Treehugger - Latest Comments in Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Alien Travelle — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:44:05 -0000

I loved reading these comments from 7 years or so into the future! It's also interesting how many of these comments were true at the time but are now no longer relevant as the warm white led we have now are bright, long lived and efficient.

I wonder how many of these nay-sayers are still sticking to their incandescents?

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

budhansen — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:29:43 -0000

This woman and her followers are idiots! Maybe we should have stayed with sealing wax too! LED IS the future!

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Juceapple — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:35:13 -0000

I hate the new LED light blubs. Don't you think we have sense enough to choose the blubs we like.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Platon Zeindt Phd - Harvard — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:52:33 -0000

We have done tests on the bulbs, by far the older incandescent bulbs are better and less toxic. The disposal cost in natural terms of the new green globes is 300% larger and takes longer to dissipate.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Joe Light Man — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:05:04 -0000

innovation is going crazy... setting efficiency standards that will make current incandescent light bulbs illegal to sell has forced companies to innovate and compete. Who knew we would be engineering incandescent light bulbs that are 30-100 percent more efficient???? So if your scared of being stuck with CFL bulbs, you should be thankful they are here, I would partially blame them for the advancement of incandescent technology, which hasn't seemed to change since the 1930's. If the new incandescent technology fails to ever hit the market, well I'm still okay with using CFL bulbs and possibly new LED bulbs if they develop to a feasible level. Anyway check it out.... http://www.nytimes.com/2009.... By the way, I've been using the 14 watt CFL bulbs from Home Depot for many years, instant on, they are wonderful.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

rebecca — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:38:40 -0000

This is a bad law. I get migraine headaches from these bulbs. What choice will I have if I can't buy incandescent bulbs? Just because a small number of people are affected this way does not make the headaches any less debilitating. If I am exposed to CFL's for 15 minutes i will have headache, photo- and noise- sensitivity and vomiting for two or three days. Take the percentage of the population that will be disabled by this law, add up their lost work hours, lost productivity, and medical bills and tell me that for them it will be cheaper to switch to light bulbs that cost twice as much. Add in the value of being able to go into public places with non-natural light (ie stores, schools, and even libraries.) Why is the government doing this? Would these environmentalists support a vaccine that made a few million people permanently disabled, based on a theory that it would save energy in the long run?

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Dennis — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:06:27 -0000

Buying a cfl from China rather than a soft white made in Kentuky should remain a choice. Personally, I can't read using cfl's no matter what you may say. I am stockpiling the soft whites.

If there were no human life at all on this planet, there would be only 3% less carbon dioxide produced. Even if carbon dioxide caused global warming common sense and math will tell you humans could only have an extremely small effect on golbal warming. The natural fluxuation on carbon dioxide produced by natural God made occurrances is often more than 3% in a year. Trying to play God is an expensive task!

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Lib_Lover — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:04:04 -0000

I thought Liberals as typically smarter. WAKE UP.

YOU ARE GOING TO HATE HAVING NOTHING BUT CFLs.

THEY DO NOT WORK WITH DIMMER LIGHTS.

CFL LIFE IS AS LITTLE AS 1/10 TENTH STATED LIFE WHEN USED IN PLACES WHERE THE CFL LIGHT IS FREQUENTLY LIT LESS THAN 15 MIN. AT A TIME >>> (IE. BATHROOMS & BEDROOMS)

GOOGLE IT.... CFL life span

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

lighbulblover — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:46:57 -0000

Just because someone isn't socialist and won't follow the latest fads, they're not automatically crazy. I love my incandescent light bulbs. In fact - I'm hoarding them. My take: Global warming is here because there's big money in "proving" it and making changes to stop it. If it wasn't found by 'scientists,' to exist everywhere, 'scientists' would be unemployed. This same string of logic was used in the 70s for "global cooling." Hmm...

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Nick — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:47:14 -0000

Reading a few comments here, it seems like some are OUTRAGED at the government "dictating what light bulbs we can use", yet they have no problem with Bachmann when she tries to outlaw the pill and other things 'in our home'.

Republican fanatics pick and chose what to call communist, yet they try to implement laws that dictate what people can't do in their own homes.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Rashid — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:46:53 -0000

I want to use CFL, and do prefer them very much. However, they aren't the solution!

It seems that we all agree that incandescent bulbs drain more electricity from the grid, mostly at night. This is the time when the power plants actually discard their extra electricity, which is why it is cheapest for us to obtain at night! Either way, it is useless energy being burnt up--the power shortages in CA were due to Enron's manipulations, not limited supply!

Hence, the incandescent enemy isn't my focus of attack to saving the environment. I am sure wars (using depleted uranium, which enters the soil and waters etc), and prison camps that wars necessitate to condemn the captives (see Abu Ghraib), use up very much more energy and create much more pollution than this silly little bulb we are spending countless hours (on our power hungry computers) arguing about.

U may LOL :-)

One final point, mercury is a neurotoxin, meaning that very minute quantities (in the low 10's of milligrams) ruins the endocrine system of animals (fish) and humans (from water), which is why "tree-huggers" (NOMERCURY.ORG) condemn corporate America for polluting our seas and lakes with the very quantities of mercury (being diluted) that we are okaying in our CFL's. CFL's will be disposed eventually, most breaking in the large plastic recycling bins our cities give us!

It isn't an argument to suggest that thermometers have more mercury; you rarely toss an old thermometer frequently, with NEW thermometers NOT using mercury.

Further, our power plants aren't only producing energy for light bulbs, but other more energy intense devices (computers, tv's, manufacturing, cooking and so on.)

Thus, a billion grams (each bulb has one to five grams max) of mercury being disposed of in the landfills, or sent to China for "recycling," every two to four years isn't going to help us! I am sure we are wasting money on and time designing mercury light-bulbs.

I'd love to hear your response!

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

paul p — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:45:55 -0000

I am an environmentalist to the core, though, I do it by choice.

I value my freedom to be an individual and hold it above my environmental values.

When you force people to make good decisions, they are not genuinely on your side.

Environmental impact lessening cannot be dictated or enforced, it must be logically transitioned to.

Environmentalism must not become the right hand of oppression!

Where are your ideals people?

This is not just a trend that you should blindly jump behind, it should be a lifestyle, a voluntary lifestyle, and nature will take its course.

Do not lose your ideals as one who values both nature and liberty, for they are not contradictory.

Ask yourself if Thoreau, Ghandi, or Captain Planet would advocate bandwagon oppression in order to save some electricity.

One who conscientiously uses an incandescent will have a lower impact than someone who spitefully retains their lifestyle but is forced to use a certain bulb.

Look at the Patriot Act, it was not lifestyle changing but it was a foot in the door for Big Brother. After our light-bulb choices are curbed, what's next?

Social change is most effective from the bottom-up, NOT from top-down.

Anyone read 1984?

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Norma — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:10:11 -0000

It is very concerning to me that we would be forced to use CFL as a citizen of a country that prides itself on Freedom. As ridiculous as it sounds to be fighting an issue as trivial as lightbulbs, I just can't believe that I have to be involved in such a battle. I too, have an illness that is exacerbated by these bulbs and have now found myself becoming more and more isolated because of the use of these bulbs in most public facilities. I somehow could accept the frustration of giving up the "fun times" of dining out and shopping, but when the time came for me to take an ailing son to a medical professional and I could not sit in the office, that was just too much for any mother to handle. So, do I think that the government should mandate the use of these bulbs? Do I think that these bulbs should be used at all? Absolutely Not !!! They are very harmful to the environment and to many individuals. You can do the research and if you do you will see that their are many studies that show an increased concern that these bulbs will cause cancer because of the radiation that is emitted from them, among other issues. Their will most definitely be an increase in Migraine headaches, seizure disorders, skin conditions, and the list goes on.

So, yes I hope that this act passes, and I really don't care what type of woman Ms. Bachman is, she has the right idea.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

mike — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:14:59 -0000

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Most places in Minnesota requires heat through a good portion of the year. When you factor that into your heating bill, all light bulbs are 100% efficient--the light is useful, the heat is useful.

Most people, use CFL's in fixtures in which they weren't designed and end up using more energy than they need anyway. A good quality Par or MR lamp is often more efficient than many CFL are in many applications. (you can't just count the efficiency of the bulb, you have the count the efficiency of the light fixture and also how it affects your pupils--glare=smaller pupils=more light requred=more energy)

If we are going to legislate anything, why don't we just cap the amount of electricity a house can use (or make it really expensive above a certain point). That way people can pick how they want to accomplish that goal.

Oh yeah, and I still haven't seen any data on the amount of embodied and manufacturing energy, pollution of a CFL vs an Incandescent.

Mike

PS--I use CFL bulbs--where it makes sense to and good quality incandescents (halogen, xenon), where it doesn't.

I have a lighting design and electrical engineering background. I believe that a million people replacing all their lightbulbs isn't going to make as much difference as people learning about and hiring lighting designers that actually know how to make the whole system (not just one component) efficient and pleasing.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:12:41 -0000

I agree with Eric S. 100%. I am not sure what to believe here but i think that arguing over a light bulb is pretty trivial.

I am going to share this page with my history teacher and see what he thinks.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

ashleelisbeth — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:56:30 -0000

Minnesota, what were you thinking!?

I find it extremely amusing to think that people still believe that global warming is some sort of liberal ruse, some hoax that we created just for shits and giggles and to push "our agenda".

Look around, there are smog clouds over our major cities, rivers are clogged with pollution, we have mountains of waste, the Iditarod had to be moved farther north, species of animals are disappearing as I type this. Although I'm not sure banning Incandescent bulbs outright is perhaps the best measure, Congress should be probing environmental issues further, and allocating funding to finding solutions (like making affordable LEDS for home use, perhaps). I am strongly convinced that if the world keeps living like we are today, being wasteful and overly consumptive and apathetic towards the environment, in a few decades the world will no longer exist as we know and knew it.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Eric S — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:35:06 -0000

If would appear that the Senator from MN got word of the story and sent over the posse.

I don't know where all the hate comes from. One of the functions of government is to protect us. From ourselves if necessary.

That said, even speaking as a treehugging, baby-killing, hippie (not really, but there are apparently only 2 sides to any argument anymore) I still think mandating my light bulb selection is fairly ridiculous. Incandescent bulbs being compared to not wearing a seat belt isn't a very good analogy.

Both sides always talk like the worst case scenario has already happened. With your boy Bush in the White House there's zero chance of a "liberal" federal light bulb banning bill anyway.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Tom Miller — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:59:01 -0000

Hey Michelle!

Sounds like you are one of the last true conservatives! Come to Arizona. We love our guns, religion, and the right of an unborn child to live! What's so wack about that? Freedom of choice is great, but the choice begins with the act, not after the fact. What are we, dogs in heat? The next thing you know they will put a tax on the methane gas we emitt. I do not want to buy anything from china!!

The governments job is to maintain the infrastructure, and protect us from our enemies. Nothing else! Stay out of our private lives. Let us vote on all of the issues. This is America. We cannot let a Judge, or small group of people who claim to represent us, dictate our lives! I believe most hard working Americans would agree with me!

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

JohnB — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:01:02 -0000

The government is telling us what lightbulbs we can and cannot use today, what are they going to tell us tomorrow? People who welcome government control over their lives get what they deserve.

You can laugh and make jokes about the people relating lightbulb choice to LIBERTY and FREEDOM, but once the government starts taking away the things that really matter to YOU, you'll be standing right next to the rest of us wishing that we had done something to stem the tide of rampant government legislation a long, long time ago. And by the time that comes, I'm sure the govt will have taken away all our guns, you know 'for our own safety', as well and there won't be a damn thing we can do about it then.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

John Taylor — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:04:53 -0000

Wazzat? A "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act" ????????

Since when were choices restricted? Never!!!

Having the more beneficent choice recommended and perhaps even subsidized is far far from choice restriction.

Can you still buy old style inefficient incandescent bulbs in Minnesota?

Yes, you can, and you can also get rid of Representative Michelle Bachman, for outrageously lying to her constituents. She is an embarrassment to humanity.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Dave — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:54:46 -0000

As a citizen of Minnesota I apologize about Mrs. Bachmann. I don't believe this is about our Constitutional rights, but more because she doesn't believe in global warming or science except where it can be misused/misinterpreted for her conservative values.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Steven E. Davis — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:50:01 -0000

The incandescent Light Bulb Ban violates the founding freedoms of this nation. Even if this were not a huge issue (and it is), the CFL backers are basing their agenda on junk science. CFL's are far more harmful to people than the old incandescent bulbs in every way (light color, light quality, strobe and scotopic effects, seizures, epilepsy, autism , migraines, headaches, etc...).

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, they are far more complex and resource intensive to manufacture, requiring far more mined materials and use of fossil fuels to produce than the old bulbs. They contain vastly greater amounts of copper, lead, mercury, steel, aluminum, magnesium and other metals than the old bulbs, and they contain plastic (OIL) which is not even present in the old bulbs. They are far heavier than the old incandescent buls and therefore require more diesel or jet fuel to transport. They have far more failure modes than the old bulbs due to their numerous electronic components. I am an educated scientist (geologist), and I can assure you these new CFL bulbs are far worse for the environment and for people than the old ones.

Americans should demand the repeal of this light bulb ban on freedom and constitutional as wel as scientific grounds.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Chad — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:49:06 -0000

Where do I go to sign this petition? Any chance I get to overturn liberal wackjob ideas, I'm there!

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Janet Kaye Love, LPC — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:33:26 -0000

The push to use fluorescent lights could be very bad for many people with disabilities. The Job Accommodation Network (http://www.jan.wvu.edu) lists reduction or elimination of fluorescent lighting as an appropriate accommodation for many conditions. In addition to causing headache, fatigue, and problems with light sensitivity, they are listed as problematic for individuals with epilepsy, migraine, lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, and vertigo (related to cardiovascular problems, multiple scleroses, and several other disorders.) I have also seen accounts of difficulties faced by individuals with hyperactivity, autism and anxiety. Fluorescent treatment of depression can have the side effect of mania.

When I talk about my own sensitivity (resulting in seizure activity regardless of the type of fluorescent), approximately 15% of the population respond with stories about symptoms from this type of lighting, most commonly headache, fatigue and confusion. I find that many people are not aware that their lights are causing their symptoms, until they start thinking about the circumstances the problems occur in.

Doctors are not talking about this either; they are using the troublesome lights. I had uncontrollable seizures for 20 years before I figured out the lights were triggering most of my problems. The doctor said he was not surprised, and told me about some of the many other problems people have! No one even suggested I consider it before that.

When standard lighting triggers severe health problems, one is excluded from many important activities. It seems to me that if cement were as valuable as energy, we would be telling people in wheelchairs that it is not reasonable to expect a ramp. I was very disappointed to learn that cities have started developing building codes encourage, or even specify, that this health hazard be implemented in much of the new construction.

Compact fluorescents for household use should come with a hazard warning! The ideal would be to exclude fluorescents from commercial use with accessibility standards. Certainly, with the recent increases in problems experienced by children, this issue should at least be addressed in schools.

Please consider taking action to reverse this trend. Write your city, state and national legislators to make them aware of this problem. They are starting to pass laws to make incandescent bulbs illegal, which would leave some of us completely in the dark. We need to look further for alternatives that do not harm any one, or leave them stuck outside, or in the dark.

For my part, I am writing letters, and making requests to be accommodated at public meetings. Not being able to participate seems to be percieved as "Reasonable" many places.

Re: Only in America: The \"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act\"

Trishah — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:38:24 -0000

As a person with an inability to work in florescent lighting, the idea that the government is going to make it every HARDER for me to get my disability compensated in the workplace AND force me to stockpile or buy black market light bulbs just so that I can see without splitting headaches is crazy.

There are other ways to save energy without forcing this on people who's health is already an issue.

I'm green and I'm against mandatory fluorescents.

http://www.lightbulbchoice.com