In interest of saving energy, the light bulb could be banned.

So is it a good idea or not?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C02%5C12%5Cstory_12-2-2007_pg6_1

It's a terrible idea to ban Light Bulbs. 

If the world was forced to go back to candles, you can bet there would be alot of accidental housefires on a daily basis

If the world was forced to go back to candles, you can bet there would be alot of accidental housefires on a daily basis

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Light bulbs will be around as long as there is electricity, though.

Here's a paranoid hallucination to consider: all compact fluorescent bulbs, which might theoretically be required by law, have a compartment with electronic circuitry in which Big Brother could hide a sneaky little CHIP, MWUAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA !!!!! 

"A New Voice for A New Pakistan"?
???

Anyway, the Edison light bulb was one of the most important inventions of the past 150 years, but Edison's design was inefficient.  95% of the energy is burned as heat (hence the E-Z Bake oven). 

I'm all for energy saving bulbs, so long as they give off pleasant light.  I don't want my home to feel like a supermarket!

No matter what we come up with, Edison will always be the inventor of the light bulb, and I don't believe old Tom would have wanted us to keep burning the same bulbs when technology could provide us with far better ones.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/thinkerg.gif

I think that ban light blubs, is a bad idea.

They are talking about banning incandescent bulbs, so that people will have to use the much more effiicient and longer lasting compact fluorescent blubs.

I'm all for the ban, save for things like flashlight and car headlight bulbs.

"A New Voice for A New Pakistan"?
???


That made me laugh too.


What a suprise, more bizaro world ideas coming out of California.  ::)

I found it odd too.

;D

plus, in twenty some years we'll be out of the material that is used to make the whicks in light bulbs.

plus, in twenty some years we'll be out of the material that is used to make the whicks in light bulbs.


Tungsten isn't *that* rare. Besides, there are other materials to make incandescent light bulb filaments from.

We are in the process of replacing our incandesent bulbs with CF's. We replaced the three we use most in the office and the electric bill for that floor was cut in half, so the bulbs have already paid for themselves several times over.  I say banning incandecents is a great idea.

I replaced all but four or five in my house... and those are in lamps used for reading.  They do make CFs that have a better spectrum of lighting that even an incandescent bulb, but they cost five times as much as even a regular CF. It amazes me people even need the incandescents to be banned in order to stop using them everywhere, a 60 watt bulb uses five times as much electricity as a normal bulb.  Multiple that by 10 or 15 bulbs in a house, and the fact that 50% of your electric bill is lighting.

I've still got two older halogen torchiere pole lamps as well, which I know I need to replace.

It's unfortunate that LED bulbs aren't read to replace all of the above yet. 

They are talking about banning incandescent bulbs, so that people will have to use the much more effiicient and longer lasting compact fluorescent blubs.

I'm all for the ban, save for things like flashlight and car headlight bulbs.


But then you have the problem of people who want (or need) a "low light" setting.

Myself, I refuse to ever use Flourescent Bulbs at home.  I happen to be fairly light sensitive, and can see the "flickering" of a flourescent.  I work around them all day, and suffer from frequent eye strain and headaches.

And at home, my lights are normally in the 40-60 watt range.  Tell me, where I can find a 40 watt flourescent bulb?  You can't.  Most have the output in the range of 100-120 watts.  The only light in my house that has conventional 100 watt bulbs in it is also on a dimmer switch.  I turn that on when I have guests, since most complain that my house is "to dark".

This is just another case of the California Government trying to micro-manage the lives of their citizens.  Is it any wonder that I fled from that state 4 years ago?  Next thing you know, they will make people get themselves with a "vapor recovery" system, to recycle methane and carbon dioxide.

But then you have the problem of people who want (or need) a "low light" setting.



The only drawback to conventional fluorescent screw in bulbs is that most are not dimmable. They do make dimmable and 3-way fluorescents (50-100-150 watt), but they aren't cheap (~$12 per bulb).


Myself, I refuse to ever use Fluorescent Bulbs at home.  I happen to be fairly light sensitive, and can see the "flickering" of a fluorescent.  I work around them all day, and suffer from frequent eye strain and headaches.



Your office building probably uses 2 or 4 4' (or perhaps 2 "U-tube") fluorescent bulbs per fixture. I've worked on many of these, and flickering bulbs is usually a sign of a ballast that is about to fail, or, in some cases,  mismatched bulbs to the ballast.  Flickering bulbs irritate the hell out of me too, but a modern and properly functioning fluorescent fixture will not flicker at all after startup (IOW, after 20 seconds or so).



And at home, my lights are normally in the 40-60 watt range.  Tell me, where I can find a 40 watt fluorescent bulb?  You can't.  Most have the output in the range of 100-120 watts.  The only light in my house that has conventional 100 watt bulbs in it is also on a dimmer switch.  I turn that on when I have guests, since most complain that my house is "to dark".



Home Depot and Lowe's have screw-in fluorescent bulbs in store as low as 25W. They are made for chandeliers (most of which have the smaller "candelabra base"), bathrooms (usually 40W), etc.

At the hotel, we routinely buy 6 packs of 60W incandescent replacement bulbs (fluorescent which use about 20W, including ballast power) at Lowe's for $10. They are off brand and don't last nearly as long as the Sylvania single 60W bulbs (which are about $5 a piece), but still way more efficient than incandescents. 

Here's a link for you: Lowe's Light Bulbs



This is just another case of the California Government trying to micro-manage the lives of their citizens.  Is it any wonder that I fled from that state 4 years ago?  Next thing you know, they will make people get themselves with a "vapor recovery" system, to recycle methane and carbon dioxide.


Fart recovery? Don't forget the H2S and mercaptans!

California is, from what I understand, in a bit of a power crunch. Switching to fluorescent bulbs would save perhaps billions a year in electricity bills (and negate the need for new power plants for several years), and their higher initial cost is quickly offset by the fact they use 1/3 the energy of an incandescent and last 2-10 times longer.

I wish the hotel where I worked would go all fluorescent. My calculations show to change out all the regular bulbs for fluorescents (even considering the many hundreds of dimmable bulbs we have) would cost roughly 12k$ in bulbs and labor. They would save 40k$ the first year in energy costs alone, not to mention all the money they waste in labor to change out the incandescents, which typically last 1000 hours at best (6 weeks when the light is on 24/7).

Keep in mind too that incandescents generate 4 times the heat of fluorescent - by switching to fluorescent bulbs you would save a bit on heating and cooling as well. 

Edit: I forgot to mention one important thing: Kelvin range. The lower the rating (like 2700K), the yellower the light (i.e., more like incandescents). I've tried to standardize the hotel to 4100K bulbs, which is whiter. AFAIK, only 8' bulbs are available at 6500K, which is *very bright* (like daylight). CRI (color rendering index) is another thing too, but I rarely pay attention to that as many bulbs do not even list a CRI.

I'm a big fan of the Compact Fluorescents and I am glad that this technology has flourished under the guidance of the green Bush Administration.  (Heh heh...)

When I moved into my place two years ago, I went to Lowe's and bought a buttload of those CF's.  I also got some fluorescent replacements for outdoor floodlights.  There are two 40-watt Incandescents that I kept for "mood lighting".

One small problem with fluorescents is that some day/ight timers will not work with them.  Somehow the fluorescent ballast and the electronic circuitry get all confused and the light flickers 24/7.  With higher-wattage CF's I have not had the problem though.

When I bought the house, the bathroom alone had 12, 40-watt incandescent bulbs at the wash stand.  That'll wake you up. :o  I replaced with two, 13-watt CF's and it does fine.

Prior owners had a $90/month power bill.  I'm paying about $27.  :)

Next thing you know, they will make people get themselves with a "vapor recovery" system, to recycle methane


;D  I can just imagine where the collection pipe would have to be attached  :o

This is just another case of the California Government trying to micro-manage the lives of their citizens.  Is it any wonder that I fled from that state 4 years ago?  Next thing you know, they will make people get themselves with a "vapor recovery" system, to recycle methane and carbon dioxide.


Thank you, totally agree...not usually the one to start yelling conspiracy, but shouldn't we be looking at who exactly would be profiting from this "ban"?

If this is such a serious concern, shouldn't we already have banned other, more serious items that are responsible for large amounts of inefficiency and the cause of wasted energy?

Your office building probably uses 2 or 4 4' (or perhaps 2 "U-tube") fluorescent bulbs per fixture. I've worked on many of these, and flickering bulbs is usually a sign of a ballast that is about to fail, or, in some cases,  mismatched bulbs to the ballast.  Flickering bulbs irritate the hell out of me too, but a modern and properly functioning fluorescent fixture will not flicker at all after startup (IOW, after 20 seconds or so).


I notice the "flickering", no matter what kind of bulb or ballast is used.  I am one of those people that sees the flickering, which is between 5-10% of the population.  I have been told it is because I have a strong astigmatizm, and I am also highly sensitive to "interlaced" video displays, or the wrong refresh rate on a monitor.  Things that seem glaring to me in that area are oftne totally unnoticed by other people.


California is, from what I understand, in a bit of a power crunch. Switching to fluorescent bulbs would save perhaps billions a year in electricity bills (and negate the need for new power plants for several years), and their higher initial cost is quickly offset by the fact they use 1/3 the energy of an incandescent and last 2-10 times longer.


California is an insane state.  Remember, I lived there during the 2000-2001 "Energy Crisis".  We did not call our Governor "Grey-Out Davis" for nothing.  However, the energy situation is also entirely of their own creation.  During the 2000-2001 time period, the voters or legislature turned down at least 4 different proposals for the creation of new power generation plants.  They have not built any new power plants for over 25 years, and import over half of their electricity.

And I can even see now what will happen in another 10 years.  Somebody in the Government will realize that the landfills are starting to fill up with Flourescent Bulbs, and realize the "Ecological Disaster" that will result from this.  I am talking toxic chemicals.

Most people do not realize that flourescent bulbs and ballast are highly toxic.  Most of your bulbs contain mercury (methylmercury to be exact), which is highly toxic.  And the ballast is filled with other highly toxic substances.  If everybody switched to these, it is simply a disaster in the making (as opposed to incandescent, which is safe, simply containing glass, brass, tungsten, and nitrogen).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

I remember when somebody dropped a flourescent tube in a warehouse when I was in the military (1992).  Did you know that under US Code, that area immediately becomes a "HazMat" site?  That's right.  Nobody cares normally, but on a Government Facility it is a big deal.  The warehouse was closed up for 2 days to have the area "cleaned".  Now imagine that times 1 million, as everybody switches to them.

Of course, then they will pass yet another law, requiring everybody to change over to LCD bulbs, or some other technology.


Thank you, totally agree...not usually the one to start yelling conspiracy, but shouldn't we be looking at who exactly would be profiting from this "ban"?


Oh, I am not saying it is a "conspiracy".  However, it is a classic case of "Big Brotheritis".  The Legislatures all seem to think they are smarter then the "stupid citizens" in California, and do things to "improve their life" (IE: controll them like cattle).  I can't tell you over the years the number of stupid laws and bills I have seen go through the state government out there.

For example, you can't smoke on a state or county beach or park in California.  And the "smoker bans" in many areas have gotten to the point where you have to be at least "50 yards from any building".  50 yards!  Tell me where in most of Los Angeles will you be more then 50 yards from a building!  Maybe in the middle of the 405 freeway, but that is about it.

And ironically, the fine for violation of this law is $500.  This is more then double the fine if you are caught smoking a joint in the same location.  Smoke pot, $200 fine.  Smoke a cigarette, $500 fine.  Of course, if they have their way Marijuanna would be fully legal, and smoking a cigarette would be a capitol offense.

And the same legislature has also considered laws from banning parents from spanking their kids, to requiring all of the state's Electoral votes to go to the winner of the popular vote, reguardless of how the state actually voted.  I will not even go into all of the insane "fees", since the Legislature was banned 30 years ago from increasing taxes without voter approval.

I notice the "flickering", no matter what kind of bulb or ballast is used.  I am one of those people that sees the flickering, which is between 5-10% of the population.  I have been told it is because I have a strong astigmatizm, and I am also highly sensitive to "interlaced" video displays, or the wrong refresh rate on a monitor.  Things that seem glaring to me in that area are oftne totally unnoticed by other people.



I wasn't aware that some people can see flickering in fixtures that are operating normally. I have noticed flickering monitors.


Most people do not realize that fluorescent bulbs and ballast are highly toxic. Most of your bulbs contain mercury (methylmercury to be exact), which is highly toxic.  And the ballast is filled with other highly toxic substances.  If everybody switched to these, it is simply a disaster in the making (as opposed to incandescent, which is safe, simply containing glass, brass, tungsten, and nitrogen).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198



Yes, the bulbs contain mercury. But, and I'll quote it from your link: "She says that even though fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, using them contributes less mercury to the environment than using regular incandescent bulbs. That's because they use less electricity — and coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of mercury emissions in the air."

Mercury vapor, Metal Halide and High Pressure Sodium lamps, used mainly for outdoor lighting, also contain mercury. Would you propose switching these with incandescent? Given their lifespan (24000+ hours), light output-vs-watts-used, and the extremely high cost of replacing them, going back to incandescent bulbs in those cases would be disastrous.

Incandescent bulbs often have a lead soldier joint at the base: lead isn't particularly environmentally friendly either.

The ballasts should be always be recycled. Recycling pails/boxes for ballasts/bulbs, shipping prepaid, are also available through the Home Depot catalog. I couldn't find a link describing ballasts as "highly toxic", that is unless you have a ballast 30 years old that contains PCBs. PCBs were banned in 1979.

I made sure that the hotel bought the bulbs with the "ALTO" designation, from Phillips. They are the only fluorescent bulbs with a low enough mercury content to not be considered hazardous waste, even in CA. In other words, safe enough to pitch in the dumpster.

Granted, CFR bulbs probably do not meet this requirement yet, but they have come a long way in just 5 years.



I remember when somebody dropped a fluorescent tube in a warehouse when I was in the military (1992).  Did you know that under US Code, that area immediately becomes a "HazMat" site?  That's right.  Nobody cares normally, but on a Government Facility it is a big deal.  The warehouse was closed up for 2 days to have the area "cleaned".  Now imagine that times 1 million, as everybody switches to them.



You are correct in that, technically, breaking a bulb would make a for HAZMAT site. You've also correct in that 99% of the time, no one cares. Your average meth lab probably generates, by weight, 100,000 times the amount of HAZMAT waste as a broken fluorescent bulb.

Just out of curiosity, what do you do with your batteries (like smoke alarm, remote control, etc.) when they are spent?


Thank you, totally agree...not usually the one to start yelling conspiracy, but shouldn't we be looking at who exactly would be profiting from this "ban"?

If this is such a serious concern, shouldn't we already have banned other, more serious items that are responsible for large amounts of inefficiency and the cause of wasted energy?


Who wins from this ban? Well, everyone. The consumer has a lower power bill, the electric companies might stave off building a new power plant for a few years (saving them money) , and the makers of the CFR bulb are happy too. The only losers are the makers of incandescent bulbs.

Lighting accounts for 10-15% of the power usage in America. By switching to fluorescent (or LED) bulbs, we would save 2/3 of that 10-15%, or 7-10% in power use. 7-10% is a huge amount when we're talking billions of dollars.

And I can even see now what will happen in another 10 years.  Somebody in the Government will realize that the landfills are starting to fill up with Flourescent Bulbs, and realize the "Ecological Disaster" that will result from this.  I am talking toxic chemicals.

Most people do not realize that flourescent bulbs and ballast are highly toxic.  Most of your bulbs contain mercury (methylmercury to be exact), which is highly toxic.  And the ballast is filled with other highly toxic substances.  If everybody switched to these, it is simply a disaster in the making (as opposed to incandescent, which is safe, simply containing glass, brass, tungsten, and nitrogen).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

I remember when somebody dropped a flourescent tube in a warehouse when I was in the military (1992).  Did you know that under US Code, that area immediately becomes a "HazMat" site?  That's right.  Nobody cares normally, but on a Government Facility it is a big deal.  The warehouse was closed up for 2 days to have the area "cleaned".  Now imagine that times 1 million, as everybody switches to them.


HazMat area!  And to think the dumb grocery clerks I used work with took the spent tube bulbs out back and chucked them like javelins!
;D

What idiots....

::)

The announcement came out here in Aus early last week. Apparently my state is the first to instigate it.


Common light bulbs face ban in PM ’s carbon plan. The West Australia n, 20th February 2007, 7:00 WST

Sale of common incandescent light bulbs will be phased out within three years and replaced by energyefficient compact fluorescents under a Federal Government plan to enhance its green credentials that will be detailed today.

The move, which would make Australia a world leader, would see the old-style bulbs phased out by the middle of 2010, ending 125 years of their commercial sale in Australia.

Up to 95 per cent of the energy used by standard light bulbs is wasted, prompting the Government to adopt a measure it believes will dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions. It is believed the plan would reduce emissions by as much as 800,000 tonnes a year between 2008 and 2012.

Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull will seek the co-operation of State governments and globe manufacturers to phase out the old bulbs.

Compact fluorescent lights use only about 20 per cent of the electricity required to produce the same amount of light in incandescent bulbs.

Energy-efficient lights cost more but can last between four and 10 times longer than the average incandescent bulb, saving more than 66 per cent in lighting costs.

Mr Turnbull said the compact fluorescents would pay for themselves within 12 months of their use.

Lighting produces about 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from Australian households and about 25 per cent of commercial emissions. Public and street lighting add to the emissions total.

Australian Conservation Foundation climate change campaigner, Tony Mohr, welcomed the initiative as a good first step.

“It’s great that this is happening but a number of other household appliances, particularly airconditioners, should be given similar treatment,” he said.

“And let’s not forget that the main game in addressing climate change is a carbon emissions trading scheme. We look forward to the Minister announcing one soon.”

In Perth yesterday, John Howard confirmed an extra $181 million for improving schools across the country at Balcatta Senior High School in the marginal electorate of Stirling.

Less than a dozen protesters and a scattering of boos from a handful of the tougher looking boys at the back of the high school gymnasium were the only opposition that the Prime Minister could muster on the first day of his four-day visit to the West.

Mr Howard was given the rock star treatment during a walk through the gymnasium after his speech with even the tougher looking boys down the back showing some enthusiasm to shake the PM’s hand and indulge in an old-fashioned back-slap.

Mr Howard is in Perth for the first Federal Cabinet meeting in WA in 10 years to be held tomorrow.
CHRIS JOHNSON and GRAHAM MASON




Australia's bulb action lightens up UK February 22, 2007 - 11:29PM  Sydney Morning Herald.

Australia's move to phase out standard light bulbs has prompted UK campaigners to ask: why can't Britain do the same?

The Guardian newspaper's Leo Hickman pointed out the decision to ban incandescent light bulbs, announced by Australian Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull this week, was taken in a country that refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol enforcing targets for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

"Isn't it rather embarrassing that a country as ungreen as Australia is showing up Britain?" he asked.

Ban the Bulb campaign founder Matt Prescott has been lobbying for Britain to introduce tax breaks on fluorescent bulbs, meaning manufacturers could make them cheaper for consumers.

But the British government has rejected the suggestion, saying European Union rules prevent single states from altering Value-Added Tax rates without the consensus of all member states.

"How are you going to get consensus from 20-odd countries on this?" the paper quoted Dr Prescott as saying.

"If relying on the EU means this issue is delayed, then we should just take a stand as a country. We take them on over much harder issues than this.

"It's great to see Australia has a can-do approach ... in the UK we seem to have a can't-do approach that means you have to solve every conceivable problem or petty quibble before committing to action."

I am not eco savey enough to know how much of a difference this will make in the world. I think there are some far bigger eco decisions that could be made if politicians were braver.

Personally I get migraines under flouros. And you cant dim them. My newest one in my loungeroom has the most awful blue tinge - if I try to read in there all I can see is a blue tinge around each letter in the book or magazine. Very annoying.

To me, there are much easier ways to make people convert to "Environmentally Friendly" forms of lighting.  And it does not require "Big Brother" to force them to convert.

Why not simply give a tax break to those that convert?  Just pass a bill, allowing people to deduct the cost of converting off of their state income taxes?  Or you can have the state issue credits to consumers that can be taken off of their electricity bill?

Or how about this: make people give up their monster SUVs.  I bet those are far more damaging to the environment then my incandescent lights.  I find it silly that the California Legislature is worried about Incandescent Lights, when so many of the people drive around in SUVs that use huge amounts of natural resources, and use the same amount of gas in a day that I do in a month.  And while you are at it, get rid of the Dodge Vipers, the Jaguars, the Lotus, and every other car that gets bad gas mileage (that is not used for "legitimate" commerce, like trucks and busses.  That will save much more resources and energy then making people switch what kind of light bulb they use.

Look, I am all for being Environmentally Friendly.  I was into recycling way back in the 1970's, and am still that way today.  And for many uses I do use flourescent bulbs.  My porch is lit by one, and my living room is lit by an adjustible Halogen light.

But when Government decides that "it is in my best interest" to change simply because they think it is better, that is to far.  The next thing you know, they will order stores to stop selling regular Coke, because everybody knows that Diet Coke is better for you (and we have an obesity problem in this country).

The next thing you know, snack foods are outlawed, everybody is drinking diet soda, all SUVs are replaced with Geo Metros and Yugos, and the only cloth allowed is wool or cotton because all synthetic fabrics are based on petro-chemicals.

California is a "Big Brother" state, because "those who care" think they know so much more then everybody else, and love to show them "how it should be". 

To me, there are much easier ways to make people convert to "Environmentally Friendly" forms of lighting.  And it does not require "Big Brother" to force them to convert.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the real issue here is not converting to alternative lighting, rather being forced to convert by Big Brother...

The easiest and fastest way to get rid of incandescents would be if Sylvania, Phillips, GE, etc. simply stopped making them.


Why not simply give a tax break to those that convert?  Just pass a bill, allowing people to deduct the cost of converting off of their state income taxes?  Or you can have the state issue credits to consumers that can be taken off of their electricity bill?

Tax breaks, passing bills, credits... I don't see the point or feasability for the average consumer. CFR bulbs take all of 5 seconds to install since the fixtures do not need to be replaced or modified. How would you track those who have converted to fluorescents anyway? Even if you could track everyone (which is a much more scary thought than banning a bulb), what's to keep Joe Average from replacing a fluorescent with an incandescent again while still sucking up the tax breaks?

The incentives to convert are right there on the package - most bulbs show how much money they will save (typically $30-50) over the life of the bulb. That figure doesn't include the cost of the numerous incandescent bulbs you would replace over that time either, and they are even a better deal if you have labor costs associated with changing the bulbs.


But when Government decides that "it is in my best interest" to change simply because they think it is better, that is to far. 


The Government already does this in numerous areas of our lives. Laws against prostitution (which I don't know your views) and illegal drugs (which I do know your views) are Big Brother saying "We know what's best for you".



California is a "Big Brother" state, because "those who care" think they know so much more then everybody else, and love to show them "how it should be". 


I've never lived in CA nor really know how messed up their system may or may not be, but I do know one thing: Next time I hear about brown-outs in CA I'm going to sit back and smile, knowing that those people might not be sitting in the dark if they would have made the switch to CFR bulbs.

A point.

The other day I replaced half the bulbs in the house with low energy ones.

Today I replaced them with normal bulbs.

Sorry all of you who are devoted to the energy saving ideas but I can't cook a meal with that little light in the kitchen. They suck!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the real issue here is not converting to alternative lighting, rather being forced to convert by Big Brother...

The easiest and fastest way to get rid of incandescents would be if Sylvania, Phillips, GE, etc. simply stopped making them.

Tax breaks, passing bills, credits... I don't see the point or feasability for the average consumer. CFR bulbs take all of 5 seconds to install since the fixtures do not need to be replaced or modified. How would you track those who have converted to fluorescents anyway? Even if you could track everyone (which is a much more scary thought than banning a bulb), what's to keep Joe Average from replacing a fluorescent with an incandescent again while still sucking up the tax breaks?

The incentives to convert are right there on the package - most bulbs show how much money they will save (typically $30-50) over the life of the bulb. That figure doesn't include the cost of the numerous incandescent bulbs you would replace over that time either, and they are even a better deal if you have labor costs associated with changing the bulbs.

The Government already does this in numerous areas of our lives. Laws against prostitution (which I don't know your views) and illegal drugs (which I do know your views) are Big Brother saying "We know what's best for you".


I've never lived in CA nor really know how messed up their system may or may not be, but I do know one thing: Next time I hear about brown-outs in CA I'm going to sit back and smile, knowing that those people might not be sitting in the dark if they would have made the switch to CFR bulbs.


Red Ant, I have to point out one thing. . .

Tax Breaks only take away from Tax Liability, buying a bulb to get that tax break, and then buying another one would be foolish in that it won't really help you save any money, you'd be buying a bulb with no purpose. . .Sorry, as a tax preparer it's kinda my job to point things like that out.

I have very personal views of the drug war and prostitution in that I think anything that does not infringe on someone else's rights should be legal. . .that said certain drugs do infringe on others rights, many however that are illegal do not in that they do not cause the amount of inhibition Alcohal which is legal causes.  Also--on prostitution, I think making it legal but requiring a license that requires testing for specific sexually transmitted diseases would help stop a lot of the prostitution problems by offering a legal way of doing it.  So while Big Brother does tell people what to do, many of use disagree with that from the get-go.

I would voluntairly switch to low-energy bulbs if I knew more about them, which now I'm curious, but I too would feel a little worried about being told what kinda bulbs I can or cannot use without being told how they are any more dangerous  than the aforementioned SUVs that people are allowed to drive that get 8-10 MPG while I have driven a Plymouth Neon since turning 18 so that I got maximum gas mileage (at that time 32 MPG was good) and great emissions. . .In My Honest Opinion. . .while I agree with you in principal on most things, I have to say that there are far bigger problems with the environment than light bulbs. . .and while I support moving towards safer bulbs, I am far more interested in the alternative forms of fuel for cars, and possibly encouraging better gas mileage vehicle to the richer who buy the gas guzzlers just to say they can. . .I think encouraging people positively to do things better for the environment will be far more effective than hostilly making people feel like they are bad. . .of course I watch that darn Super Nanny--maybe that's why I am the way I am.  . .

Also--on prostitution, I think making it legal but requiring a license that requires testing for specific sexually transmitted diseases would help stop a lot of the prostitution problems by offering a legal way of doing it.  So while Big Brother does tell people what to do, many of use disagree with that from the get-go.

I think encouraging people positively to do things better for the environment will be far more effective than hostilly making people feel like they are bad. . .of course I watch that darn Super Nanny--maybe that's why I am the way I am.  . .


"Legalization" is not always a solution either.  Prostitution is legal in most of Nevada, but they still have problems with it.  Either the girls do not want to take the tests, they do not want to go through the hastle, they can't get a job at a brothel, or they want to work in areas where prostitution is illegal.  And you see this in other places where prostitution is legal (Japan, Philippines, Mexico, etc).  You will always have a segment of those which refuse to follow any rules whatsoever, normally because they do not want to pay the "fees".

And I agree, making people switch by force is a bad idea.  Simply look back 20 years ago, when Coca-Cola tried to force the nation to convert to the "New Formula".  We all know how that ended.  People resisted the change, and Coke got a huge black eye in the publicity department.

"Legalization" is not always a solution either.  Prostitution is legal in most of Nevada, but they still have problems with it.  Either the girls do not want to take the tests, they do not want to go through the hastle, they can't get a job at a brothel, or they want to work in areas where prostitution is illegal.  And you see this in other places where prostitution is legal (Japan, Philippines, Mexico, etc).  You will always have a segment of those which refuse to follow any rules whatsoever, normally because they do not want to pay the "fees".

And I agree, making people switch by force is a bad idea.  Simply look back 20 years ago, when Coca-Cola tried to force the nation to convert to the "New Formula".  We all know how that ended.  People resisted the change, and Coke got a huge black eye in the publicity department.


Yes of course, some people will want to do it where it is illegal, but they would have to compete with the legal ones, and people who know the legal ones are 'safe' and won't get them in trouble would curb business for the illegal ones.  Same thing with drugs. . . .there will always be a black market on it, but the thing is if you can get them legally, many consumers I think would be persuaded by the fact that they won't get in trouble buying it legally. . .and then more people could come to get help for it too because the addiction would be like an addiction to alcohal or smoking in that people who want to change don't have to be worried about slipping in front of the wrong person and getting arrested.

I mean, I personally think that legalizing things of the nature above could do a lot of good, save a lot of tax dollars and encourage safer activity even though on surface it may look the other way. . .Big Brother, as you said, is only making it better for those on the black market to make a living when they encourage laws that 'ban' things so easily obtained.  Coca-Cola was a great example, thank you for that reminder--that's why I drink Pepsi, Vess, and other off brands today. . .the whole Coke thing, though not really in my memories, is something I've learned much about, and is something that kinda made it taste bitter to me (ever since I heard the whole story, Coke hasn't tasted right to me). . .

We do need to do things about obeasity, we do need to do things about HIV, we do need to do things about drugs & Prostitution, and we deffinitely need to do things about the environment. . .the problem is there are so many politicians, and they are so motivated by votes that they do not take the necessary time to actually sit back and research laws before they enact them. . .they often make foolish laws, and then won't admit they made a mistake when they don't work, instead they make more foolish laws to cover them up.  (A Good example of this is Iowa and it's "Child-Safety" Zones that the Center for Missing and Exploited Children told them would not work and would drive sex offenders underground and paints them with a broad brush. . .now Iowa has lost track of a very large number of sex offenders, suicide rates are up, and not one child has been protected because they passed a law on it's face value and didn't look past the text, they have not repealled it because they won't admit it's a problem--but Law Enforcement and many other officials have publicly denounced the law as bad policy that was 'feel-good' legislation. . .that kinda crap puts people in danger. . .no one researches these ideas before they are passed, the just pass them. . .)  I think this environmental idea is like you said, Big Brother over-stepping it's bounds. . .Yes, I'd be willing to try a new light-bulb, but tell me why I should don't say Change it or be fined!  That makes me upset when the government steps in and says "Do This because it's for your own good". . .they said that about meat in the 80s and Dairy, now we are being told that leads to high-cholestorol---they should stick to their job and let Scientists do theirs.

I had low energy lightbulbs (compact fluorescents) in my old house and since I moved to my new place, I have changed the light fittings  from ones that took 6 halogens or 4 normal bulbs to ones that only need one compact fluorescent, that included changing the light swiches from dimmers. A big change in the first months electric bill.

Someone mentioned tax breaks earlier. A better idea would be to add punitive sales tax to normal incandescent bulbs to make them less atttractive to buy compared to relatively expensive compact fluorescents. No one looks at the long term benefits when they buy light bulbs, they just look at the price on the shelf ticket and not the fact you'll need to replace it a lot sooner than CFs and the cost of the electricity to run it for the duration of its life.

If someone has a certifiable medical condition that prevents them from using CFs, then fair enough but when they go out, they'll be exposed to fluorescent lighting.

I had low energy lightbulbs (compact fluorescents) in my old house and since I moved to my new place, I have changed the light fittings  from ones that took 6 halogens or 4 normal bulbs to ones that only need one compact fluorescent, that included changing the light swiches from dimmers. A big change in the first months electric bill.

Someone mentioned tax breaks earlier. A better idea would be to add punitive sales tax to normal incandescent bulbs to make them less atttractive to buy compared to relatively expensive compact fluorescents. No one looks at the long term benefits when they buy light bulbs, they just look at the price on the shelf ticket and not the fact you'll need to replace it a lot sooner than CFs and the cost of the electricity to run it for the duration of its life.

If someone has a certifiable medical condition that prevents them from using CFs, then fair enough but when they go out, they'll be exposed to fluorescent lighting.


Yep... Tax 'em like cigarettes and Copenhagen.  ;)

If someone has a certifiable medical condition that prevents them from using CFs, then fair enough but when they go out, they'll be exposed to fluorescent lighting.


Remember, we are talking about California.

Their solution is that if you have a "Medical Condition", you get a prescription for Marijuanna.

I still love the guy that used the claim that he failed a drug test (he was a truck driver) because he had a doctor's prescription for "Medicinal Marijuanna" because he suffered from Glaucoma (for the last 12 years).

Of course, he still lost his license.  He got out of the drug test, but the state pulled his license, since he had a doctor testify that he had glaucoma, a disease that causes blindness.

And I did not even like going to a doctor to get my Motrin, why in the heck should I go to a doctor, just to get a kind of light-bulb that does not give me headaches?  Like I should give some quack $200, just so he can sign a piece of paper saying I need a different type of bulb?  It would be cheaper (and easier) for me to just drive to Mexico, Nevada, or Arizona (or Oregon if I was in Northern California) and get my light bulbs.

Then what comes next?  House-to-house searches, to make sure you are useing "approved light bulbs"?  In California, I would not be surprised.  You would see "Lightbulb Police" driving the streets at night, reporting anybody they see that uses an incandescent light.

I am curious though, what will this do to the "Centennial Light".  It is reguarded as the oldest working light bulb in the world, having been in almost constant use since 1901.  I suppose that it would have to be replaced as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light

In fact, it has it's own "Bulb Cam", so you can check it at any time, to see if it still works:

http://www.centennialbulb.org/photos.htm

Mushroom, I can't really respond to the majority of your above post. It's a *bit* out there.

Despite the fact I've posed three or so questions to you on this thread, all of which you haven't answered, I'll answer your question:


I am curious though, what will this do to the "Centennial Light".  It is reguarded as the oldest working light bulb in the world, having been in almost constant use since 1901.  I suppose that it would have to be replaced as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light


Yes, it is the world's oldest working light bulb. For that reason alone I wouldn't replace it.

While this sounds like some sort of miracle, it really isn't. Dimming a 100 watt decade bulb (guaranteed to last 25,000 hours at 120V) to 50% voltage would extend its rated life by 20-35 times (iow, 57 years at least). Dimming it to what the Centennial bulbs puts out (estimated at 14 watts) would make it last somewhere around 7 millenia.

Here's another link for you:

http://members.misty.com/don/longlife.html

I will concede to you and Davey that off-brand CFR bulbs do not last as long nor give off as much light as they say they do. I've read links on this and seen it first hand. If you are going CFR, go with name brands like Sylvania or Phillips.