R John wrote:
I would really like to know what horrors the Incandescent Light Bulb is Guilty of?

Please take my selfish light bulbs away and fill my house with Mercury Vapor filled alternatives, so I may die sooner for You?

I guess the only thing the ILB is guilty of is using more energy than is necessary.  Offices have used flourescent bulbs forever.  I don't see it as a big health issue.  In fact, I think the whole mercury scare is overblown.  Not that I'd want to eat the stuff but still, I think the panic mongers are overstating that risk just like every thing from Alar to DDT.  

Eyas wrote:To my knowledge, this is the first time anything like this has been done. Taking a highly desired product off the market, and replacing it with a more costly and less-desired product -- without any clear evidence of any harm caused by that initial product.

I admit it sees to be a huge leap to ban the ILB. But we have banned products before like Cyclamates and DDT.  Cyclamates are widely used all over the world and people AREN'T dying of cancers because if it.  DDT was widely used and is quite effective at killing bugs and the "threats" posed by DDT have been scientifically disproved.  Yet, it is still banned and millions die each year BECAUSE it is banned.   And if you look at the TCO on a CFL it might be less costly.  

But don't assume I agree with banning the sale of ILB.  It should be my choice.  I cannot find the clause in the US Constitution that permits the Federal Government to make this choice for me.  It is another step on "The Road to Serfdom."  

But, rest assured, I have not joined algore's legions and I am not turning "green" like Kermit the Frog.  I should be able to buy any light bulb I want.  Having the government make that choice for the entire market is simply anti-American and wrong.

I've been suspicious of the "Mercury" claims against flourescents.

Similarly, despite what Rush says, it's not really true that the banning of DDT has killed millions.  Surely, there was no evidence to ban it; but to say that its banning has resulted in all subsequent malarial deaths assumes three things:
1) that DDT no longer exists and is not used by any nation;
2) that there is NO modern pesticide anywhere near as effective as DDT; and
3) that DDT is somehow not subject to the development of pesticide resistances in mosquitos that eventually decrease the effectiveness of all pesticides.

There is, apparently, a significant difference between the flourescents we've used forever and the long-lasting, compact flourescents.  I keep meaning to investigate the truth of the matter, but I don't really know what the deal is with these MANDATED lights in terms of environmental benefit vs potential environmental harm; energy savings; total costs; etc..  If you know of a reliable site to find this info, please post it.

However, I agree that to IMPOSE this product upon us is Anti-Capitalist and Un-American.  This is not what the U.S. Federal gov't was ever meant to do.  Especially considering that there is apparently no concern whatsoever for EITHER the cost OR the benefit of this totalitarian action.

C'est la vie.  I consider it just another erosion of the Constitutional Founding principles of this nation, and another example of the disdain among politicians for the free market/capitalism in general.

Every year, every day, it's getting harder & harder to remain optimistic about America's future.

Have you ever been around a compact flourescent bulb when it burns out? Heavy burning smell. Check out what happens to the base. All this nobility from big brother, and I have to wonder about the Energy Usage of Large Screen Plasma TV's They're shoving down our throats?
Could it be that this is just another form of Monopoly, Compelling Us to jump through hoops, while spending more for less? Here is from the Link on the earlier Post, relating to compact Flourescents. Check out the site.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

Do CFLs contain mercury?

CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing – an average of 5 milligrams – about the amount that would cover the tip of a ballpoint pen. By comparison, older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury. It would take 100 CFLs to equal that amount.

Mercury currently is an essential component of CFLs and is what allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. No mercury is released when the bulbs are intact or in use. Many manufacturers have taken significant steps to reduce mercury used in their fluorescent lighting products. In fact, the average amount of mercury in a CFL is anticipated to drop by the end of 2007 thanks to technology advances and a commitment from members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

R John wrote:Have you ever been around a compact flourescent bulb when it burns out? Heavy burning smell. Check out what happens to the base. All this nobility from big brother, and I have to wonder about the Energy Usage of Large Screen Plasma TV's They're shoving down our throats?
Could it be that this is just another form of Monopoly, Compelling Us to jump through hoops, while spending more for less? Here is from the Link on the earlier Post, relating to compact Flourescents. Check out the site.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf