Governments Banning Incandescent bulbs With No Public Voice

reply to post by badgerprints

What you say makes sense. It's always a money making game for someone, it seems. We can only hope that by 2014, or whenever it was that incandescents go "illegal," the LEDs will be cheaper. I do wish they were made here...the CFLs, but they're not. Maybe we'll have better luck with LEDs.

They seem to last forever, so maybe the impact will be less. I haven't had a CFL burn out in over 2 years now, but I guess I'm lucky. I used to go through incandescents like ridiculously crazy, so much so that I thought the house had a wiring issue. So Ive been pretty happy with the CFLs. Only one light is on a timer.

Do you happen to know whether the environmental impact is greater or less than it is with those icky old-time fluorescent tubes? (Now those give me migraines.) .

I found this article on Snopes about cleanup. Seems WorldNetDaily and/or FoxNews were touting a story about having to call an environmental cleanup crew if you break a CFL. Coincidentally they also said the bulbs cost $47 dollars. I guess that explains some of the comments in this thread.

Something else interesting I ran across when looking stuff up is that incandescents contain lead. Wisconsin even says they have to be disposed of

Why are waste lamps and bulbs regulated?

Waste lamps and bulbs are regulated as hazardous wastes because they contain toxic heavy metals. If these lamps are burned or thrown into landfills, the mercury and lead in them can be released into the environment, where contamination problems may occur. Five types of lamps are of concern:

* Fluorescent lamps
* High- and Low-pressure mercury vapor lamps
* Sodium-vapor lamps
* High intensity discharge (HID) lamps
* Incandescent light bulbs

The first four lamps contain mercury in concentrations that exceed the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure's (TCLP) limit. Incandescent light bulbs contain lead at levels that exceed hazardous waste limits. (The TCLP test is a common laboratory test used to. determine if solid waste contains harmful concentrations of certain pollutants.) Nearly every business, institution and government agency generates waste lamps and bulbs that could.become a hazardous waste problem if not handled properly. The DNR has developed a policy encouraging lamp and bulb recycling that protects the environment while reducing the regulatory burden for managing waste lamps. This policy can be found at dnr.wi.gov...

Waste lamps that aren't recycled are subject to hazardous waste regulations that usually require storage, transport and other licenses or approvals from the state Department of Natural Resources. www.countyofdane.com...

Some interesting stuff here too, as in don't count indcandescents out yet...they're working on inventing a better one. How much better remains to be seen. www.mnn.com...

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by James1982

 

I personally have not had any red eyes, headaches, or blindness. I've been using them almost exclusively for years and years now. If you have, and it's actually from CFLs that's unfortunate (and odd) but the simple solution would be to not use them. That's where the real issue is, in my opinion, is that it's not the government's role to control what light bulbs one uses. I think we can all agree on that. One thought on the red eyes, were you smoking anything?

True its up to us to decide on what we should buy or shouldn't afterall dont we live in a democratic society?

One thought on the red eyes, were you smoking anything?

Nope i have never taken any drugs nor do i smoke.

I was really just making a joke with the "were you smoking anything" comment, hope you didn't take that too seriously or get offended. Like I said before, I agree you shouldn't be forced to use CFLs if you don't want to. That SHOULD be your choice, I just find it silly the focus of this thread seemed to come down to how evil CFLs are, versus what it should be about, which is the government dictating something as stupid as what kind of bulb you use.

reply to post by badgerprints


It's hard to argue with people who use no factual information.

First off it's not just co2 now is it? How do they mine, transport, and refine the fossil fuels for electricity?

Mercury can be desposed of Properly. The pollution from mining/drilling, refining, and transporting fossil fuels can not.

Your anecdotal evidence goes against everything we know about science and inert gasses.

Flourecent bulbs have been around for 100 years almost exactly the same time as incandescent bulbs. Edison and tesla were contemporaries.

When is it the governments job to intervene? I am a libertarian so you won't catch me voting for carbon tax because that is scam.

However when it is in the interest of security, environmental protection, and human safety the government does have the right to pass laws. Environmentally under private or public property laws.

Security more energy means more foreign fossil fuels

Enviornmental peoples right to not have benzine, carbon etc in their water or on their property. There can be a case made for the air they breath as well.

Bulbs can be desposed of properly and the mercury recycled. The amount of mercury is the size of the ball in a ball point pen. Thermometers had about 20 x that.

Flourecents due to the law of thermodynamics and electrical engineering use much less Power and last many times as long. You must have ground issues in your home.

LED are already available in every spectrum. Just not off the shelf at home depot.

I just read an article about growers in Cali using them with solar panels for their "tomato plants".

The heat from your incandescent bulbs is lost energy.

My biggest probelm is the things you can not use then with and the places you can not use them. Here is just two at my house.

How long would a CFL last out in the rain. These bulbs still work just find even after 3 years out side.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7708b0d37f76.jpg[/atsimg]


Just will not fit.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f0e67529316.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Movescamp


LIke I mentioned, I replaced all the eco lights a few months ago with HALOGEN light bulbs and my eyesight has improved and I feel 10 times better.
All I'm trying to highlight is that there is an ALTERNATIVE to the mercury filled and hazardous light bulbs that they were plugging when they were replacing all the incadescent bulbs in Australia a few years ago.

Another thing I didn't take into account is I have 2 light fittings that fit light bulbs SIDEWAYS or vertically.
I've been told by a tradesman friend that fitting the mercury bulbs in vertical fixtures isn't a good idea.
Of course, you aren't told that when they come to change all the old bulbs to the freebie new ones, as they don't leave the boxes which have all the instructions on them.

The lights also aren't satisfactory for small lamps as the long prongs stick up outside the lampshades.
So there is more money invested there as well.

I've been a greenie since I was a teenager in the 70s, so know most of all there is to know about being GREEN.
But I draw the line when it costs people their health, no matter how small the health complaint is.

And also, they said for years that mobile phones didn't give people brain tumours. Now we know that it can in some people.
So I wouldn't be 100% sure that my health complaints aren't related. It'll all come out in time, so watch this space when the truth comes out.

reply to post by Flighty


First off halogen are the least efficient bulbs you can use. They are also a fire hazard as they get extremely hot (which is wasted energy). Halogen gas is also toxic. It may not be a heavy metal residue but for the people making the bulb is plenty toxic. Just like the 5ml of mercury is not toxic on it's own. I am sure we can figure out how to not use mercury. For instance in a bulb with no starter or ballast. In other words wireless excitement of the gasses.

big deal it is a light buld, we still have light and we use less energy. what are you gripping about..

kx

What public voice? There is none, hasn’t been for a long time. These bulbs have been condemned and the squiggly ones are all we can get. You can’t find incandescent bulbs. They aren’t in production any more. Use too much energy so they say. The squiggly ones aren’t as bright so in five years the government can say “more and more people are going blind! We have to raise taxes because the government is spending more on eye care!” Not to mention the fact that those squiggly bulbs ALL contain Mercury! Just think of the tax burden for that clean up in five years! Europe has done away with the incandescent a few years ago. Hoard em’ if you can find em!

I replaced all my bulbs about 3 years ago, about half of them (12 or so) have blown. While changing one, I dropped it and it shattered. My husband got out his chem gloves and respirator to clean it up while I sat outside. The sight of him taking these precautions made me rethink the risks.

Add in the fact that I'm one of those unlucky people who gets headaches whenever I'm exposed to this type of lighting for a lengthy period of time. (including long before the switch-over, in stores, malls, office buildings, etc..)

Add in the fact that these barely work in any of my outside light fixtures. (to darn cold)

Add in the fact that I'm unsure of what I'll use when my last over & fridge bulb goes out. It wouldn't work in the fridge & I doubt it is safe in an oven.

And most importantly, why is it the governments right to tell me how to light my home.

Needless to say, I have stocked regular bulbs to use in areas I'm in the most. (my desk, my reading lamp, etc.) I'm not going to suffer migraine after migraine because the government once again decides what is best for me in my own fricking home.

Fluorescent are garbage. At least, they are in standard sockets that were designed for incandescents. The warm-up time before they put out what they're supposed to is awful. I prefer high-intensity halogens. They last just as long as CFLs (I've had one that's lasted for over 6 years), and put out a lot more light.

reply to post by Movescamp

The heat from your incandescent bulbs is lost energy.

No its not , the same can be said about the Flourecent bulbs, not mention the light from the Flourecent bulbs are very bright and powerfully plus dangerous.


On david suzuki website he mentions that the flourecent bulbs should be turned off every two hours? and hows that helpful to us or the environment? a person turning on or off for every two or one hours will make her or him very angry.


i am not surprised his pushing this whole agenda of the flourecent bulbs, thus bribing the governments to ban the incandescent bulbs.




So why should we the poor or the middle class replace our incandescent bulbs if the rich or the elites wont do the same? you know whose wasting alot of energy? the elites and the rich wealthy scums.


So again why should they ban the incandescent bulbs? because the rich or obama doesn't use them?

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

It matters still the public should always have a voice and choice, not the government.

An incoming Canadian efficiency standard is set to take effect in 2012 and will end the sale of inefficient bulbs.

Why would anyone want a ban on the traditional light bulbs? its not up the environmental groups to decide what we should or shouldn't buy.


The new light bulbs are a health factor, i already had my problems with them last year.

edit on 3-2-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

I mostly agree. It's funny. Since they don't want to tax CO2 or do anything meaningful they go for the low hanging fruit. So they ban incandescents. It's cheap. People forget that the heat that incandescents put out was a valued characteristic, especially in colder climates. I can understand how this could be a problem in warmer climates, but then you have hte people who say that the light put out by flourescents has more UV? Might that be a problem for people who're photosensitive (sensitive to sunlight, uv)? Seems to me that banning them is stupid. Doesn't make sense. People will eventually buy the other bulbs anyway since they last longer. That's how free market works.

Makes as much sense to me as subsidies. My thoughts about subsidies are that, if you think a particular way of doing business is harmful then tax it or ban it. Don't sneak something through by using stealth subsidies. We should eliminate subsidies from government. Government should regulate and enforce law. We regulate criminals by paying for police. We regulate toxic materials by fining companies that dump them or emit them. We regulate terrorists by stalking them with intelligence and military assets. We regulate illegal drugs by cracking down on them and putting people in jail that use them. Etc. But government has went further than that with subsidies. It has assumed the role of the free market. It thinks that central authority over new discoveries and opportunities is somehow better than a free market mechanism. Government is getting ever more bloated.

*shakes his head*

It's the dumb things conservatives and liberals do to muddy the waters that makes them hate eachother. It's the law of unintended consequences always being used against you.

So they can ban these but they can't ban cigarettes. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Why don't they ban McDonalds? Or Hollywood? Both are excessive and indulgent. Matter of fact, while we're at it, we should ban professional sports too. They all waste. Ban the military - it lost track of billions of dollars and doesn't know where it went. There's lots of waste. Lets ban wasting.

This is what happens when governments gets too big.

Pretty soon you won't b able to go potty or wash your hands without a government agent approval.

Mark my words and remember. I am not exaggerating this. Bloated government = obese & unhealthy.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Ok tinfoil hat theories are great but have no basis in reality. The amount of heat given off by incandecents is lost work by definition. It's part of the law of thermo dynamics. The heat from incandecents is many times more and halogen even more.

So can the government ban ddt? What about coal furnices in your home?

Fluorescent lights are fine. The best approach is to let the market deal with obsolete technology. However in such a crisis time as this we need ti do something.

I was just part if rolling blackouts in Texas. New Mexico is having major energy problems as well.

So is it better to be able to buy whatever you want and eat up energy while people suffer for it?

Maybe it's your right but it sure is selfish.

Buying and refining more energy is bad for a country.

Incentives (tax breaks) and penalties (taxes) are a fine way but it has the same results. The market will abandon it's product under those circumstances.

Buying cheeseburgers from fast food should be illegal. Not because it hurts an individual (since it doesn't spread or force it on others). But because of the immoral business practices, subsadies, connection to slash and burn deforestation etc.

The court system is broken. So individuals that have power under the constitution have no actual private property rights. Try suing monsanto as an individual.

Systemic problems are in the way of liberty so what do we do?

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Movescamp

 

The heat from your incandescent bulbs is lost energy.

No its not , the same can be said about the Flourecent bulbs, not mention the light from the Flourecent bulbs are very bright and powerfully plus dangerous.


On david suzuki website he mentions that the flourecent bulbs should be turned off every two hours? and hows that helpful to us or the environment? a person turning on or off for every two or one hours will make her or him very angry.


i am not surprised his pushing this whole agenda of the flourecent bulbs, thus bribing the governments to ban the incandescent bulbs.




So why should we the poor or the middle class replace our incandescent bulbs if the rich or the elites wont do the same? you know whose wasting alot of energy? the elites and the rich wealthy scums.


So again why should they ban the incandescent bulbs? because the rich or obama doesn't use them?

edit on 7-2-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

Where are you coming from? How can you type that with a straight face? The only time you want an electrical devise to get hot is when you require heat. Otherwise heat is wasted energy.

I don’t know who this Suzuki is but I have never heard this anywhere before. He sounds like another extremist.

Who is bribing the government and why? The same companies that made the incandescents are making the fluorescents. It makes no sense.

Just where are the rich going to buy their incandescent bulbs? You realize they have more fixtures and therefore use more bulbs? Your whole post has a big slant to the ‘poor me’ side. It’s selfish thinking that has made the US the largest user of energy.

lynn112

And most importantly, why is it the governments right to tell me how to light my home.

Because you are the same people who will object to a new power plant to cover the increase in electricity consumption. Have you done anything to reduce your electricity consumption?

see this article:
green.blogs.nytimes.com...

even though a significant number of people are making the switch to more efficient light bulbs, they are still in the minority. And some consumers who have tried compact fluorescents were disappointed by their performance and switched back.

A lot of people, like me are not happy with the new type of light bulbs - why are they making us change our lighting habits.
I hope buying incandescent light bulbs will still be possible in the next years.

Ahhh CFLs... Mine keep burning out and end up lasting not much longer than what few incandescent bulbs I have left.

So, as I am speaking with the Chap at Home Depot regarding CFLs, he begins to extol the virtues of the bulb. I mention my problem with burnout. He states that you have to run them continuously for 3 hours at a time to achieve the life listed on the packaging and the life extolled by our leaders.

So, I need to waste energy by burning bulbs in my un occupied bathrooms, closets and bedrooms for 3 hours at a time to achieve maximum bulb life. Hmmm

CFL and florescent bulbs in general are not properly suited to the average everyday household needs. The more you flip them on and off the shorter the bulb life. So the answer to the whizbangs is to just let them burn...

Thanks GE... We all know that you are behind this scam and that you are supported by dealers like Home Depot and the salesman in the White House.

Anyone find a US made CFL yet??? GE is getting ready to close a bulb plant in Virginia.

GE Plant closing