• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kiss your 100-watt lightbulb goodbye

Now we will be told what size light bulb we can use. More government control over our lives.

Kiss your 100-watt lightbulb goodbye - San Jose Mercury News

As of Saturday, what used to be a 100-watt light bulb manufactured and sold in California will have to use 72 watts or less. The 72-watt replacement bulb, also called an energy-saving halogen light, will provide the same amount of light, called lumens, for lower energy cost.

Similar new standards for traditional 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent bulbs will go into effect in California over the next few years, with wattages reduced to 53, 43 and 29 respectively.

The new rule does not ban incandescent light bulbs; it just requires those bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. And it only affects incandescent light bulbs manufactured in 2011 or later, not those already in use or on store shelves.

Less wattage means smaller electric bills. I'm all for it. I don't care if it's government mandated or not.

ricksfolly
 
I switched to CFLs in 2005 I think. I have had those same bulbs since then. Made the Navy move the ones I had everytime we moved (I saved the boxes). Of course here in housing, they have the LED lights anyway, so I really don't need the bulbs I have. I put them away. Might donate them or just turn them in to whereever.
 
I don't like being told what kind of lightbulb I can buy under law... this is something the free market could have taken care of in time.

I've been buying the curlies (Compact florescent bulbs) for ten years now, though. Not for any environmental reasons, nor even mainly for the electric bill savings, but because they last for YEARS and I hate changing light bulbs. :)
 
Last edited:
Sensible. Has happened in Europe.. hard to get the old style bulbs now days and good. In this case government should mandate such things as people would never switch over to energy saving bulbs because they are more expensive than "old type" bulbs. Now the fact that energy saving bulbs last longer on average (way longer) and cost way less to run should factor in, but as we all know, the consumer is ignorant of such things and only want short term visible results. I think I have one old type bulb in the house, but that is due to the lamp ("it looks pretty" is the comment in this house).. and as soon as the lamp can be replaced then it goes.


So, to conserve energy and protect the environment, we're going to outlaw, "old school", light bulbs in favor of light bulbs that are overflowing with mercury, that will be disposed of in our landfills, so that mercury can seep into our water supply, ingested by the fish we eat, then into us?

On a scale of 1-to-10, the stupidity level here, is?
 
You're right. No - it's not major.
I'm not too bothered - annoyed but not pissy.

Environmental issues[edit] Mercury emissionsCFLs, like all fluorescent lamps, contain small amounts of mercury[44][45] as vapor inside the glass tubing. Most CFLs contain 3–5 mg per bulb, with the eco-friendly bulbs containing as little as 1 mg.[46][47] Because mercury is poisonous, even these small amounts are a concern for landfills and waste incinerators where the mercury from lamps may be released and contribute to air and water pollution. In the U.S., lighting manufacturer members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) have voluntarily capped the amount of mercury used in CFLs.[48] In the EU the same cap is required by the RoHS law.

In areas with coal-fired power stations, the use of CFLs saves on mercury emissions when compared to the use of incandescent bulbs. This is due to the reduced electrical power demand, reducing in turn the amount of mercury released by coal as it is burned.[49][50] In July 2008 the US EPA published a data sheet stating that the net system emission of mercury for CFL lighting was lower than for incandescent lighting of comparable lumen output. This was based on the average rate of mercury emission for US electricity production and average estimated escape of mercury from a CFL put into a landfill.[51] Coal-fired plants also emit other heavy metals, sulfur, and carbon dioxide.


Net mercury emissions for CFL and incandescent lamps, based on EPA FAQ sheet, assuming average US emission of 0.012 mg of mercury per kilowatt-hour and 14% of CFL mercury contents escapes to environment after land fill disposal.In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if all 270 million compact fluorescent lamps sold in 2007 were sent to landfill sites, that this would represent around 0.13 metric tons, or 0.1% of all U.S. emissions of mercury (around 104 metric tons that year)
Compact fluorescent lamp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Some information on the mercury in CFLs
 
If it performs the same or better and can be offered at a comparable price, but will cost me less to operate, why wouldn't I want it?

because it doesn't. you're not supposed to spend more than an hour a day within a foot of these things, and they have mercury. so, if an old bulb broke in your house, no big deal. a new one breaks, it's an environmental cleanup.

Personally, I buy those light bulbs already. That said, it probably shouldn't be the government's business as to how I light my surroundings. It would be far better to allow the company to produce the superior product and then let it compete on it's own against the less efficient model. Some people don't seem to realize that they won't have to force their agenda on others if they can just legitimately provide a better option.

that this option hasn't been gaining track on it's own seems indicative, then, doesn't it?

generally speaking though, this kind of nanny-statism is intolerable. it's like when they started regulating toilets and showerheads. the federal government does not belong here.
 
Last edited:
because it doesn't. you're not supposed to spend more than an hour a day within a foot of these things, and they have mercury. so, if an old bulb broke in your house, no big deal. a new one breaks, it's an environmental cleanup.



that this option hasn't been gaining track on it's own seems indicative, then, doesn't it?

generally speaking though, this kind of nanny-statism is intolerable. it's like when they started regulating toilets and showerheads. the federal government does not belong here.

within a foot? source? I have broken a few, one with my head as I climbed a ladder.
IT hasn't affedcted mmmeeee much..
I believe our nanny govt has assured us that the occasional whiff of mercury won't make us vote Democrat, so I will worry about more serious matters.
Example, is there enough potable water for us to drink, or will we have to buy the overpriced "spring" water in non-recyclable plastic bottles made from the waste chemicals left over when we refine oil?
Should I report my neighbors for overwatering their lawns using that potable water when using gray system water (shower and washing machine water) would conserve all that clean water and fertilize the grass at the same time?
Is the air relatively clean, or is there enough octane boosting lead in it to make some of our kids become right wing ubercons?
And what industrial wastes being dumped into the air and our rivers is creating all these pesky libertarians?
 
because it doesn't. you're not supposed to spend more than an hour a day within a foot of these things, and they have mercury. so, if an old bulb broke in your house, no big deal. a new one breaks, it's an environmental cleanup.



that this option hasn't been gaining track on it's own seems indicative, then, doesn't it?

generally speaking though, this kind of nanny-statism is intolerable. it's like when they started regulating toilets and showerheads. the federal government does not belong here.

Re the toilets.....if one flush won't do the job, where is the water savings? I know a contractor who saves all the OLD toilets he removes during remodel jobs. Those that can be re-used get polished up, all new internal parts added, and installed somewhere.
What the govt doesn't know......
 
Re the toilets.....if one flush won't do the job, where is the water savings? I know a contractor who saves all the OLD toilets he removes during remodel jobs. Those that can be re-used get polished up, all new internal parts added, and installed somewhere.
What the govt doesn't know......

I will say that I have a new washer and dryer - more energy efficient as my recent elec bill has shown - uses less water . . . and does wash more efficiently than our old washer and dryer.

But our old washer and dryer were 15 years old - if they were more recent - say maybe 8 years old - I'd say the 'savings' wouldn't have been noticable.
 
It's not the consumers whom are ignorant. The arrogance of your thoughts drips heavily in this post. People are too stupid, it's good to have Gov't tell the morons the better way to live.

No consumers are stupid because they do not have all the information. And if it was not for the government forcing people to do stuff, then the US still would have slavery and women could not vote.. think about that.

Like it or not, the consumers and the "free market" is not fast enough more than often to implement better technology for safety or conservation. If it was not for laws and rules then things like seat belts in cars would not be mandatory. Even to this day, the generation that grew up during the "optional" period has a damn hard time in remembering the belt, which is why many cars have the "beep beep beep" alarm (which some turn off.....) to remind people to put on the seat belt.

And like it or not, old style bulbs might be cheap (for now) but energy wise they are pigs. Add into that, the fact that they last far shorter than energy saving bulbs, then an energy saving bulb is very quickly "earned" back despite that the bulb it self is more expensive. But consumers do not think like that in most cases. Hell the UK had the problem last year when the bulbs were banned for sale... people complained about the light from energy savers being "not good enough" to "did not like it" and all sorts of excuses. When presented with the energy saved and money, then very few actually continued with the same tone. Those that did continue with the tone were usual 50+ in age.

So while you might think this is another intrusion by government on the lives of people, this intrusion makes a whole lot of sense. Think about the energy save if everyone went to energy saving bulbs? Aint it a right wing platform to get rid of energy dependence on foreign oil? Well this is one of many ways of doing it.
 
Last edited:
So, to conserve energy and protect the environment, we're going to outlaw, "old school", light bulbs in favor of light bulbs that are overflowing with mercury, that will be disposed of in our landfills, so that mercury can seep into our water supply, ingested by the fish we eat, then into us?

On a scale of 1-to-10, the stupidity level here, is?

I think that it's rich that you weren't particularly concerned about the longterm toxic effects of millions of gallons of oil spilled gulf, but you're all up in arms about a miniscule amount of mercury in lightbulbs.

It's entertaining to watch your positions shift on the basis of what Rush limbaugh has been bitching about today.
 
Last edited:
I think that it's rich that you weren't particularly concerned about the longterm toxic effects of millions of gallons of oil spilled gulf, but you're all up in arms about a miniscule amount of mercury in lightbulbs.

It's entertaining to watch your positions shift on the basis of what Rush limbaugh has been bitching about today.
In the ubercons defense, mercury has been shown to affect our extemeties, like hands, feet, head......nuff said?:(
 
In the ubercons defense, mercury has been shown to affect our extemeties, like hands, feet, head......nuff said?:(

Funny, when you defend the uberlibs, you don't say 'uberlibs'. :shrug:
 
because it doesn't. you're not supposed to spend more than an hour a day within a foot of these things, and they have mercury. so, if an old bulb broke in your house, no big deal. a new one breaks, it's an environmental cleanup.

You have more dangerous substances under your kitchen sink. :shrug: People keep harping on the evil mercury in these bulbs as an way to show how bad the government is and how much they must want to poison you.

However, not everyone is a light bulb breaking klutz. It’s not like CFLs are guaranteed to break at some point… Just be careful, dammit!

Btw… how small is your house that you are standing within a foot of your lighting fixtures? Even if what you say is true on that count, that wouldn’t seem to be very hard to avoid, unless you have 6’ ceilings and rooms that are 3’ square. :2razz:

Personally, I find the benefits to far outweigh any alleged hazards, as would anyone who takes the time to do a proper cost/benefit analysis.

that this option hasn't been gaining track on it's own seems indicative, then, doesn't it?

generally speaking though, this kind of nanny-statism is intolerable. it's like when they started regulating toilets and showerheads. the federal government does not belong here.

Seems to me, just based on the small sampling just within this thread, that it’s gaining ground rather well. Count how many people here claim to have replaced all their bulbs already versus those who want to cling to their more inefficient bulbs. Here’s a hint: The converts are not all green-thumb, save-the-earthers either.

Just sayin’ ;)

Trust me, I don’t have a track record of advocating big government in any way on this forum. I already stated that I don’t think the government has any business telling me how to light my home, BUT I fail to see why we’re all trying to make a big deal out of something that most people will likely be willing to do on their own anyway. Technology gets old and outdated, there’s nothing wrong with converting to newer and better tech, but people seem to throwing a fit just because the government has decided that an older technology should not be produced in favor of a newer one. Like I said earlier, there’s a reason we don’t use the Pony Express anymore. Shame on the US government for taking away your right to have your mail delivered by horse!

One final thing… Get this: You DON’T HAVE TO USE CFLs. There are halogen bulbs, LED bulbs and, according to the article, even your precious incandescents can still be manufactured, they will just be held to a more conservative energy standard. People are getting all worked up over nothing.
 
Just give me a choice... make CFL's or LED's whatever price and hike up incandescent bulbs 900% in cost and let me make a choice. If I LIKE incandescent I'll but them at $20 for two 100 watt bulbs. Telling me or outlawing incandescent bulbs is about as stoopid as it gets.
 
Just give me a choice... make CFL's or LED's whatever price and hike up incandescent bulbs 900% in cost and let me make a choice. If I LIKE incandescent I'll but them at $20 for two 100 watt bulbs. Telling me or outlawing incandescent bulbs is about as stoopid as it gets.

They aren't all outlawed, just the worst of them will no longer be as available, or as cheap....and the price WILL go up....so buy a few cases now while the price is still low.
My daughter's house is in an area that has frequent voltage fluctuations, and she has an 8 bulb fixture in her kitchen and a 5 bulb fixture over her dining table, and 12 recessed flood lights in the family room. Those 3 rooms are all one big area, actually. There isn't a week go by that she doesn't have a bulb go out. Her husband waits til half the floods are out before getting out the ladder....
She won't change to CFL bulbs because she doesn't like how they look.
 
You have more dangerous substances under your kitchen sink. :shrug: People keep harping on the evil mercury in these bulbs as an way to show how bad the government is and how much they must want to poison you.

However, not everyone is a light bulb breaking klutz. It’s not like CFLs are guaranteed to break at some point… Just be careful, dammit!

Btw… how small is your house that you are standing within a foot of your lighting fixtures? Even if what you say is true on that count, that wouldn’t seem to be very hard to avoid, unless you have 6’ ceilings and rooms that are 3’ square. :2razz:

.
speaking of household chemicals, ever mix ammonia and bleach? In a closed environment, as in your house with all the windows shut, it can be fatal....
 
Now we will be told what size light bulb we can use. More government control over our lives.

Kiss your 100-watt lightbulb goodbye - San Jose Mercury News

As of Saturday, what used to be a 100-watt light bulb manufactured and sold in California will have to use 72 watts or less. The 72-watt replacement bulb, also called an energy-saving halogen light, will provide the same amount of light, called lumens, for lower energy cost.

Similar new standards for traditional 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent bulbs will go into effect in California over the next few years, with wattages reduced to 53, 43 and 29 respectively.

The new rule does not ban incandescent light bulbs; it just requires those bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. And it only affects incandescent light bulbs manufactured in 2011 or later, not those already in use or on store shelves.

I'll just install another light stand.

Were I now have a single 100w bulb I'll now have 2-3 53w bulbs, for a net increase of power usage.
 
Sensible. Has happened in Europe.. hard to get the old style bulbs now days and good. In this case government should mandate such things as people would never switch over to energy saving bulbs because they are more expensive than "old type" bulbs. Now the fact that energy saving bulbs last longer on average (way longer) and cost way less to run should factor in, but as we all know, the consumer is ignorant of such things and only want short term visible results. I think I have one old type bulb in the house, but that is due to the lamp ("it looks pretty" is the comment in this house).. and as soon as the lamp can be replaced then it goes.

How about a tax incentive for buying LED bulbs?

Everyone wins there.
 
I'll just install another light stand.

Were I now have a single 100w bulb I'll now have 2-3 53w bulbs, for a net increase of power usage.

i don't understand why you would do that, when the replacement bulbs will generate just as much light for lower cost.
 
i don't understand why you would do that, when the replacement bulbs will generate just as much light for lower cost.

Money isn't the issue, though it may be your only concern in life. I'll do it to give the environmentalists the finger, of course.

Being in construction, I know a valid home regulation when I see one....this is not valid.
 
because he CAN, it is his CHOICE, and by the gods if he wants to act stupid, it is his right to do so.....:2razz:

Damn righ-....wait a minute.......HAY!!
 
Back
Top Bottom