Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Dim Bulbs

Thomas Edison spins in grave -

A Nation of Dim Bulbs

By signing a new energy/environmental bill, our illustrious president, whom I happen to like for the most part, enacted an across the board, all over the U.S., fool hearted ban of the incandescent light bulb in 2014. This has been on the radar of environmental wackos for sometime, and G.W., who has many environmental sympathies, got snookered by their propaganda as to how evil these devices truly are to our world.

That means we are stuck with those twirly little florescent bulbs. I don't like florescent bulbs for my home because it gives your living room that quaint, Soviet Union factory warmth. All I need now is to start a child slave labor business with my kids making nauga hide wallets.

Most folks are utterly unaware of this ridiculous travesty of bad science gone badder, but by 2014 it will be against the law to manufacture incandescent bulbs. Not sure how that will impact Las Vegas, surgical rooms, the dentist chair. The article above breaks down all the particulars of the Orwellian world we will be forced to face.

And to think this bit of law making comes from individuals who prattle about being progressive and for liberty and freedom.

Labels: ,


Blogger Steve said...

Incandescent lamps are highly inefficient compared to the alternatives available today. Just like the the horse and buggy mode of transportation, their time too, has come and gone. Advances in fluorescent, LED and HID are making these old time favorites obsolete.

Come on now Fred. Surely you don't think it's wacko to care about the environment.

11:49 AM, January 02, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

It matters not if they are efficient, they are better to read by and easier on the eyes and give a more ascetic feel to a home.

As for the environment, the florescents contain mercury, and the last time I checked, mercury is not a good thing to be putting into the environment. I would certainly encourage you to read the article. Besides, the government has better things to do with their law making abilities than telling us what sort of bulbs we can use. It is even more obnoxious knowing there data for making these laws are based upon bad information from environmental propaganda.


12:09 PM, January 02, 2008  
Blogger Steve said...

Did you know that 90% of the energy consumed by incandescent lamps produces heat and not light? I don't know why you wouldn't value the energy savings by using technology that consumes less than a quarter of the energy to produce the same illumination, while lasting 10 times as long.

Given the high demands for energy consumption in the U.S., I think it would be irresponsible for our government to ignore issues that concern our environment. I agree with you that present fluorescent lamps don't have the same lighting qualities of incandescents, but this is bound to continue improving. Many manufacturers now produce fluorescents that have a color rendering index almost equivalent to incandescents.

Some other interesting facts about fluorescents:

One compact fluorescent bulb contains a hundred times less mercury than is found in a single dental amalgam filling. Also, by requiring less energy, fluorescents will actually cut down on mercury pollution produced by coal burning. And 95 percent of the mercury contained in compact fluorescents can be recovered if the bulbs are recycled properly.

I think as Christians we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, and things like reducing energy consumption, recycling and the like are all positives, and don't have to be associated with being "environmental wackos."

12:43 PM, January 02, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Great talking points from an environmental agency. You really need to read that article; especially the 2nd page.


12:55 PM, January 02, 2008  
Blogger Steve said...

I did read the article Fred. It sounds like it was written by someone who has a pre-commitment to screwing the environment all in the name of personal freedom of choice. They really don't care whether the "talking points" are true or not.

Those pesky facts never speak for themselves! ... hey, that sounds rather Van Tillian, now doesn't it ;)

1:22 PM, January 02, 2008  
Blogger Matthew Christensen said...

About 95% of our bulbs are fluorescent. I don't have any problems reading under their light. There are some places you can't use a fluorescent bulb. Ceiling fans and 3 way sockets are 2 examples. I believe they now make special fluorescents for the 3 ways but I could be wrong. Also they work terrible outside in cold weather. I suppose a LED bulb would be good for that but I have not priced those out and I don't know how efficient they currently are in giving light and saving energy. That being said I do find it scary that government can force only certain light bulbs to be used and that cars in the future will have to get at least 35mpg. I don't believe our founding fathers ever wanted the government to micro manager our lives in that way.

5:09 AM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

You really walked away from that article thinking it was from a guy who doesn't care about the environment? Amazing.

I read it as written by an individual who is concerned about our government passing sweeping, comprehensive legislation that radically alters our way of life based upon the worldview of a unique and pagan driven special interest group who provide talking points that are based upon selective, misinformation and junk science.

I am all for sound conservation, but I want my practices to be based upon reality and reason, not hysterical fantasy. Declaring the incandescent light bulb to be a scourge upon our society and changing the way of life of millions of people with no viable replacement is squarely in the realm of hysterical fantasy.


5:44 AM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger Steve said...

You are I are on the same page about a lot of things, but not on this.

It concerns me that many Christians are so quick to jump on the bandwagon of assuming that anything having to do with environmental conservation/preservation is coming from soley from "pagan driven" special interest groups, and that therefore, as Christians we should just oppose anything they promote. I agree with you that many of the environmentalists are in fact "mother earth worshipers" etc. with no true understanding of God and his creation. However, I still believe we as Christians have a responsibility to care for our environment, and not just trash it as we please in the name of personal freedom.

6:34 AM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Like I said, I am for conservation, but I want it to be based upon reasonable fact. Environmentalism has a proven track record of hyping doomsday scenarios that are based upon junk science. The current global warming hysteria is one example. Additionally, you are being a tad naive to think that much of their ideology is not driven by their religious secular world view.

Look it, the florescent light bulb has its place, but not as a viable replacement across the board for an incandescent bulb; at least now. Talk to us when there is one. To pass in to law sweeping legislation which will forever outlaw something like this is not only unwise, but disastrous. That is on top of the Orwellian idea of "forcing" people to give up a normal part of their livelihood with out a viable alternatives being available.

6:52 AM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger Steve said...

That's funny. I thought I had just indicated that I did in fact realize that the ideology of many environmentalists stems from their secular world view.

I don't think global warming is a myth. I do believe we are adversely affecting the environment, particularly with the amount of carbon emissions spewing into the atmosphere (and yes, I drive a 4 cylinder station wagon to commute to work and hall my groceries etc. instead of an over sized stupid SUV).

Is there some hype about global warming? Perhaps there is. But I can see past the hype and realize that a change of course is still needed or we are headed for ecological disaster. I'm a Christian AND I actually care about the environment- can you imagine that!

One last thing- fluorescent bulbs do have their limits presently- agreed. But we're also not being asked to toss incandescents for several more years. That gives manufacturers plenty of incentive to develop better lamp technologies to address the current shortcomings.

7:20 AM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger Raulemir said...

Mr. Fred, please don't use comment thread to resurrect you terrible joke about how many Muslim it take to change light bulb.

Muslim see you going down wrong path and try help you.

12:57 PM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I will try my best to be charitable to you and all Muslims everywhere.
No light bulb jokes will be found here, I promise.


12:59 PM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger Carl said...

Try using a florescent flood light outdoors in cold wintry weather. Doesn't do much good when it takes several minutes to come to full strength especially if it's needed for security purposes.

Second the mercury in the flourescent bulbs may be low, but most small towns and rural communities do not have recycling programs. Adding such would cause major increases in expenses those communities can't afford. If forced, expect tax increases to cover it. Furthermore, the average American doesn't recycle in such detailed manner and instead just throws away everything that could be considered hazardous (batteries, flourescent bulbs, etc.) in normal garbage.

This is bad law just as when freon was outlawed...the substitutes turned out to be much less efficient and more toxic to the environment.

I prefer the market dictate what is made with few exceptions.

11:11 PM, January 03, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home