Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member agrneydgrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,760

    Govt protecting you from light bulbs

    Arn't you glad you have a government that wants to make your decisions for you? Arn't you glad they have YOUR welfare in mind? Arn't you glad they still know what is important to the American people?


    Congress still protecting you – from lightbulbs!
    Bachmann says Republican challenge to reverse law forced to 'collect dust'

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: September 23, 2008
    9:32 pm Eastern


    By Chelsea Schilling
    © 2008 WorldNetDaily



    U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann

    An act sponsored by 25 representatives asking the government to reconsider its ban on incandescent light bulbs has been stalled in committee – and the leading sponsor is faulting Democratic leadership.

    The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act highlights growing concerns over the safety and environmental impact of compact fluorescent bulbs, or CFLs. Before the sale of incandescent bulbs is banned, the representatives are asking the comptroller general to prove replacement with CFLs will be cost-effective, reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent in the United States by 2025 and that the bulbs will not pose a health risk to the general public.

    However, the act has been delayed in the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality since March 14 – more than six months. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., leading sponsor of the legislation, told WND Democrats are not concerned about pushing the act through.

    "The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, H.R. 5616, is currently collecting dust in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, held up by Democrat leadership that refuses to make this legislation a priority," Bachmann said. "The Democrat leadership fills the congressional schedule with naming post offices and ends the work week early rather than do the people's business."

    She continued, "They don't want to take up the real issues that make a difference in people's lives because those issues require them to make tough choices."

    As WND reported, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed into law in December, phasing out the use of traditional, incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFLs beginning in 2012 and culminating in a ban on incandescent bulbs in 2014.

    Concerns about mercury in the bulbs and mercury vapor released when a CFL is broken led Bachmann and a group of legislators in the House to second-guess the government's choice.

    (Story continues below)




    "Each light bulb contains between 3-6 milligrams of mercury," Bachmann said earlier in an MSNBC interview. "There's a question about how that mercury will fill up our landfills, and also if you break one in your home, you'll have mercury that instantaneously vaporizes in your home. That poses a very real threat to children, disabled people, pets, senior citizens. And I just think it's very important that Americans have the choice to decide, would they like an incandescent or a (CFL)?"

    Bachmann introduced the bill in March because, she said, she thought Congress had "acted a bit prematurely" in taking a popular environmentalist cause and making it a government dictate. She told WND Democrats want control, and forcing Americans to buy CFLs is just one more way to interfere with their daily choices.

    "The light bulb ban exposes the Democrat mindset," she said. "They want to limit consumer choice and tell American families what products they can and can't buy.

    "The light bulbs they are forcing on American families are not new," she continued. "Consumers have just been rejecting them for a variety of reasons: cost, aesthetics, health and environment concerns. At a time when hard-working taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet, the last thing they need is to have the government forcing them to purchase a more expensive and potentially unsafe product."

    Following the introduction of H.R. 5616, the bill was sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and then sent to the Subcommittee on Energy & Air Quality, where it has languished without action or a hearing for since March. But Bachmann has not given up.

    She said, "This act is important because the American people deserve the ability to choose what products they purchase for their homes and families."

  2. #2
    Senior Member IndianaJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,235
    "Each light bulb contains between 3-6 milligrams of mercury," Bachmann said earlier in an MSNBC interview. "There's a question about how that mercury will fill up our landfills, and also if you break one in your home, you'll have mercury that instantaneously vaporizes in your home. That poses a very real threat to children, disabled people, pets, senior citizens. And I just think it's very important that Americans have the choice to decide, would they like an incandescent or a (CFL)?"
    I don't believe in the tooth fairy or 'manmade' global warming.
    The incandescent light bulb is by far the better and safer choice so WHY SWITCH and be poisoned by mercury? If anything, I should think the toxic mercury would be banned...
    We are NOT a nation of immigrants!

  3. #3
    Senior Member Gogo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alipacers Come In All Colors
    Posts
    9,909
    Thursday, August 21, 2008
    DEMING: Fluorescent bulb follies

    COMMENTARY:

    How many persons does it take to change a light bulb? Four hundred, if the people in question are members of the United States Congress. Four hundred is the number of representatives and senators who voted last December to ban incandescent light bulbs.

    Full awareness of this idiocy has not really manifested itself in the public consciousness yet. When it does, there will be an outrage. Beginning in 2012, the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs, starting with the 100-watt bulb, will become illegal. Instead of paying less than 20 cents for a standard incandescent bulb, we will all be forced to purchase compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) for about $3 each or more.

    I'm a frugal person. Like other sensible people, I'm interested in saving energy. But I'm skeptical of the exaggerated claims made for CFLs. When these devices were first introduced several years ago, I bought one, anxious to reap the benefits of the claimed energy savings. I was amazed to find that my new 10,000-hour light bulb burned out in a week. The replacement CFL lasted for three months.

    Much of the advertising copy we have been sold on CFLs contains exaggerated and misleading claims. The fine print is that the average lifetime is not 10,000 hours, but "up to" 10,000 hours. In many applications, the lifetime of a CFL and estimated energy savings are significantly lower than we have been led to believe. For a compact fluorescent bulb to achieve the claimed efficiency, it has to be burned continuously for long periods. If a CFL is left on for only 5-minute periods, it will burn out just as fast as an incandescent bulb. To avoid short cycling, the U.S. Energy Star program advises consumers to leave compact fluorescents on for at least 15 minutes.

    This brings up some interesting questions. What procedure should I follow when I have to go into my bedroom closet for 30 seconds? Should I stay in the closet for 15 minutes, just so the light bulb won't burn out early? Do I have to stay in the bathroom for 15 minutes every time there? What about other lighting applications with short cycles, such as outdoor motion detectors or lights on automatic garage doors? What are the energy savings, if any, of using CFLs in real-life applications instead of idealized laboratory conditions? What sort of moron mandates that people have to use CFLs in applications they are unsuited for?

    It is true that most of the energy utilized by an incandescent bulb goes into heat, not light. But has anyone considered that most of the U.S. is in a temperate climate zone? During a heating month, the heat produced by an incandescent bulb is not wasted, but contributes toward household heating. For most winter months, incandescent bulbs thus achieve an energy efficiency of 100 percent.

    There are other problems with CFLs. As most people know, they contain toxic mercury and cannot be thrown into the trash, but have to be recycled. CFLs become dimmer as they age, and thus again will not perform as advertised. The quality of light from fluorescent bulbs is inferior to incandescent. Standard CFLs won't operate at low temperatures and are thus unsuitable for many outdoor applications.

    Given that the upcoming ban is on manufacture, not possession or use, it would seem the rational person has only one option: to hoard standard incandescent bulbs while they are still available. Unused light bulbs can be stored indefinitely without degradation. At a unit price of less than 20 cents each, it is eminently practical for most persons to lay in a lifetime supply before the 2012 ban takes effect.

    In an ideal world, where the government had some respect for the intelligence of its citizens, consumers would be allowed to make rational decisions about using lighting devices. People would use CFLs in installations they were suited for, indoor applications involving long-use cycles. And we would still be allowed to use 100-watt incandescent bulbs in our bedroom closets, where large amounts of light are needed for short periods. This is known as free-market economics. In the 20th century it came be recognized as a superior system almost everywhere, even in communist China.

    There is one benefit to the light-bulb ban: it serves as a useful voting guide for the coming fall elections. In November, the 86 senators and 314 representatives who judged their constituents as not intelligent enough to choose the correct light bulb will undergo a referendum on their own judgment.

    David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... b-follies/



    I've seen a segment on Fox News on these bulbs and they said they are very dangerous. In fact if one breaks, you should NOT sweep it up. You need to take pieces of cardboard and gently try to get under the mess and get it to a safe canister. This government is in the pocket of GE. I hope they hit this more and more as the time comes up on the ban.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    2,892
    I love American made things and have vintage lamps in my home. All of them have been rewired for safety but most have the original lampshade that clips onto the bulb. I will not be able to use these lamps with the new fluorescent bulbs.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,242
    Mercury can destroy the nervous system, as the Japanese found out years ago. http://www.american.edu/TED/MINAMATA.HTM
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •