Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 20th 08, 07:18 PM posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,604
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - EnvironmentalProtection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

metspitzer wrote:
WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...


The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
standards.

I'm not taking a position, but if it isn't constitutional, neither are
CAFE standards for automobiles or most any other regulations regarding
performance levels of any product (say drug effectiveness, for another
example).

--

  #2   Report Post  
Old June 20th 08, 07:23 PM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 281
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - EnvironmentalProtection Agency must be called for a broken bulb


dpb wrote in message ...
metspitzer wrote:
WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second

thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...


The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum

efficiency
standards.

I'm not taking a position, but if it isn't constitutional, neither

are
CAFE standards for automobiles or most any other regulations

regarding
performance levels of any product (say drug effectiveness, for

another
example).



They would do better to set some minimum standards efficiency for
themselves, and then follow the standards.

Cheri


  #3   Report Post  
Old June 20th 08, 07:25 PM posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: May 2008
Posts: 235
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - EnvironmentalProtection Agency must be called for a broken bulb


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




Both the ban and the reasons cited here for questioning the ban are the
silly result of politicians with poor understanding of the issues
involved. The amount of mercury in a CFL is tiny, burning coal to
generate electricity also releases mercury, few light bulbs of any sort
are US made, and for some applications, incandescent still has advantages.

I was searching for a light fixture the other day and discovered that
*every* flush mount at both hardware stores I tried are now fluorescent.
Naturally they're all super cheaply made, and the ballasts do not
support dimming. I was irked and left the store without purchasing
anything. The ironic thing is that I've long been using almost entirely
compact fluorescents in my house for years and enjoying the substantial
energy savings, however I use the screw-in retrofit type which is
readily available in a dimming version, various wattages and color
temperatures, and the ballast, which in my experience fails as often as
the tube, is replaced each time with the tube. I don't need legislation
to get me to use more efficient products, it makes economic sense to do
so, but if someone wants to pay a fortune to run something inefficient,
let them.
  #4   Report Post  
Old June 20th 08, 07:28 PM posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,604
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - EnvironmentalProtection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

James Sweet wrote:
....
Both the ban ,,,


Again, there is _not_ a "ban"...

--
  #5   Report Post  
Old June 20th 08, 07:33 PM posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 415
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

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


  #6   Report Post  
Old June 20th 08, 07:47 PM posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

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
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
  #7   Report Post  
Old June 20th 08, 07:53 PM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 20
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

I have been looking for dimmable florescents without luck. Where do
you find them - can you tell me the brand?



James Sweet wrote:


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




Both the ban and the reasons cited here for questioning the ban are the
silly result of politicians with poor understanding of the issues
involved. The amount of mercury in a CFL is tiny, burning coal to
generate electricity also releases mercury, few light bulbs of any sort
are US made, and for some applications, incandescent still has advantages.

I was searching for a light fixture the other day and discovered that
*every* flush mount at both hardware stores I tried are now fluorescent.
Naturally they're all super cheaply made, and the ballasts do not
support dimming. I was irked and left the store without purchasing
anything. The ironic thing is that I've long been using almost entirely
compact fluorescents in my house for years and enjoying the substantial
energy savings, however I use the screw-in retrofit type which is
readily available in a dimming version, various wattages and color
temperatures, and the ballast, which in my experience fails as often as
the tube, is replaced each time with the tube. I don't need legislation
to get me to use more efficient products, it makes economic sense to do
so, but if someone wants to pay a fortune to run something inefficient,
let them.

  #8   Report Post  
Old June 20th 08, 08:08 PM posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

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
  #9   Report Post  
Old June 20th 08, 08:09 PM posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 415
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:47:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

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


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


Hi Jim,

A 70-watt soft-white Philips Halogená Energy Saver has a 3,000 hour
rated service life and produces 1,600 lumens (22.8 lumens per watt).
A Philips Duramax soft-white A19 incandescent has a rated service life
of 1,500 hours and provides 1,550 lumens (15.5 lumens per watt). Watt
for watt, a 70-watt Halogená ES generates 1.5 times more light.

Sources:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5901.pdf
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-8493.pdf

Anything else we can clear-up for you?

Cheers,
Paul
  #10   Report Post  
Old June 20th 08, 08:11 PM posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: May 2008
Posts: 235
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - EnvironmentalProtection Agency must be called for a broken bulb


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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pool light bulb any different than regular light bulb? Pond Scum Home Repair 2 September 3rd 07 04:33 AM
Removing broken energy saver bulb robgraham UK diy 35 June 22nd 07 07:50 AM
PRIMER bulb Broken [email protected] Home Ownership 4 June 20th 06 10:12 PM
Broken bulb puzzled Home Repair 8 March 5th 05 03:45 AM
Bug Light Bulb---any bulb for outside use that are not yellow? Patty Amas Home Ownership 5 November 3rd 04 10:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Copyright © 2017