illegal to buy light bulbs...

[cmjust0]

Quote:
Why? Well, because people would die without heat and air conditioning. Literally. Old folks, babies, etc.. Think about it.

Comparing the perceived inconvenience of having to switch lightbulbs with disallowing people to stay reasonably warm or cool -- possibly causing their death -- is...well, it's a bit dramatic, in my opinion.

Don't you think? I mean, does that *really* seem like a reasonable comparison?

They should tell us how many square feet we should live in. How many pots of coffee we make. How big our tv should be. How many hours our computers can be on.

-The better off we'd all be right?-

Congress should probably ban backyard chickens too. After all, it takes more energy to have them than to not... incubators, brooders, heat lamps, heated waterers, electric fences... etc...

I'm sure people made arguments similar to these just before the government banned asbestos, PCBs, lead plumbing pipes, DDT, DES, etc.. I suspect certain people also got really angry when the government started requiring catalytic converters, higher gas mileage, and a certain level of safety features in automobiles..

Having said that, I'm sure there's someone out there who feels like their life has been ruined because they can no longer go fire up their 6mpg car and drive around with no seatbelt, listening to a straight pipe exhaust thunder along as they drive to the hardware store for a few lead pipes, some asbestos insulation, and a big bottle of DDT..

And that's fine..

But I think, as a society, we've progressed to a point where we've realized that -- as fun and rebelious as that sounds -- it was never a good idea.​

 

[TigerLilly]

Quote:
If it only takes 10-15 minutes of exposure to flourescent lighting to bring on a migraine, then how can it be that replacing the incandescents in your house with flourescents is how you figured out that you had a problem? Seems to me that you would have figured that out long ago by spending more than 10-15 mintues in the grocery store, any given office building, hospital, doctor's office, shopping mall, schoolroom, tractor supply store, dentist's chair, restaurant, etc?

Forgive me, but it seems suspect that all those places and more -- at least one of which, the average person visits on the average day -- have been using flourescent lighting for years, yet it's only when incandescent bulbs are slated to be phased out by an unpopular Congress that people begin to make the claim that they trigger migraines..

Now, I'm not sayin'.....

I'm just sayin'...

I never said I didn't have migraines after being in any of those places. I did & still do if I don't wear sunglasses. I am not a doctor, therefore I had to be diagnosed before putting the pieces of the puzzle together. With all due respect, don't assume. The fact is that because my ceilings are not as high as those in office buildings or stores, I get migraines faster at home than I would in a place with high ceilings. BTW, no, I am not an average person and don't necessarily visit those places on the average day.
BTW, my situation has nothing to do with the incandescents being phased out--I've stocked up on them for a long time just because I don't WANT to run out for fear of the health repercussions. My choice to be vocal about it has everything to do with this news that they may be phased out. I am not alone in having this problem. And I don't CLAIM that they trigger migraines, I have a diagnosis from a couple of doctors (real ones...not message board wannabes) and am currently on daily meds to keep them at bay.
And I AM just sayin'...

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Or we could just find more effecient/cheaper sources of power. If only they existed. Wouldn't it be nice if we could create massive amounts of energy with practically no emissions? If only we could discover a way to harness nuclear energy. Oh, wait, we have, but for some reason Greens don't like it, despite the fact that it has been proven to be the single safest form of energy next to solar and hydro, and is in fact the most effecient form.

When there's a demand, though, businesses will find a way to satisfy that demand. Currently, though, all other options to incandescents have serious problems - for flourescents, the problems are migraines in some people, and mercury. Incandescents are simply the most economical or safest for many people. Congress has no right to do anything like this - a quick scan over that darned Constitution shows that.

 

[mom'sfolly]

One of the biggest things we could do as a society to save energy would be to turn off lights in vacant buildings. I wonder just how much less coal we would have to burn if office buildings, stores, and businesses were required to turn out the lights during off hours. The amount of light pollution in this country is astonishing. Every parking lot is lit up like daylight, even if the business is closed. Street lights are not focused downward to light only the ground, but light leaks everywhere. Lights on, nobody home, virtually everywhere.

http://akhomesteaders.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=foodcache

 

[texascowboy1979]

Quote:
Please just need to keep there noses out of business they know nothing about.

 

[Q9]

mom'sfolly :

One of the biggest things we could do as a society to save energy would be to turn off lights in vacant buildings. I wonder just how much less coal we would have to burn if office buildings, stores, and businesses were required to turn out the lights during off hours. The amount of light pollution in this country is astonishing. Every parking lot is lit up like daylight, even if the business is closed. Street lights are not focused downward to light only the ground, but light leaks everywhere. Lights on, nobody home, virtually everywhere.

http://akhomesteaders.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=foodcache

True, that. It cannot be legislated by Congress, though.

That's an issue for the state, or better yet, the city.​

 

[cmjust0]

Quote:
FWIW, I have no problem with nuclear energy. I was actually thrilled when Obama announced plans to put $8-billion dollars toward the creation of this country's first new nuclear power plants in 30 years, saying "Investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step." I couldn't agree more!

When there's a demand, though, businesses will find a way to satisfy that demand. Currently, though, all other options to incandescents have serious problems - for flourescents, the problems are migraines in some people, and mercury. Incandescents are simply the most economical or safest for many people.

As for migraines...the jury's still waaaaay out on that one. I find it hard to believe that folks' doctors are telling them that their migraines are being caused by CFLs when the issue hasn't even been put to study yet. No doctor with any sense is going to make that kind of claim without being able to back it up with science..

As for mercury, what mercury is involved with manufacturing and operating a CFL bulb is more than offset by the amount of mercury that'll be spewed into the atmosphere by powerplants as they churn out what extra electricity is required to power inefficient incandescent bulbs. That's not hyperbole, either -- it's fact. According to GE, a coal-fired power plant will emit about 3.3mg of mercury to produce the power it takes to use an average CFL.. The average CFL bulb contains 4-5mg of mercury... That's around 8mg of total 'mercury accountability,' if you will, for the average CFL bulb.. That same research shows that the same coal-fired plant will emit 13.6mg of mercury to produce enough power to run the average incandescent bulb.

Politicians and pundits may lie -- but numbers never do!

Congress has no right to do anything like this - a quick scan over that darned Constitution shows that.

Congress has a responsibility to protect this country. Right now, one of the biggest threats to our national security is our insatiable appetite for energy.. Not only does it force us to have to buy copious amounts of energy from countries that don't particularly care for us, but the cost alone to US citizens is unnecessarily siphoning billions upon billions of dollars out of the US economy.. That's a problem!

The way I see it, if the government can ban PCBs, lead pipes, and asbestos, and if they can require me to wear a seatbelt when I'm driving an automobile -- all of which have, I'm sure, faced numerous legal challenges in courtrooms nationwide -- then they should have no problem doing something so insignificant as phasing out the sale of a certain kind of lightbulb.

I'm sure you disagree with that, but...well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that particular point, I suppose.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
FWIW, I have no problem with nuclear energy. I was actually thrilled when Obama announced plans to put $8-billion dollars toward the creation of this country's first new nuclear power plants in 30 years, saying "Investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step." I couldn't agree more!

When there's a demand, though, businesses will find a way to satisfy that demand. Currently, though, all other options to incandescents have serious problems - for flourescents, the problems are migraines in some people, and mercury. Incandescents are simply the most economical or safest for many people.

As for migraines...the jury's still waaaaay out on that one. I find it hard to believe that folks' doctors are telling them that their migraines are being caused by CFLs when the issue hasn't even been put to study yet. No doctor with any sense is going to make that kind of claim without being able to back it up with science..

As for mercury, what mercury is involved with manufacturing and operating a CFL bulb is more than offset by the amount of mercury that'll be spewed into the atmosphere by powerplants as they churn out what extra electricity is required to power inefficient incandescent bulbs. That's not hyperbole, either -- it's fact. According to GE, a coal-fired power plant will emit about 3.3mg of mercury to produce the power it takes to use an average CFL.. The average CFL bulb contains 4-5mg of mercury... That's around 8mg of total 'mercury accountability,' if you will, for the average CFL bulb.. That same research shows that the same coal-fired plant will emit 13.6mg of mercury to produce enough power to run the average incandescent bulb.

Politicians and pundits may lie -- but numbers never do!

Congress has no right to do anything like this - a quick scan over that darned Constitution shows that.

Congress has a responsibility to protect this country. Right now, one of the biggest threats to our national security is our insatiable appetite for energy.. Not only does it force us to have to buy copious amounts of energy from countries that don't particularly care for us, but the cost alone to US citizens is unnecessarily siphoning billions upon billions of dollars out of the US economy.. That's a problem!

The way I see it, if the government can ban PCBs, lead pipes, and asbestos, and if they can require me to wear a seatbelt when I'm driving an automobile -- all of which have, I'm sure, faced numerous legal challenges in courtrooms nationwide -- then they should have no problem doing something so insignificant as phasing out the sale of a certain kind of lightbulb.

I'm sure you disagree with that, but...well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that particular point, I suppose.

Actually, I disagree with Congress doing most things it does.

I'm very strict in the interpretation of the Constitution, as it's what the vast majority of the Founders thought, most prominently Madison and Jefferson. Madison is the father of the Constitution so he knows what he's talking about. The government actually can't do what it does; these things, again, are an issue for the states, although I disagree with them anyway.

Also, CFLs give me minor headaches if I get stuck in a small room with them for too long. It's not so bad if there are other sources of light, but man, in an otherwise dark room those things HURT! Actually, the light reminds me a little bit of the lighting in paintings by El Greco... As for the mercury, just one more reason that nuclear is the way to go.

Odd, you seem to be remaining friendly, which is highly unusual on the internet.

 

[Orchid]

Quote:
Then why not go whole hog and have Congress step in and control our heating and cooling too? Get rid of Air Conditioners, put temperature controls on our heat. Heating and cooling count for 56% of our energy use compared to the piddly amount we use on lighting.

They should tell us how many square feet we should live in. How many pots of coffee we make. How big our tv should be. How many hours our computers can be on.

-The better off we'd all be right?-

Congress should probably ban backyard chickens too. After all, it takes more energy to have them than to not... incubators, brooders, heat lamps, heated waterers, electric fences... etc...

Actually, there have already been mandates passed for more efficient cooling equipment and more environmentally safe coolants for those units. Currently manufacturers cannot produce an air conditioner or heat pump under 13 SEER and R22 coolant is being phased out in favor of R410A. (I own a plumbing, heating and cooling company. We work with this stuff every day.) Is it a pain in some regards? Yes. But it allows people to still have all the comforts while using less energy, which I don't think anyone can deny is a GOOD thing.

 

[CANDLE98]

I think that the light bulb thing is crap! lets worry about the cars not getting good enough fuel economy or something else besides light bulbs! I am going to stock up on some too! I like the extra light in the coop because the girls lay more in the winter with the extra light so having a ceramic heater wouldn't do it justice. I am sure those ceramic heaters use the same amount of energy.....I am going to look it up!