Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:33:54 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:08:48 -0500, metspitzer
wrote:

WASHINGTON €“ Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs effective in 2014 as a
result of an energy bill signed into law earlier this year.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, says his objection is very basic €“ the
Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to do anything remotely like
banning a product that has been used safely and efficiently for more
than 100 years in favor of Chinese-imported compact fluorescent light
bulbs that pose considerable health and safety risks.

Poe cited the dangers associated with CFLs, which carry small amounts
of mercury that can enter the environment through breakage and
disposal. He also objected to reliance on the CFL alternatives when,
currently, all are made in China.

"Congress passed an energy bill that should be called the
anti-American non-energy bill because it punishes Americans for using
energy when it should be finding new sources of available energy," Poe
stated.

(Story continues below)

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67573
First of all, Congress did not "ban" incandescent lamps -- they simply
set minimum efficiency standards, as they have with other consumer
products such as air conditioners and refrigerators. Secondly,
lighting manufacturers already sell high efficiency incandescent lamps
that meet these new standards. You can buy these ones at Home Depot:

http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...lay.php?mode=1

Cheers,
Paul

Of course... 70W IS less than 100W. Read the fine print on lumens
output. Sheeeesh!

...Jim Thompson


That came to mind, but I didn't see the lumen output quoted on the page.
What is it compared to a standard incandescent? The one incandescent
fixture in my house has older Halogena lamps in it, the efficiency of
those is exactly the same, but the life is longer, I've never had one
burn out.