OPINION

Not a Bright Idea

Written by Charles Signorile
Published March 26, 2007
page 1 | 2

In no time, it will be a criminal offense for you to throw away light bulbs in your garbage can – something you routinely do safely with those obsolete incandescents.

Yet that may not be the only problem with fluorescent lights. Studies have linked them with depression, suicide rates, skin cancer, anxiety, sleep disorders, attention-deficit disorders, electro-magnetic pollution, headaches, eye strain and DNA damage from radiation.

The author Joseph Farah goes on to point out he is unsure of the accuracy of those studies.  However I do not feel that accuracy is relevant at this point. What is relevant is whether we as a country want elected officials regulating something as basic as the way we light our homes.

Our country was founded on the free market system, with the principle that the products deemed to be best for the consumer are purchased, while other products simply disappear from the market due to lack of demand. The fact our Government feels the need to prohibit the sale of certain inefficient light bulbs is proof enough there is a consumer demand for those bulbs.

On a personal note, I only use incandescent bulbs in my own home; I prefer the light they emit over that of a fluorescent bulb. A product's efficiency is not judged solely on the power it uses, but also on the result it produces.

If the Government wants to rid us of those pesky "inefficient" light bulbs, maybe they should consider offering incentives to businesses which can design a new bulb which operates more efficiently, while producing the same results.

Government regulation is not a bright idea.

page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Not a Bright Idea
Published: March 26, 2007
Type: Opinion
Section: Politics
Writer: Charles Signorile
Charles Signorile's BC Writer page
Charles Signorile's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Charles Signorile
All Politics Articles
Charles Signorile's personal weblog
All Opinion articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — March 26, 2007 @ 12:29PM — Ron West [URL]

Just because Fidel Castro thought of this doesn't mean its a bad idea. You are right to point out the downsides of switching to flourescent lights, but there are a lot of positives, including sigificant energy (and cost) savings.

FWIW, my utility (PG&E) has been subidizing flourescent bulbs, so I've been stocking up and switching over. I'm no expert, but those corkscrew bulbs have a fairly pleasant lighting.

#2 — March 26, 2007 @ 13:00PM — Dave Nalle [URL]

I need to check up on it, but I don't believe that modern flourescent bulbs use mercury vapor. I think that's been gone for like 20 years. I believe the current bulbs use halon or some other noble gas that can be made to flouresce. There's certainly nothing on the package of the ones I buy that says I can't throw them away in the normal trash.

Dave

#3 — March 26, 2007 @ 13:09PM — Clavos

I think you're right, Dave.

I've been throwing away fluorescent tubes in the ordinary trash for years. Since they're long, they visibly stick out of the can, and the trash haulers, who are trained not to take anything hazardous, haven't balked yet.

#4 — March 26, 2007 @ 13:44PM — Charles [URL]

You can check this link for more information on fluorescent bulbs and mercury

#5 — March 26, 2007 @ 14:04PM — Dave Nalle [URL]

Ok, here's the deal on mercury in flourescent bulbs after some research.

First off, recycling them is optional and you CAN throw them away in the trash. But they do contain tiny amounts of mercury.

Recent advances in technology have reduce the level of mercury in CFL bulbs to 2mg per bulb, which is pretty low. In combination with their longer life, that means that using them puts far less mercury into the environment than that which is produced by burning coal to provide the additional power to run an incandescent bulb for the same amount of time.

So yes, despite the mercury, CFL lights are an improvement.

BTW, stick with GE and Phillips, theirs have the newest technology and about 1/3 as much mercury.

Dave

#6 — March 26, 2007 @ 16:20PM — moonraven

If Chavez thinks they are a good idea--that's good enough for me.

#7 — March 26, 2007 @ 17:00PM — moonraven

Just to contextualize: I do not know of any brighter two guys on this planet than Fidel and Chavez.

#8 — March 26, 2007 @ 17:24PM — Victor Plenty [URL]

Compact fluorescent lights are available in several different types, each of which produces a different quality of light. Some may share the shortcomings of older fluorescent lights, as mentioned in the main article above, but this is no longer true of all fluorescent lighting.

With a little research you can buy CFLs that are every bit as "healthy" as incandescent bulbs, and some even more so, in terms of their ability to reduce seasonal depression and other lighting related health problems.

#9 — March 27, 2007 @ 07:22AM — Doug Hunter

The freedom to do only the 'right' things isn't really freedom at all.

#10 — March 27, 2007 @ 18:16PM — moonraven

The human species is a cancer on the planet--we have abused our freedom and must now either do the right things or lose everything.

It is our choice.

#11 — March 27, 2007 @ 18:49PM — troll

opps - too late...

#12 — March 28, 2007 @ 23:48PM — Dr Dreadful

Does Mr Signorile realize how lame he sounds by trying to disguise this as a 'free market' issue? It's a bit like whining about Ford interfering with consumer choice because they discontinued the Model T.
But this is beside the point. What gets Mr Signorile's goat is that this is an environmental issue. And of course environment=liberals=bad.

#13 — March 29, 2007 @ 00:03AM — Clavos

It's a bit like whining about Ford interfering with consumer choice because they discontinued the Model T.

Bad analogy. Ford's not the government. You could always buy a GM or other product, and Ford doesn't have the power of coercion.

Electrical consumption an environmental issue? Not according to Al Gore.

#14 — March 30, 2007 @ 04:15AM — michael jefferson [URL]

Whites have called every other man upon the earth ugly, evil and inferior. Yet that which giveth life to everything upon the earth, the Sun, burneth him. That which gives life to everything upon the earth is God. God giveth life to everything on the earth but the white man and the thing which come after him and are as him. That which giveth life to everything upon the earth giveth the superior white man 10 minutes in the Sun before his 'superior' skin starts to burn. God hates the white man; and God hath given me a gift, science and knowledge to share with you as we move forward into New Jerusalem. The Sun of God Hath Returned. Jesus saith 'in the day when the Sun of God returns, you shall have power to cast out demons.' - Prophet & scientist Yacub 7 Ali

Yacub 7 Ali, the founder of the New Negro Sun Worship Movement, teaches blacks to reradiate the ultraviolet light their skin naturally absorbs to give whites skin cancers: carcinomas, sarcomas and melanomas.

#15 — April 2, 2007 @ 00:09AM — Zedd

Clavos

Actually its not a bad analogy.

Ford and GM are brands. So is GE. You may buy bulbs from different manufacturers. You still have a choice as Dave has highlighted. Also the Model T has horrible emissions and would pass the annual standards that most states have.

#16 — April 2, 2007 @ 00:22AM — Zedd

Signorile,

You sound like an old codger. Let it go. Why not just fight for the right to us a gas lamp.

As we progress we find better solutions to meet our needs and reduce damage to our environment.

I understand your feeling that it is your choice to choose something that costs 5-8X more to use to get the same result. However it is not your choice to affect the environment adversely when you don't have to. The environment is not just yours. As you know, your liberty ends where another's begins.

#17 — April 2, 2007 @ 17:40PM — Clavos

Zedd wrote,

Clavos

Actually its not a bad analogy.

Ford and GM are brands. So is GE. You may buy bulbs from different manufacturers. You still have a choice as Dave has highlighted


That's exactly my point, Zedd. Complaining about the government taking away your right to buy a certain light bulb is NOT analogous to complaining about Ford discontinuing a car model, because Ford has competitors and you do, as you say, still have a choice.

When the government stops the sale of incandescent bulbs, you now have no choice, except to buy fluorescents.

As I said, bad analogy.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/61429)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments