Monday, January 28, 2008

Good grief: Congress bans the light bulb

I'm for using compact florescent bulbs, in many fixtures. It is just that I should be the one to decide, not the nanny government. If I wish to use an incandescent where I read or watch TV, that should be my decision. I'd use the fluorescents most other places, like night lights, outside lights, places where the light tends to be on and I'm not sitting under it. I can see the flicker of florescent, which bothers me and tends to give me headaches when I read. Additionally, I like the warm color of the incandescent. I just think that outlawing/banning incandescent lights is very draconian, and should not have been the action taken by congress. If we are to understand that inefficient use of energy is to be considered a sin, then congress should tax it, JUST DON'T BAN THE LIGHT BULB!
Good grief: Congress bans the light bulb

Did you know that Congress recently banned the incandescent light bulb? The 100-watt bulb is to be phased out within four years and all bulbs within six years. Apparently, they have decided that too much energy is wasted when electrical currents pass through the thin filament, heating it until it produces light. In its place will be the compact fluorescent lamp.

The following is from Wikipedia: "Broken CFLs are an immediate health hazard due to the evaporation of mercury into the atmosphere. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publishes guidelines on how to clean up after CFL tube ('bulb') breakage and recommends that, in the absence of local guidelines, CFLs be double-bagged in plastic bags before disposal."

Did members of Congress consider the health hazard in its decision? Not likely. Did they consider so-called global warming in its decision and the political capital that comes from this issue? Most likely; they will do anything to buy a vote.

Watch out for your liberty; Congress will take it away from you, along with your health if you happen to drop one of these CFL gems.

I've also read in a follow up to my letter to the editor, that:
Coal-fired power plants, such as those that dot Western Pennsylvania, pose a far greater and tangible mercury threat to one's health.

Well, yes, this may be true, to which I respond: Let us ban Coal-fired Power Plants! We should only be using renewable energy and Nuclear Power, which emits no CO2 or Pollution like SO2

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

What's wrong with this picture?

Admitting to global warming is one thing.

But thinking that a politician can STOP it, is another.

We can't stop it.

And this is pandering for votes!

That's wrong.