500k-5000k range is fine with me. 4200k would be ideal, but unfortunately CRI seems to be bad for lamps at that color temp (why it's possible to have 87CRI 3500K, and 92CRI 5000K, but only _75_CRI 4200K is beyond me...)



> Another reason I think CFLs may not be catching on is precisely because they're trying so hard to match the incandescent bulb with a fluorescent source. The only way to get warm white is to decrease the amount of blue phosphor while increasing the red one. The problem with this approach, especially in a bulb with spiky emission spectra and medium CRI like a triphosphor CFL, is that there is still a disproportionate amount of blue in the spectrum even though the light color appears yellow. Since the light source is yellow, the eye expects a spectrum similar to that of a broadband source at the same color temperature. This means very little blue in the spectrum. Ever notice how blue looks purple under incandescent but still relatively blue under warm white CFLs? This is at the heart of the problem. Higher color temperature CFLs, even with mediocre CRIs of 80 or so, don't suffer as much from this problem because the eye expects a higher proportion of blue. This is why we would be better off if they would just stop selling CFLs with color temperatures less than about 3500K (better yet 5000K), and also focus on getting CRI into the 90s as cheaply as possible (those full spectrum CFLs are ridiculously pricey for what they are). Ditto for recent attempts to create "warm white" LEDs. Stop trying to imitate what is quite honestly a less than ideal light source with other technologies!


Agreed. IMHO, Sylvania's decision to use 3000K as their "warm white" instead of 2700 like most other brands is a good one -- it still has that incandescent look (closer to halogen) yet doesn't suffer the horrible color rendering of the 2700K CFLs I've used/seen. Everyone I've convinced to try 3500K lamps has liked them though -- they're essentially the same color temperature as the "Reveal" filtered incandescent lamps, so certainly people who use those (less efficient than regular incan) should switch to the 3500K CFL.

I think another reason a lot of people dont like CFLs is that the ones designed for recessed ceiling fixtures often only start up at about 20% brightness -- this is done because the mercury amalgam is designed to operate at a higher temperature -- leading to extended life (running an normal CFL at elevated temperature leads to huge drops in output and premature failure) The problem is that until the lamps actually get hot, their output is dimmer. Also, in many cases, CFL lamps are bigger and thus doesn't emit light as effectively in fixtures designed for incandescent. 

The best CFLs I have personally used -- both in terms of the smallest and closest to incan for light distribution, and best color rendering, are the N:Vision brand at Home Depot in 3500K. Their 2700K bunch is also the closest to incandescent of any I've seen (though even _true_ incandescnet I don't like much anymore).


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 30, 2007)

brickbat said:


> WE would be better off? Speak for yourself.
> 
> Where I happen to live (3rd rock from sun) the daylight color temperature isn't constant throughout the day. In fact, at dusk, it generally gets warmer, and makes for a nice transition to my yucky 2700K lamps, which suit me quite nicely, thanks.


I think you missed the point entirely, the point being that discontinuous sources like fluorescents poorly reproduce broadband low color temperature light sources. Perhaps with LEDs that will change, but the low-cost triphosphor fluorescent technology used in CFLs just isn't up to it. However, fluorescents, even lower cost ones, do a better (i.e. more believeable to the brain) job reproducing higher color temperature broadband sources even if they are still discontinuous, so this is what they should stick to. If you're one who can tolerate the poor light quality of 2700K CFLs, even when compared to standard incandescents, then wonderful. According to the article a sizeable number can't so they still use incandescent. I proposed what I feel may be a valid reason why. There could be others. For example, I personally feel the way many say they "like" the look of incandescent could be purely force of habit from living under that type of light for all their lives. After all, they mostly use 5000K in Japan. If the preference were dictated by evolutionary or biological factors then there wouldn't be such marked differences in preference across cultures, or even individuals in the same culture. My own preferences actually go all the way back to childhood where I actually preferred to work under the admittedly crappy cool-white magnetic-ballasted halophosphor fluorescents since I found incandescents even worse. I liked daylight better of course, but after sunset that obviously wasn't an option.

Regarding sunset and the transition you mention, by the time the sun is close enough to the horizon to get to ~3000K it would be so dark indoors that the lights would have been turned on already long before. I never really analyzed it exactly, but I'd say roughly half an hour before sunset not enough outdoor light comes indoors to be useful (of course this depends to a great extent on the window size, direction, etc). The color temperature of the sun around then is in the 4000K area. The point here is that indoor natural lighting at a color temp much less than 4000K is both very dim and very short-lived, so lighting with 2700K is more like an abrupt transition from roughly 4000K natural lighting to 2700K artificial lighting, unless of course you let your rooms go almost completely dark before you turn the lights on. 4000K artificial lighting would probably represent an almost seamless transition. Of course, if used during the day to supplement natural light in shady rooms they would still appear a bit too yellow.

I'm not really rallying against low color temp sources here, but rather against poor imitations of them by technologies better suited to higher color temps. The holy grail of indoor lighting would be a very efficient source with a spectrum mimicking a broadband source, and having adjustable color temperature to suit the user's preference. That's really what I want. I feel LEDs can eventually deliver it. You and I can both buy the exact same bulb. You can adjust it to 2700K or whatever you feel most comfortable under. I can adjust it to 5000K or whatever I happen to like. Better yet, if you live with someone who doesn't share you preferences you can each adjust the lamp to your liking when you're in the room. It frankly has annoyed me for a long time that I can't readily obtain lighting I like in most retail establishments. Home Depot has a few 5500K CFLs, but doesn't even have the $10 six-pack of 14 watters that is available in 2700K. Most stores dealing with residential lighting only have incandescent-based lighting which isn't even an option for me at this point. I'm keeping my hopes up that the coming LED general lighting market devotes more effort towards catering to those who prefer lighting closer to sunlight since I more or less feel shut out right now by the general lighting powers that be. And I still feel that we would all be better off (less eyestrain and other vision problems) if more people at least gave decent full-spectrum lighting a chance for a few months instead of dismissing it out of hand.

I also tend to agree with 2xTrinity that 3500K is a great compromise lighting. It's not so yellow that people like me instinctively go yuck nor is it so cool that those who prefer incandescent cringe.


----------



## 2xTrinity (May 1, 2007)

> You and I can both buy the exact same bulb. You can adjust it to 2700K or whatever you feel most comfortable under. I can adjust it to 5000K or whatever I happen to like. Better yet, if you live with someone who doesn't share you preferences you can each adjust the lamp to your liking when you're in the room. It frankly has annoyed me for a long time that I can't readily obtain lighting I like in most retail establishments. Home Depot has a few 5500K CFLs, but doesn't even have the $10 six-pack of 14 watters that is available in 2700K.


The home Depot I shop at sells 6 packs for $10 (in 2700k), and 4 packs for $8 in 3500k, and 5000k, which isn't too much more. Similar pricing (smaller package, a little bit more) for the 3500k and 5000k in the flood lamps as well. 

The only thing that bugs me is that there are no real energy-efficient and/or cooler white solutions at the time being for small lamps, such as R-20 reflector lamps, and the small MR-16 halogen lamps. I'm hoping someone will come out with some good RGB or two-phosphor LEDs to fill the void sometime (spotlights won't work with fluorerscent at all -- as there must be a point-source to focus a beam)




> Most stores dealing with residential lighting only have incandescent-based lighting which isn't even an option for me at this point. I'm keeping my hopes up that the coming LED general lighting market devotes more effort towards catering to those who prefer lighting closer to sunlight since I more or less feel shut out right now by the general lighting powers that be. And I still feel that we would all be better off (less eyestrain and other vision problems) if more people at least gave decent full-spectrum lighting a chance for a few months instead of dismissing it out of hand.


Yeah. Instead of kludgy retrofit CFLs IMHO it would be a lot more effective if there were fixtures designed to use small linear tubes such as T5s, with integral ballasts, and a built-in dimmer control. Something lke that would be more efficient, and more reliable than the CFL lamps sold today. At our local Lowes/Home Depot they only had about 4 electronic ballasted fluorescent fixtures in the entire store, meant for garage use. 95% of what they are selling is the nauseating 60 CRI, 120Hz flickering T12 crap. 

I also found it somewhat Ironic that they had a big banner touting these 60CRI 70 lm/W T12s as "energy saving" when 3 feet away they had buried some 100 lumen per watt, 89CRI T8s...


----------



## crewcabrob (May 1, 2007)

Funny you guys brought this up at this time, I have been going through and replacing all of the incans in the house with CFL. I read the PM article referenced in this thread and had to laugh when they said the average American home has 45 light bulbs. I have replaced 102 bulbs in the house and have about at least 51 more to go. And then on top of that, I have a couple of the odd-ball lights I need to come up with solutions for.

Here are my findings so far based on my real world observations at my house:

The Philips bulbs take the longest to warm up and also start out the dimiest. 

GEs seem to start the brightest and warm up fastest to full brightness.

Feit and the Home Depot brand seem to run about the same as far as initial brightnesss, but the HD brand seems to warm up faster.

Sylvania bulbs seem to be a mixed bag, some have been great and others have been very poor performers. The lottery is very pronounced with this brand.

After 100+ bulb changes, you can see I am in this very deep. My wife has said very little, but my kids are at oposite ends: the son loves his in his room and the girls hate them in thier rooms and the bathrooms. I can't believe my wife hasn't complained yet, since those Philips bulbs that are slow are in our bathroom. In the morning it isn't so bad, she turns them on, goes into another part of the bathroom and by the time she is back, they are bright. But in the middle of the day or evening, the 40 second warm up is not acceptable to me. She has been nice about it though.  

Any one try the torpedo type candle bubls yet? I have 32 of them I need to replace.

Rob


----------



## hank (May 1, 2007)

>torpedo type

I've tried half a dozen, so far they all burn out real fast, if the little wire to the center contact doesn't desolder itself first and leave the threaded part stuck in the socket and the plastic part rotating freely.

Trying to resolder the center wire usually makes the contact fall out, it's just a little thin blob of solder in a piece of cheap glass or ceramic at the bottom of the thread.

All in all, garbage so far.

Don't fail to check whether the added blue changes your sleep patterns; it caught us good after we replaced all our incandescents, and took about five years to figure it out.


----------



## Phaserburn (May 1, 2007)

I like the cool temp of daylight bulbs, but don't care for the overall effect they can have in a room. To compensate, I use the amber/tan lamp shades. They help create warmer glow and ambience, while still providing the sharper temp I like. Using daylight bulbs with white lampshades is like bleaching out the color in your room a few levels. Compare and see for yourself.


----------



## 2xTrinity (May 1, 2007)

hank said:


> >torpedo type
> 
> I've tried half a dozen, so far they all burn out real fast, if the little wire to the center contact doesn't desolder itself first and leave the threaded part stuck in the socket and the plastic part rotating freely.
> 
> ...


It's tough to say. In many cases, I found if I want to get to sleep faster, I've been better off workinng with LEDs (which have a huge amount of blue in them) -- the reason is that they simply emit less light than our typical fixtures that will light up an entire room. I find it's the volume of light, rather than the color, that seems to keep me from falling asleep if I'm starting to get tired. Also, as I mentioned, with 3500K CFLs, I find I can see just as effectively with less overall light compared to incandescent, and especailly compared to 2700k CFL.

Also, the biggest dosage of blue light for most people is probably not from light bulbs anyway, but from computer monitors -- most are set to 6500k, and that's essentially a bright light that is stared into for long periods of time. Set the "blue" on my monitor to zero is out of the question (although mine is set to a 5000k white point, and run on a dimmer setting than the typical monitor)


----------



## brickbat (May 1, 2007)

2xTrinity said:


> ...I think another reason a lot of people dont like CFLs is that the ones designed for recessed ceiling fixtures often only start up at about 20% brightness....



That's a good point. First impressions are important, and if a new CFL user perceives 'dimness' in the first few seconds of their trial, it takes a lot for the human brain to get past that...


----------



## pedalinbob (May 2, 2007)

"The best CFLs I have personally used -- both in terms of the smallest and closest to incan for light distribution, and best color rendering, are the N:Vision brand at Home Depot in 3500K. Their 2700K bunch is also the closest to incandescent of any I've seen (though even true incandescent I don't like much anymore)."

Excellent discussion!
The above statement grabbed me. I have some of the N:Vision's (2700k) sprinkled through the house, and agree that they are surprisingly good. The color is very tolerable. They also warm up the fastest of any CFL's I have tried (nearly instant!), and they tolerate being in outside fixtures very well, even in the Michigan cold...which is amazing because my 4' tubes in the garage barely fire once ambient temps approach freezing.
It sounds crazy, but I am tempted to replace the eight 4' fluoro tubes with banks of N:Vision CFL's.


----------



## hank (May 3, 2007)

Learned here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/compact_fluorescent_lights_are.php

New tech General Electric CFLs 
http://www.gelighting.com/na/busine...library/sell_sheets/downloads/cfl/biax_32.pdf

beat the "cold=slow start" problem by using an amalgam instead of liquid mercury-- better controlling the level of mercury vapor in the tube; those work in various orientations without affecting lifetime.


----------



## KillingTime (May 3, 2007)

Energy saving Mains GU10

Has anyone got these in their house?

I've just bought a few for some downlights. 9W CFL. They're meant to be a 45W equivalent, but so much of the tube is hidden in the fitting, hardly any of the light makes it out - when I let the thing warm up after turn on and pointed it around the room, I couldn't help thinking 'this reminds me of my old maglite before I upgraded it to a tri P4 seoul'.

I've got some standard GU10 incans, and the 20W incan seems to match in terms of light output on a ceiling bounce test. I suppose burning roughly half the power is some improvement, but it's just too dark. I'm going to need so many my ceiling will end up looking like a sieve.

The pendant lights do such a better job of lighting up the room, but downlights are all the rage lately.


----------



## brickbat (May 3, 2007)

hank said:


> ...beat the "cold=slow start" problem by using an amalgam instead of liquid mercury....



Amalgam lamps have a long warm-up time, shown in the GE reference to be about 2 minutes. Their advantage is constant light output over varying ambient temperatures, once they are warmed up.


----------



## hank (May 3, 2007)

Jim, that's correct; when I wrote "cold=slow" I meant 

"cold temperature equals slow startup" 

-- where below 40 F. in the classic type there's not enough mercury in the form of vapor to get a good electrical arc going, so it takes a long flickering time to heat the tube up to vaporize enough mercury to work properly.

Our GE "Post Light" type CFLs do show the pattern illustrated in that GE PDF file -- bright, dim, then slow return to brightness over up to five minutes. Maybe that's the amalgam type, it's not specified.

That's why we have also put in some lamps with amber LED bulbs for instant-on and brief light needed at night, when we don't need a lot of light for very long. 

(I haven't yet convinced my beloved to expect to find a handy flashlight, tho' I've got one hanging on a hook under almost every light switch by now. But at least there's no problem when the electricity fails, finding one easily.)


----------



## Lighthouse one (May 3, 2007)

I bought a number of the newer "daylight" cpf bulbs. I like the color better, and they seem brighter than the regular cpf bulbs. They also turn on fairly quickly. I tried several LED bulbs from DX, but they are a waste. One 61 led bulb burnt out in a week, and the others are too much a tight throw.


----------



## Turbo DV8 (May 4, 2007)

2xTrinity said:


> In many cases, I found if I want to get to sleep faster, I've been better off workinng with LEDs.. I find it's the volume of light, rather than the color, that seems to keep me from falling asleep if I'm starting to get tired.


 
I agree - it's definitely the volume of light that matters. When I have my Thor-X on my nightstand shining at my face, it definitely keeps me from falling asleep. I'll try LED's tonight instead. But, I tend to fall asleep fastest by turning the lights off altogether.


----------



## Norm (May 4, 2007)

Paul_in_Maryland said:


> It exactly describes our house! My wife prefers the "warmer" yellowish light of a 2700K to 3000K bulb. I prefer 5000K. I've had to replace the 5000Ks over her sink, my daughter's, and my mother-in-law's with 3000K.


All I can say is don't let "her" see that comment.


----------

