Bill to make incandescent light bulbs illegal

[Richard]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2007-12-16-light-bulbs_N.htm

Making incandescent light bulbs illegal?  What the hell?  It is of course a huge huge investment opportunity and will no doubt make some awesome cash if you think about it.

[Verily]

Australia has already banned incandescent lightbulbs (not sure when the law goes into effect, though). In the end, the move from incandescent to fluorescent is an important one, and it's not as if people will be buying incandescent lightbulbs on the black market or something.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Australia has already banned incandescent lightbulbs (not sure when the law goes into effect, though). In the end, the move from incandescent to fluorescent is an important one, and it's not as if people will be buying incandescent lightbulbs on the black market or something.

actually, I'll be stocking up on incandescent if they're outlawed.  Flourescent bulbs put out too much RF for me to use in my planned observatory.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Australia has already banned incandescent lightbulbs (not sure when the law goes into effect, though). In the end, the move from incandescent to fluorescent is an important one, and it's not as if people will be buying incandescent lightbulbs on the black market or something.

actually, I'll be stocking up on incandescent if they're outlawed.  Fluorescent bulbs put out too much RF for me to use in my planned observatory.

What about LED's.  Frankly, if their cost continues to come down, they, not CFL's will be what people will be using.

[MODU]

Australia has already banned incandescent lightbulbs (not sure when the law goes into effect, though). In the end, the move from incandescent to fluorescent is an important one, and it's not as if people will be buying incandescent lightbulbs on the black market or something.

actually, I'll be stocking up on incandescent if they're outlawed.  Fluorescent bulbs put out too much RF for me to use in my planned observatory.

What about LED's.  Frankly, if their cost continues to come down, they, not CFL's will be what people will be using.

Most commercial LEDs still lack the intensity that your traditional incandescents can put out.

[David S]

Why do they have to be tyrants about it? Why not just tell people that they can save money on their electric bills by using CFLs? Who doesn't want to save money? Tell the CFL makers to use their own damn money to advertise them. Most people will voluntarily make the switch where ever it makes sense to do so. Many of the local restaurants around here have replaced the incandescents with CFLs for the cost saving. I've replaced most of my incandescents with CFLs for the same reason. I don't use them everywhere though. They don't work well in cold conditions so I don't use them in the garage or in outdoor lighting. Also some of them are slow to reach full brightness. I don't use them in closets or stairways for that reason.

LEDs may well be the lights of the future but I currently don't see them for sale at stores. I find them on the Internet but the prices are high and they really don't have anything that can replace a 60 watt conventional bulb.

My guess is that the CFL manufacturers bought off congress to force the bill through and thereby guarantee sales .

[Richard]

You want to make money?  What does fluorescent bulbs contain that incandescent bulbs don't contain?  And if the latter is suddenly outlawed, and 300 million American start buying the former, what product's demand is going to skyrocket?

You want to make money?  Figure it out, research who the producers are, and buy options or shares or futures.

[Ebowed]

I don't really have a problem with this.  It's worked elsewhere.

On the other hand, when the political discourse on global warming shifts to issues like this, as it has in other countries, personal responsibility in relation to the environment is emphasized, which may sound like a positive thing, except that it's really just a distraction to get out of writing stricer controls on heavily polluting corporations.

[dead0man]

Of course everybody should use CFLs.  Only a fool (or somebody that uses a dimmer light) would buy a regular old bulb in 2007.  Why the hell do we need to legislate it? 

When will people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum realize you shouldn't use the govt as a giant hammer to get your way?  Your way may be right or it may be wrong, but why do so many people feel they need to force their way on everybody else?

[opebo]

You want to make money?  What does fluorescent bulbs contain that incandescent bulbs don't contain?  And if the latter is suddenly outlawed, and 300 million American start buying the former, what product's demand is going to skyrocket?

You want to make money?  Figure it out, research who the producers are, and buy options or shares or futures.

You can only do those things if you already have money, richious.

BUt I would buy incandescent bulbs on the black market, for sure.  Hate flourescent.

[Verily]

Of course everybody should use CFLs.  Only a fool (or somebody that uses a dimmer light) would buy a regular old bulb in 2007.  Why the hell do we need to legislate it? 

When will people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum realize you shouldn't use the govt as a giant hammer to get your way?  Your way may be right or it may be wrong, but why do so many people feel they need to force their way on everybody else?

Sometimes, the hammer is the most effective strategy. The biggest problem I have with libertarianism in general is that it suggests that government can never do anything effectively, when clearly banning incandescent light bulbs would be the most effective strategy.

Yes, we could play nice and assume that people will slowly switch over... but why wait? There's no reason for us to be inefficient about it.

[dead0man]

But there are still uses for incandescent bulbs.  This is like banning horses because the car is faster and more efficient.  Of course it is, but there are still uses for horses just like there are still uses for incandescent bulbs.  Will Global Warming suddenly stop being harped on by Al Gore and the other nuts if everybody in America stops buying incandescents?  (if it will, I'd be all for the ban!)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's not the government's place - but fluorescent bulbs ARE cheaper.

[Brandon H]

If those other bulbs break then it can be expensive to clean up because they have mercury in them.

This is a stupid bill.

[MODU]

If those other bulbs break then it can be expensive to clean up because they have mercury in them.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Of course everybody should use CFLs.  Only a fool (or somebody that uses a dimmer light) would buy a regular old bulb in 2007.  Why the hell do we need to legislate it? 

When will people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum realize you shouldn't use the govt as a giant hammer to get your way?  Your way may be right or it may be wrong, but why do so many people feel they need to force their way on everybody else?

Sometimes, the hammer is the most effective strategy. The biggest problem I have with libertarianism in general is that it suggests that government can never do anything effectively, when clearly banning incandescent light bulbs would be the most effective strategy.

Yes, we could play nice and assume that people will slowly switch over... but why wait? There's no reason for us to be inefficient about it.

Vintage Verily.

Oh, and BTW, flourescent lighting has been found to be a trigger for migraines for some people.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If those other bulbs break then it can be expensive to clean up because they have mercury in them.

This is a stupid bill.

Oh - come on - my parents played with mercury when thermometers broke all the time.  As long as you don't eat it - you'll be fine.  It's just another ploy by the trial lawyers - 1 out of  a few thousand people has a bad effect because of it, and people go all panicky.

[Gabu]

Oh - come on - my parents played with mercury when thermometers broke all the time.  As long as you don't eat it - you'll be fine.  It's just another ploy by the trial lawyers - 1 out of  a few thousand people has a bad effect because of it, and people go all panicky.

Actually, if it's liquid mercury, eating it isn't liable to do anything.  It's such a heavy element that it'll just go right through your digestive system.

The problem comes from mercury fumes.  Mercury located out in the open air is liable to vaporize, and gaseous mercury is quite toxic.  An exposure to a large amount of it or a prolonged exposure to a small amount of it can cause serious neurological damage.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Oh - come on - my parents played with mercury when thermometers broke all the time.  As long as you don't eat it - you'll be fine.  It's just another ploy by the trial lawyers - 1 out of  a few thousand people has a bad effect because of it, and people go all panicky.

Actually, if it's liquid mercury, eating it isn't liable to do anything.  It's such a heavy element that it'll just go right through your digestive system.

The problem comes from mercury fumes.  Mercury located out in the open air is liable to vaporize, and gaseous mercury is quite toxic.  An exposure to a large amount of it or a prolonged exposure to a small amount of it can cause serious neurological damage.

And that's why I only passed the chemistry CLEP test by 1 point (although I did good in advanced chem).

[Gabu]

Oh - come on - my parents played with mercury when thermometers broke all the time.  As long as you don't eat it - you'll be fine.  It's just another ploy by the trial lawyers - 1 out of  a few thousand people has a bad effect because of it, and people go all panicky.

Actually, if it's liquid mercury, eating it isn't liable to do anything.  It's such a heavy element that it'll just go right through your digestive system.

The problem comes from mercury fumes.  Mercury located out in the open air is liable to vaporize, and gaseous mercury is quite toxic.  An exposure to a large amount of it or a prolonged exposure to a small amount of it can cause serious neurological damage.

And that's why I only passed the chemistry CLEP test by 1 point (although I did good in advanced chem).

I don't think this stuff would be on a chemistry test in school.

[dead0man]

Oh - come on - my parents played with mercury when thermometers broke all the time.  As long as you don't eat it - you'll be fine.  It's just another ploy by the trial lawyers - 1 out of  a few thousand people has a bad effect because of it, and people go all panicky.

Actually, if it's liquid mercury, eating it isn't liable to do anything.  It's such a heavy element that it'll just go right through your digestive system.

The problem comes from mercury fumes.  Mercury located out in the open air is liable to vaporize, and gaseous mercury is quite toxic.  An exposure to a large amount of it or a prolonged exposure to a small amount of it can cause serious neurological damage.

Correct.  And nobody (under normal conditions) will be spending prolonged activity around broken bulbs.

[MODU]

Oh - come on - my parents played with mercury when thermometers broke all the time.  As long as you don't eat it - you'll be fine.  It's just another ploy by the trial lawyers - 1 out of  a few thousand people has a bad effect because of it, and people go all panicky.

Actually, if it's liquid mercury, eating it isn't liable to do anything.  It's such a heavy element that it'll just go right through your digestive system.

The problem comes from mercury fumes.  Mercury located out in the open air is liable to vaporize, and gaseous mercury is quite toxic.  An exposure to a large amount of it or a prolonged exposure to a small amount of it can cause serious neurological damage.

Correct.  And nobody (under normal conditions) will be spending prolonged activity around broken bulbs.

True, but even short-term contact is unhealthy, which is why I perfer incandescent bulbs.  Most of the CFL that I have are on the outside fixtures of my house.  Regular bulbs are easier on the eyes, which is why I use them indoors (another reason to keep them).

[Gabu]

True, but even short-term contact is unhealthy

Not terribly.  A brief exposure to a small amount of mercury isn't going to hurt much.  If you ensure that no further exposure occurs, your body is perfectly capable of purging itself of the mercury it absorbed.

[minionofmidas]

Regular bulbs are easier on the eyes, which is why I use them indoors (another reason to keep them).

They aren't.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Regular bulbs are easier on the eyes, which is why I use them indoors (another reason to keep them).

They aren't.

Sorry Lewis, but MODU is correct.

While flourescent lighting is generally more "energy efficent" than incandescent, it does have a problem with the "flicker," which has been demostrated to cause eye problems and migraines.