For once the nitwits in Kongress got it right. The omnibus bill passed Fri
killed the
stupid CFL bulb they were trying to cram down out throats. If only they'd
had some
balls before they crammed the stupid digital tv system down our throats 2
years ago.

On 12/18/2011 11:01 AM, Ernie wrote:
For once the nitwits in Kongress got it right. The omnibus bill passed
Fri killed the
stupid CFL bulb they were trying to cram down out throats. If only
they'd had some
balls before they crammed the stupid digital tv system down our throats
2 years ago.

Hmmm, well, I am past caring, I went all cheap CFL's from the dollar
store and a couple of daylight quality ones in important places,
reading, plants, etc.

Now, going to LEDs ... my bill has dropped a noticeable amount ...

But, no law is really necessary, just the energy savings is going to
move people off of incandescent bulbs, quick enough ...

Regards,
JS

"Ernie" wrote in message
m...
For once the nitwits in Kongress got it right. The omnibus bill passed Fri
killed the
stupid CFL bulb they were trying to cram down out throats. If only they'd
had some
balls before they crammed the stupid digital tv system down our throats 2
years ago.
I don't believe the president has signed anything yet. Also, there were
differences in the Senate bill--will need to have a conference to 'iron-out'
differences.

On 12/18/2011 2:01 PM, Ernie wrote:

For once the nitwits in Kongress got it right. The omnibus bill passed
Fri killed the
stupid CFL bulb they were trying to cram down out throats.

Why is George Bush's CFL law "stupid"? (you do realize that the CFL bill
was signed into law by George W. Bush).

Next, you do realize that CFLs are are win-win-win situation.

1) They use one quarter the energy of incandescent bulbs, thus reducing
YOUR lighting bill to one quarter of what it was.

2) At the generating station end, CFL usage causes the power plants to
emit one quarter of the mercury into the atmosphere compared to
incandescent usage.

3) The CFLs use less electricity compared to incandescent, thus
significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil (if most lighting
was switched over to CFLs).

So, tell us again which of the above three points you are against.

You guys really bought it hook, line and sinker.

On 12/18/2011 6:26 PM, Ernie wrote:
You guys really bought it hook, line and sinker.

Well, maybe so...

....but you DID dodge the question.

Please try again to tell us which of the easily provable true statements
below you believe is incorrect.

1) They use one quarter the energy of incandescent bulbs, thus
reducing YOUR lighting bill to one quarter of what it was.

2) At the generating station end, CFL usage causes the power plants
to emit one quarter of the mercury into the atmosphere compared to
incandescent usage.

3) The CFLs use less electricity compared to incandescent, thus
significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil (if most
lighting was switched over to CFLs).

On 12/18/2011 9:24 PM, MotoFox wrote:
And it came to pass that Joe from Kokomo delivered the following message
unto the people, saying~

Why is George Bush's CFL law "stupid"? (you do realize that the CFL bill
was signed into law by George W. Bush).

Ever tried to DX near a compact fluorescent light, or within the vicinity
of a power system that has a bunch of them on it?

Try doing that--go ahead, try it--then tell me if you still think it's
not stupid.

1) Yes, as a matter of fact I do DX near CFLs -- and I have no problems
with numerous CFLs and four foot fluorescent tubes in the ham shack.

2) In any event, with 700,000 hams out of a population of 300 million,
that's only .2% that are hams. Again, the savings in the use of foreign
oil, the reduction in mercury emissions that we ALL breathe and the
savings in YOUR electric lighting bill would seem to offset the fraction
of the .2% that are hams that DX. It seems you would like to have the
tail wag the dog...and to me, that's stupid.

On Dec 18, 8:24*pm, MotoFox confucius-
Try doing that--go ahead, try it--then tell me if you still think it's
not stupid.

It has been clinically proven that florescent lighting causes
psychological problems for many people. Autistic and Asperger syndrome
individuals are particularly vulnerable because they can actually see
the flicker rate of the bulbs which causes excruciating migraine
headaches. Thank goodness these poor folks have been given a reprieve.

Joe from Kokomo wrote:

3) The CFLs use less electricity compared to incandescent, thus
significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil (if most lighting
was switched over to CFLs).

Actually, no. Almost all electricity in the US is provided by other means,
mostly coal.

Foreign oil is less than 25% of the oil consumed in the US, so because
more than 50% of the energy needs of the US are povided by coal, reducing
the amount of electricity used won't do much to about foreign oil.

If you want to reduce polution, CFLs would help there, but if you want to
reduce the foreign oil usage, drive less.

The next time a candidate for President says that if he is elected he
will bankrupt the coal industry, pay attention before you vote for him.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

On 12/18/2011 7:57 PM, Truth Teller wrote:
On Dec 18, 8:24 pm, MotoFoxconfucius-
Try doing that--go ahead, try it--then tell me if you still think it's
not stupid.

It has been clinically proven that florescent lighting causes
psychological problems for many people. Autistic and Asperger syndrome
individuals are particularly vulnerable because they can actually see
the flicker rate of the bulbs which causes excruciating migraine
headaches. Thank goodness these poor folks have been given a reprieve.

It seems there is at least one type of mental illness, and possibly a
whole range of them, where everything is clinically proven to
worsen/cause their condition, or the worsening of that/those condition(s.)

Oh well, guess they need to man up and get ready for a rocky ride ...

Regards,
JS