When have we gone to far?

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:28 am

So states are banning smoking even though it is subsidized by the government. Now states are banning trans-fats (and MD is about to jump on the bandwagon). So why not ban the light bulb?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc

I like the name of the legislation best: "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act"

Also, I believe the longest burning incandescent lightbulb is in California. It was on the mythbusters episode about light bulbs.

Lifeless Reject Joined: 05 May 2003 Posts: 2046

hmm.. all sounds good to me

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:23 pm

On an unrelated note, the original post reminds me of these corporate efficiency people who literally asked the question "how many of your office drones does it take to change a light bulb?" Sometimes the answer was actually six.

Anyway, I'm tired of nanny state legislation like this. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are guilty of trying to use the law to change our culture. Stupid.

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:13 pm

I agree. We live in a capitalist society. So instead of banning light bulbs, why not make it more expensive to use them? Like a tax? We all know our governemtn is good at taxing. Then you can use it if you want, you just hae to pay more- like smokers pay more for cigareetes because of all of the taxes.

I'm all for saving the environment, but banning light bulbs? What's next- banning cars?

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:36 pm

shate98 wrote:

I'm all for saving the environment, but banning light bulbs? What's next- banning cars?

You want to save the environment? Ban humans. Period. Or, at least, stop making more of them anywhere ever again.

Lifeless Reject Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 3734

Banning smoking is a good thing. The trans-fats ban is a move in the right direction.

This is taking it a bit too far, but I get what they are trying to do. My wife and I have about 95% fluorescent bulbs in the house and we haven't had to change any (except for 1 or 2 incandescents) in the last year and a half. The issue right now is that fluorescents cost more up-front, so people are more apt to buy the incandescents. They should do what DE did, with the free fluorescent campaign, or offer some kind of incentive for a high percentage of fluorescents in a home (reward vs. punishment).

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:41 am

My problem is that fluorescents give me migraines- at least when I went to the doctor with migraine troubles that was the diagnosis. I work in an office with no fluorescents- w00t! and have only 1 at home. I hear they are now starting to make yellow fuorescent bulbs to replicate the light from incandescents, but have yet to try them. So reward over punishment works for me- I just keep as few lights on as possible in my house to conserve energy.

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:01 pm

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who gravitate to politics are totally clueless in the fields of Science and Technology. They don't know the difference between a hypothesis, a theory or a law.

Here is a good example: http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/246170.pdf

You can see that the ENTIRE thought process (to be generous) behind the NRC and EPA exposure regulations are based upon a hypothesis with a fair amount of contradictory evidence. We are spending billions to attempt to prevent a successful RDD attack. Yet we spend next to nothing on shelters, emergency food and medical care, etc., all of which would be useful when (not if) a hurricane, tornado or flood strikes. It used to be called Civil Defense, but that is no longer fashionable...

There is a fair amount of science which indicates that the banning of things like saccharine and Poly-Chlorinated Bi-Phenyls were unnecessary, but you will not hear about it due to it running counter to the Government's policies (and it would demonstrate just how clueless the regulators have been).

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:46 pm

BrianW wrote:

shate98 wrote:

I'm all for saving the environment, but banning light bulbs? What's next- banning cars?

You want to save the environment? Ban humans. Period. Or, at least, stop making more of them anywhere ever again.

I would be all over that legislation.

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:50 am

And now we're banning thin people

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:11 pm

I didn't really like my life anyway. Can I be deported to Bermuda?

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:11 pm

Ok- this is waaay to far:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/02/07/nyc.ipod.reut/index.html

NY wants to ban iPods while crossing the street. If you get run over by a car while crossing the street with earphones on, I call that natural selection.

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:45 pm

You didn't know that loud music makes you go blind?

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:58 pm

The greatest falsehood of our current national mindset:

"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry"

No, no, no, no, no. Bad moonbat!

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:06 pm

so...then you don't believe in governments?

are you sure you didn't mean this

"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry from themselves"