# Low-energy light bulbs can cause rashes and swelling to sensitive skin, warn experts



## micropage7 (Dec 31, 2011)

The phasing out of traditional light bulbs could cause misery for thousands who have light-sensitive skin disorders, medical experts warned yesterday.

Dr Robert Sarkany said some low-energy bulbs gave vulnerable people painful rashes and swelling.

He backed calls by patient groups for the Government to give medical exemptions for those at risk.

The warning comes as British shops start to clear their shelves of traditional bulbs, which are being replaced by more energy-efficient versions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Large retailers have already stopped selling conventional 100-watt bulbs, the most popular size.

They will be banned from September along with frosted 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs, followed by most others before 2012.

Shoppers will then be able to buy only halogen bulbs - which resemble normal bulbs but use 70 per cent of the energy - or compact fluorescent ones, which use just 30 per cent of the energy.

Although low-energy bulbs cut household electricity bills, the move has proved unpopular with shoppers.

Halogens are more expensive - costing around £1.99 each - while critics say the fluorescent type have an unattractive harsh light and take up to a minute to warm up to full strength.

But medical charities say the light from low-energy bulbs triggers migraines, epilepsy and rashes.

Dr Sarkany, a photodermatologist at St John's Institute of Dermatology, St Thomas' Hospital, in London, said he has treated patients for rashes caused by exposure to low-energy lamps.

Some suffer from lupus, a disease of the immune system that can cause skin to become hypersensitive to sunlight.

But Dr Sarkany said lupus sufferers were also reporting an adverse reaction to fluorescent lights.

He added: 'Patients with lupus feel strongly about this. They feel their skin deteriorates with fluorescent lights and have taken this issue to Parliament.'

A spokesman for Skin Care Campaign said: 'The main concern is over the intensity of the ultraviolet light from low-energy bulbs.

'Particularly for people with skin conditions such as lupus, eczema and psoriasis, it causes a lot of problem with burning.

'There are also more unusual conditions where people are completely light-sensitive.

'At the moment, they can use a traditional incandescent light bulb because the ultraviolet light is so dim.

'But low-energy fluorescent lights are a problem.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161899/Low-energy-light-bulbs-cause-rashes-swelling-sensitive-skin-warn-experts.html


----------



## Lionheart (Dec 31, 2011)

They also emit mercury vapor


----------



## AsRock (Dec 31, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> They also emit mercury vapor



Wait till you see one fry lol.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2011)

i think the key here is that they're talking about thousands, in an entire country.


might as well ban flowers, for the tens of thousands with hayfever.


These people have a special medical condition, so yes - medical facilities should use traditional bulbs, but if they're trying to shift back off the power savers for everyone its not worth it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 31, 2011)

Consumers should decide what bulbs they use, no one else.  This short-sighted environmental takeover BS is getting old.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Consumers should decide what bulbs they use, no one else.  This short-sighted environmental takeover BS is getting old.



around here we run into blackouts and power lines/transformers melting in the summer, so a push to lower power consumption at a country wide level makes a ton of sense. that doesnt mean i think a total ban is in order, just restrictions on the regular globes to reduce the amount of them used.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 31, 2011)

You know what would work a whole lot better?  A ban on running ACs.  Or building more power plants.  Or upgrading the power infrastructure.  In 5 years from now, if you don't do one or all of the above but still change to CFLs, the grid problems will remain.

Replacing incandescent bulbs with CFL only displaces all the power consumption to the factories that make them (namely in Southeast Asia).  It costs a whole lot more to make a CFL than it does an incandescent bulb by every measure.  Incandescent is just glass with bits of metal attached to it--both easily recycleable.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 1, 2012)

Haven't these lights that set these people off been in every store, office, and medical facility around for decades? And it's not like the halogens are so horribly expensive. They last longer than the incandescent. They ignore that and just go on and on about the horrors of fluorescent bulbs which are already everywhere.


----------



## unsmart (Jan 1, 2012)

Last updated at 1:41 PM on 14th March 2009

 Maybe alots changed in three years or the bulbs in the UK suck. 
 The compact florescent bulb admit almost no UV A or B[which you need anyway] and they pulse at something like 1khz due to the digital ballast[so it's fine for epileptics,plus the phosphorous coating smooths the pulse ]and start instantly now. They also admit more blue light which is known to help with seasonal depression,plants and pets.  
 I filled my house with them when I bought it three years ago and have replaced only one in the play room which was most likely due to my kids I hate incandescent bulbs if you can't tell.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 1, 2012)

Well a lot of these issues were fix with new halogen bulbs. The real issue is hospitals and medical facilities only update stuff like this every 20 to 30 years so they are still using the old shop style halogen bulbs. If they were using compact florescent, stuff like warming up to full power and harsh light would not have been an issue.

I have no comment on the skill condition people. I have psoriasis and use compact florescent bulbs daily with no realistic change in my bad skin. So unless the people with light sensitive skin issues are sun bathing with these lights, I don't think a 1 to 2 hour dose every now and again is going to cause an issue. Whats next, we change the millions of stores, malls, work facilities, etc. back to old bulbs as well?


----------



## mediasorcerer (Jan 1, 2012)

Hey these new bulbs are actually an environmental nightmare, they contain mercury and if broken[which happens] mercury is spread into the area , it should be evacuated due to the vapour is very toxic,
they should never have been introduced, i wont use them in my home, f%&k that!!![xcuse french]

disgusting idea.


----------



## Frederik S (Jan 1, 2012)

There are so many environmental issues with the current generation low energy bulbs and now this as well. 

People who have bad eye sight will have an even harder time seeing anything due to the bad spectral performance of these types of bulbs. Besides that the color tonality is so odd that they are unusable as work lighting when you work with drawings and color. 

The ban on traditional bulbs is probably promted by some companies trying to create a bigger market for themselves, I sincerely doubt that they perform any better than traditional bulbs LCA-wise. There are so many toxins involved in the production and in the end product, it makes the stuff used to produce traditional bulbs look harmless by comparison.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 1, 2012)

mediasorcerer said:


> Hey these new bulbs are actually an environmental nightmare, they contain mercury and if broken[which happens] mercury is spread into the area , it should be evacuated due to the vapour is very toxic,
> they should never have been introduced, i wont use them in my home, f%&k that!!![xcuse french]
> 
> disgusting idea.



The computer you are using to post this most likely has a small amount of mercury in it. So do most lithium based batteries.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 1, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Consumers should decide what bulbs they use, no one else.  This short-sighted environmental takeover BS is getting old.



Damn right, and not just bulbs everything else to, if I want to build a house with an asbestos roof, lead painted walls and use CFC's the i'll be damned if anyone will stop me  

Perhaps this or something similar is the future of low energy bulbs, LED. 

http://www.play.com/Gadgets/Gadgets...tml?_$ja=tsid:11518|cat:17123425|prd:17123425


----------



## Drone (Jan 1, 2012)

Frederik S said:


> The ban on traditional bulbs is probably promted by some companies trying to create a bigger market for themselves



That might be true. It's all about business.





That would be awesome if there was a technology that could capture and preserve daylight. Then sunlight could be used anytime anywhere. Natural illumination ftw. But I dunno maybe some jerks love to masturbate under the neon loneliness.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 1, 2012)

Drone said:


> But I dunno maybe some jerks love to masturbate under the neon loneliness.



Yea, masturbating in sunlight FTW


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 1, 2012)

Frederik S said:


> There are so many environmental issues with the current generation low energy bulbs and now this as well.
> 
> People who have bad eye sight will have an even harder time seeing anything due to the bad spectral performance of these types of bulbs. Besides that the color tonality is so odd that they are unusable as work lighting when you work with drawings and color.
> 
> The ban on traditional bulbs is probably promted by some companies trying to create a bigger market for themselves, I sincerely doubt that they perform any better than traditional bulbs LCA-wise. There are so many toxins involved in the production and in the end product, it makes the stuff used to produce traditional bulbs look harmless by comparison.



Actually, the amount of mercury that could possibly reach the environment from consumers from CFB is nothing compared to the mercury released from the coal we burn to power the nation. Something to the tune of less than 0.1%. The reduction of energy used by old incandecents, results in us need to burn less coal to keep up with power demand and drastically reduces the amount of mercury the power plants put out. The net result is actually a huge benefit to the environment, not a negative.

And light tone can be corrected by changing the color of the surrounding plastic. Something the bulb companies overlooked as they simply used the same color and material as incandescent bulbs. CF has a different wavelength and is closer to a bluish UV color, so that needs to be accounted for and i don't think it has been thus far.


----------



## robal (Jan 1, 2012)

"Experts" here do not give scientific explanation of these effects.

I say it's BS.
Incandescent bulb emits exactly the same type of light as energy efficient one PLUS a lot more.


----------



## unsmart (Jan 1, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
 As was already stated CFL we be replaced by L.E.Ds soon. You can grow plants under CFLs but but can't under incandescent bulbs,that should tell you something about spectrum compared to sun light.


----------



## BlackOmega (Jan 1, 2012)

Frederik S said:


> There are so many environmental issues with the current generation low energy bulbs and now this as well.
> 
> People who have bad eye sight will have an even harder time seeing anything due to the bad spectral performance of these types of bulbs. Besides that the color tonality is so odd that they are unusable as work lighting when you work with drawings and color.
> 
> The ban on traditional bulbs is probably promted by some companies trying to create a bigger market for themselves, I sincerely doubt that they perform any better than traditional bulbs LCA-wise. There are so many toxins involved in the production and in the end product, it makes the stuff used to produce traditional bulbs look harmless by comparison.


Bingo. That's the part they're not telling you about. It's like they don't tell you that the production of the hybrid battery cells and the disposal of them costs more and does more harm to the environment than if the consumer had used a regular car for the same amount of time. 



NdMk2o1o said:


> Damn right, and not just bulbs everything else to, if I want to build a house with an asbestos roof, lead painted walls and use CFC's the i'll be damned if anyone will stop me


Nice analogy, too bad it's the wrong way. Going to CFL's is like going TO lead paint from latex. 



 I personally can't stand CFL's. They just SUCK! I hate the light they give off. More like lack of light. They're not bright enough, and they burn out twice as fast as my old incandescent bulbs. Not to mention the CFL's run so "hot" that half the time the bulbs body is melted and discolored. 

 Damn I hate CFL's!


----------



## digibucc (Jan 1, 2012)

i love my cfl's, buying them exclusively. I don't pay an electricity bill so it's not money savings, but actually using less energy that drives me. the $6 price and light output is not even a consideration, as they both are more than acceptable imho.




Ford]. It costs a whole lot more to make a CFL than it does an incandescent bulb by every measure.[/quote]
[QUOTE=BlackOmega said:


> Bingo.


yeah, and cfl's can last up to 15-20x longer. are you saying it takes 15x the energy to make a cfl as an incandescent? because if not than your point is conveniently overlooking that fact. 
I am willing to bet it does not take 15x the energy or resources, and therefore IS more energy efficient.

this is just another thing for people that like to complain to complain about. like having a problem with those that care about global "temperature change" or pollution, there is always someone who thinks it costs too much money to be responsible, and so will complain about it every step of the way. the real problem for them is they are being told what is the better option. that's what they don't like. well neither do i - but i can separate that fact from reality, and still make the proper choice on my own accord.


----------



## unsmart (Jan 1, 2012)

BlackOmega said:


> I personally can't stand CFL's. They just SUCK! I hate the light they give off. More like lack of light. They're not bright enough, and they burn out twice as fast as my old incandescent bulbs. Not to mention the CFL's run so "hot" that half the time the bulbs body is melted and discolored.


 
 wow,your homes electric most be F'ed up bad! I can unscrew mine by hand after running all day, I use mostly 26w bulbs. My brother had a problem with them burning out too due to poor wiring.


----------



## Frederik S (Jan 1, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Actually, the amount of mercury that could possibly reach the environment from consumers from CFB is nothing compared to the mercury released from the coal we burn to power the nation. Something to the tune of less than 0.1%. The reduction of energy used by old incandecents, results in us need to burn less coal to keep up with power demand and drastically reduces the amount of mercury the power plants put out. The net result is actually a huge benefit to the environment, not a negative.
> 
> And light tone can be corrected by changing the color of the surrounding plastic. Something the bulb companies overlooked as they simply used the same color and material as incandescent bulbs. CF has a different wavelength and is closer to a bluish UV color, so that needs to be accounted for and i don't think it has been thus far.



Usually the mercury found in coal is scrubbed so no emission there, besides that is not the point. The human toxicity index for a CFL light bulbs is 6-9 times greater than that of a traditional bulb. Also for the production of each CFL bulb approximately 6-12 times as much energy is used, I saw an example of the cheapest CFLs are over 25 times that of traditional and contain a lot more mercury and other toxic chemicals. 

Osram's own estimation is somewhat biased but highlights a lot of problems. 
http://www.osram.de/_global/pdf/Con...amps/Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_Illuminants.pdf

Some of the independent reviews of illumination sources can be found on Google, some are better than others, Osram for example use their own estimates on bulb life-span and the life-span of CFLs is grossly overestimated due to the use scenario used to gather the numbers.

I do not think that anyone can claim to have the definitive answer when it comes to these types of bulbs.


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 1, 2012)

"Get the new energy efficient light bulbs, saves power while emitting mercury vapor for all your cancerous needs"


----------



## digibucc (Jan 1, 2012)

Frederik S said:


> Usually the mercury found in coal is scrubbed so no emission there, besides that is not the point.



so we have clean coal now? no mercury at all? no lead? yeah right. the energy used to power an incandescent bulb(from coal) emits more chemicals than that cfl breaking.
so it's ok to put MORE  chemicals in the atmosphere, as long as there isn't a minuscule amount in your home?


----------



## Frederik S (Jan 1, 2012)

digibucc said:


> so we have clean coal now? no mercury at all? no lead? yeah right. the energy used to power an incandescent bulb(from coal) emits more chemicals than that cfl breaking.
> so it's ok to put MORE  chemicals in the atmosphere, as long as there isn't a minuscule amount in your home?



First of all the emissions from the power plants are regulated, and in the US they put out under 1% of the total mercury emissions: http://www.mercuryanswers.org/plants.htm 

It depends a bit on coal source and exhaust scrubbing techniques used, but generally coal power is regarded clean in terms of emissions of toxins dangerous to humans.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 1, 2012)

Frederik S said:


> First of all the emissions from the power plants are regulated, and in the US they put out under 1% of the total mercury emissions: http://www.mercuryanswers.org/plants.htm
> 
> It depends a bit on coal source and exhaust scrubbing techniques used, but generally coal power is regarded clean in terms of emissions of toxins dangerous to humans.



first of all, that data is more than a decade old, we have increased production and done nothing to cut emissions, so the numbers would be MUCH higher now.

and, the numbers to be more specific are:
40% of man-made mercury emissions in us, 10% of total north american emissions, and 1% of world emissions. American coal emits 1% of the world's mercury.  in 1999, that was 48 tons of mercury. again, that's 40% of our mercury emissions from one source. find a source of mercury higher, i dare you! you can't. it is the single largest producer of man-made mercury!

were you trying to say that's insignificant? I think you may be reading it wrong.

edit:
now that reply was entirely my own, but after replying a quick search for "clean coal" gives some good results. obvious bias is an issue, but if you have a brain in your skull you can tell the difference between lies facts and obfuscation, and simple bias. and since mercury answers is very obviously biased, here is another good one:
http://quitcoal.org/clean-coal


----------



## magibeg (Jan 1, 2012)

Frederik S said:


> First of all the emissions from the power plants are regulated, and in the US they put out under 1% of the total mercury emissions: http://www.mercuryanswers.org/plants.htm
> 
> It depends a bit on coal source and exhaust scrubbing techniques used, but generally coal power is regarded clean in terms of emissions of toxins dangerous to humans.



http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/151/3/669.abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287390590936166

It's estimated that roughly 56K Americans die each year from air pollution, a large part of which comes from coal power plants. Arsenic is apparently one of the big killers.

Coal kills. That's all there is to it. Find me a scientific paper on clean coal being clean and we can go from there.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 1, 2012)

magibeg said:


> http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/151/3/669.abstract
> 
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287390590936166
> 
> ...



and one person dies in a car accident every 10 minutes 
I heat with coal..... do I sound dead ?
go shutdown all the coal power planets in the usa ... RIGHT NOW and watch what happens .....


----------



## magibeg (Jan 1, 2012)

OneMoar said:


> you sir
> ARE A FLIPPING MORON
> I heat with coal..... do I sound dead ?



So basically what you're implying is that i'm a moron because i can qoute numerous scientific studies done on the mortality caused by air pollution?

Are you implying the studies are bad or that i'm not understanding something?

Or are you implying that coal causes some form of quick death when burned so the fact you're alive means that it doesn't kill you?


Let me simplify it for you. Long term exposure to air pollution increases your risk of death, and roughly 56,000 people die from those increased risks each year in the US.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 1, 2012)

magibeg said:


> So basically what you're implying is that i'm a moron because i can qoute numerous scientific studies done on the mortality caused by air pollution?
> 
> Are you implying the studies are bad or that i'm not understanding something?
> 
> ...


long term exposure to clue less people lilke you increases my risk of committing murder 
quick death ? lolno maby if you live in a chimney 
coal burns very clean and very hot (when burned properly)
compared to something like wood or oil that burn (cold and dirty) 
so basicly what you are saying is because a meer 56k people POSSIBLY died from some form of air pollution we should outlaw coal .... yea good luck with that let us know when you complete your anti-matter/matter reactor then we can stop possibly killing people with asma .. while you are at it invent a transporter so we can outlaw cars to ......
and back on topic here
CF bulbs are nice but LED bulbs are better ....


----------



## magibeg (Jan 1, 2012)

OneMoar said:


> long term exposure to clue less people lilke you increases my risk of committing murder
> quick death ? lolno maby if you live in a chimney
> coal burns very clean and very hot (when burned properly)
> compared to something like wood or oil that burn (cold and dirty)
> so basicly what you are saying is because a meer 56k people POSSIBLY died from some form of air pollution we should outlaw coal .... yea good luck with that let us know when you complete your anti-matter/matter reactor then we can stop possibly killing people with asma .. while you are at it invent a transporter so we can outlaw cars to ......



I didn't say any of that. It's almost like you're making shit up as you go along while putting words in my mouth.

Basically coal compared to any other current power sources, kills vastly more people per watt. No other form of energy comes close to the death rate that coal generates because of its pollution.

I'm not saying to stop all coal power plants, i'm not saying we should switch over to 'x' power source, i'm simply stating the fact that coal pollutes and kills.

I will take what you say seriously when you have facts and evidence to back it up. I can provide links for my information. Where are yours?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 1, 2012)

Frederik S said:


> Usually the mercury found in coal is scrubbed so no emission there, besides that is not the point. The human toxicity index for a CFL light bulbs is 6-9 times greater than that of a traditional bulb. Also for the production of each CFL bulb approximately 6-12 times as much energy is used, I saw an example of the cheapest CFLs are over 25 times that of traditional and contain a lot more mercury and other toxic chemicals.
> 
> Osram's own estimation is somewhat biased but highlights a lot of problems.
> http://www.osram.de/_global/pdf/Con...amps/Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_Illuminants.pdf
> ...



Well scrubbing doesn't bring emissions down to nil. It just makes it less than a raw burn.

As far as the life expectancy thing, the same test were done with incandescent bulbs so those are over estimated as well.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 1, 2012)

magibeg said:


> I didn't say any of that. It's almost like you're making shit up as you go along while putting words in my mouth.
> 
> Basically coal compared to any other current power sources, kills vastly more people per watt. No other form of energy comes close to the death rate that coal generates because of its pollution.
> 
> ...



undefined reference to ( 'x' power source) at line 7 ignoring  
#define 'x' power source == fission
error missing class fission aborting with code 3
}
}
show me your links and all show you mine ....


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 1, 2012)

it won't take long for this thread to devolve into an anthroprogenic climate change thread. ive had that argument one too many times. you guys have fun...


----------



## magibeg (Jan 1, 2012)

OneMoar said:


> undefined reference to ( 'x' power source) at line 7 ignoring
> #define 'x' power source == fission
> error missing class fission aborting with code 3
> }
> ...



I'd like to define a few things for you here because you don't seem to follow me.

When I posted my first comment (with links... you even quoted the links when you replied to me) I was simply pointing out the fact that coal pollution does in fact exist and has a substantial impact on people. I never commented on anything else.

That was it, my whole post.

Everything else you inferred from your own mind. You basically make things up that you *imagined* i'd say then proceeded to launch personal attacks on me for something I never said.

The point of me saying 'x' power source was because I didn't imply any sort of solution to the power source issue, nor did i want to imply any solution.

By this point you either have terrible reading comprehension or you are a troll.


----------



## Frederik S (Jan 1, 2012)

digibucc said:


> first of all, that data is more than a decade old, we have increased production and done nothing to cut emissions, so the numbers would be MUCH higher now.
> and, the numbers to be more specific are:
> 40% of man-made mercury emissions in us, 10% of total north american emissions, and 1% of world emissions. American coal emits 1% of the world's mercury.  in 1999, that was 48 tons of mercury. again, that's 40% of our mercury emissions from one source. find a source of mercury higher, i dare you! you can't. it is the single largest producer of man-made mercury!
> were you trying to say that's insignificant? I think you may be reading it wrong.
> ...



I am not talking about coal company green-washing under the marketing term "clean coal". Coal in a controlled burn is a quite efficient fuel, and that the amounts of Hg released into the atmosphere per unit of produced energy is very very small. 

Besides that there is a huge difference in outputting something into the atmosphere compared to a living room. The most likely scenario of a broken bulb is when you are in contact with it, which puts you in the near vicinity of the release.

And of course the world should quit using coal, it is a no-brainer.


----------



## erocker (Jan 1, 2012)

I have more than enough incandescent bulbs to last me until LED's are the norm.


----------



## unsmart (Jan 1, 2012)

I think people are overlooking the most important question. Can a CFL power supply be used to power a tube preamp, after adding a bridge rectifier?


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jan 1, 2012)

There are plenty of Low-Energy Light bulbs with double envelopes that block most if not all UV light...

So this argument is weak imo. 

http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/health.htm#3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamps_and_health#Ultraviolet_radiation_risk
" The report states that most bare spiral lamps tested gave off more UV than the 60 watt incandescent lamp tested, but that the double-envelope CFLs emitted less UV."

There is no reason to keep the Incandescent light Bulb around anymore, unless you need the heat I guess... keep some food warm or something...


----------



## BlackOmega (Jan 2, 2012)

unsmart said:


> wow,your homes electric most be F'ed up bad! I can unscrew mine by hand after running all day, I use mostly 26w bulbs. My brother had a problem with them burning out too due to poor wiring.



Nah, it's not. I have monitored the electricity output with a kill-a-watt meter. The voltages are pretty stable, I get very little fluctuation. 
 I think it's just cheapo bulbs.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 2, 2012)

Lionheart said:


> They also emit mercury vapor



Nonsense, mercury is enclosed in a sealed glass tube. Mercury vapor comes in contact with you only if you break the bulb. You get more mercury and other heavy metals by eating large (carnivore) fish than from (broken) light bulbs.

Have you had your tuna meal today?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 2, 2012)

digibucc said:


> this is just another thing for people that like to complain to complain about. like having a problem with those that care about global "temperature change" or pollution, there is always someone who thinks it costs too much money to be responsible, and so will complain about it every step of the way. the real problem for them is they are being told what is the better option. that's what they don't like. well neither do i - but i can separate that fact from reality, and still make the proper choice on my own accord.


Maybe we just hate being told what we can and cannot do by someone 1000 miles away.  USA is supposed to be a country of freedoms, not authoritiarian ideals.  The EPA exemplifies what this country is not.

There are many, many situations where incandescent is preferred to CFL (e.g. outdoors in the cold, locations where both heat and light are required, bulbs in bathrooms and fancy overhead lights, etc.) and they are unlawfully denying that choice.

What if Congress (or any governing body) came along and decided that only ARM architecture would be allowed because they're theoretically more "efficient?"  Say good bye to your choice of AMD and Intel.  They'd have to adapt (switch to ARM) or die, just like all those light bulb manufacutrers formerly in the USA failed to do.  This is the exact same oppressive decisions that goes against the very fabric of being human (the ability to choose for one self).  I don't care what excuses are used to justify it, it is wrong.  The market can decide for itself.


And you know what, incandescent bulbs, just like flourescent, are designed to fail.  All it takes to make an incandescent bulb last pretty much forever is a thicker filiment.  A prime example is the bulb at Livermore that has been burning for over a century now: http://www.centennialbulb.org/


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 2, 2012)

The problem is that ppl won't use incandescent just where they are still really good and economical. For example for toilette. You usually don't use it for too long but you need the light to start working instantly, not after 30 sec or 1 minute. Same for basement or sensor powered lights. They don't light for long but they need to start emitting light instantly. If ppl would actually use them only for that they'd still be available for sale. But since ppl are known not to obey anything, they just stopped making them by law.

Honestly, CFL is just a bridge between incandescent and LED. We are already using CFL in all rooms for years and last few years we replaced many bulbs with LED. Especially where lights are ON for long periods. Only incandescents are used for the sensor light at the main door and the sensor light in the garage where they both work for very short periods of time.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 2, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> The problem is that ppl won't use incandescent just where they are still really good and economical. For example for toilette. You usually don't use it for too long but you need the light to start working instantly, not after 30 sec or 1 minute. Same for basement or sensor powered lights. They don't light for long but they need to start emitting light instantly. If ppl would actually use them only for that they'd still be available for sale. But since ppl are known not to obey anything, they just stopped making them by law.


That's exactly what I do.  CFLs replaced all the bulbs here that have a nasty habit of blowing weekly.  All the ones that last for months if not years on incandescent have remained incandescent.




RejZoR said:


> Honestly, CFL is just a bridge between incandescent and LED. We are already using CFL in all rooms for years and last few years we replaced many bulbs with LED. Especially where lights are ON for long periods. Only incandescents are used for the sensor light at the main door and the sensor light in the garage where they both work for very short periods of time.


The EPA would have denied access (technically already did) to those outdoor incandescecnt lamps had Congress not intervened.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 2, 2012)

If you mean the street lighting, we aren't using them for ages, well at least here in Slovenia. All the public lighting is using either CFL or metal-halide class bulbs. When it gets dark, you see them go on slowly. Especially when it's cold and you see them start as a very weak light and then turn slowly into extremely powerful light. Not sure how it is with this stuff in USA.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 2, 2012)

I was not talking about street lighting.  You were talking about sensor lights as was I.  The EPA put minimum power requirements on all bulbs allowed to be sold in the USA and virtually all incandescent bulbs were below that requirement.  In other words, if you lived in the USA and the EPA regs stayed in place, you would either have to stock up on incandescent (and hope you never run out), buy CFL, or buy LED.

That's my whole point: they didn't care if the incandescent bulb usage was sensible, almost ALL were banned.


As far as city/intersection streetlamps go, I'm pretty sure they're mostly metal-halide.  The newer ones are probably something else but that's what the older ones were.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 2, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The EPA put minimum power requirements on all bulbs allowed to be sold in the USA and virtually all incandescent bulbs were below that requirement.



that's the point imo. it's not like they arbitrarily said no more incandescent bulbs. So what about maximum emissions from a vehicle? a power plant? are those ok to regulate, just not light bulbs?
i recognize what you are saying, and i get the issue. but quite honestly, if you've got a problem being told what to do you are on the wrong planet, let alone in the wrong country. 

did you read about the NDAA being signed New Year's? This is not a free country, there are bad things happening, and when you complain about light bulbs you just seem silly.

EDIT: for those that haven't heard, NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). Long story short, it will allow US citizens suspected of "terrorism" (wonderfully vague word, ain't it?) to be held without trial, by the military inside of the united states. that's a radical departure from the founding of this country, and in my mind can not turn out good.


----------



## CJCerny (Jan 2, 2012)

I think it's important to remember that flourescent lights have been used for decades now in office building and stores and just about any large building where it was not economically feasbile to use incandescent lights. If there were any real health dangers involved in using them, we would likely already have known about it years ago. CFL "bulbs" use exactly the same technology, just on a smaller scale. It's just standard human fear of change and nothing more.


----------



## Raw (Jan 2, 2012)

I stocked up on incandescent bulbs early last year.
I bought enough 75 and 100 watters to last till I croak and my great, great grandkids will be enjoying them and passing them on to their kids.
I spent over $500.00 at my local Lowes store and bought them out.
I got every last bulb on their shelves and out of their back room stock.
WHY?
Because I could.
Because I don't like big brother forcing me to do it his way.
Because I happen to LIKE incandescent lighting.
Because I believe in freedom of choice.
Because this is a good example of the extremist environment movement influencing government to force citizens to follow their agenda. I can't believe our elected officials are so willing to go to extremes that they would force citizens to buy something that a minority decides is good for everyone. The newer bulbs are costing much more, not lasting as long as promised, and more dangerous. Most folks are trying to do right by the environment but thats not good enough for the fear mongers. Listen people, you better wake up and let your voice be heard because a big part of our government thinks that they need to tell us what to do because they are smarter than us and know what is best for us. That's why our country is broke, we're paying higher prices for gasoline, and our jobs are going out of the country. Tell me again how smart they are.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 2, 2012)

Raw said:


> WHY?



there's one answer i think you left out.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 2, 2012)

Laser Triggered Fusion Reaction via Hydrogen may be the next technology/process for clean energy on the super cheap. This may also result in never needing light bulbs ever again.


----------



## magibeg (Jan 2, 2012)

digibucc said:


> there's one answer i think you left out.



Some people are just angry like that.


----------



## Raw (Jan 2, 2012)

*NO LONGER ALLOWED to make a proper choice*



digibucc said:


> i love my cfl's, buying them exclusively. I don't pay an electricity bill so it's not money savings, but actually using less energy that drives me. the $6 price and light output is not even a consideration, as they both are more than acceptable imho.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Half the problem is that we are NO LONGER ALLOWED to make a proper choice on our own accord!!!
We have screwball EPA nuts and extremists making the choices FOR us now.
I see you live in the Adirondacks, right near me.
Well, you must enjoy the outdoor life as I do, hunting and fishing, etc..
How would you like to be FORCED into NOT being able to kill your own meal?
That's coming sooner than you think.
Pretty soon these goofy extremists will have the earth back to the way it was in the beginning. The only thing living on this planet will be some slime snail that escaped their wrath.
In the mean time before that happens...leave me alone with my light bulbs and my LEAD fishing Sinkers.
That's right...LEAD!!!


----------



## erocker (Jan 2, 2012)

Raw said:


> That's right...LEAD!!!



OMG we're all doomed. I have a smallish tackle box filled with nothing but lead sinkers.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 2, 2012)

i don't fight the things i agree with. though i don't necessarily agree with the tactic - i also know that none of your complaining will stop it from happening, and you just look angry and crazy. even if i completely agree with you, i wouldn't say so in public for fear of being marginalized and losing any confidence i may have gained.

not that standing up against things that are wrong is bad, in any way - i just think lightbulbs are a pretty silly thing to get red over. if you get that heated over bulbs, how do you scale to things that actually matter?

Don't get me wrong - i hate the state of our world(read: money + government), and even worse i see little hope for it improving. but with that in mind i'd still like to have the least stressful, most joyful life i can - and that is a choice you make not to get upset and hung up on little things.


----------



## Raw (Jan 2, 2012)

digibucc said:


> i don't fight the things i agree with. though i don't necessarily agree with the tactic - i also know that none of your complaining will stop it from happening, and you just look angry and crazy. even if i completely agree with you, i wouldn't say so in public for fear of being marginalized and losing any confidence i may have gained.
> 
> not that standing up against things that are wrong is bad, in any way - i just think lightbulbs are a pretty silly thing to get red over. if you get that heated over bulbs, how do you scale to things that actually matter?
> 
> Don't get me wrong - i hate the state of our world(read: money + government), and even worse i see little hope for it improving. but with that in mind i'd still like to have the least stressful, most joyful life i can - and that is a choice you make not to get upset and hung up on little things.



Well, I didn't mean to sound so "heated" in my first post. I wasn't heated at all actually.
It may have come across that way and if it did, sorry.
But I do take personal freedoms of this great country to heart.
And little things add up quickly to big things. 
And I do cherish the freedom of choice we enjoy in America. Or is it...once enjoyed?
Ok, 'nuff said. Have a great day. I'm going outside to walk my dogs and take in some nature.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 2, 2012)

digibucc said:


> that's the point imo. it's not like they arbitrarily said no more incandescent bulbs. So what about maximum emissions from a vehicle? a power plant? are those ok to regulate, just not light bulbs?


In a word, no.  USA automakers are having to invest millions if not billions into meeting new CARB/EPA emssion standards and that plays a large role in why two of them had to file for bankruptcy.  They're having to spend significant amounts of money on technology most people aren't willing to pay for.

I subscribe to TruckTrend which is based out of California.  Almost every issue, they write about the latest stub thing CARB did that the EPA is trying to adapt for other 49 States.  It is disgusting what is happening to the auto industry and that vileness is spreading to more and more areas of daily life.  The EPA is running out of control and needs to be disallowed from creating any new regulations without Congressional approval.  If they insist on not doing so, the EPA must die and be replace by a House and Senate committee dedicated to environmental concerns.  Every change proposed MUST go through standard legislative process.




digibucc said:


> i don't fight the things i agree with. though i don't necessarily agree with the tactic - i also know that none of your complaining will stop it from happening, and you just look angry and crazy. even if i completely agree with you, i wouldn't say so in public for fear of being marginalized and losing any confidence i may have gained.
> 
> not that standing up against things that are wrong is bad, in any way - i just think lightbulbs are a pretty silly thing to get red over. if you get that heated over bulbs, how do you scale to things that actually matter?
> 
> Don't get me wrong - i hate the state of our world(read: money + government), and even worse i see little hope for it improving. but with that in mind i'd still like to have the least stressful, most joyful life i can - and that is a choice you make not to get upset and hung up on little things.


All I read there was "bend over and take it." No spank you!  Hostile takeovers of freedoms always start with little things like this and they turn into bigger and bigger things until it is too late to do anything about it.


----------



## Raw (Jan 2, 2012)

erocker said:


> OMG we're all doomed. I have a smallish tackle box filled with nothing but lead sinkers.



Haha...I managed to sneak in 2 beers in my box along with the sinkers.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 2, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In a word, no.  USA automakers are having to invest millions if not billions into meeting new CARB/EPA emssion standards and that plays a large role in why two of them had to file for bankruptcy.  They're having to spend significant amounts of money on technology most people aren't willing to pay for.


they are not having to spend nearly enough. corporate profits are not more important than health and environment, and that mentality is exactly what is wrong. consumers buy what is available to them, we don't actually have any control. they are not just going to STOP making cars and products. they will always make more money doing that than anything else, so even if they are making less than they are now it's still their best option, and what they'll do.


> Every change proposed MUST go through standard legislative process.


the earth would be eaten by the sun before anything was accomplished. there are too many who care about profit and could care less about the environment. I would rather piss you all off and be confident that we are going to have a comfortable planet to live on, rather than meet in the middle and have conservatives (lol, conserve WHAT exactly? your money and power?) derail any possible improvement we may have.


> All I read there was "bend over and take it." No spank you!  Hostile takeovers of freedoms always start with little things like this and they turn into bigger and bigger things until it is too late to do anything about it.



not at all. again, i agree with this one. the ones i don't agree with, i don't accept. that simple. i didn't say listen or obey, i just said complaining doesn't accomplish anything. they will always find a way to win if they know you are fighting, so keep your head down and keep going quietly. that's my opinion at least. *if you're fighting them head on, it's already too late to do anything about it.*


----------



## Mussels (Jan 2, 2012)

why is america so full of people that get angry whenever someone else makes a decision? its like they live on righteous fury and go into hibernation until someone else decides something.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 2, 2012)

What is happening in this thread


"I don't want any toxins in my home trying to kill me!!!"







What they believe is happening.

"I wub de earf and all deh littel aminals and stuff"








What the rest of us see happening








Yeah.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 2, 2012)

i hope this doesn't make me ignorant, but i don't understand you


----------



## Mussels (Jan 2, 2012)

digibucc said:


> i hope this doesn't make me ignorant, but i don't understand you



people: BLAH BLAH I SAVE ENVIRONMENT


the rest of us are watching them smoke while pregnant, deal with dangerous chemicals each day, and generally contradict themselves.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 2, 2012)

ah hah, ok. i guess that was obvious. that does make me ignorant, doesn't it? 
from my point of view : i don't really care about the environment, so much as i care about being able to live in it.

i think the only part i disagree with, is you guys don't see any of us doing those things, because you don't see us. yes those people exist, in droves - but to assume I'M one of them simply because i'd rather do some small things if it could maybe make a difference, isn't entirely fair imo. yeah it was a joke, but i can't help assume every time someone says "save the environment" , steevo just thinks they are retarded. 

maybe 90% of the time yes, but dammit not me!!


----------



## magibeg (Jan 2, 2012)

Mussels said:


> people: BLAH BLAH I SAVE ENVIRONMENT
> 
> 
> the rest of us are watching them smoke while pregnant, deal with dangerous chemicals each day, and generally contradict themselves.



So... what you're saying here is that there is no middle ground. You either completely demolish the environment, or completely save the environment?

So if you're trying to be a better person to the environment and still have some tendencies that are destructive than you're a hypocrite?

That doesn't quite seem fair does it. By those same metrics you're a failure at anything you have ever tried to do and you're a hypocrite for trying to improve, unless of course you are perfect at whatever you're trying to improve on, in which case excellent work.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 2, 2012)

magibeg said:


> So... what you're saying here is that there is no middle ground. You either completely demolish the environment, or completely save the environment?
> 
> So if you're trying to be a better person to the environment and still have some tendencies that are destructive than you're a hypocrite?
> 
> That doesn't quite seem fair does it. By those same metrics you're a failure at anything you have ever tried to do and you're a hypocrite for trying to improve, unless of course you are perfect at whatever you're trying to improve on, in which case excellent work.



i'm happily in the middle ground. i think both extremes are idiots. the one thing i can do is minimise my electricity costs, so i do. if i can take down the average even slightly (and keep doing so as the average lowers), i've done my part.


----------



## DrPepper (Jan 2, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Consumers should decide what bulbs they use, no one else.  This short-sighted environmental takeover BS is getting old.





FordGT90Concept said:


> You know what would work a whole lot better?  A ban on running ACs.



Seems a bit contradictory.



unsmart said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
> As was already stated CFL we be replaced by L.E.Ds soon. You can grow plants under CFLs but but can't under incandescent bulbs,that should tell you something about spectrum compared to sun light.



Good for vitamin D.


----------



## magibeg (Jan 2, 2012)

Mussels said:


> i'm happily in the middle ground. i think both extremes are idiots. the one thing i can do is minimise my electricity costs, so i do. if i can take down the average even slightly (and keep doing so as the average lowers), i've done my part.



Was just making sure you're not one of those all or nothing people.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 2, 2012)

i think my problem is i take a conversation seriously, even if it's just a stupid message board post. i can't help it. even if it's a subject i care nothing about, if i am trying to respond i will give it the same thought i'd give a cancer cure.
i can't respond without having(or believing i have) thought something through. i go over it and over it until i am satisfied.
my point is, any time i respond it will be with enthusiasm, otherwise i just won't . but just because my post seems enthusiastic or thought out doesn't mean it's actually a large part of my life or that i even think about it afterward.

that often puts me in the position where i'm carrying on a topic no one cares about


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 3, 2012)

digibucc said:


> they are not just going to STOP making cars and products.


Chysler and GM would have had the government not bailed them out.  And oh, right, they were leeching billions of dollars every year.  Every dollar wasted on meeting EPA/CARB requirements is another dollar not spent on fuel economy, research on light weight materials, and meeting customer requirements (like towing, carrying, and storage capacity).




digibucc said:


> the earth would be eaten by the sun before anything was accomplished. there are too many who care about profit and could care less about the environment. I would rather piss you all off and be confident that we are going to have a comfortable planet to live on, rather than meet in the middle and have conservatives (lol, conserve WHAT exactly? your money and power?) derail any possible improvement we may have.


Where's the proof that ridiculous legilsation like this accomplished *anything* except eliminate consumer choice?  Has power consumption declined?  No.  Has CO2 levels stopped increasing? No. Has the arctic stopped melting? No.  This is all about special interests (environmental groups) and little else.




Mussels said:


> why is america so full of people that get angry whenever someone else makes a decision? its like they live on righteous fury and go into hibernation until someone else decides something.


Because most Americans prefer government inaction.  That, in itself, is a decision.  Everytime the government takes action, freedoms are stolen away.




DrPepper said:


> Seems a bit contradictory.


The AC ban was a sarcasm.  Even environmentalists can't live without their AC but I wouldn't put it past them.  They already managed to *heavily* regulate them.


----------



## Raw (Jan 3, 2012)

Next thing you know, the environmentalists will regulate your computer electricity usage.
There goes your overclocking, there goes your SLI and Crossfire system.
I can see it now...WHAT???? I can't increase my memory voltage even a little bit? Not even a tenth of a volt?
NO, NO you can't. That will screw up the environment. It will deplete the ozone levels and the polar bears will all die.
No way...not MY computer@^%$@#^#...ah damn, I didn't think things could get that far out of hand.

No? You didn't think it could? Really?
It's like a snowball rolling down hill. A little bit at a time. 
And how come it's ok for you (no one in particular) to SLI and OC your computer but it's not ok for me to use my lightbulb?
Hmmm. 
http://rightturnforever.com/2011/12/dim-bulbs-a-k-a-fear-and-loathing-in-dc-ac/


----------



## digibucc (Jan 3, 2012)

because the cumulative effect of millions of people using incandescent bulbs is MUCH greater than the thousands overclocking their computers.

ford, if i can ask: what's your solution then? let everyone do whatever they want, even if it means the destruction of the planet? trust people to make the right decision (lol).
for all your angry rhetoric, you haven't offered a single solution. so i'm sorry - but if the choice is between you angry people who just want do what pleases you at the cost of the planet - or those crazy-ass hippies that want to save every bug , i'm going with what I see as the lesser of two evils. I don't completely agree with either of you, but you are too angry and stubborn for me to ever align myself with. It's hard because I do agree with a lot of what you say, it just seems you are being unreasonable, unwilling to budge. that's my opinion of course.

I fully recognize the corruption of power. I am not blind to the disgusting state of our country, and world - but the honest truth is most people are stupid and careless, and wouldn't change their behavior for anything. people smoke until they die of lung cancer, they eat disgusting fatty foods that make them 5x the weight of a normal human being - and then raise their children in that atmosphere to continue their patterns. they care nothing about the future, they don't even care about the present. and you would trust THOSE people to decide what's good for our environment? for YOUR children? i'm sorry, but that is insanity. they have a right to freedom, but i have a right to not be poisoned by their actions. those decisions harm other people, and that's exactly when an individual's freedoms should be limited.


----------



## Raw (Jan 3, 2012)

*"dispose of them properly" as required?*



digibucc said:


> because the cumulative effect of millions of people using incandescent bulbs is MUCH greater than the thousands overclocking their computers.




What about the cumulative effect of millions of people disposing of the broken mercury containing CFLs?
Do you really believe people are going to "dispose of them properly" as required?
Especially all those fat, cigarette smoking people you mentioned?

You might take a minute out and read the above link I posted.
Even left leaning liberals are invited to go there and learn a few things.

I'm done with this issue as I see this is going nowhere.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 3, 2012)

so because ignorant people will make it difficult, no one should bother to try? i'm glad we're not depending on you to accomplish anything. 
that's life - ignorant people do things wrong, and make things difficult. that's no reason not to strive for a better way.

knew the labels had to come out sooner or later.



> *CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury* sealed within the glass tubing – *an average of 4 milligrams* (mg). By
> comparison,* older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury* – an amount equal to the mercury in
> 125 CFLs. Mercury is an essential part of CFLs; it allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. No mercury is
> released when the bulbs are intact (not broken) or in use.
> ...



there is more mercury in a can of tuna than a cfl bulb. and as long as you are not an idiot breaking them all over the place, there is no real danger. you should minimize exposure but it's not going to kill you when it breaks.
you are really just pretending that there is more mercury in it than there is, and that it's so hard to properly dispose of. both points are false.

that link is pure shock trash. it's actually a great point at how people are so easily scared into making irrational decisions. because fox and "right turn forever" tell you cfls are bad, that means they are? if it wasn't on your talk radio and fox news, you wouldn't even know it happened i bet. or at the very least, would care little enough to do anything. be honest - did beck limbaugh hannity etc let you know the danger, or did you decide on your own?


----------



## Raw (Jan 3, 2012)

Listen digibucc, I'm not going to attack you personally as it seems you did to me already.
I won't lower myself.

But I will tell you this...
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be eliminated.  It is one of our biggest barriers to both job creation and economic growth.  The EPA’s initial mission was to do just that…protect our environment.  However, in the 40 years since it’s inception it has become a giant governmental ideologically driven, litigation focused, and regulation fixated behemoth.

Attempting to regulate Greenhouse gasses (CO2 Carbon Dioxide) should be it’s last gasp prior to extinction.  The ruse under which they propose to do this are the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  As the saying goes, back in the day, the Clean Air Act was passed by Congress because of numerous air pollutants (smog).  Also back in the day, the EPA had no regulatory power.  It acted only in an advisory capacity.  To shoe-horn greenhouse gasses under Clean Air Act provisions would require rewriting the entire Clean Air Act.

Historically, governmental agencies have been replaced on numerous occasions.  The old OSS was replaced by the CIA in 1047.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission replaced the Atomic Energy Commission.  Homeland Security replaced several government agencies.  It is time to do this once again.  The EPA model has become more and more flawed over the years.  They seem to believe that environmental challenges can only be solved by adding even more regulations and with that, more bureaucrats.  They love the idea of “clamping down” on we simpletons.
GOOD RIDDANCE!


----------



## digibucc (Jan 3, 2012)

copy pasta? ok:

so because ignorant people will make it difficult, no one should bother to try? i'm glad we're not depending on you to accomplish anything. 
that's life - ignorant people do things wrong, and make things difficult. that's no reason not to strive for a better way.

knew the labels had to come out sooner or later.



> *CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury* sealed within the glass tubing – *an average of 4 milligrams* (mg). By
> comparison,* older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury* – an amount equal to the mercury in
> 125 CFLs. Mercury is an essential part of CFLs; it allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. No mercury is
> released when the bulbs are intact (not broken) or in use.
> ...



there is more mercury in a can of tuna than a cfl bulb. and as long as you are not an idiot breaking them all over the place, there is no real danger. you should minimize exposure but it's not going to kill you when it breaks.
you are really just pretending that there is more mercury in it than there is, and that it's so hard to properly dispose of. both points are false.

that link is pure shock trash. it's actually a great point at how people are so easily scared into making irrational decisions. because fox and "right turn forever" tell you cfls are bad, that means they are? if it wasn't on your talk radio and fox news, you wouldn't even know it happened i bet. or at the very least, would care little enough to do anything. be honest - did beck limbaugh hannity etc let you know the danger, or did you decide on your own?

regardless, you are ignoring science and basing your opinion on the emotional response you get from being told what to do. it has nothing to do with the situation or facts, as those are chosen and mangled to fit afterwards.

re-reading, i see no personal attack, explain? and though you didn't outwardly insult , left-leaning liberal was obviously the point at which you decided to stop trying to understand my point and instead spout trash. just because you chose acceptable words doesn't mean i didn't recognize the situation.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 3, 2012)

digibucc said:


> ford, if i can ask: what's your solution then? let everyone do whatever they want, even if it means the destruction of the planet? trust people to make the right decision (lol).


And we should let the EPA do whatever it wants to do?  My solution is to let the market decide and only intervene when it is *absolutely and undeniably required.*  I can only name three cases where that was true: The Clean Air Act (predates the EPA), greatly limiting the use of CFCs due to the clear connection to depletion of ozone (which was an EPA action), and limiting the use of lead due to lead poisoning concerns (especially in toys).  Everything else could have been and should have been sorted by the court system and/or market forces.

You only need a "solution" when there is, in fact, a clearly defined problem and the "solution" has a measurable impact on said problem.  This has proven true for both of those examples I cited above--not for the rest.




digibucc said:


> re-reading, i see no personal attack, explain?


Every "you" can be taken as a personal attack.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 3, 2012)

digibucc said:


> there is more mercury in a can of tuna than a cfl bulb. and as long as you are not an idiot breaking them all over the place, there is no real danger. you should minimize exposure but it's not going to kill you when it breaks.
> you are really just pretending that there is more mercury in it than there is, and that it's so hard to properly dispose of. both points are false.
> 
> that link is pure shock trash. it's actually a great point at how people are so easily scared into making irrational decisions. because fox and "right turn forever" tell you cfls are bad, that means they are? if it wasn't on your talk radio and fox news, you wouldn't even know it happened i bet.



http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/...ogenscontaminants/methylmercury/ucm115644.htm

Not even close. 



Regular mercury can be handled with simple latex gloves, and is actually removed from the body over time. 

They used to use mercury in daily products, like weed killer, thermometers, liquid metal cooling, solder for water pipes, some industrial lubricants....


That is where the big scare of mercury came from. 


If you pour it into your hands you won't get enough absorption to harm you. Elemental mercury is actually harmless, it is the mercury compounds that are hazardous.


----------



## Raw (Jan 3, 2012)

digibucc said:


> regardless, you are ignoring science and basing your opinion on the emotional response you get from being told what to do. it has nothing to do with the situation or facts, as those are chosen and mangled to fit afterwards.



Where do you get off ASSUMING that is how I base my opinion?

Seems to me you are a very hard headed individual. And it seems to me you like to argue and call people names.

And it seems to me that you can't understand what you read.
That link I provided is not "shock" anything, it is FACT.
Your EPA WROTE the rules, not the link.

If you can't at least see the EPA out of control and making STUPID decisions, and you want to continue to argue pointlessly, you better find someone else. You'll never convince me (and billions of others like me) that the left is right on ANY issues.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 3, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> My solution is to let the market decide


no, that will never be a solution in my book. the market is flawed. it's not regulation that killed the economy but lack of it, and all the loopholes the companies that comprise "the market" make use of.


Steevo said:


> Not even close.


fair enough, different types. but honestly that was an ancillary point, it really didn't matter as long as you read the quote from energystar.


Raw said:


> Where do you get off ASSUMING that is how I base my opinion?


fair enough, it was an assumption - and that is never really accurate. but i still feel comfortable with  mine. i have argued with enough people like you and that's the way it goes. you conversate until you get annoyed, and then copy paste "facts" rather than continue a conversation. you gave up on a real conversation when you discounted my ideas as those of a "left-leaning liberal". I wasn't going to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt (when i'm the only one that did regarding your first bat-crazy post about buying up 500 bulbs).. I love how reasonable you've become!! is that an act or were you just out of character before?.


Raw said:


> Seems to me you are a very hard headed individual. And it seems to me you like to argue and call people names.


what name? you still haven't answered what insult you are referring to. i promise i didn't edit anything out, so quote wha tyou are talking about, please. it seems to me you are the one assuming now. if hard-headed means i won't let you YELL me into agreement, then i guess I can accept that.


Raw said:


> And it seems to me that you can't understand what you read.
> That link I provided is not "shock" anything, it is FACT.
> Your EPA WROTE the rules, not the link.


first, it's not "my" EPA.they're a government entity and prone to corruption and inefficacy like every other one. if you had bothered to read my posts, you should have recognized my position more clearly. and secondly, shock trash doesn't mean there are no facts contained, it means they are presented in a way so as to scare someone into agreement. it is obviously biased, and if you think of that as just plain facts you are really not thinking it through.  the link you provided is OBVIOUSLY biased, and that should make you question everything therein. i can't believe you actually think a site titled "right turn forever" or whatever, could be anything BUT biased.


Raw said:


> If you can't at least see the EPA out of control and making STUPID decisions, and you want to continue to argue pointlessly, you better find someone else. You'll never convince me (and billions of others like me) that the left is right on ANY issues.



i do see that, as i have already said. also, as i have already said - i agree on this point. i'm not going to argue against something i agree with simply because they do other things i don't agree with, that is stupid.

it seems to me you are the one jumping to conclusions, ignoring my points - and discounting me simply because i disagree. i am more than open to changing my mind - my only goal is to be accurate and see the truth , you and ford have said nothing that makes me think you are currently doing that though.

either way, i have to get work done. it has been fun and i really do hope yo re-read and point out my insult, as i don't see it and would gladly remove and apologize.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 3, 2012)

digibucc said:


> no, that will never be a solution in my book. the market is flawed. it's not regulation that killed the economy but lack of it, and all the loopholes the companies that comprise "the market" make use of.


In 2005, regulation compliance cost $1.1 trillion (7.5% of GDP) annually or $7,647 per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees:
http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/Frs264tot.pdf

That's with "loopholes."  The countries we are having to compete with globally (China and India, for example) pay a fraction of that in regulatory compliance.  This is one reason why we can never compete with them and why more and more corporations are deciding to leave the USA.

There is not a "lack of" regulations and there hasn't been a "lack of" regulations since prior to FDR.




digibucc said:


> fair enough, different types. but honestly that was an ancillary point, it really didn't matter as long as you read the quote from energystar.


EnergyStar is a good non-regulation program that steers the consumer towards more environmentally friendly goods without taking their right to choose away.  The same goes for 80+ certification (which was included in EnergyStar 4.0 compliance).


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 3, 2012)

I ma outta this thread stupid clueless ecotards and rightwingnut's .. waste of oxygen ...


----------



## Raw (Jan 3, 2012)

digibucc said:


> re-reading, i see no personal attack, explain?



Did you not call me in your own words: angry and crazy

Here is another pretty good attempt at demeaning me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raw  
WHY? 

there's one answer i think you left out. 

Ahem...please fill in the blank space!


__________________

That one caused me to bite my lip for awhile.
Buy after seeing you argue with the others also, I realized I was right about you.
A hardhead.

And I don't feel just because I have enough money in my pockets to buy a lot of lightbulbs or whatever else I may want to buy, that that makes me or my post "batwing" anything.
But it makes me feel great that my actions piss off your kind enough to make you keep coming back to debate.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 3, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In 2005, regulation compliance cost $1.1 trillion (7.5% of GDP) annually or $7,647 per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees:
> http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/Frs264tot.pdf
> 
> That's with "loopholes."  The countries we are having to compete with globally (China and India, for example) pay a fraction of that in regulatory compliance.  This is one reason why we can never compete with them and why more and more corporations are deciding to leave the USA.
> ...



there is a lack of regulations that actually work. the ones in place are weak and ineffectual, but the answer is NOT to just let corporations do as they wish.

the united states also has nearly 3x china's gdp and more than 10x india's. i'd like to see that compliance cost in percentages but i can't find it. i don't know when you looked at that link but it's dead. 

we can't compete because our education system is in shambles and we think we deserve to be on top simply because we're americans. india and china are both LEAGUES ahead of us in math and science education. maybe we are just lazier and not as smart as we like to think we are, and that's why we find actual competition difficult. in fact - that's how our market system is built, to give those on top a better chance at beating competition, whether they deserve to be there or not.

it's the same with companies using piracy as an excuse for poor sales. surely if everyone else was fair they'd be recognized as the best. if they're not it HAS to be someone else's fault.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 3, 2012)

digibucc said:


> there is a lack of regulations that actually work. the ones in place are weak and ineffectual, but the answer is NOT to just let corporations do as they wish.


We wouldn't be complaining if they didn't work at all.



digibucc said:


> the united states also has nearly 3x china's gdp and more than 10x india's. i'd like to see that compliance cost in percentages but i can't find it. i don't know when you looked at that link but it's dead.


Because we can print more money.  Just wait until the US dollar goes into hyperinflation (we are well on our way to that).

You know that $7,000 per employee would buy better health insurance than what Senators and Congressman have (approximately $6600)?  It's bleeding money, no more, no less.


----------



## magibeg (Jan 4, 2012)

I think the problem with this thread is that it has gotten too broad. Try to keep your topics more narrow and decisive. Otherwise nothing will ever be figured out.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 4, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We wouldn't be complaining if they didn't work at all.


right but when you see policies that cost money and are ineffectual, your answer seems to be to drop ALL polices rather than fix them. they aren't all bad in idea but in practice, and that is OUR fault and can be fixed.


FordGT90Concept said:


> Because we can print more money.  Just wait until the US dollar goes into hyperinflation (we are well on our way to that).


true, but the answer to me is not to screw the workers. screw the corporations, seriously. they base out of other countries because our tax code allows them to make more money that way. just like it allows them to say they have a farm and pay less in taxes than someone who makes 10% of what they do. it's disgusting corruption, and it's the people you want to trust to balance the market that are pushing said corruption. they are the REASON the tax code allows them to do that. and the answer is not to fix the tax code, but just leave them alone and they'll fix everything for us. YEAH RIGHT.


FordGT90Concept said:


> You know that $7,000 per employee would buy better health insurance than what Senators and Congressman have (approximately $6600)?  It's bleeding money, no more, no less.



good. people who actually work deserve it much more than them  

I recognize that , I do. but I don't think the answer is to just let poor people die. If other countries can make it work, and we really are better - then we should be able to figure it out. People are against the very idea and so aren't willing to work it out, and that's what i see as the issue. As though those same people don't use government roads, send their kids to government schools, have a government funded fire department, city water, garbage pickup, social security, medicare, the list goes on. they're against someone ELSE getting a hand-out , but it's not a handout for them because THEY deserve it.

really i don't see this going anywhere. we are stark opposites in that I see money and corporate interests corrupting government and stopping progress - you see the little "progress" that's actually made as the real problem, and seem to ignore the corruption that exists because these very corporations run our country.  the only thing they conserve is their own wealth, and they use you to do it. 

imho, any "conservative" that makes less than $500k a year is getting the shaft, because they are directly supporting the people that are purposefully screwing them over.

now i'm not positive you are said conservative, it's just that I really see that group (specifically the religious right) as pushing destructive policies simply because someone says something they want to hear. they could care less if the country is destroyed, as long as a good god-fearing conservative is the one to run it into the ground.



> I think the problem with this thread is that it has gotten too broad


it couldn't very well not. we can only talk about light bulbs for so long before the obvious connections to other parts of life have to be discussed.

either way, i'm done. ford pm me to continue?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 5, 2012)

digibucc said:


> right but when you see policies that cost money and are ineffectual, your answer seems to be to drop ALL polices rather than fix them. they aren't all bad in idea but in practice, and that is OUR fault and can be fixed.


All regulations cost money and most are effective.  The cost has to be weighed against consumer choice and this hasn't been done by the EPA since the 1980s.




digibucc said:


> true, but the answer to me is not to screw the workers. screw the corporations, seriously. they base out of other countries because our tax code allows them to make more money that way. just like it allows them to say they have a farm and pay less in taxes than someone who makes 10% of what they do. it's disgusting corruption, and it's the people you want to trust to balance the market that are pushing said corruption. they are the REASON the tax code allows them to do that. and the answer is not to fix the tax code, but just leave them alone and they'll fix everything for us. YEAH RIGHT.


Screwing corporations screws workers.  All the money that flows between the two comes from the same bank accounts.  Corporations, by design, care only about profits.  If you want their wealth spread in your country, you have to look at how you can make your country produce more profits than competing countries.  Corporations don't care about welfare and they never will.  All they care is how much it is going to cost them to operate in said country.  If you over regulate, over tax, and otherwise overburden corporations, they go where the burden is less.  What do you have left when they do?  A flailing economy.


This is so off topic.




digibucc said:


> now i'm not positive you are said conservative, it's just that I really see that group (specifically the religious right) as pushing destructive policies simply because someone says something they want to hear. they could care less if the country is destroyed, as long as a good god-fearing conservative is the one to run it into the ground.


I am a conservative, not a neo-conservative (aka Tea Party) and by that, I mean the federal government must strictly adhere to the constitution, especially the 9th and 10th amendment.  The Constitution spelled out specifically what the federal government can and cannot do and it has been ignoring the "cannot" bit since the mid 1800s.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 5, 2012)

Raw said:


> We have screwball EPA nuts and extremists making the choices FOR us now.


You think this is bad? It's going to never reverse itself anymore, this sort of nonsense is going to get worst by the day but in a stupid way. Here in Toronto, ON. Canada you got the ridiculous Police high-ups making stupid law decisions based on an organization of angry mothers called MAD Canada.
The last thing you want is angry mothers making decisions for our society right? Well according to MAD everybody is a drunk driver regardless. Even if you sniff the alcohol or stand beside it, not touching it, you will be considered an alcoholic. 
Anyhow my point is if you drink a glass of wine or a half a beer; prepare yourself to lose your car and license.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 5, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> All regulations cost money and most are effective.  The cost has to be weighed against consumer choice and this hasn't been done by the EPA since the 1980s.



the same consumers that are slowly(not always) killing themselves with fatty food and cigarettes? I don't trust consumer choice. That's what gave us reality tv and fast food. If it's a social subject, i'd agree - but when we are talking about science - about the science of energy efficiency and which light bulb etc, that's when scientific experts should be trusted.

you have a problem with epa, but like energystar - energystar agrees with epa on the cfl issue.

as far as it actually being made ILLEGAL, i totally get your point. but again, lead paint and asbestos had to be banned to stop those same corporations, who don't care about the health of it's customers enough to stop poisoning them. or those same customers, who rather than calmly looking at the evidence resort to emotional backlash and say NO I WANT MY LEAD AND ASBESTOS! I WANT MY INCANDESCENTS!

and the main thing you are overlooking, is ENERGY. we are running out. oil is depleting - if you let those asshole consumers decide to just suck it all down, we'll be out before we have a viable alternative working. we need to take measures to conserve.

that's why i agree with this individual action by the epa. i see it as completely necessary. i don't agree with the tactic, or their history, but i see this as necessary to at least attempt conservation.

the science agrees. and from my understanding people WITH incandescent bulbs aren't going to be arrested or anything (which would obviously be ridiculous) but rather it will simply make them unavailable for purchase. i don't see why you guys have such a problem with this individual decision.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 6, 2012)

digibucc said:


> the same consumers that are slowly(not always) killing themselves with fatty food and cigarettes?


Look what happened when the Federal government tried to stop people from drowning themselves in alcohol.  Government can't stop people from being stupid.




digibucc said:


> about the science of energy efficiency and which light bulb etc, that's when scientific experts should be trusted.


Scientists aren't all-knowning nor infallible.  Moreover, they flocked to the USA over the last six decades for freedom, not the same tyranny they left.  It is politicans that craft policies like this--not scientists.




digibucc said:


> you have a problem with epa, but like energystar - energystar agrees with epa on the cfl issue.


Oh. My. God.  EPA *created* Energy Star back in 1990s.  Of course Energy Star agrees with the EPA.   WTF am I debating with you for?

Fin.


----------

