I replaced most of the bulbs in my apartment with them. I didn't do it because of the environment or to be politically correct. I only did it to save on my electric bill, and I really haven't noticed much of a difference in my bill.
If these bulbs are really that dangerous, then I may go back to the incandescent bulbs.
The entire US must change to CFL bulbs by 2016! It's the law! Good or Bad?
by AK - Jeff 136 Replies latest social current
-
Junction-Guy
-
AK - Jeff
Actually, yes Six, any unneeded interference with our constitution, removal of our personal rights to choose in matters like this bother me.
When seat-belt laws were enacted, I was a JW. I didn't care about such things. I have become far more sensitive to my rights, and particularly to the government's move toward a form of fascism that subordinates the will of the people and personal choice to solve a current affair issue.
I am a big supporter of free will involvement in recycling programs, and energy reduction programs, of a voluntary nature. But government should not be telling us what kind of light-bulb we have to use in our light sockets. Whats next? School uniforms with a hammer and sickle? Everyone must carry 'papers' as we move around the country? Or a pin that identifies Jews, Moslems, Christians?
That is my point. I am not coming from anywhere except that the constitution is being corrupted and ignored to provide ecological freelancers control over ordinary events, choices. Control that should be individual.
"We, the government, know what you need, will tell you where to get it, and enact legistation to assure that only our choice for you is allowed." It is a dangerous problem.
Jeff
-
BurnTheShips
Tell me how it makes sense to buy all these poisonous light bulbs from China, Six. Did you read the warnings on the bulbs? Did you think about the fact that they can cause migraines in some people and depression on others? Do you think people are really going to get in their cars and drive to a toxic waste dump to dispose of these bulbs? Think of all the mercury in the environment that will result from the improper disposal of the bulbs. And think of the children and adults who will get mercury poisoning when the bulbs fall on the floor and break. I mean no disrespect to you, but I will ask you your own question: have you done research on this?
That response is a winner. The government has no business telling us what bulbs to use and that Senator in the video was absolutely right. The government is out of control.
Hopefully by 2016 we will have improved LED technology that will produce a broad spectrum light like incandescents without this danger.
BTS
-
BurnTheShips
"We, the government, know what you need, will tell you where to get it, and enact legistation to assure that only our choice for you is allowed." It is a dangerous problem.
Indeed. Statism at its finest. The state is the only body that can act immorally without anyone batting an eye. All other associations in life are voluntary.
Thank you for this. I was going to switch to CFL, now I am not. I have a small child and am worried of mercury's effects on his brain development.
BTS
-
BurnTheShips
Excerpt from Murray Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto For a New Liberty
But the critical difference between libertarians and other people is not in the area of private crime; the critical difference is their view of the role of the State?the government. For libertarians regard the State as the supreme, the eternal, the best organized aggressor against the persons and property of the mass of the public. All States everywhere, whether democratic, dictatorial, or monarchical, whether red, white, blue, or brown,
The State! Always and ever the government and its rulers and operators have been considered above the general moral law. The "Pentagon Papers" are only one recent instance among innumerable instances in history of men, most of whom are perfectly honorable in their private lives, who lie in their teeth before the public. Why? For "reasons of State." Service to the State is supposed to excuse all actions that would be considered immoral or criminal if committed by "private" citizens. The distinctive feature of libertarians is that they coolly and uncompromisingly apply the general moral law to people acting in their roles as members of the State apparatus. Libertarians make no exceptions. For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as "members of the government") has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it "war"; then ennobled the mass slaughter that "war" involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it "conscription" in the "national service." For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it "taxation." In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place....................
.............There is another reason why State aggression has been far more important than private, a reason apart from the greater organization and central mobilizing of resources that the rulers of the State can impose. The reason is the absence of any check upon State depredation, a check that does exist when we have to worry about muggers or the Mafia. To guard against private criminals we have been able to turn to the State and its police; but who can guard us against the State itself? No one. For another critical distinction of the State is that it compels the monopolization of the service of protection; the State arrogates to itself a virtual monopoly of violence and of ultimate decision-making in society. If we don't like the decisions of the State courts, for example, there are no other agencies of protection to which we may turn.
It is true that, in the United States, at least, we have a constitution that imposes strict limits on some powers of government. But, as we have discovered in the past century, no constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men. And if the ultimate power to interpret a constitution is given to the government's own Supreme Court, then the inevitable tendency is for the Court to continue to place its imprimatur on ever-broader powers for its own government. Furthermore, the highly touted "checks and balances" and "separation of powers" in the American government are flimsy indeed, since in the final analysis all of these divisions are part of the same government and are governed by the same set of rulers.
EDIT, I reposted it in its own thread.
BTS
-
coffee_black
Even MSNBC recognizes the dangers of these new bulbs. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23730158#2373015
Little by little we are losing our freedom. I guess the government thinks we won't notice if they do this over time... and the sad fact is that most people don't notice at all.... kind of like the frog in the pot of cold water...and you gradually turn up the heat... and the frog doesn't notice until it's too late.
I'll be stocking up on the old fashioned bulbs.
Coffee
-
Satanus
The govt make these mercury lights a huge business. It could assign some of it's corporate buddies the sole right to remove and dispose of them. If they did that, it opens everybody's home to govt reps. Just a possibilty. Probably won't happen, as leds become cheaper and standardized.
S -
brinjen
Incandescent bulbs are being phased out here in 2010.
Maybe this is the new light we've all been waiting for.
-
brinjen
But seriously, by the time 2016 rolls around it's highly likely led lighting will be a viable alternative. Flicker free, comes in 'warm' shades and uses even less power than fluros. Better yet, the bulbs last for yonks.
-
WTWizard
I believe the mercury issue is played up too much. True, they do contain about 5 mg pof mercury per bulb. But, they save release of about 10 mg of mercury at power plants because they are efficient, for a net savings of 5 mg of mercury per bulb.
However, people should be allowed the freedom to choose their own light bulbs. I, for one, have opted for CFL lights to save energy, both at the bulb and from the heat they otherwise would put out. And I have a LCD monitor for my computer because it is more energy efficient than the old CRTs. But that is because of the cost on my electricity bill--why pay more for electricity than you have to?
There are better technologies available. The one I use for Christmas lights is the LED, which lasts longer than CFLs do. If they develop a reasonably priced LED light that has a reasonable spectrum, will fit my sockets where I now have CFLs, and puts out the quantity of light per watt used that they are capable of, then I will change to LED lights for even more savings. Proper LEDs use only 10% of the energy per lumen as regular bulbs, compared to 25% for CFLs. And no mercury to deal with.
As for the constitution, where are they going to stop? They want people to use CFLs, but they do not stop the biggest waste of energy--the Washtowel Slaveholdery. Hmm--seems they want people to be dumbed down. Maybe they are trying to limit the intelligence of people.