|
Tis the season to be lumenated
time to stock up if you plan on having vision inside your own home. On New Year’s Day, in addition to a hangover, America will wake up in the pale winter light to one grim consequence of the Bush administration’s never-requited desire to be loved by the left: the traditional 100-watt light bulb will be banned for sale in the United States. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...#ixzz1gQv2rbqL |
It's kind of interesting...
One of the "little things" I found really interesting about spending a month in Germany late last year was the high availability of LED-based light fixtures, and at a cost which was not nearly so high as what you see here in the US. At both OBI (compare to Home Depot) and Kaufland (compare to Super Walmart) there were probably as many LED-based fixtures on the shelves as incandescent, and the price was maybe 1/2 to 1/3 what we'd pay in the US, which is doubly noteworthy when you consider that, on average, most regular consumer goods seemed to cost 20-30% more on average. I'm sure there's probably a good theory about why this is a conspiracy supported by American energy producers and light bulb manufacturers, along with Greenpeace and the EPA (because if the environment were pristine, they'd have nothing to complain about / regulate.) Does anybody actually use 100w light bulbs? I ask this in all seriousness. So far as I can recall, I only have a few incandescents at my house in the first place, and they're all fairly low-wattage: 1: 1x Ceiling-mounted in living room, on dimmer (60w) 2: 4x fan-mounted in bedroom, on dimmer (maybe 25w each?) 3: appx 6x in bathroom vanity (fairly small- maybe 20-25w each?) 4: 1x in oven 5: 1x in fridge 6: 1x inside microwave oven, 1x below (as range light) And that's pretty much it. All of the garage lighting is either CFL or tube (including the light in the garage door opener) as is the lighting in the kitchen (both ceiling and under-cabinet), the main lighting in the bathroom and the outdoor lighting. Ok, so it's evil on general principle that "the gubment" is taking away our freedom to choose our primary illumination source. Gubment took away my right to choose to run leaded gas in my '59 Mercury, too. |
I have have 6 lights in my apt:
1 - 150watt bulb. 2 - 100watt bulbs 2 - 100watt bulbs 2 - 100watt bulbs 1 - 100watt bulb. 1 - 50/100/150 bulb Low wattage is for trolls and mole people. Joe, keep in mind that the alternative is full of lead and mercury... |
Yes I have standard 40, 60, and 100 watt bulbs all over my house. I also have dimmers everywhere, and I use them. The 100's are rarely at 100%. Regular 100 watt bulbs dim well and are cheap. CFL's don't dim and create harsh lighting. LED still provides poor value compared to elcheapo incandescent.
Garage and kitchen are florescent tube. Outdoor are all CFL. |
I use 100 or 150 (if I can find them) in the garage as I don't have proper lighting in there yet. Almost everything in the house is moved to CFL more for the convenience of not having to change them as often as I did the incandescents versus greenery or energy efficiency.
After our first batch of CFLs a few years ago, we definitely try to pay more attention to the "lumens" listing versus just the equivalent wattage. |
I prefer wax/wick technology for my lighting needs.
http://www.thepinksmoke.com/images/burbscandles.png |
The problem is, without an incandescent Braineack can no longer use his Easy-Bake oven.
Seriously though, the caparison that Joe made makes a lot of sense. |
we use halogens and CFLs in the house. CFL light has come a long way over the last year or two. The regular white ones actually look normal, although I did have a roommate in college who complained about the cool white ones (I don't blame him really, weird to see blue-ish light all the time at night).
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 805726)
Ok, so it's evil on general principle that "the gubment" is taking away our freedom to choose our primary illumination source. Gubment took away my right to choose to run leaded gas in my '59 Mercury, too.
|
Can we then call CFLs "mercury bombs?"
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 805783)
Can we then call CFLs "mercury bombs?"
|
In all seriousness, I have to ask the following:
Is the implied undertone of this thread A: That the government does not have a right to regulate certain consumer behavior where said regulation has the objective of improving the general welfare of its citizenry as a whole, or B: Is it specifically an assault on the idea that the particular act of regulating the availability of certain types of light bulbs does not advance the aforementioned goal? |
B. This is clearly an example of making rules to demonstrate protectionism.
|
My only gripe with CFLs is that they claim to last forever compared to incandescent yet they barely seem to last me as long as an incandescent. They are dirt cheap around here though, I pay between 1 and 3 dollars for a pack. They are heavily subsidized here.
If you pay attention to the light temperature you're buying then they aren't bad at all. I have a daylight temperature in my living room lamp for doing homework and the rest are warm temperature bulbs just like incandescent. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 805803)
Is the implied undertone of this thread A: That the government does not have a right to regulate certain consumer behavior where said regulation has the objective of improving the general welfare of its citizenry as a whole according to priorities decided by government bureaucrats and against the individual desires of citizens, or
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 805803)
B: Is it specifically an assault on the idea that the particular act of regulating the availability of certain types of light bulbs does not advance the aforementioned goal?
|
mgeoffriau, the emboldened text which you added into A was the whole point of my choice B.
The point of choice A was simply to ask whether it is OK for the government to regulate domestic commerce with the aim of enhancing the quality of life of all citizens. Some (or even all) of these regulations may be imperfect in design or implementation, however such deficiencies are tertiary in nature to the underlying concept. As an example, the federal government requires that all automobiles sold in the US must be equipped with headlights and turn-signals. Obviously some consumers are unfamiliar with the proper use of these devices, and they certainly add cost and complexity to the vehicles. However I feel that the benefit of every car being equipped with these features outweighs the trespass on my personal freedom to choose to buy a car without these onerous add-ons. |
I didn't add that text to option A in order to turn choice A into choice B, only to point out that choice A cannot be considered as stated. It's impossible to judge that statement as written. One cannot evaluate whether government has the right to "enhance the quality of life of all citizens" without noting that by necessity that goal involves government bureaucrats deciding according to their own priorities what constitutes an "enhanced quality of life" and using the government's threat of violence to enforce this decision on private citizens who may have an entirely different set of priorities.
Now, having noted that, we can talk about whether that calculation of competing priorities is beneficial or detrimental to actual citizens, not simply with regard to this specific case of light bulb sales (Choice B), but in general (Choice A). |
Three facts:
GE is the most heavily invested stock in Congress (94 members in 2010)... GE makes really expensive, really dim, CFL bulbs. The light bulb laws have employed enormous amounts of Chinese at the cost of American jobs. |
I think your being a bit paranoid. This law was probably written by a do-gooder and enacted b/c it sounded like a good idea.
Also, does the fact that the goberment makes a regulatory law automatically make that law a bad idea? |
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 805859)
I think your being a bit paranoid. This law was probably written by a do-gooder and enacted b/c it sounded like a good idea.
It is quite easy to mistake ignorance for conspiracy. I genuinely believe that the vast majority of regulations such as this are written for one of two reasons. Either the individual proposing the regulation genuinely believes it to be of benefit (whether or not this belief is well-informed and supported by "good science"), or the individual believes that the regulation will gain them political support. Neither of these count as conspiracy in my book. Altrusim and greed are both perfectly normal and common human desires. But neither are evidence of a Secret Cabal tasked with enslaving humanity.
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 805818)
I didn't add that text to option A in order to turn choice A into choice B, only to point out that choice A cannot be considered as stated. It's impossible to judge that statement as written. One cannot evaluate whether government has the right to "enhance the quality of life of all citizens" without noting that by necessity that goal involves government bureaucrats deciding according to their own priorities what constitutes an "enhanced quality of life" and using the government's threat of violence to enforce this decision on private citizens who may have an entirely different set of priorities.
|
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 805859)
I think your being a bit paranoid. This law was probably written by a do-gooder and enacted b/c it sounded like a good idea.
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 805882)
And that summarizes quite well the most significant reason that I take umbrage with discussions such as this.
It is quite easy to mistake ignorance for conspiracy. I genuinely believe that the vast majority of regulations such as this are written for one of two reasons. Either the individual proposing the regulation genuinely believes it to be of benefit (whether or not this belief is well-informed and supported by "good science"), or the individual believes that the regulation will gain them political support. Neither of these count as conspiracy in my book. Altrusim and greed are both perfectly normal and common human desires. But neither are evidence of a Secret Cabal tasked with enslaving humanity. When was it suggested that a Secret Cabal was behind the forced market removal of incandescent bulbs? I have no doubt that the method by which new regulations are written and introduced is entirely mundane. That's entirely the point -- simple things like government bureaucracy, corporatism, and do-gooder nanny-statistism combine to gradually erode our individual liberty. The issue of the incandescent bulb isn't raised because we expect people to be shocked or angered by the isolated loss of these bulbs. On the contrary, the issue is raised because it's symptomatic of the larger issue. It's an example of the mundane and every-day way our individual liberties are being constantly reduced. |
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 805859)
Also, does the fact that the goberment makes a regulatory law automatically make that law a bad idea?
|
Just came in to giggle at the nonexistence of Bush angst vs. the constant Obama angst I see in other threads.
:giggle: |
This is actually a time you can say blame bush and be correct.
|
Joe so why you speculate LED lights cost so much more here. I would like some if they came in warmer kelvins
|
Originally Posted by Faeflora
(Post 806100)
Joe so why you speculate LED lights cost so much more here. I would like some if they came in warmer kelvins
|
Light bulbs are not the countries number one problem. How about the goverment focus on real problems and come up with good solutions. Educate the public on light bulb choices and let them decide what they want. If they want 100w or 1000w bulbs then let em have it and the electric bill to go along with it. Don't meddle in the basics.
|
you fascist.
|
Originally Posted by ChrisGriffin
(Post 806299)
Sex is not the countries number one problem. How about the goverment focus on real problems and come up with good solutions. Educate the public on sex choices and let them decide what they want. If they want protected or unprotected sex then let em have it and the child to go along with it. Don't meddle in the basics of sex ed.
|
Its a slippery slope I tell you... First they're taking away our miniature heater bulbs... Next they're gonna outlaw Guns! Guns people! Its all an elaborate plot by the liberals to loosen us up for the ultimate denial of our constituionamal rites!
How's GE's stock price these days? |
since the market crashed, it's steadily, albeit slowly, going up.
and sarcasm aside, as trivial as you think it is, your post is 100% correct. guns are a metaphor. just as light bulbs are. |
Wait, Brainy. You are seriously trying to tell us that it's a liberal plot to strip us of all of our constitutional rights?
|
more or less.
|
....wut?
|
Why is it that the only way Constitutional rights and individual liberties are ever stripped away or encroached upon is by a secret, sinister plot?
blean99, do you honestly believe that the individual liberties of private citizens have not been reduced by unnecessary government interference? |
Yeah, I think that our individual liberties have been reduced, but the thing is Mg, I believe it's been reduced by all parties in our political system trying to each get their own slice of the pie. The moment you try to paint one side or another as being the culprit of it....Well, my brain explodes in shock. It's like the birthers to me.
|
At what did someone claim it was only the Democrats? I blame all of the big-government nanny-staters paternalistic screwjobs. I don't care which side of the aisle they sit on.
|
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 806482)
at what did someone claim it was only the democrats? I blame all of the big-government nanny-staters paternalistic screwjobs. I don't care which side of the aisle they sit on.
|
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 806482)
At what did someone claim it was only the Democrats? I blame all of the big-government nanny-staters paternalistic screwjobs. I don't care which side of the aisle they sit on.
|
I support his statement. Statist Republicans self-identifying as "conservatives" no more makes them conservative than it would for Braineack to self-identify as a dog-lover. We know he's all about da cats.
So it's not wrong to blame liberals. |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 806490)
I support his statement. Statist Republicans self-identifying as "conservatives" no more makes them conservative than it would for Braineack to self-identify as a dog-lover. We know he's all about da cats.
So it's not wrong to blame liberals. So, it could be said to be wrong to blame liberals. Or have we not realized American politicians have hijacked the meaning behind liberals and conservatives, and what it means in American politics isn't what it means...anywhere else? |
Sure, but you're talking about the gradual shift in what political labels mean in common usage, not actual individual politicians misrepresenting themselves with a label that does not describe them.
|
No, Mg.
I've been pretty clear with what I've been talking about. Blaming anything on "conservatives" or "liberals" is retarded. Doubly so when you try to brand them all as "liberals" if you support "conservatives", and vice versa. Our politicians aren't liberal or conservative. They are authoritarian corporatists. Trying to blame it all on "liberals" when you complain about conservatives not being conservatives is incredibly shady. The liberals aren't liberals, and the conservatives aren't conservatives using that definition. Dumping everything you don't like about a label you try to re-define for your own terms and purposes onto an opposing label isn't intellectually honest. If the conservatives aren't conservatives, that's fine. But then the liberals aren't liberals - and what are we left with? I say this for a reason. Most of the posters on here are liberals. Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion. An example? The biggest liberals we have ever seen were the founders of the US and the first half century of politicians we had. They absolutely were not conservatives as per the actual definition - and much of what is being advocated here is classical liberalism at it's finest. /Oh no. I went to sources. Oh no, I di'nt. But people are playing fast and loose with definitions to serve their own agenda, and are trying to demonize groups of people without even knowing what they are demonizing. |
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christop...b-ban-sort-of/
I love old-fashioned, energy wasting, 100 watt incandescent lightbulbs. I love their bright, warm light. I love how cheap and simple they are. And I completely resent the 2007 law, to go into effect January 1, that will ban their manufacture, and eventually their sale, in the U.S. So imagine my glee this morning that I could postpone that year-end trip to the hardware store to stock up on a lifetime supply of 100 watts. Tucked into the giant 1,200-page omnibus spending bill passed by Congress Thursday night is a provision that prevents the government from spending any money to enforce the light bulb ban. This is effectively a reprieve for the 100 watt, but only temporarily, for the next fiscal year. The bill does not overturn the light bulb ban, so it will still be law, and it’s likely that some more politically correct retailers will not stock them. And don’t expect any new incandescent light bulb factories to open; America’s last one closed a year ago. Unless congress blocks enforcement funding again a year from now, just try finding them in 2013. So the battle to save the 100 watt bulb is not over. Don’t get me wrong: new compact fluorescents and LED bulbs are great. They provide decent light at significant energy savings and because they last longer will also save millions in labor costs as it takes fewer people to screw in fewer lightbulbs. I use plenty of them for outdoor lighting or rooms that I’m not going to spend a lot of time in. But after a while CFLs give me (and plenty of other people) headaches. And LED Christmas lights just don’t look as warm and festive. Plus, people simply look better under soft incandescent light — reason enough to keep them legal. Incandescents should never be banned by the feds any more than candles or fireplaces or windows. It’s one thing to incentivize and encourage the adoption of a great new technology, but it needn’t be paired with the criminalization of a simple, effective, proven technology. Celebrate today’s little victory over the nanny state by picking up a case of 100 watts next time you’re at the hardware store. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 806496)
No, Mg.
I've been pretty clear with what I've been talking about. Blaming anything on "conservatives" or "liberals" is retarded. Doubly so when you try to brand them all as "liberals" if you support "conservatives", and vice versa. Our politicians aren't liberal or conservative. They are authoritarian corporatists. Trying to blame it all on "liberals" when you complain about conservatives not being conservatives is incredibly shady. The liberals aren't liberals, and the conservatives aren't conservatives using that definition. Dumping everything you don't like about a label you try to re-define for your own terms and purposes onto an opposing label isn't intellectually honest. If the conservatives aren't conservatives, that's fine. But then the liberals aren't liberals - and what are we left with? I say this for a reason. Most of the posters on here are liberals. However, now there is a giant attempt to re-define liberalism as conservatism. People who try to claim *their* conservatism or liberalism is what it really means frequently don't know what they are talking about. An example? The biggest liberals we have ever seen were the founders of the US and the first half century of politicians we had. They absolutely were not conservatives as per the actual definition - and much of what is being advocated here is classical liberalism at it's finest. /Oh no. I went to sources. Oh no, I di'nt. But people are playing fast and loose with definitions to serve their own agenda, and are trying to demonize groups of people without even knowing what they are demonizing. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 805726)
It's kind of interesting...
One of the "little things" I found really interesting about spending a month in Germany late last year was the high availability of LED-based light fixtures, and at a cost which was not nearly so high as what you see here in the US. At both OBI (compare to Home Depot) and Kaufland (compare to Super Walmart) there were probably as many LED-based fixtures on the shelves as incandescent, and the price was maybe 1/2 to 1/3 what we'd pay in the US, which is doubly noteworthy when you consider that, on average, most regular consumer goods seemed to cost 20-30% more on average. I'm sure there's probably a good theory about why this is a conspiracy supported by American energy producers and light bulb manufacturers, along with Greenpeace and the EPA (because if the environment were pristine, they'd have nothing to complain about / regulate.) Does anybody actually use 100w light bulbs? I ask this in all seriousness. So far as I can recall, I only have a few incandescents at my house in the first place, and they're all fairly low-wattage: 1: 1x Ceiling-mounted in living room, on dimmer (60w) 2: 4x fan-mounted in bedroom, on dimmer (maybe 25w each?) 3: appx 6x in bathroom vanity (fairly small- maybe 20-25w each?) 4: 1x in oven 5: 1x in fridge 6: 1x inside microwave oven, 1x below (as range light) And that's pretty much it. All of the garage lighting is either CFL or tube (including the light in the garage door opener) as is the lighting in the kitchen (both ceiling and under-cabinet), the main lighting in the bathroom and the outdoor lighting. Ok, so it's evil on general principle that "the gubment" is taking away our freedom to choose our primary illumination source. Gubment took away my right to choose to run leaded gas in my '59 Mercury, too. I've gotten used to it. At first it was weird but now it's normal. |
read i read about this today. yay for me!
|
4 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 806163)
Maybe because GE suggested to Washington they should pass this law, and pretty much own the market segement, set the price, and laugh all the way to the bank? And since GE is a heavily invested stock in Congress, the two, holding hands, laughed all the way to the bank?
I was at Home Depot yesterday morning, buying a 60w incandescent bulb and a porcelain base to put it in. Ironically, I bought it specifically to use as a heat source, as I needed to run a thermal stress test on a device that failed in the field. (Put it into a cardboard box along with the lamp, instrument the box with temperature probes, plug it in, and wait for the device to fail.) While there, I took note of the selection of light bulbs, of which they have many. The major brands were all represented (GE, Philips, Sylvania) and I noted that, ignoring the large outdoor halogens, the proportion of CFL and LED light sources was much higher relative to the incandescent than I remember from the last time I paid attention. >50% of the shelf space was given over to them. Now, here's the interesting thing. There were a lot of GE bulbs on the shelf, but not a single one of them was either a CFL or an LED. GE had a fair share of the halogens, and more than half of the standard incandescents, but not a single "high-efficiency" bulb. The CFLs and LEDs were split mostly between Philips and Ecosmart, which is the Home Depot house brand, manufactured by Lighting Science Group Corporation. From left to right, starting with the outdoor halogens. 75% Philips, 25% GE: Attachment 240188 Flood/Spot and CFL. The middle section is all the Ecosmarts: Attachment 240189 Getting into the standard indoor lamps. Left is all CFL / LED, right starts getting into incandescent, mostly GE: Attachment 240190 And finally, the "unusual" lamps, such as miniatures, decoratives, appliance lamps, etc. Nearly 100% GE. Attachment 240191 It's unfortunate that GE pushed so hard to pass this legislation, seeing as how they appear to be the ones that are going to be most negatively impacted by it. |
All traditional bulbs has been banned over here for a while. I sincerely like the low energy ones, takes maybe one second more to full illumination, but is just as bright, consumes less power and lasts ten times as long.
|
the bulbs I use are rated at 750 lumens iirc. I've tried a CFL bulb rated at something like 2700 and I had a hard time finding the off switch, it was so dim and harsh.
|
Get glasses? Or, since I dont know your age. Considered catharact? ;)
|
(Sent from phone via capitalism)
im the golden child. I want everyone to see my glory and awe in my glow. I just hate poor lit rooms. |
Originally Posted by Sentic
(Post 807556)
All traditional bulbs has been banned over here for a while. I sincerely like the low energy ones, takes maybe one second more to full illumination, but is just as bright, consumes less power and lasts ten times as long.
In the few minutes it took to get to full brilliance everyone enjoyed harassing me about the "Magic Bulb" |
How the hell am I supposed to use my Easy Bake Oven with LED bulbs?
|
1 Attachment(s)
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1343072437
So another study confirms some potentially serious health issues with CFL bulbs. Hope you didn't accumulate too much UV skin damage from your time in Germany, Joe... |
I was considering an LED recessed light, but they are $70 each vs $20.
I'd have to replace the bulb 25 times for that to make sense. |
I converted almost all of my bulbs to LED. The downlights im replacing as they go out due to cost, but all of my a19 are led. You really have to pay attention to the lumens. A 40w replacement is ~ 450lumens, and a 60w is ~ 800 lumens. Good bulbs will be 7.5w to 14w respectively, or better. My next replacement is outdoor floods.
Also pay attention to the color. Cheap leds have blue tint. Quality bulbs have the warm white light. LEDs and nuclear pwr will chande the world. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 907032)
I was considering an LED recessed light, but they are $70 each vs $20.
I'd have to replace the bulb 25 times for that to make sense. 9W 810LM White 9-LED Ceiling Lamp Light with LED Driver (85~265V) - Free Shipping - DealExtreme http://www.dealextreme.com/productim...ku_70715_1.jpg A select few of them have received some pretty good reviews and they're mostly sub-thirty dollar complete lights.. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 807557)
the bulbs I use are rated at 750 lumens iirc. I've tried a CFL bulb rated at something like 2700 and I had a hard time finding the off switch, it was so dim and harsh.
|
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 907024)
Hope you didn't accumulate too much UV skin damage from your time in Germany, Joe...
If I recall correctly, the lighting inside the drydock barn was mostly the ole' sodium vapor stuff. On ship, it was a combination on incandescent and LED, with very little CFL except in places like the head. OTOH, I tend to take reports like that with a grain of salt. And by "like that", I mean those which give no quantifiable data. I mean, Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan is radioactive, because of all the granite. But does it give off as much ionizing radiation as a banana? As Denver, CO? As the interior of the confinement structure at Chernobyl #4? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands