Author Topic: Obama moves to put America in the dark (Read 1468 times)

crustylicious · « **on:** February 22, 2011, 04:10:45 PM »

Latest attempt to send us back to the dark ages.

http://www.walletpop.com/2010/09/30/the-last-american-light-bulb-ge-stops-making-its-iconic-bulb-in/?a_dgi=aolshare_facebook

workers still angry, and blaming "a Democratic Congress" for making the regulations and accusing CEO Jeff Immelt of having "sold out" to President Obama

carbineman · « **Reply #1 on:** February 22, 2011, 05:08:24 PM »

When incandescent lightbulbs are outlawed, only outlaws will have incandescent bulbs.

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2011, 06:46:01 PM »

One of the most idiotic things this nation has gone through with. There was absolutely no critical thought put to the moronic decision to rid us of incandescant bulbs. What, global warming and for the children? Four legs good, two legs b-a-a-a-a-d.

bigbird09 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2011, 06:49:58 PM »

I switched to compact florescent bulbs 5 or 6 years ago and still have the some ones burning. Been trying to talk my grand parents and parents over to them, but my grandparents just like their 200 watters to much, and can't say I blame them. Honestly the only reason I got them was because they are suppose to last for 7 years, so far so good, but I've heard various results from other people, if it came down to spending 2 bux for a incandasent that lasted for a year and a 7 dollar florescent that lasted for 2, I would still buy the incandesent.

beerbelly · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2011, 02:29:41 AM »

I have had no such luck with them. I bough some because they lied and said they save power, I have seen no such savings! They cost way more than regular bulbs and several have already burned out! I replaced them with the old style bulbs .

Swampman · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2011, 02:35:06 AM »

I don't believe I've ever had one of these stupid new bulbs last more than a year. At $5.00 each they suck. Time to start stocking up on old school bulbs.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2011, 02:46:01 AM »

I have been replacing mine with the CF bulbs as my old incandencent ones burn out. So far so good, My oldest ones are going on four years now. The only thing I do is if the bulb is rated at 75 watts I get a 100 because they do not seem to put out quite as much light per rating, but they still use much less power and do not burn hot.
GuzziJohn

lakota · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2011, 02:53:17 AM »

The CFL's are garbage. You walk into a room and flip the light on and they take 5 minutes or more to warm up and put out full light, they are expensive and also contain mercury. But a moronic democrat said they are better so they must be better right?

45-70.gov · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:00:30 AM »

and how about those floresents on a work light

the ones that get broken often...under the car...in the attick...under the house

how much polution does that make

isn't a broken floresent considered a TOXIC SPILL [mercury]

the government takes you money and gives some one a tax credit for energy efficient stuff

the government takes your money and burns street lights needlessly all over the highways

its all about control

powderman · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:09:05 AM »

YES, the new curlyQ bulbs are toxic. When I was at wm if we found a broken one it could not go in the trash. There was a special container in back for toxic substances, even those just burned out were to be treated in like manner. How many millions of those toxic bulbs go in the trash daily?? And yes, they do put out a lot less light. POWDERMAN.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:14:47 AM »

I don't think it will be long before LED replaces everything.
GuzziJohn

Swampman · « **Reply #11 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:22:53 AM »

The LED bulbs are very expensive.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:50:29 AM »

So were computer when they first came out.
GuzziJohn

magooch · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:51:31 AM »

Compact fluorescent bulbs do have their place, but you should be aware that they are not all of the same quality. Also, they come in different light types. My daughter has a hair salon in which we have found that the daylight type bulbs produce the best light. We have settled on GE daylight bulbs (6500 K) 100 watt equivalent (actual 26 watt), which sell at Walmart for $6.44 for a twin pack.

Some of these bulbs have lasted a very long time, but some don't last more than a few months. When we were using incandescent bulbs (100 watt daylight), they would last at most a few weeks. Some lights are left on 24/7 for security reasons. I used to have to change those bulbs every couple of weeks when we used incandescents. The low wattage curly bulbs (60 watt equivalent, soft white) have been going for years.

The compact bulbs work best where they are not switched on and off regularly. We have been using compact bulbs in a few spots in our home for a few years and have never had one burn out yet. I am not a fanatic about compacts; I'm just relating what our experience has been.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:56:22 AM »

Quote from Lakota:

Quote

But a moronic democrat said they are better so they must be better right?

magooch,
Better watch what you post or you will be accused of becoming a moronic democrat!

GuzziJohn

Blackhawker · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2011, 04:25:42 AM »

What I don't understand is why close the facility and force people to lose their jobs? If someone wanted to do things right, they would have converted the plant to making "green" lights. This way the factory would still be in operation, the people would still have their jobs and they'd be producing "green" lights.

....or maybe I've missed something here....

Swampman · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2011, 04:29:41 AM »

They can't turn a profit using American labor.

Blackhawker · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2011, 04:32:02 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on February 23, 2011, 04:29:41 AM

They can't turn a profit using American labor.

Sort of our own fault that we've become stuck with over the course of the last 30 years unfortunately.

powderman · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2011, 04:32:23 AM »

One of the most irritating things with the inc bulbs was advertising them as ENERGY SAVERS. A 75w was then a 67 watt, a 60 w bulb was only a 51w. Save energy ?? Sure did, they made em weaker. POWDERMAN.

Pot-Bellied Stallion · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2011, 04:49:33 AM »

Folks,
I don't know if they are still made, but there was an incandescent bulb that lasted as long or longer than the fluorescent, and were guaranteed for 5 years or they were replaced free. They were made by North American Philips and were sold under the VL label. I believe you can still buy them at specialty lighting shops. They had/have a tungsten/rhenium filament which doesn't get brittle like a pure tungsten filament does. The heavy duty shop light bulb filaments are made from the same alloy. In fact, if you can't find the bulbs, just go to the local auto parts store and buy the heavy duty shop light blubs - they're probably cheaper than the bulbs at the specialty stores.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2011, 04:58:11 AM »

Quote from Powderman:

Quote

One of the most irritating things with the inc bulbs was advertising them as ENERGY SAVERS. A 75w was then a 67 watt, a 60 w bulb was only a 51w. Save energy ?? Sure did, they made em weaker. POWDERMAN.

Yes, they are energy saviors. Let take for example replacing a 75 watt regular bulb. In all honesty you would need a 100WCFL to put out about the same light, however you are only drawing around 20-25W of power instead of 75W of the old bulb. It appears to me to be around a 50W savings.
GuzziJohn

Junior1942 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2011, 05:06:42 AM »

Quote from: lakota on February 23, 2011, 02:53:17 AM

The CFL's are garbage. You walk into a room and flip the light on and they take 5 minutes or more to warm up and put out full light, they are expensive and also contain mercury. But a moronic democrat said they are better so they must be better right?

No, a moronic Rebublicrat said they'd make more profit.

One thing to be aware of when switching from incandescent bulbs to fluorescent bulbs--fluorescent bulbs generate far more UV light than incandescent bulbs. The pictures of grandma, etc., hanging on your wall will start disintegrating.

Blackhawker · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2011, 05:18:57 AM »

I don't know if any of you are aware of this but I'm sure you'll find it ironic that fluorescent bulbs contain very small amounts of mercury in them yet no one in our government has given us any instructions on the proper disposal of them. There are no regulations yet they regulate and continually lower the regulations of levels of mercury in our waterways. How are we to lower the levels of mercury in the water when we are now being advised to use and landfill used fluorescent bulbs which contain mercury?

With that, does it make sense to save energy yet use an environmentally unfriendly product?

It never ends, does it?

Swampman · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2011, 05:34:22 AM »

No energy is saved because it takes more enegy to produce these worthless fluoresent bulbs, and they don't last more than about a year.

Most of the incandescent bulbs in my house right, now are 8 years old. They are cheap contractor bulbs installed when it was built.

crustylicious · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2011, 06:20:15 AM »

There's more mercury in a tooth filing than in a CFL

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070518-cfls-bulbs.html

lakota · « **Reply #25 on:** February 23, 2011, 06:48:31 AM »

Quote from: crustafarian on February 23, 2011, 06:20:15 AM

There's more mercury in a tooth filing than in a CFL

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070518-cfls-bulbs.html

I wonder who paid the "experts" to conduct the study?

briarpatch · « **Reply #26 on:** February 23, 2011, 07:12:45 AM »

That might be true crusty but we are looking at millions of teeth.

powderman · « **Reply #27 on:** February 23, 2011, 07:15:19 AM »

guzzi. You misread my post, imagine that. The bulbs I was talking about are ALL incandescent bulbs, no longer a 75, now a 67, etc.,look at them in the stores. POWDERMAN.

lakota · « **Reply #28 on:** February 23, 2011, 07:18:13 AM »

Quote from: Junior1942 on February 23, 2011, 05:06:42 AM

Quote from: lakota on February 23, 2011, 02:53:17 AM
The CFL's are garbage. You walk into a room and flip the light on and they take 5 minutes or more to warm up and put out full light, they are expensive and also contain mercury. But a moronic democrat said they are better so they must be better right?
No, a moronic Rebublicrat said they'd make more profit.

Maybe a republican president signed the bill into law but you can bet the idea for the bulb ban originated in a congress controlled by a bunch of whinying jackassed(democrats)

billy_56081 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 23, 2011, 07:31:12 AM »

The problem comparing mercury in its solid state like a filling and in a vapor form as in a broken cfl bulb is the entry and accumulation in the organs of the body. I its solid state it poses little or no risk.