Federal Light Bulb Legislation.

[audioguru]

Look at all the Oriental people who are crippled by eating fish contaminated with mercury. The mercury did not come from discarded CFLs.

My electrical utility gave away CFLs for free. Then they were all recalled and replaced because they got too hot and dripped burning plastic. The Chinese manufacturer stole the certification label from a competitor so they were never certified to be safe.
Lots of cheap junk is not safe. It will get worse.

 

[BrownOut]

I just don't see how someone can be comfortable with a guess about risks, when the risks are serious, the damages are likely to be permanent, and the data are out there.

I think we've pretty well established that the risk is very low. No guessing required.

 

[Mr RB]

I agree the risk of mercury poisoning from CFLs is low, you have more risk breathing in the toxic vapours when the HV caps explode. I've had to ventilate my lounge room a couple of times when the CFL electronics blew up and stunk out the whole area.

The thing that ticks me off the most is the whole "banning" issue. It's my choice what lights I prefer, I pay for the damn electricity after all! Why should I lose my right to choose the type of lights I prefer? Aren't any of you worried about your rights? And exactly WHERE does this type of legislation lead... Are they going to ban your car next? Limit your electricity allocated for "entertainment"? Restrict your access to "banned" electronics components so you can't make any "illegal technology"? Be worried.

There's just enough brain-dead do gooders around that will fall for some hype about making light bulbs "illegal" that the legislation gets in, and it sets a precedent where they can start banning anything... I'm not real happy when morons try to take away my future rights.

 

[audioguru]

Many rich people wasting electricity on incandescent "heaters" instead of making efficient light with CFL bulbs cause EVERYBODY to pay more for electricity. My next door neighbour is a single woman who uses more than double the electricity used by my wife and I (I can see the digital numbers on her meter). She was a teacher so her huge pension pays for her use, but I also pay for her waste.

 

[strantor]

I agree the risk of mercury poisoning from CFLs is low, you have more risk breathing in the toxic vapours when the HV caps explode. I've had to ventilate my lounge room a couple of times when the CFL electronics blew up and stunk out the whole area.

The thing that ticks me off the most is the whole "banning" issue. It's my choice what lights I prefer, I pay for the damn electricity after all! Why should I lose my right to choose the type of lights I prefer? Aren't any of you worried about your rights? And exactly WHERE does this type of legislation lead... Are they going to ban your car next? Limit your electricity allocated for "entertainment"? Restrict your access to "banned" electronics components so you can't make any "illegal technology"? Be worried.

There's just enough brain-dead do gooders around that will fall for some hype about making light bulbs "illegal" that the legislation gets in, and it sets a precedent where they can start banning anything... I'm not real happy when morons try to take away my future rights.

Thank you! That's exactly what I was trying to say a few posts back but was hounded about it, and nobody seemed to agree so I let the conversation run its course.

Many rich people wasting electricity on incandescent "heaters" instead of making efficient light with CFL bulbs cause EVERYBODY to pay more for electricity. My next door neighbour is a single woman who uses more than double the electricity used by my wife and I (I can see the digital numbers on her meter). She was a teacher so her huge pension pays for her use, but I also pay for her waste.

I really don't know what you're talking about. You say her "huge pension" (I hope you're joking) pays for her use, but you pay for her waste? How are you paying for her waste? Are you saying that if you shut off all the breakers in your house, you would still get a bill because your neighbor is not a good steward of electricity? AFIK everyone pays for exactly what they use, not what they use + a percentage of what their neighbors use.

 

[audioguru]

You say her "huge pension" (I hope you're joking) pays for her use, but you pay for her waste? How are you paying for her waste?

School teachers and principals make a HUGE pension (unionized). She has so much money coming each month that she doesn't care about wasting electricity.
Her and other rich people's waste causes overload of the grid which causes everybody (including me) to pay for building more generators.

 

[BrownOut]

The risk of getting sick from exploding capacitors is, in all likelyhood, much smaller than even the small risk of breaking bulbs. I've lived with capacitors for decades and have never been made sick by them. Some have failed, even burned up, but I remain well. And I've never had a capacitor to blow up in any of the many CFL lights I have installed. I have the single lamp that failed, and the capacitor is still intact. I might even remove it and use it in another product. So, in all the years I've been using CFL lighting, I've never been made sick by them. Maybe in some places, there are defective product being sold, but here I have absolutely no problem getting good product without paying too much. I suspect the one unit that failed in the many years of usage might have been a cheaper "givaway" I revceived. Other than that, no failures, no sicknesses and no explosions.

There's just enough brain-dead do gooders around that will fall for some hype about making light bulbs "illegal" that the legislation gets in, and it sets a precedent where they can start banning anything... I'm not real happy when morons try to take away my future rights.

Let's not forget about all the brain-dean morons who scream about government take overs over every issue. I have no problem dragging some people into the 21st century, even kicking and screeching as they do. I've heard this all before; each time people attempt to clean up the environment, clean up our communities or any other progressive action, I hear the some old worn-out screaming about how our rights are being taken away and we're all going to be subjected to oppression, blah, blah. I've heard it since I was a kid, and yet I remain as free today as the day I came into the world. Not free to to piss all over the environment, but that was never a freedom anyway. I gladly sacrifice for the sake of my community, and I don’t' feel as though I've lost any liberty at all for it. No, I just don’t see the lost rights issue here.

 

[strantor]

Let's not forget about all the brain-dean morons who scream about government take overs over every issue. ... I've heard this all before... I've heard it since I was a kid, and yet I remain as free today as the day I came into the world.

Did you ever think that maybe the only reason you are still free; the only reason the government hasn't taken over is because of brain-dead morons like RB & I always screaming about it?

I gladly sacrifice for the sake of my community, and I don’t' feel as though I've lost any liberty at all for it. No, I just don’t see the lost rights issue here.

That's a good stance to take, but if everybody took that stance, we would be a flock of sheep on the way to the slaughter house. there's too many out there who would take advantage of passive masses. We need people on both sides of the fence, and we do have people on both sides of the fence, and that is good. We need people like you and people like me in balance to maintain what we have.

 

[BrownOut]

Did you ever think that maybe the only reason you are still free; the only reason the government hasn't taken over is because of brain-dead morons like RB & I always screaming about it?

Perhaps. But I would not go so far to say that's the only reason.

We need people on both sides of the fence, and we do have people on both sides of the fence, and that is good. We need people like you and people like me in balance to maintain what we have.

I agree. And thanks for a vote for reason.

I apologize for the "brain-dead moron" comment. With this group, there is never a disagrement without someone making rude, insulting remarks, and since the moderators aren't interested in enforcing the rules against such behavior, and since anyone who shirks from a fight is viewed as the 'loser' then I am not above getting into the muck. But I don't mean it as a remark to blanket all that I disagree with. So, with that, I will withdraw from the discussion.

 

[strantor]

Perhaps. But I would not go so far to say that's the only reason.



I agree. And thanks for a vote for reason.

I apologize for the "brain-dead moron" comment. With this group, there is never a disagrement without someone making rude, insulting remarks, and since the moderators aren't interested in enforcing the rules against such behavior, and since anyone who shirks from a fight is viewed as the 'loser' then I am not above getting into the muck. But I don't mean it as a remark to blanket all that I disagree with. So, with that, I will withdraw from the discussion.

I'm out too; but before I go, I would just like to say that while I think that "whistleblower" (I've never really called myself that before, not sure if it's the right term; maybe "paranoid"?) people like me are the reason America is free, I acknowledge the fact that people like you and AG are probably the reason why it is a relatively pleasant place to live.

 

[carbonzit]

Let's forget CFLs for a moment. Substitute leaded gasoline for CFLs. How many of the "get gubmint off my back" types here would dare to argue that we should go back to leaded gas? How about asbestos: want to see asbestos shingles and siding come back on the market?

How about letting factory workers paint watch dials with radium paint?

Maybe we should allow those foot X-ray machines I remember as a kid. (For those not of a certain age, back in the Good Old Days you could put a nickel in a machine at the shoe store, put your feet in the bottom and view an actual X-ray of your feet!)

Real progress actually brings the awareness that certain things are better not used.

 

[strantor]

Let's forget CFLs for a moment. Substitute leaded gasoline for CFLs. How many of the "get gubmint off my back" types here would dare to argue that we should go back to leaded gas? How about asbestos: want to see asbestos shingles and siding come back on the market?

How about letting factory workers paint watch dials with radium paint?

Maybe we should allow those foot X-ray machines I remember as a kid. (For those not of a certain age, back in the Good Old Days you could put a nickel in a machine at the shoe store, put your feet in the bottom and view an actual X-ray of your feet!)

Real progress actually brings the awareness that certain things are better not used.

Ok, I'm back. I can't stay out. sorry.

What you are saying would be more applicable if we were going from CFLs to incandescents, considering CFLs are the ones with mercury and more dangerous to health.
I thought you were all about efficiency. if so, then you should be all about going back to leaded gasoline since it's cheaper and more efficient to refine, more efficient to burn in cars, and makes engines last longer.

 

[carbonzit]

What you are saying would be more applicable if we were going from CFLs to incandescents, considering CFLs are the ones with mercury and more dangerous to health.
I thought you were all about efficiency. if so, then you should be all about going back to leaded gasoline since it's cheaper and more efficient to refine, more efficient to burn in cars, and makes engines last longer.

In this discussion, it's good to keep in mind that this is a matrix, not a single-dimensional scalar, with "CFL bad" (because of mercury) on the left and "CFL good" on the right.

There all kinds of other effects besides efficiency (to answer your second statement), like toxicity, which ought to be considered when choosing technoligies to promote and to ban.

Keep in mind in the case of CFLs that it is claimed that any potential for mercury exposure from the bulbs themselves is offset by the (potential) reduction in mass mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. (As I stated earlier, I'm not sure I buy this: just stating it as an oft-repeated argument.) So CFLs, while not ideal, are (supposedly) on balance better than incandescents, because of the energy savings.

And this is not even to mention the second-order effects of technologies.

Do you get it that this is a complex matter not susceptible to being reduced to sound bytes or facile arguments? Personally, I have to claim agnosticism on a lot of this, simply because I don't know enough about the subject to come to a conclusion. You might at least consider that position.

 

[strantor]

Yes, I am of that position regarding CFLs Vs. Incandescents. I have not done all the research to draw a conclusion as to which is better in terms of efficiency or health. The reason I have not hit the books is that I simply don't care enough. It seems a trivial issue to me. What is NOT trivial, and what my point has been all along, is that government interference into something as trivial as which light bulbs I choose (or, soon to be chose) is NOT welcome. It won't stop there, watch. Our freedom is eroding.
or, "get gubmint off my back" - as you would say

 

[carbonzit]

Yes, I am of that position regarding CFLs Vs. Incandescents. I have not done all the research to draw a conclusion as to which is better in terms of efficiency or health. The reason I have not hit the books is that I simply don't care enough. It seems a trivial issue to me.

OK, fair enough. But tell me, do you also think global warming is a "trivial issue"? Without necessarily endorsing AGW, but just for the sake of discussion: are melting glaciers, rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, global drought and famine, are those "trivial issues"? Because that's really the thrust of this whole issue.