Home
News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs
Short
Takes
Plain
Talk
The
Ryter Report
DONATIONS
Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions
Internet
Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles
(2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)
From
The Mailbag
Books
Order
Books
Cyrus
Rednecker
Search
About
Comments
Links
|
How many
politicans does
it take to change a light bulb?
Following the
ecoalarmist lead of Australia and the Canadian province of Ontario, Lloyd
Levine, the California assemblyman who heads the Assembly's Utilities
and Commerce Committee wants California to outlaw the sale and use of
incandescent light bulbs. Thomas Edison should be doing cartwheels in
his grave. Levine, like a whole parcel of other extremist environmentalists,
thinks he can help solve global warming by banning the incandescent light
bulb. The rhetoric is good for green votes from extremist ecoalarmistsÑbut
not much else. What Levine really thinks is that, in one of the greenest
States in the country, his extremist views might land him in the governor's
mansion in Sacramento.
On April 23
of this year, the Utilities and Commerce Committee voted 7 to 2 to bring
to the floor of the California Assembly a measure than would ban the sale,
distribution or use of incandescent light bulbs in the Stateunder
the guise of combating global warming. According to Levine, the radical
environmentalists and the lobbyists for the fluorescent lighting industry
who are pushing for a global ban, by eliminating incandescent light bulbs,
the country will reduce energy consumption by some $18 billion per year.
And, they claim, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than
10 billion tons a year. And, the move will theoretically save homeowners
between $80 and $180 per year on their electric bills. In reality, The
downside is the alternative being pushed by the environmentalists and
the lobby for the fluorescent lighting industry.
If ecoalarmists
like Al Gore, Jr. had their way, the electric light would already be banned
and the human race would be using candlelight, coal oil or kerosene lamp
luminance since the alternative, fluorescent lighting, is far more dangerous
and unhealthy that any other form of lighting known to man. However, their
lobbyists are doing a much better job of convincing the politicians that
since fluorescent lighting is cheaperand coolerthan any form
of artificial lighting, it should replace the incandescent light bulb
worldwide. Levine's political adversaries in the Utilities and Commerce
Committee have criticized Levine and the Democrats for attempting to enact
a law that will pose an environmental risk to every Californian for what
will be, at best, a symbolic gesture to combat greenhouse gases and reduce
oil consumption to benefit the fanatical oil conservation penchant of
the Seven Sisters.
Eleven days
before the Utilities and Commerce Committee of the California Assembly
voted to push a very bad bill to a floor vote, an article in the Ellsworth
(Maine) American should have been a caution flag for Levineand for
politicians in the nation's capital. On April 12 the newspaper reported
that an Ellsworth housewife, Brandy Bridges, dropped and shattered a fluorescent
tube-bulb on the carpeted floor in her daughter's bedroom. Aware that
compact fluorescent light bulbs [CFL) (like those shown on left) are potentially
hazardous, Bridges called the local Home Depot store to ask for advise.
Home Depot told her that the CFL contained mercury and advised her to
call the Poison Control hotline.
The hotline
had her contact the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. The
DEP sent Andrew Smith, a toxicologist, to her home. He sealed the room
with plastic and told Bridges it would cost about $2,000 to clean up the
mess from the one toxic CFL devise that broke on her floor. The levels
of mercury toxicity in the downstairs living area were safely under 300
ng/m3. However, the mercury levels spiked to 1,939 ng/m3 in Shayley Bridges
bedroom. Bridges daughter could not sleep there because of the toxicity
levels were too great. Bridges, a single mom with an overcrowded house
and limited financial means, filed a claim with her homeowner's policy.
The insurance company denied the claim because mercury is a pollutant
that wasn't covered in her homeowner's policy. Smith said he believed
the contamination was localized at the spot where the bulb broke, adding
that mercury is dangerous to anyone who has experienced long term exposure.
Fluorescent
lighting, which gives off minute particles of x-ray and other electromagnetic
pollutants including mercury, poses health risks that have never been
adequately researched or quantified. Researchers the world over have determined
that fluorescent lamps pose a danger. In addition to headaches and eye
strain, fluorescent lighting has been linked to anxiety, attention deficit
disorders, depression, sleep disorders and skin cancer. None of the potential
threats are inherent with incandescent lighting.
The University
of Sydney's (Australia) Melanoma Clinic has determined that those who
work indoors under fluorescent light are twice as likely to get skin cancermuch
more than those who frequently sunbathe on the beach. Quoting statistics
from the Sydney study, the University of Connecticut Health Center wrote
in the Dec. 2005 issue of National Institutes of Health News that "...if
the link between light exposure and cancer risk can be confirmed, it could
have an immediate impact on the production and use of artificial lighting
in this country."
Sadly, I don't
think so. I don't think so because the bureaucracts in the US Dept. of
Energy have estimatedon their "magic computers"that switching
from incandescent light bulbs to CFLs will eliminate the need for 80 coal-fired
electric power plants in the United States, and reduce fossil fuel emissions
by 159 million tons per year. This is, of course, the same type of ecological
mumble-jumble that Al Gore used in putting together his Inconvenient Truth.
Lots of speculation and not much truth. Environmentalists build worse
case scenarios based not on fact but on what would necessarily have to
occur in order for the conditions they perceive will exist if radical
change is not implemented by the time they estimate the latest ecological
disaster will happen. (By the way, none of the ecological disasters the
radical environmentalists predicted over the last 100 years have happened.
The batting average of the ecoalarmists are "zero.")
And, even though
Thomas Edison might be convulsing in his grave over the planned demise
of the incandescent light bulb he invented, America's largest lamp manufacturers
aren't. General Electric, Osram-Sylvania, and Philips have invested millions
in the development of CFLs. Now, with "green" hitting fever pitch in the
United States since the passage of Public Law 109-058, the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Aug.
8, 2005, the left-leaning US Senate recently passed The Renewable Fuels,
Consumer Protection and Energy Efficient Act of 2007 that includes a host
of of green incentives pushed by the environmental lobbyists who are funded
by the Seven Sister and their globalist friends who understand that in
every manufactured environmental crises are profits.
The outlawing
of the incandescent light bulb and the forced conversion of mankind to
harmful fluorescent lighting will provide a trillion dollar windfall to
General Electric, Osram-Sylvania, and Philips during the first year. The
cost to consumers will be between fourfold to tenfold. You can buy four
100W GE or Sylvania light bulbs at your neighborhood supermarket or Lowes
or Home Depot for $1 to $3 dollars. One fluorescent light bulb costs anywhere
from $3 to $25. If you are using fluorescent tube-bulbs, four "bulbs"
can cost up to $100. The fluorescent bulbs (on the left) retail from $3
to $6 each. Four of them will cost the consumer from $12 to $24. The manufacturers
argue that because the fluorescent bulbs last so much longer and cost
75% less to operate, the cost differences are a wash. (Home Depot, the
home building chain that last year began running their radio help wanted
ads in Spanish to attract illegal alien job-seekers announced, in April
of this year, that they would no longer sell incandescent light bulbs
by 2011.)
The Renewable
Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficient Act of 2007 which was
recently passed by the US Senateif it is passed by the House and
signed into law by the presidentwill include new lighting efficiency
standards and will effectively phase out the general use of 100W and 75W
incandescent light bulbs. Initially 25W, 40W and 60W light bulbs will
not be phased out since most of the smaller watt bulbs are decorator items
and there is no economical replacement.
The manufacturing
industry is alarmed by what they see happening. General Electric spokeswoman
Kim Freeman of the company's lighting division argued than banning any
technology will stifle innovation. She argued that a free enterprise system
is better served by establishing minimum performance standards that would
force manufacturers to make existing products meet the new standardsas
the government has done several times with the auto industry.. Despite
efforts by the lighting industry to reach an accord with Congress, the
government is determined to outlaw 100W and 75W light bulbs even though
industry executives have assured Congress they can create an incandescent
light bulb that will rival the fluorescent bulbs for energy savings.
Several parallel
pieces of legislation are floating around in the House. One of those bills
has made it through the House Energy & Commerce Committee and is awaiting
debate in the full House. Both the House and Senate versions of this legislation
contain a provision that declares that the federal law will supersede
all State versions to make sure there are not multiple "standards" that
the lighting industry must contend with. So while California is debating
the "green" lighting situation and will likely become the first State
to outlaw Edison's light bulb, whatever law they enact will be superseded
by the federal version that lobbyists for the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association and the Lighting Efficiency Coalition, the EPA, and a dozen
or so environmental groups have fought hard to craft.
While many of
the critics of the CFL are concerned only about the cosmetics of compact
fluorescent lightingthe color hue of fluorescent compared to incandescent
light, environmental critics have raised concern about the trace amounts
of mercury in each CFL light bulbabout 5 mgof a substance
that is very toxic. Proponents of the CFL argue that the coal-fired power
plants release mercury vapors when they burn coal, and that a coal-fired
plant powering an average compact fluorescent lamp will release 3.3 mg
of mercury into the atmosphere compared to releasing 13.6 mg of mercury
the same period that an incandescent lamp burns. This is pure smoke and
mirrors since the mercury emitted from electric power plants into the
atmosphereabout 48 tons per yearis not considered directly
harmful as the mercury in a compact fluorescent lamp. Break one and you
have the problem experienced by Brandy Bridges. Osram-Sylvania said all
of the major light bulb manufacturers are committed to reducing the amount
of mercury contained in CFLs. In the meantime, they said, they have partnered
with the environmental services company, Veolia Environment and with FedEx
to safely dispose of the burned out CFLs in your home. If you recall,
there has never been a need for light bulb manufacturers to partner with
an environmental company to provide special packaging to safely dispose
of an incandescent light bulb. When it burns out, you throw it in the
trash can. When you are dealing with the bureaucracy and with unscrupulous
environmentalists who lie more often than they tell the truth, it worries
me when they tell me CFLs are safer than traditional light bulbs.
When you look
at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection website you will find
a question: "What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my
home?" The website advises you not to try to vacuum it up because
a household vacuum cleaner will spread mercury vapors throughout the houseÑand
contaminate the vacuum cleaner. The website advises the homeowner to [a]
ventilate the room, [b] lower the temperature [c] and wear a dust mask,
goggles and coveralls when you clean up the broken CFL. With a standard
light bulb? A broom and dust pan is sufficient. Like you, I am eagerly
awaiting the mandated transition from Tom Edison's light bulb to Al Gore's
ecoalarmist nightmare.
In February
of this year Australia became the first nation to mandate the transition
from the light bulb to CFLs in a three year phase-out that will result
in an outright ban of the traditional light bulb by 2012Ñin an effort
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Australian Minister of the Environment,
Dr. David Kemp said the transition could cut the country's greenhouse
gas emissions by 4 million tons by 2012 (based on theoretically cutting
the need for "X" amount of electricityalthough everyone knows that
the demand for more electricity by industry worldwide is increasing, not
decreasing. Coal-fired electric plants will be dramatically increasing
their output of electricity to meet the demands of a modernizing third
world. Like everything else the barons of industry and the merchant princes
do, the industrialized nations will be expected to foot the bill.
Canada has also
announced it will ban the sale of what Natural Resources Minister Gary
Lunn described as "ineffective light bulbs" by 2012 as well. The Guardian
newspaper in London said England is moving in the same direction and will
also ban incandescent light bulbs. The Euroepan Union has notified its
27-member States that they have two years to convert to energy-efficient
lighting. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who chaired an energy summit
in July, told the media that "...we're not saying people should throw
out all the light bulbs in their house today, but people should start
looking at what's in the shops." it was clear, when she spoke, that Merkel
is not a fan of energy-efficient lighting when she said: "Most of the
light bulbs in my flat are energy-saving bulbs. They're not quite bright
enough. When I'm looking for something I've dropped on the carpet, I have
a bit of a problem."
So, just how
many politicians does it take to change a light bulb? A simple majority.
Sadly, banning the light bulb in favor of a world luminated by compact
fluorescent lighting is a politiccally-correct effort in futility. At
best, the impact CFLs will have on the environment will be so scientifically
minimal that the only way it will ever be measured will be in the scoring
of political points.
In the final
analysis, not only is the quality of light emitted from compact Fluorescent
lighting poor, it can't match the light spectrum of incandescent light.
Over the next couple of decades, expect to see more Americans with vision
problems. In addition, the health risks caused by fluorescent lighting
are very real. A decade or two into a world of fluorscence, skin cancers
and radiation-related illnesses will become more prevalent and the medical
community at the end of this centuryÑif we escape universal healthcareÑwill
be advocating the return to the safe incandescent lamps of the past, with
the lobbyists for the oil industry still be moaning the impracticality
of Tom Edison's light bulb.
Well, once
again, you have my two cents worth on this subject.
|
|