Takes how many legislators to change a light bulb?

How many members of Congress does it take to change a light bulb? Americans may soon find out, courtesy of a contrarian piece of legislation introduced this month by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

Titled the "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act," the bill seeks to repeal the nationwide phase-out of conventional light bulbs, the kind that have been used for more than a century -- pretty much since the invention of the incandescent light bulb.

Bachmann, a first-term Republican, is challenging the nation's embrace of energy-efficient compact fluorescent lights, saying the government has no business telling consumers what kind of light bulbs they can buy.

"This is an issue of science over fads and fashions," Bachmann said in an interview Tuesday.

"Congress tends to jump on whatever the current buzz is in the 24-hour news cycle, " Bachmann said.

Her bill, the first challenge of its kind, raises safety questions about the small amounts of mercury in fluorescent lights. It also lands her squarely in the middle of the debate over global warming. In recent remarks to a gathering of Sherburne County Republicans -- reported in the West Sherburne Tribune -- Bachmann called any human connection to global warming "voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax."

"By 2012, incandescent light bulbs will be no more," Bachmann said. "Fluorescent bulbs are more polluting because of their mercury content. We are working on a light bulb bill. If the Democrats can hose up a light bulb, don't trust them with the country."

ziggy wrote:Which is more polluting:

The small amount of mercury, disposed of in one place, associated with disposal of no longer serviceable fluorescent light bulbs, or-

the increased and widespread dispersal of mercury via combustion of more coal due to higher energy requirements of traditional "hot filament" incandescent light bulbs?

On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the first-ever federal rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. This rule makes the United States the first country in the world to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The Clean Air Mercury Rule will build on EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to significantly reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants -- the largest remaining sources of mercury emissions in the country. When fully implemented, these rules will reduce utility emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15 tons, a reduction of nearly 70 percent.
source

Armon Ayers wrote:

ziggy wrote:Which is more polluting:

The small amount of mercury, disposed of in one place, associated with disposal of no longer serviceable fluorescent light bulbs, or-

the increased and widespread dispersal of mercury via combustion of more coal due to higher energy requirements of traditional "hot filament" incandescent light bulbs?

I hear green-weenies cry more about mercury levels than incandescent bulbs in the ground water supply.

ziggy wrote:Which is more polluting:

The small amount of mercury, disposed of in one place, associated with disposal of no longer serviceable fluorescent light bulbs, or-

the increased and widespread dispersal of mercury via combustion of more coal due to higher energy requirements of traditional "hot filament" incandescent light bulbs?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Which is more polluting:

The small amount of mercury, disposed of in one place, associated with disposal of no longer serviceable fluorescent light bulbs, or-

the increased and widespread dispersal of mercury via combustion of more coal due to higher energy requirements of traditional "hot filament" incandescent light bulbs?

Who says that all "no longer serviceable fluorescent light bulbs" are disposed of in one location? And how many of these lights will be disposed of each year. And what measures are in place to ensure they are disposed of properly?

ziggy wrote:What measures are in place to ensure that mercury released by coal combustion is disposed of properly?

When fully implemented, these rules will reduce utility emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15 tons, a reduction of nearly 70 percent.

According to

Facts about Mercury & Fluorescent Lighting

One teaspoon of mercury can contaminate a 20 acre lake forever.

The EPA reports that 187 incinerators nationwide emit approximately 70,000 pounds of mercury into the environment each year.

Each year, an estimated 600 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in US landfills amounting to 30,000 pounds of mercury waste.

www.lightbulbrecycling.com

each year an estimated 600 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in U.S. landfills, amounting to 30,000 pounds of mercury waste. Astonishingly, that's almost half the amount of mercury emitted into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants each year. It only takes 4mg of mercury to contaminate up to 7,000 gallons of freshwater, meaning that the 30,000 pounds of mercury thrown away in compact fluorescent light bulbs each year is enough to pollute nearly every lake, pond, river and stream in North America (not to mention the oceans). http://www.commoncraft.com/cfl

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Which is more polluting:

The small amount of mercury, disposed of in one place, associated with disposal of no longer serviceable fluorescent light bulbs, or-

the increased and widespread dispersal of mercury via combustion of more coal due to higher energy requirements of traditional "hot filament" incandescent light bulbs?

Who says that all "no longer serviceable fluorescent light bulbs" are disposed of in one location? And how many of these lights will be disposed of each year. And what measures are in place to ensure they are disposed of properly?

Now that is a good answer to my question. Thank you. Answering questions with more questions promotes more thinking (usually). And more thinking is almost always good.

And I do not know the answers to the three questions you pose. But I will work on it.

What measures are in place to ensure that mercury released by coal combustion is disposed of properly?

SheikBen wrote:Off the subject, but I really don't care for the EPA.

Didn't the WVEPA have an office in Nitro for awhile?

The head of the public transit in LA used to go to work in a Hummer

Stephanie wrote:This lightbulb thread reminds me of an incident I witnessed about 9 years ago. When my husband first moved to southern NE he lived in an apartment building that housed a chiropractor's office on the first floor. One day I was out on the balcony and saw the chiropractor "disposing" flourescent lights in the building's dumpster. They wouldn't fit in the dumpster so this dope was smashing them on the edge of the dumpster!

Now I'm up on a 3rd floor balcony and I yell down to him to knock it off, that was dangerous. He yelled up at me to mind my own damn business and continued smashing the damn things.

You can't stop stupid people from being stupid. I wonder how many more people will be smashing those lights prior to disposing of them if the government forces us all to use them!

Stephanie wrote:This lightbulb thread reminds me of an incident I witnessed about 9 years ago. When my husband first moved to southern NE he lived in an apartment building that housed a chiropractor's office on the first floor. One day I was out on the balcony and saw the chiropractor "disposing" flourescent lights in the building's dumpster. They wouldn't fit in the dumpster so this dope was smashing them on the edge of the dumpster!

Now I'm up on a 3rd floor balcony and I yell down to him to knock it off, that was dangerous. He yelled up at me to mind my own damn business and continued smashing the damn things.

You can't stop stupid people from being stupid. I wonder how many more people will be smashing those lights prior to disposing of them if the government forces us all to use them!