Re: Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Issue - chelehaul

[Guest guest]

No offense taken! In fact,I am not keen on flourescent lighting at

all. I don't like flourescent light, I hate what it does to my

nervous system, and I don't particularly like being told what to do

either.

My point was that if this IS going to be mandated (and I might very

well be one of the first running to get tons of incandescents to

stockpile), then they should put in place some mechanism to

acknowledge, and hopefully mitigate, the attendant costs.

Perhaps a better solution would be to tax the companies that make

CFLs so that the costs caused by their product are borne by them?

In other words, internalize the REAL costs of the product -

medical, environmental, etc., and see where we end up on a cost

benefit analysis of CFLs versus other lighting options/approaches.

Of course, that would require that real science be done at many

levels which our government appears to be incapable, or not

interested, in doing.

Just thinking (and not very hard) out loud.

Anne

>

> best viable technology by what and whose definition? there are

> several factors that will determine if the technology is viable for

> the END-USER: actual light output, light quality, best operating

> conditions, cost, energy consumption, can they be recycled,

hazards,

> etc. for me, i have a few places in my house where they are

> appropriate but for the most part we use incandescents. your

mileage

> may vary. in either case congress is not well-equipped to

determine

> whether or not CFLs are appropriate for me or you.

>

> the health hazards of CFLs are at a minimum encouraged by the gov't

> changing the law to eventually outlaw incandescents

> (http://www.examiner.com/a-

1126541~_Carney__How_many_lobbyists_does_it_take_to_change_a_l

ight_bulb_.html).

> so if i am essentially forced by law to buy these things the

absolute

> LAST thing i want is to pay YET ANOTHER tax -- even if it's a

> " deferred tax " -- because the gov't-mandated product is dangerous.

> gee, does that sound familiar to anyone? maybe we should complete

the

> circle and create the CFLAERS - the CFL Adverse Events Reporting

> System that is funded by the massive tax. and then when you break

a

> bulb you can file a claim, which of course the gov't will deny,

using

> your money in the process. too bad there isn't a religious

exemption

> to CFLs in the works...

>

> anyway, my point is not to ridicule Anne or anyone else but rather

to

> point out how supposedly well-intentioned legislation (which is

> questionable in this case, as it usually is -- just like with

> compulsory vaccination) often has negative ripple effects. again,

if

> they just stayed out of it we'd all be better off. if you want to

use

> CFLs and feel it's saving you money, green, or whatever, that's

great

> but please don't demand that i do the same.

>

>

>

> =========================================

>

> Posted by: " anneecbrynn " anneecbrynn@... anneecbrynn

>

> Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:01 pm (PST) If that is the best viable

technology,

> then the powers that be need

> to try to mitigate the potential health hazards by slapping a huge

> tax on each CFL which is wholly refundable when the unbroken CFL

is

> returned to a hazmat site unbroken.... Sadly, there can't (or

> shouldn't) be any expectation that the majority of Americans are

> going to dispose of these things properly without having some real

> incentive to do so.

>

> Anne

>

[Guest guest]

-Congress is not able to determine if ANYTHING is appropriate lately.

Let alone weight in on light bulbs...

I do believe our government has gotten entirely too nosy. And mainly

because they are allowed to be bought off by large companies pushing

their own profit agendas...

Yes, stock pile that is what we will do.

Just like next year digital tv is all that will be available..those

with regular tv's will have to buy a converter box or buy a new tv.

Now come on...what kind of joke is that? Obviously that was passed by

a money push from those that sell digital tv!

" Little Chick, Little Chick..the sky is falling "

-- In , " anneecbrynn " <anneecbrynn@...>

wrote:

>

> No offense taken! In fact,I am not keen on flourescent lighting at

> all. I don't like flourescent light, I hate what it does to my

> nervous system, and I don't particularly like being told what to do

> either.

>

> My point was that if this IS going to be mandated (and I might very

> well be one of the first running to get tons of incandescents to

> stockpile), then they should put in place some mechanism to

> acknowledge, and hopefully mitigate, the attendant costs.

>

> Perhaps a better solution would be to tax the companies that make

> CFLs so that the costs caused by their product are borne by them?

> In other words, internalize the REAL costs of the product -

> medical, environmental, etc., and see where we end up on a cost

> benefit analysis of CFLs versus other lighting options/approaches.

> Of course, that would require that real science be done at many

> levels which our government appears to be incapable, or not

> interested, in doing.

>

> Just thinking (and not very hard) out loud.

>

> Anne

>

>

> >

> > best viable technology by what and whose definition? there are

> > several factors that will determine if the technology is viable for

> > the END-USER: actual light output, light quality, best operating

> > conditions, cost, energy consumption, can they be recycled,

> hazards,

> > etc. for me, i have a few places in my house where they are

> > appropriate but for the most part we use incandescents. your

> mileage

> > may vary. in either case congress is not well-equipped to

> determine

> > whether or not CFLs are appropriate for me or you.

> >

> > the health hazards of CFLs are at a minimum encouraged by the gov't

> > changing the law to eventually outlaw incandescents

> > (http://www.examiner.com/a-

> 1126541~_Carney__How_many_lobbyists_does_it_take_to_change_a_l

> ight_bulb_.html).

> > so if i am essentially forced by law to buy these things the

> absolute

> > LAST thing i want is to pay YET ANOTHER tax -- even if it's a

> > " deferred tax " -- because the gov't-mandated product is dangerous.

> > gee, does that sound familiar to anyone? maybe we should complete

> the

> > circle and create the CFLAERS - the CFL Adverse Events Reporting

> > System that is funded by the massive tax. and then when you break

> a

> > bulb you can file a claim, which of course the gov't will deny,

> using

> > your money in the process. too bad there isn't a religious

> exemption

> > to CFLs in the works...

> >

> > anyway, my point is not to ridicule Anne or anyone else but rather

> to

> > point out how supposedly well-intentioned legislation (which is

> > questionable in this case, as it usually is -- just like with

> > compulsory vaccination) often has negative ripple effects. again,

> if

> > they just stayed out of it we'd all be better off. if you want to

> use

> > CFLs and feel it's saving you money, green, or whatever, that's

> great

> > but please don't demand that i do the same.

> >

> >

> >

> > =========================================

> >

> > Posted by: " anneecbrynn " anneecbrynn@ anneecbrynn

> >

> > Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:01 pm (PST) If that is the best viable

> technology,

> > then the powers that be need

> > to try to mitigate the potential health hazards by slapping a huge

> > tax on each CFL which is wholly refundable when the unbroken CFL

> is

> > returned to a hazmat site unbroken.... Sadly, there can't (or

> > shouldn't) be any expectation that the majority of Americans are

> > going to dispose of these things properly without having some real

> > incentive to do so.

> >

> > Anne

> >

>