Downloaded from http://inpractice.bmj.com/ on June 15, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
A PRACTITIONER PONDERS
A practitioner ponders
Like so many people of my age,
I seem to have morphed into my
parents and now spend half my
time at home grumbling to my
children that they need to turn off
the lights when they leave a room.
Unfortunately, I also seem to spend
half my time at work telling my
staff the same thing. Despite cajoling, offering enticements and withholding privileges, offspring and
staff alike seem determined not to
flick that switch, with the result
that I frequently find 200 watts or
more gaily illuminating an empty
bedroom, a deserted staff room or
an unoccupied consulting room.
While economic savings may
make some sense with my children
(‘Do you want more pocket money
or not?’) I obviously wouldn’t
dream of employing this argument
with my staff. Instead, I point out
how their inability to leave an
uninhabited room in darkness is
contributing – however infinitesimally – to our carbon footprint.
They tend to give me a bemused
smile and suggest that if I led by
example, switching off everything
when I leave a room, the practice
would be less likely to resemble
some sort of reference beacon that
can be seen for miles around.
The follow up is to discuss the
matter (yet again) at a practice
meeting under the agenda item
‘Making the practice more ecofriendly’, which always provokes a
lively debate. Someone will coun-
80
In Practice February 2010 | Volume 32 | 80
ter the argument that lights should
be switched off by proposing that
we replace all our incandescent
bulbs with low-energy, long-life
bulbs. Great in theory, terrible in
practice. Stick in some of these new
spiral-shaped gizmos, switch on
and . . . wait. Gradually, a dim glow
appears, which spreads sluggishly.
After about five minutes, there’s
enough light to read, if you don’t
mind straining your eyes. There’s
definitely not enough illumination
to look down a dog’s throat or peer
into a rabbit’s ears. I’m convinced
that, whatever the manufacturer
may say, a 100 watt equivalent lowenergy bulb does not give out the
same light as a 100 watt incandescent bulb.
As the meeting progresses, my
partner will usually point out that
he’s read somewhere that long life
bulbs are not as good as claimed –
they may be energy efficient, but
they take additional resources in
manufacture, cost a lot to buy and
contribute more to the carbon footprint when destroyed. There’s no
doubt that they look odd and that
some light shades don’t fit them.
You can try these new low-energy
halogen whatnots, but apparently
they get hotter than normal bulbs
and so increase the risk of fire. And
then some of these new spiral bulbs
contain mercury so care is needed
when it comes to disposal – and
don’t, whatever you do, drop one
of them.
As ever with our practice meetings, the arguments go around in
circles for the best part of an hour
but no decision is reached, and the
only conclusion to be drawn is that
discussing the pros and cons of trying to make our practice a greener
place generates, as so many bulbs
do, more heat than light.
doi:10.1136/inp.c520
Downloaded from http://inpractice.bmj.com/ on June 15, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
A practitioner ponders
In Practice 2010 32: 80
doi: 10.1136/inp.c520
Updated information and services can be found at:
http://inpractice.bmj.com/content/32/2/80.citation
These include:
Email alerting
service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to:
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To order reprints go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/