23 replies to this topic

[Luminosity]

Effective New Years Day, it will be illegal to manufacture 100 watt incandescent light bulbs in the United States.
Public Law number 110-140, or the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, would gradually phase out incandescent light in the United States in the next few years. After the 100 watt bulb is phased out, they will phase out the 75 watt bulb, then the 60 watt bulb, and so forth. This is a terrible idea. A Costco where I live already does not carry incandescent lights.

Fluorescent lights have a negative impact on health. Americans should have a right to use the kind of lights they feel are best in their own homes.

Who introduced this law?

Representative Nick J. Rahall of West Virginia, Democrat

Who voted for this law?

In the United States Senate:

http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00226

In the United States House of Representatives:

http://clerk.house.g...007/roll040.xml

It was signed into law by then President George W. Bush

For general information including the text of the bill, go here:

http://thomas.loc.go...y/z?d110:H.R.6:

Recently, some Republicans in Congress defunded enforcement of the law, but it is still in effect.

If you think you are smart enough to chose your own lightbulbs, write to your congressperson and let them know. A snail mail letter has the most effect. If you can, write to the President too.

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

To find out who your Senator is and/or their mailing address go to:

http://www.senate.go...enators_cfm.cfm

If you know his or her name you could also write to them at:
United States Senate
Washington D.C. 20510

To find your Representative in the House go to:

https://writerep.hou...p/welcome.shtml

If you know his or her name you could also write to them at:
United States House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

In researching this article I talked to store managers at three stores, and two online lightbulb merchants, among other sources. The voting record and legislative history is from the Library of Congress's website.

Edited by Luminosity, 18 December 2011 - 07:10 AM.

[rwac]

The latest news is that it's been delayed till september 2012.

http://www.sfgate.co...WCVHW6VDKHT.DTL

[Luminosity]

Thanks. But no one should think that a delay in funding enforcement is enough. That Costco is already not stocking incandescent bulbs, possibly they all have. Large stores and manufacturers plan well in advance. So if you value your choice here, act now.

[niner]

If you think you are smart enough to chose your own lightbulbs,

If you think you are smart enough to determine your nation's energy policy, let's hear your ideas.

[Luminosity]

Mal-illuminating people's homes is not necessary to conserve energy. There are many better ideas than that one. If someone wants to go into that here, that's fine but I have other things to do right now. If you enjoyed Congress' or George W. Bush's other bad ideas, buy all means, sit back and let them make another one.

[niner]

Mal-illuminating people's homes is not necessary to conserve energy. There are many better ideas than that one. If someone wants to go into that here, that's fine but I have other things to do right now. If you enjoyed Congress' or George W. Bush's other bad ideas, buy all means, sit back and let them make another one.

So are you advising that we continue to use five times as much energy as we need to in order to generate light? Realizing, as I'm sure you do, that the majority of that energy comes from burning coal which fills our air with toxic metals, radioactive elements, and submicron particulates that kill hundreds of thousands yearly? You're proposing that we do that because you have a way better idea? And this idea would save at least as much energy per dollar invested, and would be less onerous to people overall? I'd like to hear about it.

[Luminosity]

Yes, I have many better ideas but that's not what I am here to discuss. Many people are aware that fluorescent lights are bad for their health and they want to preserve their choice of lighting materials in their own homes. You can continue to rely on Congress to make that choice for you. Which of their prior actions made you such a fan? The way they dealt with the mortgage crisis, unemployment, the bail out, TARP? The choice isn't between mal-illuminating ourselves and burning up coal. That is a strawman argument.

Edited by Luminosity, 22 December 2011 - 12:54 AM.

[Luminosity]

YOU CAN REPOST THIS ARTICLE AS LONG AS YOU DON'T DISTORT ITS MEANING.

[niner]

Yes, I have many better ideas but that's not what I am here to discuss. Many people are aware that fluorescent lights are bad for their health and they want to preserve their choice of lighting materials in their own homes. You can continue to rely on Congress to make that choice for you. Which of their prior actions made you such a fan? The way they dealt with the mortgage crisis, unemployment, the bail out, TARP? The choice isn't between mal-illuminating ourselves and burning up coal. That is a strawman argument.

No it isn't. TARP is a strawman. You're proposing that we use incandescent bulbs that need five times as much energy per lumen. That energy does in fact come from burning coal. You said you had a better way to save energy, but now you don't want to talk about it.

[rwac]

No it isn't. TARP is a strawman. You're proposing that we use incandescent bulbs that need five times as much energy per lumen. That energy does in fact come from burning coal. You said you had a better way to save energy, but now you don't want to talk about it.

First of all, based on general principles, people should have the freedom to choose inefficient options. Secondly, not all of that energy in the IR band is wasted, it helps heat rooms, atleast in winter.

I don't know if you have noticed, but most curly bulbs end up in landfills at the moment, rather than being specially disposed of. And the mercury ends up in landfills and storm drains too.

What is so horrible about buying something because we like the way the lighting looks? There must be something about it because many many people have been stocking up on incandescents. There are plenty of people complaining of various issues like eyestrain with fluorescents. People buy incandescents even when they are approximately the same cost, like most bulbs in say krogers.

This same logic leads to things like butter being taxed.

[niner]

First of all, based on general principles, people should have the freedom to choose inefficient options. Secondly, not all of that energy in the IR band is wasted, it helps heat rooms, atleast in winter.

I don't know if you have noticed, but most curly bulbs end up in landfills at the moment, rather than being specially disposed of. And the mercury ends up in landfills and storm drains too.

What is so horrible about buying something because we like the way the lighting looks? There must be something about it because many many people have been stocking up on incandescents. There are plenty of people complaining of various issues like eyestrain with fluorescents. People buy incandescents even when they are approximately the same cost, like most bulbs in say krogers.

This same logic leads to things like butter being taxed.

I would agree with you if a person's use of electricity only imposed costs on that person. Unfortunately, electric power as it is currently produced imposes huge costs on others, or 'externalities' to use the economic term. Far and away, the largest of these externalities is the cost in healthcare expenditures and lost productivity because of illness caused by emissions from burning coal. These aren't small costs, either; in fact they're shockingly high. I've seen estimates of $200B/year.

This law doesn't force people to use CFLs. It phases out only the worst of the incandescents, but there are still going to be high quality incandescents available, as well as LEDs and other technologies. When I really care about the quality of light, I use a halogen bulb. As far as I know, halogens will continue to be available for the foreseeable future. Modern CFLs are actually pretty good. I think a lot of people's complaints about them are based on old technology. For example, I have an ancient one that takes a couple seconds to come on, but all my more modern ones light instantly. CFLs do contain a small amount of mercury, but even if they are discarded in a landfill instead of being recycled, they still result in less mercury being released into the environment than an incandescent bulb used for the same number of hours, because of the mercury that is released when coal is burned. Manufacturers are continuing to reduce the amount of mercury in CFLs, with the lowest being about 1mg. This site has a lot of data on the mercury issue. Eventually most lighting will probably be LED anyway.

Luminosity might look at this law as forcing her to use lights she doesn't want to use, or taking away the lights she wants to use. I look at it as protecting my children from being poisoned by the coal emissions from Luminosity's incandescent bulbs.

[rwac]

mercury that is released when coal is burned.

But exposing them when a curly bulb inevitably breaks is fine right?

[niner]

mercury that is released when coal is burned.

But exposing them when a curly bulb inevitably breaks is fine right?

I've never had one break, but if it did, the situation would be under my control rather than someone else's. Just like if I crash my car when my kids are riding in it, they could get hurt. People are a lot more willing to take risks that are under their control than they are to have risks imposed on them by others. People are also more willing to take risks that are associated with a benefit to them, like driving or getting a lot of high quality lumens for little money. There's not a reason in the world why I should accept a risk that only benefits Luminosity, and doesn't benefit me one bit. I think this is the fundamental flaw with Libertarianism. Libertarians don't like to be told they can't impose costs on others. They try to ignore, rationalize, or wish away the costs, but the costs remain.

[rwac]

I've never had one break, but if it did, the situation would be under my control rather than someone else's. Just like if I crash my car when my kids are riding in it, they could get hurt. People are a lot more willing to take risks that are under their control than they are to have risks imposed on them by others. People are also more willing to take risks that are associated with a benefit to them, like driving or getting a lot of high quality lumens for little money. There's not a reason in the world why I should accept a risk that only benefits Luminosity, and doesn't benefit me one bit. I think this is the fundamental flaw with Libertarianism. Libertarians don't like to be told they can't impose costs on others. They try to ignore, rationalize, or wish away the costs, but the costs remain.

And I have a tendency to fumble things. Now what? Shouldn't I be able to choose which risks to take?

[niner]

And I have a tendency to fumble things. Now what? Shouldn't I be able to choose which risks to take?

Sure. The law doesn't force you to use CFLs. You can use halogens, which are really nice lights btw, or LEDs or other technology.

[rwac]

Sure. The law doesn't force you to use CFLs. You can use halogens, which are really nice lights btw, or LEDs or other technology.

Halogens are not the same warm incandescent light either, they are bluer. And there are few non-directional LEDs.

[niner]

Sure. The law doesn't force you to use CFLs. You can use halogens, which are really nice lights btw, or LEDs or other technology.

Halogens are not the same warm incandescent light either, they are bluer. And there are few non-directional LEDs.

Some halogens are pretty close, particularly if they're dimmed.

[maxwatt]

No one has ever proven fluorescent lights are any more detrimental than incandescents. In fact, incandescent light is every bit as unnatural, if you use sunlight as a yardstick. Too much and you throw off your circadian rhythms. Halogens tend to be too blue, and LED lights are only as good as the phosphors they use, which are unbalanced to one frequency or another. Whatever kind of light you use, you need at least a half hour of natural light a day, preferably outdoors.

As for what's comfortable inside, people get used to it. I remember the gas jets in my late Grandfather's house: the warm yellow flame gently dancing about the cool blue central region, like a candle but brighter. You could see clearly, without the inevitable harsh glare of an incandescent bulb. Just try and light your home with gas-light today, and the building inspector, the fire department and your insurance company will be all over you. Boy am I pissed. I hate change of any kind. Monarchy doesn't seem like such a bad idea any more. Then we could blame everything on the king, instead of some abstract 'government'.


Man the better, Man the higher:
Man the pumps, the world's on fire!

Edited by maxwatt, 23 December 2011 - 12:53 AM.

[rwac]

Just try and light your home with gas-light today, and the building inspector, the fire department and your insurance company will be all over you. Boy am I pissed.

I support you 100% max. Alas, it's hard to get people angry at something that happened many decades ago.

Edited by rwac, 23 December 2011 - 12:53 AM.

[maxwatt]

Seems like only yesterday.

[Luminosity]

My Congresspeople seem to be ignoring written communications. Maybe phone calls are a better way to go?
You can call your Congressperson through the Capital Switchboard (202) 224-3121

Or post on Yelp

I've given Infowars permission to repost my article if they want to. This post will confirm that.

More of my writing can be found at my blog:

Commentary http://www.longecity...at-7-commentary

Health http://www.longecity...og/page__cat__5

Edited by Luminosity, 29 December 2013 - 04:01 AM.

[maxwatt]

Only comparatively dim, reddish light will not muck up your circadian rhythms. All artificial lighting is bad for you. I suggest wearing those blue-blocker sunglasses after dark to maintain proper hormone levels. And they haven't banned candles or kerosene lamps yet. Whale oil though is unavailable.

[Luminosity]

I would hope so. Thanks for the tips. Electric light was a distinct improvement over candles and kerosene in that it doesn't have flames and smoke, not to mention kerosene fumes.

[Luminosity]

..

Edited by Luminosity, 29 December 2013 - 04:49 AM.