One of these law makers want to make light bulbs illegal, you can only use fluorescent lights.
It's nice that they want to save electricity, and I use them too, but they do put off ultra violet rays and electromagnetic radiation.
You can't use them in all situations, would you want to replace your chandelier bulbs with those fluorescent bulbs.
I think most people are doing pretty good at saving electricity and using some fluorescent bulbs, I don't think we need some stupid law to tell us what kind of lights to have in our house.
What do you think?
2007-01-31 02:42:57 · 8 answers · asked by You may be right 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I hate government laws about how we live our lives. It is irrelevent if it is a better way to light a house, or a more economical way. People have a right to be inefficent and wasteful, as well as stupid.
Flo. lights are a waster in my opinion. LDE lighting is the wave of the future, and will replace other lighting styles in our lifetime. You could run a 1/4" strip across your wall and celing corner that would light up the whole room and reduce your lighting bill by 90%.
Screw flo's.....LDE is the future technology of lighting. But legislation breeds resentment, and should never occur in our free nation.
2007-01-31 02:49:16 · answer #1 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. When it comes to more natural artificial light, incandescent bulbs work the best. They also are safer to use, especially for those prone to seizure disorders. They are easier on the eyes. They are more esthetically pleasing. And they fit in all fixtures as well as with dimmers, unlike the fluorescents.
And, frankly, I'm not convinced they are more expensive to use over the life of the bulb. Most fluorescent replacements cost more to buy. They claim to last for years. I have used 5 so far over the past year, & one has already blown. Ever try to get a refund on a light bulb?
Finally, there is the environmental cost of fluorescents. They contain mercury, which means workers manufacturing them are at risk & recycling them properly is a real hassle.
I will continue using fluorescents as long as they make economic sense. I don't need a lawmaker telling me I must use them.
2007-01-31 11:01:07 · answer #2 · answered by bob h 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that not everything that is "a good idea" should be enacted into law. I think we have too much government interference already. NYC is thinking of banning trans-fat foods in restaurants. Will the pass a law that I should eat my vegetables also?
I also have heard about long-lasting LED bulbs being sold. Maybe people should investigate these.
2007-01-31 10:50:30 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it's ridiculous. What else is the government going to try and regulate? I use the incandescents now, and they do save money and energy, but I don't really care for the type of light they emit.
2007-01-31 11:39:42 · answer #4 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fluorescent lights produce a hazardous waste. You'd be fixing one problem but starting another...
2007-01-31 10:46:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a whole wave of restrictions going on! In SF they are trying to pass a law that bans smoking inside your own apartment! (even though I don't smoke, it's crazy) Remember "The Wall" by Pink Floyd... ...we don't need no force control!!!!
2007-01-31 10:55:28 · answer #6 · answered by ppsam 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you, the last thing we need now is more big brother government and another asinine law.
2007-01-31 10:48:25 · answer #7 · answered by WC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What's next? Leaves or corn cobs instead of toilet paper? GEEZ!
2007-01-31 10:46:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋