illegal to buy light bulbs...

[Organics North]

Quote:

Agreed.

Are those that do not like fluorescents.. Have actually tried the new high end CFL bulbs? Flickering long tube type fluorescents bother me yes! but not the new CFL or the new high end ballasts.

ON

 

[HLAC]

PCBs, lead pipes, and asbestos are toxic. Incandescent light bulbs are not. CFL's are. Go figure.

You might think that limiting air conditioning or how much heat you can use is dramatic... but it has already come up and will certainly come up again. (look up Programmable Communicating Thermostats... thermostats that a controlling authority can control wirelessly)

Air condition is just a comfort for most of us. Very, very few people would die soley due to a lack of AC. Hundreds of millions of people live in toasty climates without one just fine. We accept the loss of lives for increase mpg in our cars... also imposed by the government. I suppose some would accept the loss of lives by limiting AC access too.
"..analysis of crash data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that, in the years since CAFE standards were mandated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars. This translates into 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained by the standards."



If I want to cool my house by leaving my refrigerator open in the summer and keep it warm in the winter by turning on 200 60 watt incandescent bulbs... that should be up to me. Not the government. (as long as I can pay my electric bill)
[Personally, I have switched almost entirely to CFLs. I keep my heat set at 62 in the winter and I haven't used the AC in months. (even when it got to 92 degrees in the house) My objection is all about the proper limitation of government. Not electricity usage.]

I'm just amazed at how many people are willing to give up their freedoms for a nanny state government.

"Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it."
— John Adams

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Poor Adams. Actually, I feel sorry for all our Founders. If they saw our current government, they would run them out of office at gunpoint, tar-and-feather them, and THEN punish them. Heaven only knows what the Confederates would do.

 

[mom'sfolly]

Yep, they would have issues. Mainly because we let people other than white, land-owning males vote.

This thread is supposed to be about light bulbs, and maybe energy; not the possible intent of people 200 years dead.

 

[cmjust0]

Quote:
You should move to Kentucky. Much to my own chagrin, I suspect we're about to elect Rand Paul.

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...

Bright lights of any kind annoy me, generally. I'm not one to usually want a whole lot of lights on, be they incandescent or flourescent.

Speaking of paintings, if you're familiar with Edvard Munch's "The Scream," that's what I'm probably going to look like when Paul beats Conway.

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.

I've been threatened to be kicked off this forum too many times. It's important that I maintain a certain level of veneer over my vitriol at this point.

 

[Q9]

mom'sfolly :

Yep, they would have issues. Mainly because we let people other than white, land-owning males vote.

This thread is supposed to be about light bulbs, and maybe energy; not the possible intent of people 200 years dead.

You're right about the thread - I always go off topic like this. This calls for a PM.​

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
I would like to see that report. Sounds like a load to me. Ive worked more wrecks in my life than I care to count. Older, bigger an heavier cars hold up better in a crash but the people in them dont. Besides the 1972 suburban an the 2002 suburban are the same size. So are the 1972 VW an the 2010 VW.

If you crash the new suburban in to the new bug both have a better chance of the passengers walking away than if you did the same in the 1970s. An gas mileage is down in both those examples not up by the way. As are the mileage in most cars of equal size.

If you want a big truck, Kenworth is pumping them out every day. If ya want a small high MPG car SmartCar is pumping them out every day. You have every opportunity to buy an drive ether.

You can also go buy a restored 69 Dodge charger for the same price as a new Dodge charger If you really think there safer.

 

[Q9]

mom'sfolly :

Yep, they would have issues. Mainly because we let people other than white, land-owning males vote.

This thread is supposed to be about light bulbs, and maybe energy; not the possible intent of people 200 years dead.

You know what? I take back what I just said. This thread has EVERYTHING to do with the intent of people 200 years dead. If we let ONE unconstitutional measure slip through, where does it end? For some of us, there can be NO compromise on this. Congress is either limited, or it isn't. We cannot simply debate the morality and utility of a bill; we must know if it is LEGAL first! All other considerations are secondary.

Show me where this is permitted! If you can, I will walk outside and roll in my chickens' poo.​

 

[HLAC]

They're not talking about 70's cars.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html


Of course the not-at-all unexpected blow back to this was the call to ban heavier vehicles.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

That page says changes that took effect in 1978.

An they are only quoting half sentences. If those studys said what they claim that they do I would think they could have quoted more that half a sentince at a time.


Context is everything an they are spouting plenty of spin an no context.


If you read the study its says that when applied to model years 1978 to 1987 "It predicts that if cars had been 100 pounds lighter, fatalities in car-to-car collisions would have been reduced by 0.8 percent."

The study throws all kinds of numbers out there but does not say heavier is safer. It does say death rates are different for different classes of cars. When you put the numbers of deaths in a Neon beside the numbers of deaths in a Cope Deville there going to be different... Not from weight but because the Cady is a safer built car an usually driven safer.