Ban Incandescent Bulbs - Dateline Maine

[W1UJR]

There's been global warming since the last Ice Age. - 1UJR 

Lifted from -> www.pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=168072&ac=PHnws

===========

Maine would be the first state to ban most uses of ordinary incandescent light bulbs under a bill submitted by a Portland lawmaker on Thursday.

Sen. Ethan Strimling, D-Portland, wants to ban the bulbs by 2010, except for special uses such as appliance lamps and marine lamps.

His bill also would create a 25-cent deposit and collection system for compact fluorescent bulbs, more efficient alternatives that are gradually replacing the incandescent version invented by Thomas Edison 129 years ago.

Other states have considered bans, but not since Congress adopted efficiency standards in December that will effectively phase out inefficient bulbs starting in 2012.

Strimling said those standards would not be phased in completely until 2020, and that's too late, given the urgent need to fight global warming and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

"(Congress) is taking 12 years to do what we should be doing in two years," he said. "The technology already exists. We're finally going to find out how many legislators it takes to change a light bulb."

Compact fluorescent bulbs are 75 percent more efficient than incandescent bulbs, reducing electricity use and power plant pollution that contributes to global warming.

But there is sure to be strong opposition to the bill, including from General Electric Co.

The light bulb maker is developing a new generation of efficient incandescent bulbs, said Kim Freeman, a GE spokeswoman in Louisville, Ky.

By 2012, she said, GE will have an incandescent bulb that uses as little energy as the compact fluorescent bulbs sold today.

"We would oppose any legislation that would ban a particular technology," she said. "Giving consumers more choices is the appropriate approach."

The company supports the standards passed by Congress in December, according to Freeman. That law requires bulbs to be 25 percent to 30 percent more efficient starting in 2012.

Strimling said he would not object to accelerated efficiency standards instead of a ban. "As long as it starts by 2010, I'm at the table," he said.

Fluorescent bulbs that are thrown in the trash can end up adding to the mercury pollution that contaminates Maine lakes. And fluorescent bulbs that break in a home can expose inhabitants to dangerous mercury levels if not cleaned up properly.

Vacuuming a broken bulb, for example, can spread the contamination through a house, according to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. (For cleanup advice, go to: www.mainedep.com.)

[WA1GFZ]

Time to make another Home Depot run. I guess this waste of time is a good excuse for not dealing with real issues.
Hey, Maybe they can come up with a pill for mercury poison.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Fluorescent bulbs that are thrown in the trash can end up adding to the mercury pollution that contaminates Maine lakes. And fluorescent bulbs that break in a home can expose inhabitants to dangerous mercury levels if not cleaned up properly.

Vacuuming a broken bulb, for example, can spread the contamination through a house, according to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. (For cleanup advice, go to: www.mainedep.com.)

A crock of BS.
CFLs contain 1 to 5 milligrams of mercury each. Where do they get the idea that a broken light bulb contains enough mercury to be a household hazard?

There's tiny amounts of mercury in conventional fluorescent bulbs, too. A lot more than in any CFL. Why no hysteria about that? As far as I know, I've never heard about needing a hazmat team after breaking a fluorescent light bulb (which I've done many times), nor do they need to go to a hazardous waste disposal site. I guess they *aren't* so hazardous after all.

This supposed mercury issue with CFLs is a red herring.

Having said that, both the Federal and proposed Maine light bulb regulations are invasive, unnecessary, poorly thought out, and I don't support them, either.

[WA1GFZ]

how does that compare to a fish....?
I just read this generation of kids is starting to have lower levels of lead in their systems now that we took it out of the gas.
Why is mercury acceptable now when three drops on a classroom floor clear a building.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Who said that mercury was acceptable?

What was said is that there's a point where a quantity of mercury is so small that it shouldn't be considered a hazard. You don't need to call a hazmat team if you drop a thermometer on the floor.

Walking by the antenna on a wireless hub, or even a thousand wireless hubs isn't the same as sticking yer head in a microwave oven

[Ed W1XAW]

I'm curious why there are so many global warming posts on a ham radio website?   Last I checked, scorn for the theory wasn't a requirement for either a ticket or to operate AM.   If you don't agree with the prevailing attitudes shown on this site and debate it the post just gets pulled.  Why post it to begin with?   Ed

[W1ATR]

Shoot, the way it is now, even 'amateur radio theory' isn't a requirement for a ticket either.


From the front page:
QSO
The QSO area is for any subject except political and religious posts. It is like the AM Bar and Grill and of course anything that is posted must be following the guidelines.

As long as this one doesn't evolve into a political flame war, we're good.

Just my 25¢ (.02¢ after inflation)

[k4kyv]

I use a few CFL's in the house for lights that stay turned on a lot, but despite claims to the contrary, I have experienced unacceptable levels of rf interference from ones operating near any AM receiving equipment, be it ham radio, shortwave broadcast or regular MW AM broadcast.  I use only incandescent lamps in the shack. 

I also sometimes use them for heating purposes - a cheap, easily obtainable low-power spot source of heat, for example, keeping the oil pan warm under frigid conditions, and keeping epoxy warm enough to accelerate its setting without overheating.

I don't think banning them is the solution.  Let the market decide.  As fuel and electricity costs go up, people will buy them to cut down on the electric bill.  As fewer bulbs are sold, they will become scarcer and more expensive for those who have a specialised use for them.

At the local farmer's supply, they sell special long-life, low efficiency bulbs that are actually rated for130 volts and built like the proverbial brick outhouse, @ only 50 cents each.  They are ideal for portable work lights.  You can practically drop the light on concrete without blowing the bulb.  And they  make excellent heat sources.  I think I'll begin stocking up while they are still available and cheap.

[KA1ZGC]

Freedom of Choice*

*Subject to government approval of said choice, determination of said approval based on said chocie's appeal to the opinions (informed or otherwise) of the Government's elected officials' campaign contributors (or, in rare instances, their constituents).

[WA1GFZ]

My choice is change all the 100 watt bulbs to 60 watters.
Need more light add a fixture and use 2 40 watt bulbs or even a pair of 25 watt bulbs. I have 10 lights in the shack with small bulbs. Easier on the eyes and plenty of light. They are on 3 different circuits. I have changed from 4- 100 watters to mostly 40 watters and have plenty more light and can turn off a third of them most of the time.

[Ed/KB1HYS]

If you think your free to choose... think again.

Try exercising any one of numerous rights that our fore fathers took for granted...
Free Speech --  Not if its "politically incorrect" or advocating freedom and liberty.
Clear cut your OWN land -- good luck, unless your a developer with enough $$ to buy off the neighbors.

Now the gov guys are passing "environmentally friendly" legislation, with little or no scientific advice.

I can't wait for them to get control of the medical care...  I can see it know.

" before the doctor can take out your ruptured appendix, you must fill out the MD Form 1257-a (in triplicate) and have a representative of the Federal Dept of Medico approve the form.  3-6 weeks and we should be able to operate."
 

[W1RKW]

I just replaced 3 CFL's in the kitchen today with three 60 watt incandescents.  For some reason as of late the batch of CFL's I bought 3 or 4 years ago were not behaving and would crap out after month or so.  I got tired of dickin' with them.  I don't know if it's a heat issue or what.  Others of the same brand that are installed else where in the house are ticking right along without any trouble.  I can't understand why after 3 years without any trouble with this brand all of a sudden the same brand of CFL's would only last a month in this fixture.  Do unused CFL's have shelf life?

[WA1GFZ]

I called the epa once. Someone in my neighborhood is draining their washing machine in the stream behind my house. They did nothing
OH they did come out and move some leaves out of the way so the suds could continue down stream.
Create an issue to avoid real work.
Mercury will hurt you as it collects in your liver. Last time I looked it was heavier than water so no point in digging it up from under a stream bed.

[W1RKW]

You should see how grass grows with laudry detergent laced water...

[Ed W1XAW]

Ok,  so global warming is a hoax, gift from Al Gore, all of us dumping exhaust from our power plants, tail pipes, jets and chimnys could not possibly amount to anything.   Any attempt to convince people to conserve is just a pc plot against our God given liberties.  Not being a scientist, I can't say for sure that global warming is happening (I'm not sure they can say so either).   I'm inclined to believe based on the evidence that we've all read and what appears to be approaching scientifc consensus.  I'm pretty darn sure that the environment is under siege in some way from the waste byproducts of our society and needs a little better stewardship than most of us are willing to freely give.  What exactly is the solution if you don't want mandates of any type?   The reason I believe that these debates are likely to get pulled here is that essentially it's impossible to seperate public policy from politics and it's the lack of good public policy that keeps us from making progress on reducing demand and finding new, cleaner energy sources. 

Thanks,  Ed

[Ed/KB1HYS]

No, not a hoax. but a dmamn good excuse to have the governments get bigger...
and bigger.
The world is getting warmer, has been for the last 10K years.  You can't blame that all on humans, being responsible and findining new energy sources is a good thing, using bad science to justifiy oppressive gobernemnt regulation is another.

But it;s always worked so well in the past...

"Big Brother is watching, and he likes what he sees"

[ka3zlr]

Ok,  so global warming is a hoax, gift from Al Gore, all of us dumping exhaust from our power plants, tail pipes, jets and chimnys could not possibly amount to anything.   Any attempt to convince people to conserve is just a pc plot against our God given liberties.  Not being a scientist, I can't say for sure that global warming is happening (I'm not sure they can say so either).   I'm inclined to believe based on the evidence that we've all read and what appears to be approaching scientifc consensus.  I'm pretty darn sure that the environment is under siege in some way from the waste byproducts of our society and needs a little better stewardship than most of us are willing to freely give.  What exactly is the solution if you don't want mandates of any type?   The reason I believe that these debates are likely to get pulled here is that essentially it's impossible to seperate public policy from politics and it's the lack of good public policy that keeps us from making progress on reducing demand and finding new, cleaner energy sources. 

Thanks,  Ed

Hi Ed,

 I like your post, Nothing political, But your right...I sometimes get the Corporate Bureaucracy confused but after considerable reading, age might be a factor too on my end I am Very Against This Corporate melding taking Place..but on to my point.

 The problem is the solution, we today have become satisfied with what we have..although it is having an effect on the biosphere..obviously...we're not looking in the right direction..at least not that i know of..or have seen..as of Yet...the problem is Locomotion...we're living on internal combustion for modal motion...OK..basic physics Force, in motion..OK...the need of...Well it's so much easier using the internal combustion engines...obviously.. than to adapt to the field that we already have ..Gravity..it's free..it's surrounds us, protects us, the Basic operand of the universe....

 Unlock Gravity unlock our problems at least that's the conclusion i have come too...sometimes I wished I'd of payed a little more attention in school..instead of Looking at the girls...LOL....

73...

[Ed W1XAW]

Ed, let's see now, unleaded gas, catalytic converters, good old Freon gone, scrubbers in all smoke stacks now, hybrid cars coming on the seen now, new fuels like hydrogen coming on the scene, yeah I guess you could call that all nothing and pretend like it hasn't already cost us all a fortune or that it hasn't already accomplished a lot. I always knew that plenty of air was present when I was a kid, you could plainly see it years ago around here, can't do that now. Good changes never come quickly and seldom do they come from panic driven legislation.

If you ever have had the opportunity to travel to one of the bigger lesser developed countries and breath the air I think the value of emissions control will be pretty clear.   If your view of the last 50 years of pollution controls is that it was all junk science then I don't see too much point in engaging in debate.  That may not be what you are saying as I don't understand the bit about no longer being able to see the air unless you mean that the smog is reduced?  It is interesting to see the advent of new technology coming to the market place and I'm sure it's going to take several generations of CFL's and hybrid cars before the tech is up to snuff. It's pretty clear to me that most of the advances in pollution control were the result of legislative mandates rather than voluntary compliance.  73  Ed

[WA1GFZ]

Right on Ed because it is only about making money at any cost to the next guy.

[Ed W1XAW]

Mack, the point about the larger lesser developed countries is that you can't breath in their streets not how wonderful they are.  In fact I have no love for these countries and their backward, repressive, crooked power structures.   I would venture that the extreme pollution is obvious to anybody who has ever traveled or even read about the horrible conditions that come about where there are no emissions laws.  No silly songs here just stating the obvious.   I really think that comment is basically rude and off base in what has so far been a civil discussion.  We can agree or disagree without resorting to comments like that.  Actually, I haven't come out and said that the proposed CFL law was something I supported because I haven't fully considered it.  My point was that environmental laws are responsible for most of the advances we have made and I for one am very happy for the 40 year old Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act which clearly needs to now be strengthened, at least in my opinion.  Your criticisms of the faults of some of the past efforts seem like they are right on track but I don't believe that those details outweigh the overall good of environmental laws.  My own experience here has been that CFL's work great and the light is fine once you get used to it.   I myself have not run into the tree hugging Walmart folks and in fact most of the folks that fit the "tree hugging" term are anti-Walmart and everything it stands for.   Noted about American inventions, a very well known phenomenon that I am not disputing.   If you're reading something anti-American in my discussion then I would suppose that it's a misunderstanding as it's not the case.   73 de Ed

[W1UJR]

My point was that environmental laws are responsible for most of the advances we have made and I for one am very happy for the 40 year old Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act which clearly needs to now be strengthened, at least in my opinion. 

Your point is valid Ed.

Would it not be for environmental laws, America's infrastructure would largely resemble China's current environmental mess. The problem I have is when we allow goods to enter our country, from a country which does not have the same environmental standards, and allow said goods to compete with our domestically made goods. I'm all for legislation which improves the quality of our environment, as long as we require the other guy to bear the same burden, be it through tariff or taxes.

I think that we all agree that business's only function to return maximum profit to their owners or shareholders.
Unless there is a positive effect to the bottom line, you'll never see a business make changes in any course, environmental or otherwise. There is nothing evil or wrong in that, that's just what business does.

Businesses which are now taking the "green approach", mine included, are doing so because they believe it will result in an improvement to the bottom line. Any other approach would be a violation of the fiduciary responsibility that business management has to its stakeholders.

Government's job, is to regulate business in a way that works for the greater good, without harming said business's ability to function and create wealth for stakeholders. Again, nothing evil per say in that, that is what government is here for. It is when government legislation strangulates business for the sake of "doing good", that the problem occurs.

There's nothing like a stiff tariff to level the playing field! 

[Ed W1XAW]

Bruce:

Many folks in my position (I run an import department for an American corporation) are rabid free-traders, I don't count myself amongst them.  I don't understand why there isn't more reciprocity in tariffs.   Regarding American made consumer goods, not only is the horse out of the barn but in many cases the barn is torn down.  It's a shame.  On the environmental side, believe it or not some of the larger companies take positions that do not appear to be directly connected to the bottom line.   I have seen where companies have corporate responsibility officers that check they type of chemicals used in production, make sure workers have rights, are paid higher than prevailing wages, an mandate worker safe environments, limit overtime etc.   This is probably motivated by brand protection as the last thing you want to be accused of is being a sweat shop if your brand is considered high end.  No doubt the least expensive products do not have these protections at all.   My own experience is that corporate responsibility officers and folks involved in the sustainability initiatives are usually seeking these positions based on their own personal convictions.   I know a few and have discussed this at length.  Maybe the corporations mostly do it to protect the brand but a good dose of do-good motivation is mixed in to the mix?   

73 de Ed (it's fun to say best regards, this is Ed using only two letters and two numbers)

[W1UJR]

Yep, problem #1, tearing "down the barn".
Bad for national interest, bad for the American worker, and ultimately bad for Liberty.
In my opinion, that is also bad for the "bottom line".

Ed, isn't brand protection just another word for concern about the "bottom line"?
If a brand is diluted or damaged, it adversely impacts on the value of a product.
Hence, once again the bottom line.

I had a staff member visit China last month, he spent about a week in Hong Kong and then the mainland.
He was enthralled with the rapidity of manufacturing, and related a story about how driven the Chinese government is to develop business. He stated that if a business plan was presented to the government, they had the ability to build a factory in something less than 48 hours. First a large concrete slab was poured, then a large tent constructed on top of the slab. The company now moved in, and began operations under the tent. Once operations were commenced, the government then built a formal structure over the tent, and when that was completed, the tent was simply removed, leaving an instant factory!

[K6JEK]

I recommend Robert Reich's latest book, "Supercapitalism"   He argues (and people surely argue with him) that expecting companies to take care of the environment, their workers, etc., is foolish. This latest push for Corporate Social Responsibility is silly.   Corporations are there to produce deals for their customers and good returns for their shareholders.   Anything else is a myth.

He also does a good job of explaining how we got where we are, contrasting things in the US of A during what he calls the "Almost Golden Age", 1945 - 1973 to what we have today, what changed and how we got here. 

[W3SLK]

I going to throw my 2 cents in here. Having worked and continue to work for a chemical/pharmaceutical company that has tons of restrictions on its emissions. I happen to calibrate those devices that measure those emissions. If you knew what 'green government' makes us do, then you would understand why companies continue to ship factories to countries with less stringent environmental regs. We bitch about jobs going overseas but nobody seems to complain about us cutting off our nose despite our face! Then the rest of the world wants to give the under-developed nations a free pass so that they can have jobs and feed their people. Sorry for the rant but this kind of shit just pisses me off especially when I see it with my own eyes.