politixcartoons:

New cartoons
for your inbox!


Safely delivered by FeedBurner

Brilliant

Comments

  1. Draconian. It is a word that describes laws or ordinances that are severe or cruel, and, I might add, make no sense whatsoever. The energy bill the President signed into order, which included banning the incandescent light has to be the worst bit of legislation ever passed in the United States.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with our current light bulb, other than it talks power to turn on (and there is nothing wrong with that either). There is plenty wrong with the not-yet-proven compact fluorescents (CFLs), including the high mercury content, which is a far deadlier toxin than the minute greenhouse gases the incandescent cousin emits.

    People will just have to dispose of them properly, the proponents say. I’m sure. Since when was the last time people followed simple instructions, especially when it comes to the arcane like throwing something away? The bulb breaks, and I can bet that a great majority of people will simply dispose of it like a regular incandescent, exposing themselves to the mercury and putting themselves at risk for cancer and other deadly diseases.

    I purchased a CFL three times. The first two times it exploded on me with no warning. The third time it burned out in a far shorter time than the incandescent it replaced. At five times the price, where is is the incentive?

    The point is, it is not the government’s responsibility to ban safe products in the name of a political movement. It is a horrific stripping of our freedoms as consumers and as Americans. I still cannot believe an American, Republican president signed that bill into order!

    We can only hope that it will be overturned by another congress before 2012 arrives. Considering this is really the only measure this sitting congress has managed to take care of, I’m not holding my breath.

  2. One has to first remember the goal of a light bulb: to produce light. The problem is that the incandescent generates more heat, than light. Tungsten filaments emmit low-level infrared and ultra-violet radiation, due to using more energy. Now, albeit the levels are low, but take into consideration the continued use of said radiation emissions over several years and they are now known to cause certain health concerns. Just like the argument over second-hand smoke producing some kind of cancer in non-smokers.

    The CFL’s are a work in progress, just as any invention in forward progression, and are more efficient in generating light, not heat and aforementioned radiation.

    So in one hand we have low level infrared and ultra-violet radiation due to increase in energy, and in the other we have energy efficient and low heat generation with the possible harm of mercury. Energy production, I might add, also depends on the means in which we generate the energy – fossil fuels, for the most part, are still more widely used than any other.

  3. That’s all fine and good, I just don’t approve the government banning incandescents. It is not their place to do so. For the most part, people will make the switch on their own as pressure to be “green” continues to mount in this country. I have NO problems with people using CFCs. I DO have a problem with an outright governmental ban on a relatively safe product.

Leave a Reply