Banning Edison

topic posted Sun, March 9, 2008 - 5:31 AM by  Unsubscribed
Another bright idea from our government. Ban the incandescent light bulb made in the USA and force everyone to buy the mercury laden Chinese made compact fluorescent. In addition to being dangerous, ugly and vastly more expensive, they do not last as long as they claim on the package either. Looks like I will have to stock up on a 5 year supply of the incandescent and hope that new technology (LED) becomes widely available as an alternative before then.


Congress bans incandescent bulbs
Massive energy bill phases out Edison's invention by 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 19, 2007
7:18 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com





Incandescent light bulb
In addition to raising auto fuel efficiency standards 40 percent, an energy bill passed by Congress yesterday bans the incandescent light bulb by 2014.

President Bush signed the 822-page measure into law today after it was sent up Pennsylvania Avenue in a Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle. The House passed the bill by a 314-100 vote after approval by the Senate last week.

Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the legislation will boost the energy efficiency of "almost every significant product and tool and appliance that we use, from light bulbs to light trucks."

The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt.

All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.

Australia was the first country to announce an outright ban by 2010.

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp
posted by:
Unsubscribed
  • Re: Banning Edison

    Sun, March 9, 2008 - 1:30 PM
    Hey Dan, which tribe did you get thrown off before coming here? Please note, most posts are simply cut and paste from previous posts on other tribe. They, most probably, lifted from somewhere else. Master of the cut and paste, rather than logic.
    • Re: Banning Edison

      Sun, March 9, 2008 - 5:39 PM
      Nonreligious cites are needed on at least three threads, Dan; produce them.

      Since your handily observable failure in this regard has begun to circulate, even your usual foils have ceased to bother reading your posts. Now, various respondents (in hopes of reclaiming some value from the opportunity presented by actual debate with non-delusional non-perverted non-Dans) can only occasionally find some measure of relief by expressing disgust with your uselessness, and your lack of ability to make even minor contributions to any imaginable discussion.

      You are, quite literally, an emerging and increasingly referenced measure for deliberate use of fallacy, malignant deceit, and rhetorical failure.

      Christians who read your posts put their hands to their mouths in horrified shame.
    • Re: Banning Edison

      Sun, March 9, 2008 - 9:53 PM
      Dan's far too stupid to employ anything remotely resembling logic. He just likes to panic a lot and feed off fear. He's like one of those energy sucker monsters from that Star Track show. Well, at least he's as ugly as one. Also, bad breath.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Banning Edison

      Mon, March 10, 2008 - 5:13 AM
      Hey Erik, and this from the most unoriginal person on the tribe:-)
      • Re: Banning Edison

        Tue, March 11, 2008 - 7:18 AM
        Huh, "the most" eh? Care to back that up with something a little more solid than your reputation? I mean, what criteria do you base that assertion upon? Oh, just pulled out of your ass eh?
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Banning Edison

          Tue, March 11, 2008 - 7:58 AM
          "Huh, "the most" eh? Care to back that up with something a little more solid than your reputation? I mean, what criteria do you base that assertion upon?"

          sure, just go back and look at your "participation" on Creation/evolution. If you can find even one example of a post relevent to the discussion, insightful or even clever, I will eat my words. Otherwise, bug off.
          • Re: Banning Edison

            Tue, March 11, 2008 - 2:50 PM
            Damning you is relevant to any conversation that you include yourself in, and serves as a mitigating influence when assessing the value of a thread entire.

            Since judgment of what constitutes relevance, insight, and cleverness are not within your purview, your offer is invalid, and your imperative is insignificant. Only Pattison even half-heartedly defends your right to exist.

            You're the lowest rung on this ladder, D. You're the leftmost mark on the ruler. Were there any validity to any of the issues you find compelling, the mere fact of your attention would spoil the opportunity to sway any hardened hearts with them. You serve as a damaging representative of religious people, in that any of us can refer to you and remind folks, "see? People who argue from a religious stance are repugnant imbeciles with no ability to support their fantastic assertions, no character with which to apply their absurd claims to moral superiority, too credible to be trusted with milk money, and too stupid to understand even the simplest of the many ways in which they err. Take Dan, for example: goes on erring, forever, butting his microcephalic nubbin again and again against the same little spot on the wall, making unpleasant noises and gibbering mindlessly, refusing to simply turn and walk to the left or right, away from the bloody wall." You should be ashamed of yourself. "You can be like Dan, or you can be like Lokifreign, children. Which will you choose?" Ashamed, Dan; ashamed.

            I'm getting so many souls for my team, and you haven't saved a single one. When the big game comes, your team will be crushed, and my team will set fire to the univerrrrrrrse!!!! Our pitchforks are heating up, but all you have is weak talk, Dan. Tenebrae dominus!

            You're washed up. If you were less vomitous you could be a laughing stock; but no.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Banning Edison

    Mon, March 10, 2008 - 7:25 AM
    I don't think anyone would call the "Peoples Weekly World" "right wing" since it is a direct descendant of the communist rag, "the daily worker".

    www.pww.org/article/view/12107/1/400/

    "Concerns remain

    However, critics are concerned that the EPA and environmentalists are minimizing the dangers of mercury contamination from CFLs. Mercury, an essential component of CFLs, is a neurotoxin that the EPA classifies as a hazardous household material.

    According to the EPA, “Exposure to mercury, a toxic metal, can affect our brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver.”

    The U.S. National Institutes of Health reports, “Exposures to very small amounts of these compounds [mercury] can result in devastating neurological damage and death. For fetuses, infants and children, the primary health effects of mercury are on neurological development. Even low levels of mercury exposure, such as result from a mother’s consumption of methyl mercury in dietary sources, can adversely affect the brain and nervous system. Impacts on memory, attention, language and other skills have been found in children exposed to moderate levels in the womb.”

    “I feel it’s very important to warn people these ‘green’ bulbs contain mercury, which will end up in landfills throughout the country if we make the switch to them,” said Andrew Michrowski of the Ottawa-based Planetary Association for Clean Energy Inc. “In addition to filling our landfills with mercury, if the bulbs break you will be exposed to the mercury they contain.”

    Michrowski urged people not to buy CFLs. "
    • Re: Banning Edison

      Sun, March 23, 2008 - 9:02 AM
      ""You can be like Dan, or you can be like Lokifreign, children. Which will you choose?"
      I choose neither to be like, but....
      if I were to choose who's statements are more accurate, can be documented with proof, and is more open minded to what others have to say, rather than a 24/7 bot to fictional works?
      I would definitely choose Loki.
      As for alliances with fictional gods, lol.
      +SW->
      • Re: Banning Edison

        Sun, March 23, 2008 - 9:08 AM
        On the copy and paste thing, about this thread, I have seen it before on another tribe. Dan's last place of residence was on Crossroads of Religion. He goes to a tribe, for a bit and then is either booted, asked to leave, or gets bored when his threads are ignored and he hasn't the negativity that he seeks.
        As for the lights topic, though.....
        there are studies that show that fluorescent can be bad for one's health.
        Whether these are put out by the opposition, lol, who knows?
        I like fluorescents because they eat less energy and don't make everyone look ywellow.
        I don't like them because they seem to suck the life out of people, as their heart has been in schools and crummy jobs.
        I tend to think of the lifelessness of them, in the same way they are depicted in the movie "Joe vs. the Volcano", but...I still use them, as money is money, lol.

        +SW->
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Banning Edison

          Mon, March 24, 2008 - 7:36 AM
          "On the copy and paste thing, about this thread, I have seen it before on another tribe. Dan's last place of residence was on Crossroads of Religion."

          Very true, I have broached this subject in the past on a couple of tribes. This is not unusual. The subject has come up at least twice now, once in California, then followed by the congress. It is in interesting subject for discussion. Do you feel it is not appropriate to discuss the subject of why Americans are being forced to use only CF's in 2012? Why do you feel this?

          "He goes to a tribe, for a bit and then is either booted, asked to leave, or gets bored when his threads are ignored and he hasn't the negativity that he seeks."

          Like a lot of people, I go to different tribes, very true. I have been booted from Crossroads twice, left twice on my own when I have gotten bored, true. I have never left due to my threads getting ignored, false. This is because my threads seldom get ignored Shadow, unlike yours. Would you like me to do the research as to which of us gets the most hits? We could even throw in your derelict friend mentioned above and make it 2 to 1, my prediction is that you would still lose. You are a boring individual with very little of interest to offer, which is why I assume you have sought me out:-)

          "As for the lights topic, though.....
          there are studies that show that fluorescent can be bad for one's health."

          Thank you for this confirmation...

          "Whether these are put out by the opposition, lol, who knows?"

          for the record, I had filled my house with CF's before knowing the danger therof to my family. I have since be removing them, especially from my childrens rooms. I suggest you do the same, whether you are an tree hugging atheist believer or a capalist young earth creationist like myself, it makes little difference.

          "I like fluorescents because they eat less energy and don't make everyone look ywellow."

          I have never been fond of the light they give off, but like you I liked that fact that the were supposedly more energy efficient and lasted longer. However, they really don't last as long as they claim they do, and I doubt many take them back when they fail early. I have done so only once.

          "I don't like them because they seem to suck the life out of people, as their heart has been in schools and crummy jobs.
          I tend to think of the lifelessness of them, in the same way they are depicted in the movie "Joe vs. the Volcano", but...I still use them, as money is money, lol."

          Alright Shaddow, but the issue is that yours and my personal preferences aside, you will not be able to choose any longer. Big brother has decided that you must stop buying incandescent bulbs by 2012. These bulbs do have mercury in them and they are unsafe for children and pregnant women. They are also expensive. They must be recycled because of the mercury, yet no one recycles them in my area currently. Other technology which is truly safer and better will be coming on shortly (i.e. LED). Why is government getting involved? Are you for this?
          • Re: Banning Edison

            Mon, March 24, 2008 - 7:49 PM
            "Do you feel it is not appropriate to discuss the subject of why Americans are being forced to use only CF's in 2012? Why do you feel this? "
            No, I just tire of reading the same threads all the time is all.
            As for CF's..they cut down on energy usage, providing for some for my kids and lineage down the line. I don't have any more of a problem with it, than I do with microwave ovens, of which I use both on a regular basis. I have been using fluorescents for a few years now, to cut on costs, save on regularly changing bulbs and helping out the future generations.
            "This is because my threads seldom get ignored Shadow, unlike yours. "
            Lol. I state something that either gets a response, or doesn't, as I am thinking on that topic at the time. I'm not an attention whore, so if it doesn't get a response..that's okay. I need not create a controversy to feel importance, nor, continuously, do repeat threads. I come to the forums to read a variety of topics, not a one dimensional approach of threads.

            "We could even throw in your derelict friend mentioned above and make it 2 to 1, my prediction is that you would still lose. You are a boring individual with very little of interest to offer, which is why I assume you have sought me out:-) "
            You, SERIOUSLY, think that you "win" any of your threads? Woooow.
            Repeating, copying and pasting, inciting the same old, same old, doesn't make you a "winner". People just tire of the same b.s. and walk away, as it becomes a waste of time and energy(The latter being the equivalent for the light that you defend).

            "They are also expensive. "
            Not that you are interested in buying them, but if you are...hit up "Big Lots" if there is one near you, as they are cheap there.
            "They must be recycled because of the mercury, yet no one recycles them in my area currently."
            Give the "tree-huggers" that info, and they will put containers for them somewhere, thus eliminating the problem you refer to. Me? I haven't hugged a tree lately, as it has been cold. Ever get close to an oak tree's knothole, where there is sap? It smells like ice cream..No shit..useless fact # 1043, lol.
            "Why is government getting involved?"
            Because they put their nose in everything.
            Are you for this?
            As much as I am for HDTV..not really, as I don't see the better picture promised, but...kinda screwed on that one too, ya know?
            By the by, when you talk human like this(Well, minus the few moments of sniping)..I have no problem talking with you. It's that repeated stuff, without you giving a crap what others have said, and all the copying and pasting that gets on others nerves. Personally, it doesn't piss me off, as you may think. I just get tired of seeing the same thing, without real talk. It's like those pesky spammers, or faxes received from companies that waste ones paper.

            +SW->
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Banning Edison

              Tue, March 25, 2008 - 2:43 PM
              "By the by, when you talk human like this(Well, minus the few moments of sniping)..I have no problem talking with you. It's that repeated stuff, without you giving a crap what others have said, and all the copying and pasting that gets on others nerves. Personally, it doesn't piss me off, as you may think. I just get tired of seeing the same thing, without real talk. It's like those pesky spammers, or faxes received from companies that waste ones paper."

              I don't think you know me very well. I have had many conversions with folks and without any "copy and paste". I think you are confusing me with Chopper, a copyandpasteaholic if there ever was one...
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Banning Edison

        Mon, March 24, 2008 - 7:20 AM
        'if I were to choose who's statements are more accurate, can be documented with proof, and is more open minded to what others have to say, rather than a 24/7 bot to fictional works?"

        Why come to this tribe only to attack me Shadow? You have written nothing about the subject of this thread one way or the other. I don't consider the subject of such a level that I am not willing to admit being wrong should you be able to show me. Yet you follow the same approach as your derelict friend. And note, Loki never documents anything with proof. He doesn't need to as he is the ulimate authority on everything! Don't believe me? Just ask him:-)
        • Re: Banning Edison

          Mon, March 24, 2008 - 7:56 PM
          "Why come to this tribe only to attack me Shadow? You have written nothing about the subject of this thread one way or the other"
          Just did.
          This IS "Heated Debate", remember? If I feel the desire to do what the tribe is called, then...I need not worry about the booting, ya know?
          Not that I plan on it, but it is nice to know that it is less worrisome, as that relates.
          By the by, I didn't follow you here. I saw it on someone else's tribe list and thought it might be interesting.
          Who is this "derelict friend" of mine?
          I see Loki being listed, but...lol. Loki and I can speak to a topic in the same way, or be beating each other over the head with clubs. Sometimes in the same thread, lol.
          "And note, Loki never documents anything with proof. He doesn't need to as he is the ulimate authority on everything! Don't believe me? Just ask him:-) "
          Not, totally, true, as Loki does document a couple of things in the past, but either way...you are missing Loki's main purpose.
          I'll not explain it, as I think it is funny that you, of such proposed grand intelligence haven't figured Loki's purpose out yet.
          I'd give you a hint, but...nah...it's too funny to watch.
          +SW->
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Banning Edison

            Tue, March 25, 2008 - 2:38 PM
            "I'll not explain it, as I think it is funny that you, of such proposed grand intelligence haven't figured Loki's purpose out yet.
            I'd give you a hint, but...nah...it's too funny to watch."

            People merely assume I feel I possess "grand intelligence". I do not profess this at all. I try to stay with topics which are easy to win, like, "atheists are fools". Even smarter atheists cannot win here as they are handicapped by the facts:-)

            I never knew Loki had a purpose. His existance has always appeared purposeless to me...
  • Re: Banning Edison

    Mon, March 24, 2008 - 12:45 PM
    I would be interested in this as a topic of debate if the amount of mercury in a longer life fluorescent bulb were contrasted with the mercury output of power plants, as in: if the power plant is tossing out more mercury to power less efficient bulbs (i believe over 90% of the energy used in incandescent is turned into heat as opposed to light), how does that compare with increased mercury in fluorescent bulbs?
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Banning Edison

      Tue, March 25, 2008 - 2:34 PM
      "I would be interested in this as a topic of debate if the amount of mercury in a longer life fluorescent bulb were contrasted with the mercury output of power plants,"

      As I pointed out previously, the issue is that a factory can put into place measures to control pollutants, homes with small children and pregnant women cannot. It is true that Flourescents are more efficient, but that alone is not reason enough for a ban on incandescents, which are cheaper to purchase and relatively harmless. Other technology which is safe and efficient will come on line naturally, no help from the government is needed.
    • Re: Banning Edison

      Tue, March 25, 2008 - 8:18 PM
      Last year I was able to attend a discussion moderated by Neal Baer, M.D., Executive Producer, Law & Order: SVU

      The topic: Beyond Erin Brockovich: Threats from Our Toxic Environment

      The panel: Environmental health experts and people who have faced environmental exposures that have changed their lives.

      Though I wouldn't be able to answer your question regarding the mercury output of power plants, I was able to find this information:

      Mercury Study Report to Congress Overview: www.epa.gov/mercury/reportover.htm

      Sadly, this study is dated 1997 - I clicked on the Overview and checked out the section titled, Mercury Control Technologies. Seems to me that there isn't a whole lot of academic research (or regulation) going on in the government sector.

      However, you might want to check out the work that Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D is doing. He was a guest on this panel and a wealth of information. Click on Links and Publications for environmental solutions and research info:

      Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise:

      www.swape.com/index.php
  • Re: Banning Edison

    Mon, March 24, 2008 - 11:05 PM
    A couple of sites that might be of interest.

    Shining a light on fluorescent bulbs - Energy-efficient coils booming, but disposal of mercury poses problems:

    www.bespacific.com/mt/archi...ml#017863


    The lightbulb of the future:

    news.zdnet.com/2422-13568_22-192842.html
    • Re: Banning Edison

      Tue, March 25, 2008 - 3:48 PM
      www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
      howthingswork.virginia.edu/inca....html
      Some ways to handle fluorescents.
      This neither endorses, nor disapproves, it is just showing safer handing of fluorescent lighting.
      By the way, you are overlooking one other key difference between the bulbs...
      Incandescent reaches a higher temperature and leads to more house fires and minor burns and the like.
      "970. How can one be fire safe while dealing with incandescent and fluorescent light bulbs? -- TJ, Woodbridge, VA
      Fluorescent tubes produce relatively little heat, so they're relatively fire safe already. However, incandescent light bulbs become very hot and you have to be careful with them to avoid fires. First, make sure that the bulb can get rid of its waste heat. That means that you shouldn't wrap the bulb in insulation because it needs to transfer its waste heat to the air. Second, keep flammable materials away from the bulb, particularly above the bulb since hot air from the bulb rises upward."

      Okay, enough of that. Since posting about the bulb stuff, I stumbled on this:
      www.rd.com/familyhandyman/content/17847/
      It's a good idea to read this particular one, even if you skip the rest of the links, as it talks about how to prevent home fires, via all the things you already know, along with a few things that some may not know.
      +SW->
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Banning Edison

        Wed, March 26, 2008 - 7:09 AM
        did you read all of the stuff this article recommends that you do when a CF breaks? Personally, I don't want them in my house. Extension cords are a major source of fires as your article below points out. My brother n Law worked as an arsen investigator and confirms that they are the culprit in many home fires. I have have heard him say that a "hot" light bulb was. This is likely do to the fact that lightbulbs are placed in fixtures designed to handle the heat transfer.

        The bottom line is the government mandate. I don't need the government telling me what to do about my lightbulbs, about car seats, about helmets, about seat belts, about the fluid I put in my air conditioner, about educating my children etc.. They are not my mom or my dad or my teacher. Let them defend us from foreign and domestic enemies and keep the roads paved.
        • Re: Banning Edison

          Wed, March 26, 2008 - 9:34 AM
          "The bottom line is the government mandate. I don't need the government telling me what to do about my lightbulbs, about car seats, about helmets, about seat belts, about the fluid I put in my air conditioner, about educating my children etc.. They are not my mom or my dad or my teacher. Let them defend us from foreign and domestic enemies and keep the roads paved."
          I think you picked the wrong country for that, lol.
          What's interesting is that the majority of your bitches, right there, pertain to things that keep kids safe.
          Ever been a tow truck driver?
          Had you, which no doubt you haven't or it wasn't for a significant enough amount of time to hear or see achild decapitated, or thrown through the vehicle like a pinball.
          Some of these laws are smart, as relates to when children are in the car, when a child suffers permanent brain damage, that wouldn't have happened had they been wearing a goofy helmet, had not been poisoned from freon because you thought you knew how to put in this dangerous chemical properly and.....your child needs to be taught more than you have the ability to teach or have the time to do. I agree, some of the things they focus on in school are idiotic, but...that's due to parents not taking a more active role in the school system and what is to be taught. You don't deserve the right to bitch about it, unless you are actively participating in the school system meetings, councils, etc.
          +SW->
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Banning Edison

            Thu, March 27, 2008 - 12:56 PM
            "What's interesting is that the majority of your bitches, right there, pertain to things that keep kids safe."

            My point from the beginning is that we the people should be able to make these decisions. I strap all of my kids in car seats up until the appropriate age etc. In regards to the light buld issue, I think the consumers should make the decision. CF will be obsolete either before or shortly after the time the laws take effect, and as safe, reliable LED lighting becomes cheaper.

            "I agree, some of the things they focus on in school are idiotic, but...that's due to parents not taking a more active role in the school system and what is to be taught. You don't deserve the right to bitch about it, unless you are actively participating in the school system meetings, councils, etc."

            I pay taxes for those who utilize the school system and certainly can bitch if I desire. I also have to live near the juvenile deliquents it turns out.
            • Re: Banning Edison

              Thu, March 27, 2008 - 3:01 PM
              "I pay taxes for those who utilize the school system and certainly can bitch if I desire. I also have to live near the juvenile deliquents it turns out."
              Aaah, they're not all that bad, lol.
              "My point from the beginning is that we the people should be able to make these decisions. I strap all of my kids in car seats up until the appropriate age etc."
              The reason for those laws, is for the dumbasses who don't. Did you see the news about the drunk woman who strapped in her friend in the back and had her kid riding in the front without a seatbelt? How about the one where the lady made sure to belt in the keg, but not her kid?
              Those laws are for the stupid ones.
              +SW->
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Banning Edison

                Thu, March 27, 2008 - 9:53 PM
                you cannot stop stupid people from doing stupid things. It is not a constitutional function of government to force people to "be safe"..

                But since they have taken on this responsibility, they should stop pushing CF's, they are not safe.
                • Re: Banning Edison

                  Fri, March 28, 2008 - 1:39 PM
                  "But since they have taken on this responsibility, they should stop pushing CF's, they are not safe."
                  They have their bad moments, but it isn't even close to the way the F.D.A. allows crap drugs onto the market!
                  +SW->
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Banning Edison

                    Fri, March 28, 2008 - 5:40 PM
                    I agree with you also Shadow. For years I have sold an Amish made skin ointment through the mail. I have had no less than 3 visits from the Food and Drug Administration over this harmless product which thousands of customers love. At the same time the FDA licenses all sorts of perscription meds which kill and mame people. The difference is of course that my Amish friend doesn't have the bucks or inclination to go through the process of getting it approved. So far they have left him alone fortunately.
              • Re: Banning Edison

                Fri, March 28, 2008 - 1:09 PM
                Isnt sort of a survival of the fittest via Darwin awards?

                I think the insurance industry is the one pushing for most of these laws. To me, all that is required is a warning label on things. I want people to be aware things are dangerous (like motorcycles or nto wearing yoru seatbelt) but if they kill themselves, well, thats life.

                I dont know the answer. But I would rather not legislate stupid things. Just my opinion.
  • Unsu...
     

    Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned

    Mon, June 23, 2008 - 7:12 PM
    As a follow up to this post, it seems like at least one politician has found their backbone:

    "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.

    From the floor of the House, Poe addressed the dangers of the CFL bulbs, explaining the extensive cleanup required by the Environmental Protection Agency for simply breaking a bulb. When a bulb, which contains mercury, is broken, according to the EPA, the room must be evacuated for 15 minutes and aired out with windows, but not before all glass is removed, placed in a sealed glass jar and disposed of outside. Any remaining glass must be picked up with tape. In addition, central heating or air conditioning units must be turned off.

    This is what the EPA officials say about light bulbs they want the public to use.

    In addition, the bulbs cause photographs to fade and can interfere with radio signals, television and remote controls, according to Poe.

    "Madam speaker, I have a Constitution here, like most members of Congress," Poe said. "I carry it with me, I've read it through and through but I don't see anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it gives the government the right to control the type of light bulbs used in Dime Box, Texas, or anywhere else in the United States."

    Poe criticized Congress' focus on regulation rather than working to develop natural resources during an energy crisis.

    "I yearn for the day when Americans took care of America by developing our own abundant natural resources like coal, natural gas and crude oil to provide affordable energy to Americans," Poe remarked.

    wnd.com/index.php

Recent topics in "Heated Debate"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
There's lots of evidence for Jesus! - VIDEO Rocky 13 Yesterday, 8:31 PM
Atheists Who Believe in God! Unsubscribed 4 August 14, 2008
Hate Boomers - Yea. 201 August 10, 2008
Boomers - voluntary suicide? My Body is a... 7 August 10, 2008