On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:35:22 GMT, James Sweet wrote:
"Andy Cuffe" wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 04:24:23 GMT, "James Sweet" wrote:

Actually 40W tubes are legal at the moment, but only in the premium
phosphors, not the old halophosphate stuff (CW, WW, etc) though far less
efficient incandescent stuff has regulations at all thanks to the usual
beaurocratic nonsense that makes up our largely useless energy laws. The

I never did understand this law. Won't people just end up using more
bulbs to make up for their lower light output?

Yes but since when has logic and common sense played any part in making
laws? Some "expert" probably said hey look if we require the common lamps to
be lower wattage we'll save X amount of energy overall.

There was a piece on "CarTalk" ( http://www.cartalk.com/ ) this last
weekend. The discussion went somewhat:

Remember the focus on the wasting of water and an impending clean water
shortage that rose up a decade or two back? Remember the government's
edict to put a brick in each toilet to save water?

(Aside: Remember, too, the more recent duct-tape and plastic edict?)

Well, since we now have a gasoline shortage, why doesn't everybody put a
brick in their vehicle's fuel tank to save fuel?

I fear one or more elected suits was also listening to the same radio show...

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
Pueblo, Colorado | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** I killfile X-Trace: posting.google.com followups in this ng