"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why
should my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the
alter of "efficiency?"


In that sense, it IS the end of the light bulb as you know it.
However, NOBODY is banning incandescent bulbs. You will still be able
to buy them anywhere. The difference between then and now is that you
will have to get used to rating their power in lumens, not watts. A
lumen rating of 1490-2600 is equivalent to the old 100-watt
incandescent light bulb, but the 1490-2600 lumen energy-efficient
incandescent model that will become mandatory on January 1 consumes
only 75 watts.


What if I WANT a 100-watt bulb that only puts out 200 lumens? I might need
it for my chick brooder where the heat is more needed than the light.

If (some) incandescent bulbs are not banned, why will I not be able to buy
them come January? What if I wanted one of the "lifetime" bulbs that faux
veteran's groups used to sell. You remember, the ones with a 10d nail as
the filament and that put out as much light as a candle while scoring over
100 watts? I won't be able to buy those any more due solely to legislative
fiat and that fiat is the result of my betters deciding what's good for
the country or the next generation.

Bah!

Well, again, read the law. All the odd-ball bulbs will still be available
including those with funny filaments and shapes. They're not affected.

Tomsic