Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Jason Kenney demands action from Stephane Dion | Main | A Muslim opposes "Christophobia" and the religion of secular nationalism »

Saturday, April 28, 2007

I have seen the light

The Tory brains trust thinks that they can just pass an eventual ban on incandescent light bulbs, and all will be well. But, such things have a practical impact that MPs may not consider before they pass legislation.

Let's see what will happen at my home when the ban on these light bulbs takes effect in 2012.
There are nine light fixtures in the ceiling and walls of my home.  A few months ago, several of the bulbs went at once, and I decided to try some of the new long-lasting florescent bulbs. Imagine my dismay when I found that only two of the nine light fixtures would allow me to use these bulbs. (I could use naked bulbs without a shade, but I have been told that that may not be good for your eyesight.)

When the ban is put into effect, I will have to call my landlord to hire a handyman to replace the fixtures. I doubt that the handyman will be riding a horse to my house, so we can assume that he will burning greenhouse gases on the several trips that he needs to do this chore. I also doubt that he will be using old fashioned hand tools or working by candlelight, so we can assume that quite a bit of electricity will be required as well.

Multiply these renovations thousands of times. I wonder if anyone has put a dollar figure on that.

Surely, an environmental surcharge on the old fashioned bulbs would be a smarter idea. You could require florescent bulbs in all new construction and renovations, and make this transition much less costly.

I have

Posted by Rick Hiebert on April 28, 2007 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834b56dc053ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I have seen the light:

Comments

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2007-04-28 9:46:23 AM


Another goo example of unintended consequences that happen every time a government tries to solve a problem on the fly.

Governing in "jerk and twitch" mode is getting us deeper into a world of pain. I suppose there are few under the age of 50 any more who are capable of thinking something through to a logical conclusion then making an informed decision.

"Feeling" your way through problems is a sure way to create more problems. The Left majors in this discipline, but it appears the conservatives are picking right up on this proved method.


There is no one left to vote for, so I won't bother.

Posted by: Yanni | 2007-04-28 9:54:40 AM


CFLs, compact fluorescent lights, contain five miiligrams of mercury. It is a small amount but when everyone converts, say 100 million bulbs across the country, it adds up to 500 million milligrams. Not a small amount. And 100 million bulbs is probably way short of the actual number

Broken bulbs should be "wiped up". Not easy to do on carpet and presumably there is some risk if the bulb was broken by a small child and an adult was not bearby to take care of the cleanup.

Check these sites out

http://www.p2pays.org/mercury/lights.asp

and

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/ENERGYSTAR/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm#mercury

Scroll down on this one to "What should I do if a CFL breaks.
DON'T VACUUM!
Mercury would be dispersed by a vacuum cleaner and some would stick to the vacuum itself.
There are other items of interest here as well.
Somebody didn't do their research.
Check about disposal. Maybe the garbage dump doesn't want any mercury.
I think I will stock up on incandescents.
I don't want to have to change a lot of fixtures either.


Posted by: gordonm | 2007-04-28 10:11:29 AM


What an incredibly stupid idea - where is Thomas Edison when we need him - down here in the real east
of Canada we keep a supply of candles on hand. In
particular since Howdy Doody has become Premier and
has already increased electrical power rates -
Macleod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-04-28 11:15:01 AM


Not to mention the fact that most people (like myself) will go out and stockpile incandescent light bulbs before the ban takes effect - meaning the "real" benefits of the ban won't be felt for years to come, long after we've already missed whatever target our government has set.

Posted by: John Brown | 2007-04-28 12:02:42 PM


Not to mention the fact that most people (like myself) will go out and stockpile incandescent light bulbs before the ban takes effect - meaning the "real" benefits of the ban won't be felt for years to come, long after we've already missed whatever target our government has set.

Posted by: John Brown | 2007-04-28 12:03:24 PM


How many politicians does it take to change a light bulb? Answer is: A whole bunch of dimwits.

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2007-04-28 12:10:08 PM


In Canada for around 9 or 10 months of the year those "wasteful" incandescent bulbs give off heat which displaces an otherwise marginal upper setting on your thermostats. After 2012, those marginal thermostat readjustments will likely defeat most of the theoretical power / energy savings and your left with a typical institutionalized nanny-state transaction cost.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2007-04-28 12:48:31 PM


To echo Yanni's posting at 9:54 today, the quality of thought, consequence analysis and concluding by this government is horrendous, not only in regards to light bulbs and the like, but in many other areas of concern. Having been buoyed by the emergence of Harper and the Conservatives, I am once again despondent as a result of recent developments. Elsewhere on the web, I believe it is in someone's blog, they question was posed that if Canadians are becoming better educated and intelligent, why has the quality of our politicians become so bad? Maybe because the people we are looking for are too smart to go into politics????

Posted by: johny_maple | 2007-04-28 1:43:44 PM


johny:

Did you ever consider that Canadians are actually becoming better educated but LESS intelligent?

And, intelligence by itself means nothing. You have to have a healthy dose of smarts to go along with it.

I've always believed that the proliferation of conspiracy theories proves man is intelligent, and the fact that they're now well thought-out proves there are many shallow thinkers in the audience who are willing to let others do their thinking for them.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-04-28 1:54:42 PM


C'mon folks, the Conservatives are playing along with the game of fools. They're putting out the stupid stuff the Enviro- Freaks are yelling for and they'll have to support it.
Let's say it's short term pain for SHORT TERM GAIN.
They will never go far enough to suit Green Momma, Lizzie May or Dipper Jack, that would shut us down.

Wonder how many of the Green movement, like Gore and Suzuki are taking the suggestion of Sheryl Crowe,ONE SHEET OF TOILET PAPER PER GO!

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-04-28 2:29:43 PM


'set you free'

You have seen the don't-drink-and-drive advertisement where the view becomes murkier with each drink glass added followed by an accident? Same thing. Intelligent person becomes, as an example, a lawyer (narrowed viewpoint, first glass), becomes a politician (second glass), has to follow the party line (third glass) and if still standing, becomes a cabinet minister and out of his/her depth (sounds of an accident).

Posted by: johny_maple | 2007-04-28 3:24:36 PM


I tell ya, whenever I'm feeling down, I always know I can come to this website for a good laugh. That's some deep thinking there Mr. Hiebert, you should be an accountant. You are the perfect example of right-wing philosophers: using opposition instead of logic. You'll come up with anything you can, no matter how absurd or illogical it sounds, that will contradict something that doesn't fit into your nazi ideals. Are you the same guy that started the ridiculous idea that cow farting causes global warming? I do however appreciate your column because it just shows how desperate the right has become in their quest to refute scientific fact. Luckily for me, your con-servative party buddies think exactly the same way as you and that is going to cost them in the next election. There's no way the Canadian public is going to buy into their garbage environmental plan because everyone knows that it doesn't go far enough. Maybe they can buy enough time before the next election to attempt a third environmental plan.

Posted by: lefty_99 | 2007-04-28 7:23:26 PM


"Are you the same guy that started the ridiculous idea that cow farting causes global warming?"

Silly! The EU came out today with a demand that cows should only be fed with food that minimizes bovine flatulence on order to benefit the environment.

Ignorance by the un-read once again, lefty_99.

Posted by: obc | 2007-04-28 7:35:55 PM


Here's the source:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007190671,00.html

"The official EU declaration demands changes to animals’ diets, to capture gas emissions and recycle manure."

Posted by: obc | 2007-04-28 7:40:01 PM


Give me a link to this EU thing. I found nothing on the BBC website.

Posted by: lefty_99 | 2007-04-28 7:49:33 PM


That link above is from the Sun.co.Uk - not the BBC.

Posted by: obc | 2007-04-28 7:52:05 PM


. . . and if you are saying it can't be true unless the BBC reports it, well that says all I need to know about you.

Posted by: obc | 2007-04-28 7:57:24 PM


HAHAHA. Very funny. You always get your information from tabloids?? I can send you a link to the National Enquirer that George W Bush was abducted by an alien. Man, I'm still laughing. As soon as I saw that it was the British Sun that had the report, I knew why I couldn't find it on any legitimate news source. God, I feel so sorry for you people that you base your thoughts of our world by what you read in tabloids and propoganda news outlets like this piece of shit magazine and FOX news. If you want to become a proper human being, throw everything else out and read the Globe & Mail in the morning, watch the CBC for your Canadian news and the BBC for your world news. THis is the only way you can get the unbiased truth and complete with upstanding, award winning journalism. Lol, I still can't believe you tried to dispute my comment with an article from the British Sun (which is worse than the Calgary Sun, by the way), although they do have Page 3 girls. Nothing you say can be taken seriously if you continue to quote garbage. Check your sources, mate.

Posted by: lefty_99 | 2007-04-28 8:00:54 PM


"read the Globe & Mail in the morning, watch the CBC for your Canadian news and the BBC for your world news"

All Leftoid sources. That's all I need to know.

Posted by: obc | 2007-04-28 8:10:18 PM


I'm surprised you didn't include the Toronto "Red" Star and the New York Slimes - or CNN.

Posted by: obc | 2007-04-28 8:14:30 PM


So what you're saying is truthfulness, intelligence and freedom are qualities of the left wing? My goodness, maybe you aren't so blind afterall.

Posted by: lefty_99 | 2007-04-28 8:16:49 PM


Whoo-ee, nice spot for a cyber fist fight, OBC and Lefty. Personally, I've come to realize that Canadians in general don't matter in the least when anyone in government decides to make any whimsical, far fetched, improperly researched, and arbitrary decision 'for our own good'. That includes civic, provincial, and federal sectors.
Having been given the power to do so, they simply make decisions to look officious. Just a "see what I done" kinda thing.
I do know a few politicians in all sectors who are firmly grounded and like to think and check validity and viability before deciding on an issue. Sadly, they're a rare enough breed that any common sense they might bring to the table is smothered by the bull.
As to the banning of incandescent lights, they certainly haven't researcher the pros and cons completely, and I'ld bet that Al Gore doesn't ride to any of his lil' lectures in a chauffeur driven smart-car either.

Posted by: Rott'n Ronnie | 2007-04-29 12:55:03 AM


Let's talk about Reverend Gore. He says the Tories' emissions plan is a "total fraud".Now there's a fine case of pot calling kettle black, he who's running around telling CONVENIENT LIES.

Baird has challenged him to a discussion, that will end it, Fathead/ass doesn't discuss, just preaches, has no answers.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-04-29 5:49:10 AM


Forgot to add, Gore and Iggy have a lot in common, both are Gas Bags spewing fumes and HAVE NO ANSWERS.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-04-29 6:16:28 AM


Liz:

Agreed.

The Tories have a plan.

All the Goracle and his cult have to offer is more fear and vague promises of a shifting economy.

I'm all in favour of installing solar panels on my house and putting the excess electricity back into the grid. Hold on a minute, you can already do that with Enmax.

That's a plan which I know people are already doing.

What is Snoozuki's plan to balance environmental responsibility (not Kyoto, that's dead) with people's ability to earn a decent living?

I be he doesn't have one.

SHOW ME YOUR PLAN!

Until that time, I will consider the activist movement a bunch of whiners in the true sense of the word. They know the problem but have no idea how to get to the solution.

Keep on whinin'. At some point, everybody will turn off. Everybody except those in the circle jerk.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-04-29 8:55:54 AM


You know Rott n Ronnie, you're right on the money. That's one thing we can all agree about and that is that we are sick of politicians "politiking". Well except Set you free, I'm sure he'll conjure up some arguement just to try to prove how diluted his brain is. The current con-servative government has done this environmental plan only to improve their chances of a majority government. However, this does prove that the con-servatives, in their beliefs, do not speak on behalf of average Canadians. If this was so, then they could say, "oh, global warming is fear mongering and we are way smarter than 95% of accredited scientists" and the whole of Canada would agree. But no, even though the con-servatives think that, they know the rest of Canada does not. Just like gay marriage, they hate gays and find it anti-Christian, but the rest of Canada does not, so they let it slide. All of this proves that the con-servative government is not a real "Canadian" party and that the Liberals are. Unfortunately, the con-servatives did so well with their propoganda smear campaign, they were able to get a minority government. What is even more unfortunate, is that the Liberals still don't seem to have their act together, meaning the con-servatives may get another minority. One good thing though is that Canadians punished the Liberals for letting their power go too far, they said to the Liberals "ok, yes you are the party of Canada, but you need to re-organize yourself; so in the meantime, we'll slide the con-servatives a minority until you get things together." You won't ever get a perfect government, but the Liberals built this country. We are a country of human rights, universal health care, charter of rights, and highly respected around the world for our peacekeeping role, and this is all because of our Liberal governments. This con-servative government, in only a year in a half, has managed to ruin our reputation by not living up to out Kyoto commitments, siding with the aggressors of Israel, and expanding our role in Afghanistan. It's imperative that we get the Liberals back in, and back in quick before the con-servatives do irreperable damage to this country.

Posted by: lefty_99 | 2007-04-29 12:51:33 PM


BREAKING NEWS!!!

Climate change hits Mars

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Darn those Martian SUVs!

Posted by: obc | 2007-04-29 5:30:34 PM


I don't know what the big fuss about changes light bulbs is. We changed all of them in our house about 6 months ago without any problems. Incandenscent bulbs kept burning out (likely power surges - not sure) so we tried flurescent. We had no problems fitting them in the fixtures. The only negative that we've had so far is that they are too bright. We initially bought 23watt and are now buying 18watt so that we don't feel like we're under a spotlight. If it saves me a couple of bucks and stops me having to change the bulbs so often, I don't see the big problem.

Posted by: RTY | 2007-04-29 6:40:19 PM


The problem is, RTY, that the people on this blog feel that if they switch bulbs, then they are admitting that global warming is a real issue and that they were wrong all along. You see, these folks are so selfish, so conceited, that they would rather sacrifice the lives of their fellow man, including their own children, and the earth as we know it, then admit they are wrong. But that's typical conservative behaviour: no compassion, no logic, and no sense of reality.

Posted by: lefty_99 | 2007-04-29 6:56:36 PM


The plan, lefty ... show us the plan.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-04-29 6:59:03 PM


Liberalism is a mental disorder - Michael Savage.

Posted by: obc | 2007-04-29 6:59:48 PM


Incidently, this is my first time on the blog so I apologize if I am speaking against the majority. A friend suggested it to me. Whether you believe in global warming or not, why wouldn't people want to conserve energy and resources (and money). Besides a potential problem with mercury (if a fluorenscent bulb breaks), I have yet to see valid arguments as to why we shouldn't change. I'd like to reverse the question and ask why people on this forum we should continue using incandescent bulbs when a better option is available?

Posted by: RTY | 2007-04-29 8:15:34 PM


Tomorrow, these Lefties will add 10 more items to the "don't use" list. This is all about power - to command others on how to live their lives.

With that logic, everyone should go to Church regularly because maybe there is a God, and just to be safe, we should worship Him.

Posted by: obc | 2007-04-29 8:19:25 PM


RTY,
I can think of many reasons for reducing consumption or at least reliance on ME oil. Belief in AGW is another issue altogether.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-04-29 8:21:55 PM


RTY,
BTW...welcome aboard.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-04-29 8:23:08 PM


RTY: Ditto for me!

Posted by: obc | 2007-04-29 8:24:34 PM


Oh RTY, who should be honoured to be welcomed to this blog by the Western Standards official welcoming commitee Twiddledee and Twiddledum.

Posted by: lefty_99 | 2007-04-29 8:27:59 PM


RTY,
I hope you noticed that some of us prefer not to engage in name calling. I hope you won't think ill of all of us.

Regardless of lefty's manners and politics, I still wish him well.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-04-29 8:32:39 PM


These light bulbs can still hold a charge after they have been removed from the socket, I just gave myself a nasty shock several minutes after removing it to switch to one that did not flicker as much. It was bad enough to keep away from children.

Posted by: Mike S | 2007-04-29 9:30:47 PM


The policy to ban implement incandescent bulbs is the most assinine piece of idiocy that has yet been suggested by any government. PMSH seemed to be on top of things, but appointing a brainless moron as environment minister was his most serious mistake as PM.

I should note that I really like fluorescent bulbs and probably about half of my house lights are fluorescents. The reason I got them is because they use less energy and produce less heat. I also have a lot of incandescents as they are cheap, non-toxic when broken and are the bulb of choice in locations where they might be used a few times a month at most. Also, fluorescent bulbs don't work in the cold. My workshop is unheated and it can be as cold as -25 during the winter. Right now I use an incandescent bulb to provide enough light for me to load and light the stove and in a few hours when it has warmed up enough, the fluorescent lights come on.

Incandescent bulbs are about as simple as an electrical device gets (only a switch or a piece of wire is simpler) and simple is good when you're in remote areas. Burned out incandescent bulbs can be fixed and I used to manipulate burned out bulbs in which the filament had simply parted in the middle until the two ends touched, the current flowed and reunited the filament and I could get many more hours out of the bulb. Can't do this with fluorescents. Also, incandescent bulbs will run on on either AC or DC whereas fluorescents are AC only. If the power goes out and one has a large quantity of 12 V batteries (doesn't everyone keep a dozen or so around), one can run 110 VAC lights from 8 12 V batteries in series. Drains them fast but better than sitting in the dark.

Mercury in incandescents is a significant concern and will likely be even more of one now that we know the mechanism of toxicity of Hg (binds to a GTP binding site in tubulin and makes microtubules depolymerize. This results in inhibition of neurite outgrowth and there is a very nice movie of the process on youtube at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=GDnfeIwd0wI
Refrigerator lights are only on for seconds at a time and use very little overall power. I've broken my share of incandescents in refrigerators and even though Hg has a much lower vapor pressure at 5 C than at room temperature I don't want any spilled Hg in my fridge. Similarly, stove lights are used very infrequently and this is a hot environment and here a light breaking could be potentially far more toxic. Are there going to be exceptions made for incandescent lights for stove use?

AUtomobile headlights are incandescent and the only reason I can see for this incandescent light ban is that eventually all Canadian vehicle headlights will burn out and no replacements could legally be obtained. This would effectively stop driving at night and presumably the effective ban on night and winter driving will result in far less use of gasoline. If a fluorescent automotive headlight is ever made, it would have to be manufactured in Canada only (since no other country has been this stupid) and they wouldn't work in the winter either unless a special headlight heater was installed which would probably result in the use of far more energy than the old-style incandescent headlight.

Then there are the applications where one wants the heat from the bulbs as well as the light. In winter, the extra heat is welcome. Incandescent bulbs are a very non-linear device exhibiting very low resistances when cold and a high resistance when glowing. This non-linear resistance property is used in many electrical circuits (admittedly old but no-one in the 1950's could have ever imagined that an imbecile would achieve a position of such power).

I haven't even begun to explore whether tubes would be affected by this and whether TV sets with conventional picture tubes would be banned under this policy. A picture tube is a filament with additional electron guiding apparatus but it is evacuated. If picture tubes and other tubes are exempt from the ban, then presumably light bulbs without inert gas and instead containing a vacuum would be a way around the ban. Millions of flashlights would become useless once their tiny bulbs burned out, etc.

As a response to the idiotic policy, I have instituted an immediate ban on political donations to the Conservative party. I've contributed thousands of dollars to Reform, but the Conservatives aren't seeing another penny from me.

This incandescent ban is in response to a very shaky model suggesting that climate change is primarily anthropogenic. It would be logical to assume that the earth would be warming as we are coming out of an ice age. Right now we're in a temporary cooling trend as the sunspot maximum has passed. The anthropogenic climate change model is the darling of statists everywhere as it requires the full repressive power of the nanny state to reduce the standard of living of everyone to third-world standards (except for the statists who would live in their accustomed splendor). It makes no difference that a majority of scientists support this model (this has been advanced as "prrof" of its correctness by statists). Such a justification reveals a total ignorance of the workings of science. 99.9% of scientists can be convinced that theory X is true and it takes just one scientist to show that theory X is false and that theory Y explains the data better. This has happened countless times in the history of science and will continue to happen.

Posted by: loki | 2007-04-29 10:52:17 PM


loki:

My eyes are getting heavy.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-04-29 11:03:57 PM


Anyone who is interested in a more in depth description of the problem with increasing the use of compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) is referred to the link posted by Vitruvius. Vitruvius, brevity is desireable but there are times when a post is too brief.

If SYF was having heavy eyes from my post, clicking on Vitruvius's link might induce coma.

There are more dangers to CFL's besides their Hg content and one of the most serious is harmonic distortion in the power supply. This is as a result of the power factor of a CFL being 0.52 in comparison to 1 for an incandescent bulb (for an explanation of power factor see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor
). Say someone has a 27 W CFL which they plan on using to replace a 100 W incandescent. A simplistic analysis would suggest that this would result in the same light with only 27% of the power being used. Because the power factor of the bulb is 0.52, the CFL draws 51.9 VA. The customer is charged for only 27 W as advertised, but the effect on the power grid is as if a 51.9 W bulb was being used and the power needed is almost twice that which is needed. Also, should someone decide that they can run more lamps on a given circuit they may be in for a nasty surprise as starting currents for CFL's are several amps; only for < 1 second but also they increase considerably with lamp base temperature. Rod Elliot who authored the article that Vitruvius linked to measured starting currents of 2.6 -5.6 Amps/CFL. Simple logic would suggest that a 15A circuit would be able to support ~60 27 W CFL's, but if all these lamps happened to be turned on at once, the initial current drawn would be 336 Amps. (A situation like this could occur if there was a brief power failure with power coming on immediately afterwards). If one is lucky, this will just flip the circuit breaker but there have been reports of fires started under such situations.

In BC, BC hydro has been one of the most enthusiastic proponents of CFL's and, given the adverse effects on the power system that large numbers of such lamps would have, one wonders whether:
(a) BC hydro knows what it is doing or
(b) BC hydro knows exactly what it is doing and this is a plan to dramatically increase it's revenues.

(a) is possible as BC Hydro was viewed as an employer of last resort by UBC electrical engineers who were contemplating much more sophisticated toys to play with than a simple AC current generation/distribution system. Superficially, the power grid may seem trivially simple, but that is only the case if everyone uses simple resistive loads. (And even then it has some interesting modes of behavior, but engineers are taught to avoid certain solutions to equations. When I reviewed my circuit theory notes from 30 years ago, I noted clear instructions to stay away from differential equations that produced chaotic behavior. Nature, on the other hand, has no such inhibitions).

When one adds reactive loads, then the behavior of the power grid becomes much more interesting, but interesting means things like transformers blowing unexpectedly, computers being fried and other electronic equipment failing due to large scale "power saving" measures being implemented by the population.

After reading this article, I'll be getting a generator and I'll be purchasing UPS's for all of my computers. And, I'll also be removing a lot of the CFL's I've installed. CFL's should never be installed in bathrooms or any enclosed location, but don't expect the pushers of CFL's to tell you that.

Posted by: loki | 2007-04-30 2:16:21 AM


Ok, now I'm PO'd. Some of you people rant on as though you assume most of us don't give a rat's butt about energy conservation. Assuming is a dangerous proclivity, my advice is to try to stop, and conservation isn't the biggest concern when talking about CFL's.

To be perfectly frank, I hadn't heard about reactive loads so I won't go there, but I will study further.

My concern is that there shouldn't yet be even talk of a total ban on incandescents, as there are places in my opinion where there will always be a demand for them, if only as a safety concern.
Because of the potential charge retention and the mercury content, these shouldn't be allowed in child/day-care areas or schools. There's your most basic choice, save a lil' energy, or protect your children.

And I doubt that they've even started to address how an indeterminate number of there is going to be SAFELY disposed of as time goes by.

There should never have been any decisions made until or unless these issues were first addressed to everyone's satisfaction. Don't kid yourself into thinking that this was solely a "for the good of all" decision. I wouldn't be the least surprised to find down the road the it was an industry lobby that hastened it, or even that a tidy sum of jiggy-jiggy money changed hands.

It's another one of those lets prove we were busy type decisions, and a prime example of shooting off mouth before bothering to load brain.

I do use them, but only for lights that are not in danger of being knocked over (that'd be not in standing lamps) and in lights that are left on for long periods of time. In storage areas, where they are on and off again, usually quickly, I still prefer incandescents. Oh, and I haven't yet seen one recomended for tri-lights anyway.

THAT'S MY SYNOPSIS AND I'M STICKIN' TO IT!!!!

Posted by: Rott'n Ronnie | 2007-04-30 4:11:05 AM


Thanks Loki for your posts. I had never heard a lot of reasons for keeping incandescent bulbs before. I can understand that there are circumstances where they may be more useful than fluorescent bulbs but for most "general-use" place, fluorescent bulbs could work. Incidently, I read an article in Forbes magazine about LED lights and how they are now the next "big thing." They are not toxic and are significantly more efficient than fluorescent bulbs. Thanks for the discussion.

Posted by: RTY | 2007-04-30 6:11:33 AM


Thanks Loki for your posts. I had never heard a lot of reasons for keeping incandescent bulbs before. I can understand that there are circumstances where they may be more useful than fluorescent bulbs but for most "general-use" place, fluorescent bulbs could work. Incidently, I read an article in Forbes magazine about LED lights and how they are now the next "big thing." They are not toxic and are significantly more efficient than fluorescent bulbs. Thanks for the discussion.

Posted by: RTY | 2007-04-30 6:12:38 AM


To lefty_99. Just so you are clear....the nazis were socialists.....just like yourself.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927)


Posted by: John Luft | 2007-04-30 8:45:19 AM


John:

What finally dawned on me was that Nazis could only be right-wingers when defined by socialists.

Socialists promote state control over both the economy and of restrictive social order.

Where the commies believed Naziism failed was that it did not exert enough control over economic matters.

Of course, when a free market economy exists alongside total individual freedom (and the responsibility that goes with it), that is considered to be far right by our socialist friends.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-04-30 9:13:05 AM


John:

Another hint ... they were actually called the National Socialist Party, shortened to Nazi.

Everybody should bear these facts in mind when somebody calls them a Nazi.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-04-30 9:14:53 AM


"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Funny, I could have swore I heard all the front running "Dems" down south, stumping this same speech, in particular Obama and Edwards.

Unfortunately none of the front runners in opposition up here are articulate enough to form any kind of speech, but if they could I'm sure it would follow these same lines.

These people are truly frightening.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-04-30 9:47:59 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.