US lightbulb rules spark new political fight

Jun 26, 2011 by Rob Lever
Visitors to Times Square walk past a lightbulb sign in the entry way to the Times Square Visitor Center. With a January deadline looming on a US law mandating energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, more than a dozen Republican lawmakers are backing efforts to repeal the 2007 law

With a January deadline looming on a US law mandating energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, some political forces don't want to turn out the lights.

More than a dozen Republican lawmakers are backing efforts to repeal the 2007 law that requires bulbs to consume less energy. Meanwhile Texas has enacted a law that would exempt itself from the federal requirement, and other states are debating similar legislation.

Some consumers have also begun hoarding the old incandescent bulbs based on an erroneous fear that these will be banned starting January 1 and consumers will be forced to buy compact fluorescent or other new types of bulbs.

The US law does not ban incandescent bulbs, but creates new standards for them, basically requiring increased efficiency, so that the bulbs with a lighting equivalent of 100 watts consume just 72 watts.

Still, repeal backers including at least two Republican presidential candidates argue the law is an intrusion on Americans' freedom of choice. Activists have launched petition drives calling the rules an example of a "nanny" state.

"The government has no business telling an individual what kind of to buy," said Representative Michele Bachmann, who is running for president, in introducing her "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act" earlier this year.

And she told a party gathering in June: "President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want in the United States of America."

A separate bill has been introduced by Representative Joe Barton, joined by 14 other congressmen including Ron Paul, another presidential contender.

Barton said the 2007 law has resulted in "Washington-mandated in the middle of a desperate " and added "Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to people who work for their own paychecks and earn their own living."

A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by Republicans Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Mike Enzi of Wyoming.

File picture shows workers preparing the 180 halogen lamps and 144 Xenon glitter strobes on the 500 pound Times Square New Year ball. With a January deadline looming on a US law mandating energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, more than a dozen Republican lawmakers are backing efforts to repeal the 2007 law

Barton and others argue that the new law -- which was signed by Republican president George W. Bush -- would force consumers to switch to compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), most of which are not made in the United States.

Additionally, critics of the law claim CFLs contain toxic mercury, cannot be dimmed, and produce an inferior light.

A survey of US consumers by the lighting firm Osram Sylvania showed 28 percent were worried about the demise of the traditional bulb and 13 percent may start hoarding 100-watt bulbs.

But the survey also showed 59 percent of respondents "eager to use more energy efficient lighting solutions," the company said.

Industry representatives say there are public misconceptions about the law, including the notion of a ban on incandescents.

"Consumers need to know they will still have incandescent bulbs, they don't need to hoard bulbs," said Kyle Pitsor, vice president of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, which represents lighting producers.

"The new incandescent bulbs will save them money and they will have more choices than ever before."

File picture shows halogen inserts designed for new technology light bulbs. With a January deadline looming on a US law mandating energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, more than a dozen Republican lawmakers are backing efforts to repeal the 2007 law

In Texas, Governor Rick Perry on June 17 signed a bill that exempts the state from the federal , as long as incandescent light bulbs are manufactured and sold within the state.

Similar legislation is pending in South Carolina and Pennsylvania. In Arizona, a bill passed by the legislature was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, who said it could not be implemented because within the state there are no mining or processing plants for tungsten, which is needed for .

Industry representatives contend the state laws may be counterproductive, adding it was unlikely that a manufacturer would establish a plant just for one state.

Kim Freeman of GE Appliances & Lighting said the various state efforts could lead to "a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation that would mean increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers."

Larry Lauk, spokesman for the American Lighting Association, said any new legislation may not change what manufacturers are doing in creating more efficient bulbs that use halogen, or other new technology.

"Manufacturers have already moved down the road," he said.

Explore further: Going nuts? Turkey looks to pistachios to heat new eco-city

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Silicon Light Bulbs to Compete with Fluorescent Bulbs

Mar 06, 2008

Thomas Edison invented the light bulb in 1880, and, since the 1920s, the incandescent light bulb has remained largely unchanged. While that's a testament to Edison's ingenuity, it's also a bulb that uses up ...

GOP wins battle of the bulb

Dec 26, 2011

Congress has dodged a government shutdown, agreeing to a $1 trillion spending bill that features a variety of rare compromises. Both Democrats and Republicans won some concessions, and it's too early to say who came out on ...

Lawmakers move to secure more life for 100-watt bulb

Jul 16, 2011

The House of Representatives gave extended life to the 100-watt bulb Friday, voting to delay a ban on sales of the incandescent bulb for nine months, from Jan. 1 to the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, ...

LED bulbs hit 100 watts as federal ban looms

May 16, 2011

Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.

Recommended for you

Obama launches measures to support solar energy in US

Apr 17, 2014

The White House Thursday announced a series of measures aimed at increasing solar energy production in the United States, particularly by encouraging the installation of solar panels in public spaces.

Tailored approach key to cookstove uptake

Apr 17, 2014

Worldwide, programs aiming to give safe, efficient cooking stoves to people in developing countries haven't had complete success—and local research has looked into why.

User comments : 89

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (16) Jun 26, 2011
Nullification, really? I thought this was 2011, not 1861.

And just so this doesn't slip by anyone
The US law does not ban incandescent bulbs, but creates new standards for them, basically requiring increased efficiency, so that the bulbs with a lighting equivalent of 100 watts consume just 72 watts.

The horror, the horror.
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 26, 2011
Industry representatives contend the state laws may be counterproductive, adding it was unlikely that a manufacturer would establish a plant just for one state.

Kim Freeman of GE Appliances & Lighting said the various state efforts could lead to "a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation that would mean increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers."


Hey wingnuts, you might want to learn glass blowing among other things ;-)
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (11) Jun 26, 2011
The replacement of light bulb with incandescent lamps is highly disputable with respect to the recent finding of cold fusion energy source and the ban of rare earth elements export from China. In many applications the usage of light bulb is preferable, instead (the production of the light bulbs is cost effective and many people are using electricity for heating anyway).
Skepticus
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2011
An 100W-rated which consumes 72W of power to give the same light output of a 20W CF is typical of the oil-soaked mindset, who passed laws to continue the wasteful ways, justifying on reasons such as "harsh light", "mercury toxicity". Both types of lightbulbs will break and cut a careless handler or disposer the same way. Mercury toxicity is only a factor if the users don't care to handle and dispose of them properly-which apparently they don't or won't. Those hypocrites wouldn't give a though of the lead fumes they breath in ,or the lead shots that peppered the coutryside on their game shooting. Given an agenda, there is always someone complaining the salt is not salty enough! Tthe only explaination is that they want to perpetuate the crowning achievement of good ole American Edison. History of the interaction between university-educated Tesla and trial-and-error fumbler Edison is the proof and testament of the typical US racist, provincial mindset.
Peteri
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2011
Although I am all in favour of reducing energy consumption, I do question how environmentally friendly these low energy compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs actually are?

Firstly, they each contain a small amount of mercury (typically 3-5 mg per bulb), which will inevitably end up in landfill since a substantial number of people will not bother to recycle them but just chuck them in their household waste bins.

Secondly, have you ever dismantled one of these bulbs? The number of components is staggering (see for example http://en.wikiped...onents). There must be an large environmental impact in resourcing and manufacturing all of these components.

I wonder if a proper, comprehensive and independent environmental impact assessment of these CFL bulbs has actually been carried out?

Lastly, the manufacturer's claim that they last far longer than normal incandescent bulbs. Well, I've had 5 CFL's fail within a year of purchase and had to return them.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (38) Jun 26, 2011
"... and many people are using electricity for heating anyway." - Tard of Tards

Well, now they can use natural gas. It is more efficient than electric heating. Win win.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (44) Jun 26, 2011
"Firstly, they each contain a small amount of mercury" - Peteri

Regular florescent tubes contain the same amount of mercury per unit volume and have been in use in office buildings and other large buildings for the last 100 years.

Mercury is an issue, but a minor one since the amount of mercury contained is LESS than the mercury emitted for a equal brightness incandescent bulb through the additional energy consumption of coal or oil needed to power a commercial power plant.

In addition, over the life of a florescent bulb, the mercury is absorbed by the glass. For a bulb that is intended to last 5 years, most of the mercury contained will have been absorbed into the glass at the end of the 5 year period.

"Secondly, have you ever dismantled one of these bulbs? The number of components is staggering" - Peteri

Those components are the starter and additional the additional circuitry used to multiply the power supply frequency in order to reduce the bulb flicker that some people cont.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (42) Jun 26, 2011
that some people complain about.

The components are largely capacitors.

"I wonder if a proper, comprehensive and independent environmental impact assessment of these CFL bulbs has actually been carried out?" - Peteri

Why wonder?

A 100 watt light bulb over it's lifetime consumes the power generated by burning about 1 tonne of coal.

That total does not include the amount of coal needed to manufacture the bulb.

"Well, I've had 5 CFL's fail within a year of purchase and had to return them." - Peteri

I have been using CF lighting for the last 14 years and all of my bulbs are second generation. Typical lifetime has been 5 to 7 years, with 2 lasting under 2 years.

The bulb above my head is 6 years old, and I recently retired one of my original bulbs now 14 years old, for a 8 watt LED bulb that produces the equivalent of 40 watts of light (incandescent).

I expect those 8 Watt LED bulbs to last somewhere between 7 to 14 years.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (38) Jun 26, 2011
"An 100W-rated which consumes 72W of power to give the same light output of a 20W CF is typical of the oil-soaked mindset, who passed laws to continue the wasteful ways, justifying on reasons such as "harsh light", "mercury toxicity"." - Skepticus

Correct... Death is the only cure.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (42) Jun 26, 2011
The ConservaTard opposition to the "ban" of Incandescent bulbs is illustrative of how detached from reality these worthless low life Conservatives are.

A simple bullet to the head will be far too kind a treatment for them. A day is coming very, very soon.

ChiefOfGxBxL
3.4 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2011
I think the move to push for fluorescent bulbs is a great move. People say that they contain mercury, which is true, but after doing my research I've found that 5-6 ounces of your average tuna fish contains 700x as much mercury than a single bulb. So the bulbs shouldn't really pose a health issue to almost anyone, unless you plan to purposefully inhale the mercury. If you look at other countries around us, they've already have laws and various efforts to put standards on the efficiency of numerous electronics / appliances. Over the lifetime of a fluorescent, you'll be saving $40-50, and they only cost a bit more than incandescent bulbs. If America wants to start being more green and be saving money at the same time, the government /needs/ to put forth efforts such as this.
stanfrax
not rated yet Jun 26, 2011
it could be the bulbs are going to be tested on the unknowing public for epilepsy - the abstract controversy - is like the planet hasnt come up with the technology for an everlasting light bulb
semmsterr
4 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2011
Don't these dim-bulbs understand the peril the world is in because of it's energy consumption patterns?! It is imperative that new, more efficient forms of lighting be developed and adopted.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (43) Jun 26, 2011
Dim bulbs = American Conservatives.

Yup.
Shelgeyr
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2011
Kim Freeman of GE Appliances & Lighting said the various state efforts could lead to "a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation that would mean increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers."


Our states already have laws creating "a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation..." and this is a positive thing, not a negative. In fact, it could be reasonably argued it's one of the reasons we have States. Compared to marriage, liquor sales, personal state income taxes, "closed shop" vs. "right to work", etc., I think having inconsistent lightbulb standards would be pretty insignificant issue.
Eikka
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2011
I'm already using the new more efficient incandescent bulbs, and the thing that bothers me with them is that per the new regulations you can't get one with white glass because that decreases efficiency, so it's a point source and casts sharp shadows. I had to get diffusers, which kinda defeats the point since they are much thicker and block more light than the white glass bulb.

There's nothing wrong with incandescent bulbs except the fact that they make a lot of heat. For the others, that's about the only thing not wrong with them.

I'll rather take full continuous spectrum, instant on, dimmable, suitable for hot and cold, cheap lamps.

You can buy whatever you want.

EWH
2 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2011
"I've found that 5-6 ounces of your average tuna fish contains 700x as much mercury"

Wrong. 128ppb mean mercury for tuna, so 200 cans tuna = 1 CFL. You're off by about 15,400,000%.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (40) Jun 27, 2011
"I'll rather take full continuous spectrum, instant on, dimmable, suitable for hot and cold, cheap lamps." - Eikka

I'm sorry but your fashion preference threatens the survival of mankind.

You will have to do without.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (35) Jun 27, 2011
"Wrong. 128ppb mean mercury for tuna, so 200 cans tuna = 1 CFL" - EWH

I estimate 214 cans after estimating the volume of a can of tuna and presuming the maximal level of mercury of 1 ppm, which is the maximum level of mercury permitted in Canada.
bobtrain
5 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2011
How about lumens/watt as a way to compare light sources. Or, better yet, let's go back to gas lighting. Maybe incandescent bulbs should be legal when the temperature is below 20 C.
Argon
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2011
"You can buy whatever you want."

Let's keep it that way please!
Eikka
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2011

I'm sorry but your fashion preference threatens the survival of mankind.

You will have to do without.


You know, the most efficient way to light your house is to use fluorescent light that emits solely in the green part of the spectrum because that's the peak sensitivity of the eye.

This whole white light nonsense just won't do. What's the sense in wasting energy to produce red and blue parts of the spectrum when you could see adequately under a yellow sodium lamp?

Just asking.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2011
I'll rather take full continuous spectrum, instant on, dimmable, suitable for hot and cold, cheap lamps.


You can really call those yellow abominations "full continuous spectrum" with a straight face? The new incandescent bulbs have a much fuller spectrum (also most CFLs) than the ones you are complaining about losing. It is the full spectrum you don't like!

Instant on CFLs have been around for years. So have dim-able ones. And who the hell actually uses incandescent bulbs for heat except little Susy with her Easy-Bake and Johnny trying to incubate some eggs? In either case ceramic heaters are more reliable, more efficient, and over the course of its life probably cheaper.

This whole white light nonsense just won't do. What's the sense in wasting energy to produce red and blue parts of the spectrum when you could see adequately under a yellow sodium lamp?


Well if those like you who can't make small lifestyle changes get your way, yes we will be limited to green someday
Shelgeyr
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2011
...but your fashion preference threatens the survival of mankind


I do hope that everyone, no matter which side of the debate they take, can recognize that such a ridiculous statement isn't even barely scientific, but instead represents a true and passionate form of misguided religious zeal.

In no way do incandescent bulbs "threaten the survival of mankind", and I'm sorry, but if you think they do, you are simply wrong.

Try to orbit a little closer to reality.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2011
Anthropological global warming is a religion as demonstrated by Frank and vendy.
FrankHerbert
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2011
The religious are always the first to ridicule ideas they disagree with as religious. Hypocritical isn't it?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2011
The AGW religion has their version of Jim and Tammy Baker, Hanson and Gore.

"In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Read more: http://www.foxnew...QUY6tJvF
"
Gore's profiting from the 'faith' is well documented.
Is it a coincidence Hansen works for the govt and Gore lead the faithful as a senator and VP?
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2011
"You can buy whatever you want."

Let's keep it that way please!

Heck no! Some of you morons shouldn't even be allowed to have the little plastic kindergarten scissors, let alone "whatever you want."

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2011
T knows what's best for everyone.
How 'progressive'!

Freedom of individuals to choose what is in their best interest is what really frosts the socialists.
Why are they so annoyed? Free markets demonstrate individuals don't need to be controlled and ultimately, that is what 'progressives' desire, power and control.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2011
You can really call those yellow abominations "full continuous spectrum" with a straight face? The new incandescent bulbs have a much fuller spectrum (also most CFLs) than the ones you are complaining about losing. It is the full spectrum you don't like!


Yes. I can.

And if you bothered to comprehend what you were reading just one bit further, you would have realized that I WAS talking about the new halogen incandescent bulbs. They are fantastic, aside the point that you need a diffuser because you can't have one with a white bulb.

People like you don't even understand how lighting works when you complain about "yellow abominations" and refer to the 2700K color temperature of the regular 60 Watt bulb. How yellow it appears depends on the overall intensity of lighting, which is why it looks so grating when people put a single 15 Watt 5700K CFL in a room and pretend that it's "daylight".
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2011
The halogens I have used fail quite easily and they are very hot.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2011
Firstly, they each contain a small amount of mercury (typically 3-5 mg per bulb), which will inevitably end up in landfill since a substantial number of people will not bother to recycle them but just chuck them in their household waste bins.
I wonder if a proper, comprehensive and independent environmental impact assessment of these CFL bulbs has actually been carried out?

As I have said, plese learn about what you are using and how to dispose them PROPERLY! Until then, any studies of environmental impacts are worthless due to users'wilful laziness and defiance to give a bad name to new tech so they can happily continue with their great-great-grand father's ways.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2011
Great debate about light spectrums. Now I know why nearly all UFOs are blindingly bright. They blinds the everyone and shuts up all the arguments!
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2011
How do I dispose of CFLs properly? I have no idea where to take them so I will eventually just put them all in the bin with the rest of the trash.
I know, I will just drop them off at the local US govt office as the US govt is forcing their use.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2011
There are 6 sites within 6 miles of Chelmsford.
http://www.mass.g...gmap.htm

Get over yourself.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2011
There are 6 sites within 6 miles of Chelmsford.
http://www.mass.g...gmap.htm

Get over yourself.


Why do you think I live in Chelmsford? Frank, I have told you many times to be more Skeptical, Heretic.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2011
Meh, I was taking SH's word for granted. I stand corrected. Anyway, the point is you can find out quite easily where to dispose of CFLs, you just don't give a damn.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2011
I was taking SH's word for granted

Why would you do that? He has been proven to lie, many times.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2011
Meh,

What does this mean?
you can find out quite easily where to dispose of CFLs, you just don't give a damn.

Apparently the govt doesn't give a damn or they would be promoting locations and make it easy for everyone. If the govt doesn't care, why should I?
J-n
5 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2011
Did a quick search on google. It was noted that many national chain retailers are accepting them back for recycling (Lowes, Home Depot, ETC). Many States offer CFL recycling as a part of their states recycling program.

Take a look at this website:
http://www.lampre...le.shtml

They give a long list of retailers who will take bubls back for recycling, and also has a search function that will allow you to put in your address and will give you a listing of all the locations you can recycle your CFLs in your area.

Shelgeyr
2 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2011
Why would you do that? He has been proven to lie, many times.

Oh ryggesogn2, please play nice. Philosophically and politically it sounds like you and I are generally (and often specifically) on the same page. But even though that puts me diametrically opposed to SH on many/most matters, he's been a straight shooter with me.

I *hate* it when I have to defend my ideological opponents, but unless SH has provably lied to you on this particular matter, don't bring up such allegations. In fact, even if he has, please let it slide because otherwise it is just thread clutter that the two of you would be better off resolving via PMs.

There are certain posters you do NOT want to emulate. Though SH may not have yet reached "Noble Adversary" status, he's more on that road than the one leading to just being written off as a troll. I don't expect you to agree with him. I certainly usually don't. But he's a pleasure to debate. As far as your location, perhaps he was just incorrect?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2011
Shelgeyr, has SH threatened you? He has threatened me and others he disagrees with.
Which is a typical 'progressive' response.
SH has provably lied to you on this particular matter,

He has. That's why I call him a liar.
Have you looked at his profile? I am an 'interest'. Sounds a bit obsessive to me.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2011
Another example of 'tolerant' 'progressives':
"Explaining that a group of people yelled at his family, took pictures of them, and kicked a cup of wine onto his wife, Beck said that his security team feels that, had he reacted poorly, things might have gone off."
http://www.mediai...rk-park/
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2011
...has SH threatened you?

Of course not.

Sounds a bit obsessive to me.

If you think it's an obsession, stop feeding it. No matter who started, you can peacefully end it, and if neither of you stand any chance of "converting" the other, why keep locking horns if not for amusement or for sharpening your skills? You don't really seem to be enjoying the repartee', so my advice - not that you asked, so I won't be offended if you ignore it - is to simply disengage with him. I seriously doubt he'll lose sleep over the matter, and it will probably help your blood pressure.

This is a "guilty pleasure" for me. If *I* have better things to do than get all bent out of shape over things like this, don't you too?

Another example of 'tolerant' 'progressives'

We probably have similar opinions of "progressives in large numbers", but I haven't personally seen that behavior out of SH. I have no idea if SH hates Glenn Beck. It doesn't matter. I doubt he was in that crowd. N/A.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2011
Apparently the govt doesn't give a damn or they would be promoting locations and make it easy for everyone. If the govt doesn't care, why should I?


They cared enough to create that nice site I was kind enough to provide you with earlier. It took me all of 5 seconds to find it.
Magnette
5 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
The UK was at this point back in 2008, our incandescants were phased out from the beginning of 2009.

My house is now fully lit by LED's of various shades and brightness. They give off a warm glow rather than the harsh fluorescants white/blue and they're very cheap to run. All of mine have been in for two years and counting with no failures yet.

Modern CFL's don't have the dim start that the early versions suffered with but their life can be shortened by continuous turning off/on. Don't be lazy and dispose of them properly so that the mercury left at the ends of the bulbs lifecycle isn't an issue.

The sky didn't fall in because we couldn't purchase incandescants any longer and, as an added bonus, my electricity bill is now lower.
J-n
5 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
Which is a typical 'progressive' response.


It's statements like this that preclude ryggesogn2 from being involved in rational discussions, or having his ideas taken seriously by anyone.

I am as Liberal as they get, but I don't threaten folks. Often it seems his form of Conservatism involves making up problems (can't find a place to recycle CFLs? Took me 30 sec on google), Pretending that ANY program that bennifits the poor is equivilant to USSR style Communisim, a refusal to admit the financial failings of republican administrations (Almost 800B spent on our iraq war alone so far, financial decline started under bush), and Lying to prove a point.

I would not go so far as to say this is a 'typical' Conservative attitude, i would say, though, this is a very Fox News sort of attitude. Where anything goes as long as it moves the agenda forward.

This (his) attitude is not the way the founding fathers of this nation had hoped we would engage in political discourse.

Kinda sad.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
This (his) attitude is not the way the founding fathers of this nation had hoped we would engage in political discourse.

How do you know? Their political discourse was quite vigorous.

So, J-n, why don't you defend your 'progressive' positions instead of complaining about civility?

If Lowes or Home Depot were so eager to recycle CFLs, why don't they promote that service in their stores?

As for Iraq, Obama has continued the war and has wasted $2 TRILLION in two years on unconstitutional actions unrelated to any wars. BTW, Obama started a third war which is opposed by Republicans in Congress.
And we have an entire political party, the socialist democrats, that refuse to acknowledge the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security.
'Liberals' now own the economy and the wars. Defend your actions and stop acting like teenagers blaming everyone else.
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2011
How do you know? Their political discourse was quite vigorous


George Washington had stated that the two party system would ruin the nation for just this reason, that sides would form and become inflexible in their opinions to the point of governmental Stagnation. -- I know from their words and a study of history. -- Their discourse may have been vigorous but they did not stoop to the levels seen here.

So, J-n, why don't you defend your 'progressive' positions instead of complaining about civility?


I do, and often. I just see no point in defending my opinions to someone who has no qualms about lying or using ad hominem attacks against those he is "discussing" with.

If Lowes or Home Depot were so eager to recycle CFLs, why don't they promote that service in their stores?


They did quite a bit actually, back in 2008 when they started doing it. Does Waste Management in your area advertise that they pick up trash every week?
J-n
5 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
It's a service they provide, just because they didn't advertise it enough for you does not mean that it does not exist. I personally believe that the majority of the population can search the internet and find these answers quite easily.

$2 TRILLION in two years on unconstitutional actions unrelated to any wars

Provide proof. What was the money spent on, what was unconstitutional about it, specifics please.
And we have an entire political party, the socialist democrats, that refuse to acknowledge the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security

I don't think they've won a single seat in any offices of any state, let alone national politics. Why bring them up?

Republicans started the wars we are involved in. The actions in other nations we have taken was to assist in rebellions that republicans aimed at starting. Iraq was a war of CHOICE that if we pulled out of would have LARGER political consequences than if we had let hussein stay. Afganastan is the same.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2011
Your point about how democrats are now in power, and can do whatever they want is Naive, or disingenuous. The economic downturn was CAUSED by Neo-Con policies, as were the wars, They were started SPESIFICALLY to bring on the conditions whereby there would not be enough money to fund NEEDED social programs.

Yes there are problems with Social Security, and Medicare. They are unfunded BECAUSE of actions of Republican politicians taking money from those accounts, from spending money we don't have on a Military we don't need (we could cut the military by almost 50% and still have the largest military in the world).

Where is all the money given back to the Ultra rich from the bush tax cuts? We were told in no uncertain terms that this money would result in more jobs. Where are the More jobs? Where is the Trickle down?

Trickle down is a LIE. Always has been Always will be.

If the nation does not pay for services like medicare and Social Security, who will?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
Their discourse may have been vigorous but they did not stoop to the levels seen here.

You have not read much history.

The Constitution limits the power of the govt. Where does the Constitution authorize the purchase of GM?

Republicans started the wars we are involved in.

GW did not engage in conflict without the support of Congress.

145 Democrats voted to "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world"
http://clerk.hous...l398.xml

Congress has voted to oppose Obama's actions in Libya and Obama never requested authorization.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
They are unfunded BECAUSE of actions of Republican politicians taking money from those accounts,

Snopes shows that it was the 'liberals' who mandated SS money be invested in T-bills and that the SS funds be counted in the budget.
http://www.snopes...nges.asp
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
"In 2009 and 2010 {Democrat} Congress enacted four provisions authorizing implicit or explicit transfers of general revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund, continuing a pattern set by earlier provisions."
"The bottom line is that no matter how we look at it, Social Security is contributing to present and future deficits. Short of privatization (which I would favor), Congress should make the program truly independent and self-supporting. In this case, it should collect taxes that will be earmarked to pay for benefits and only benefits. Social Security shouldnt have to turn over its cash to Treasury, and it shouldnt be allowed to receive money from the general revenue."
http://www.nation...-de-rugy
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2011
Autorizaton is not needed, as it was not a war.
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.


The vote for iraq war was based on information that the executive branch knew was a lie.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2011
"The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the House of Representatives and Senate but was vetoed by President Richard Nixon. By a two-thirds vote in each house, Congress overrode the veto and enacted the joint resolution into law on November 7, 1973."
It was the democrats who pass the War Powers Resolution in '73 over a Republican presidential veto.
Obama agrees with Nixon.
Shelgeyr
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2011
Gentlemen! Gentlemen! (throws virtual buckets of water in each direction) I'm obviously not an administrator so I may be out of line suggesting this (if so, apologies in advance), but ryggesogn2, in J-n you obviously have an opponent with whom you can debate who doesn't immediately reach for name-calling as a strategy. Take advantage of it - isn't this what you've been wanting?

J-n, I disagree with so many of your points it isn't worth listing them here, BUT you strike me as a breath of fresh air simply for how you present them. Thank you!

Can I gently suggest "Private Messaging" for you to work out the War/Budget/etc. issues that aren't about light bulbs, the supposed topic of this thread? I know, I'm guilty too of side-tracking so it is hypocritical of me to bring this up, but it would be a shame for you to waste the good head of steam you both seem to have built up, and for what it's worth (maybe nothing) I just don't think this thread is the place for it...
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
Now, I know that I have no business acting like the "Etiquette Police", so if my last post was offensive I apologize. That's probably the last you'll hear from me on the "please play nice" issue - at least until I trip up and violate my own suggestions.

And just so at least a portion of this post is relevant to the topic: "Yea incandescents!" and "Don't try to force me to save energy - that's between me and my power bill!"
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2011

GW did not engage in conflict without the support of Congress.

145 Democrats voted to "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world"


So when I support popular uprising in Libya I'm supporting terrorists according to you, yet there are no terrorists in Libya when it suits your 'argument'?

If you're going to throw around ad homs at least be internally consistent in doing so.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2011
I agree we should leave the comments to on topic items, for my part, i apologize for going WAY outside of these bounds.

When people disagree there is no problem, it's in how they approach discussing this disagreement with the opposition is where the problem comes.

Back to the topic at hand.

Yea incandescents!" and "Don't try to force me to save energy - that's between me and my power bill!"


I would TOTALLY agree with you if the issue ended there. Unfortunately, though, power generation pollutes the environment in which we all live.

For instance, DDT is extremely effective at killing insects. It also causes harm to the environment and to humans. It was decided, for the good of the nation, and it's people that we stop using DDT.

The same can be said for Fuel Efficiency standards, or CFL light bulbs.

While i understand the desire to not be forced by government to do or be a party to things you do not agree with, it is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2011
ryggesogn2, in J-n you obviously have an opponent with whom you can debate who doesn't immediately reach for name-calling as a strategy.


Why should anyone seriously debate him when he doesn't seriously debate anyone else? Anytime someone diverges from his ideology even one arc-second, he accuses the person of some combination of hating the US and belonging to a socialist cabal bent on world destruction. Why should decent people suffer such lunacy?
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
J-n you are killing me! (With "temptation", that is - just to be clear...) And you're even polite about it! I almost have to chant to myself, original "Star Wars - Deathstar attack scene"-style "Stay on target, stay on target..." because you just mentioned at least two more topics I disagree with you on that would be fun to debate - but not here.

Thanks very much at least for the "...TOTALLY agree with you if..." sentiment, and we can debate the "IF"s off-thread if you'd like. It might be fun.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2011
While i understand the desire to not be forced by government to do or be a party to things you do not agree with, it is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast.


I should have mentioned that this is one statement that I completely and totally agree with.

It is just (obvious statement alert!) that political policy comes into play in determining of what those "things" are. Thus, or at the very least "yet another reason for", the eternal tug-of-war.

Argh! I'm off topic again! Sorry!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
Frank, did you know that Libya was trying to build a nuclear weapon like Iran is doing right now? Do you know that after the US attacked Iraq, with bipartisan support, Libya 'decided 'to give up its nuclear weapons program?
"The cache of nuclear technology that Libya turned over to the United States, Britain and international nuclear inspectors in early 2004 was large far larger than American intelligence experts had expected. There were more than 4,000 centrifuges for producing enriched uranium. There were blueprints for how to build a nuclear bomb "
"Iran and North Korea, who have often been urged by the West to follow Libyas example, may conclude that Colonel Qaddafi made a fatal error. "
http://www.nytime...rms.html
Now, due to Obama's incompetence, who would trust the US to keep any agreements?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011

And Frank, your original comment was about supporting 'popular' uprisings in the Middle East. You did not specify Libya.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
While i understand the desire to not be forced by government to do or be a party to things you do not agree with,

Where is the limit?
"according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
From Demolition Man.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
Thank you, Denis Leary!
J-n
not rated yet Jun 29, 2011
Where is the limit?


That's a good question. Everyone has their own opinion on the answer. You might not want government telling you what lightbulbs to purchase, I might not want the government telling me that a corporation has as many if not more rights than I do.

It's a pendulum and we vote in the leaders who most accurately represent our beliefs. Or at least we try.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
From J-n:
I am as Liberal as they get,

What does 'liberal' mean to J-n? If you read 'The Road to Serfdom' by Hayek, 'liberal' is the classical liberal in the fashion of John Locke.
Today, 'liberal' is in the fashion of the socialist that used to call themselves 'progressive' (and have returned to that, eschewing 'liberal'). By socialist I use it they way Misis defined the term in "Socialism", or by Bastiat in "The Law". It is someone who supports state control of private property. Someone who supports 'positive rights':
"positive rights see human rights more in terms of claims, entitlements, and rights to....As a counterpoint to negative civil and political rights, they tend to favor state intervention for the purposes of providing economic, social, and cultural rights and ensuring the equitable distribution of the values or capabilities involved" WPS5660.
Greece is showing the world what happens with 'positive rights'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
Where is the limit?


That's a good question. Everyone has their own opinion on the answer. You might not want government telling you what lightbulbs to purchase, I might not want the government telling me that a corporation has as many if not more rights than I do.

It's a pendulum and we vote in the leaders who most accurately represent our beliefs. Or at least we try.


"Friedman (1962) notoriously pointed out that market solutions (i.e., voluntary cooperation among responsible individuals) permit unanimity without conformity (i.e., a system of effective proportional representation), whereas political solutions (even in proportional representation) typically tended to produce the opposite, i.e. conformity without unanimity."WPS5660

J-n complains about corporations, yet he wants the power over the govt he thinks they have. In free markets, the consumer has the ultimate power over any corporation. Why don't 'liberals' trust consumers?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
Anyone remember when McDonald's used to put their sandwiches in little foam boxes? Environmentalists complained and before long, the foam boxes were replaced with recycled paper.
Foam boxes are still used by some so the govt didn't ban their use.
Consumer demands forced a big, multi-national company to change. Imagine that!
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2011

they tend to favor state intervention for the purposes of providing economic, social, and cultural rights and ensuring the equitable distribution of the values or capabilities involved


So, first of all, Yes, i am in favor of providing rights to Individuals and making sure those right are equal.

So you're saying that you aren't?

In free markets, the consumer has the ultimate power over any corporation. Why don't 'liberals' trust consumers?


I would state that those on the Left spectrum are not a monolith as you seem to present them. Just as not all of those who are on the Right spectrum are as you present yourself.

The consumer often has much less of an effect on businesses than you might wish. For instance, Most computer users would like to have fewer viruses. Microsoft is in a position to lock off certain parts of their software to make fewer vectors for viruses, because these services are useful to some small % of business users, though they keep them open.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2011
Your mcdonalds example is an interesting one. Was it consumer pressure or was it the pressure (threats of banning) it received from several CA Counties, and NewYork state government, and the fallout that would have for them financially if they were kicked out of parts of CA and NY that changed their minds?

Most consumers would like to not pay charges at their ATM for usage, because they understand that an ATM reduces the Banks staffing costs and does not represent an increase in cost, yet they are charged fees when accessing their account from one. This has not changed the business practices of banks.

I would assume no one is in favor of drilling accidents like the one that happened in the Gulf. Many people have requested that stricter guidelines regarding environmental safety be addressed, BP still claims they were in no way responsible, as do all of the others involved.

No one likes spam, why then do we still see companies using spam and 'opt-out' only advertising programs?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2011
I use a credit union that reimburses ATM charges.
i am in favor of providing rights to Individuals and making sure those right are equal.

Are those 'positive' rights where you have to violate the property rights of others? Or are you referring to 'negative' rights where the state protects your property from others and from the state?

If you don't like Microsoft, use linux or Apple. And there are all sorts of SW programs available, either free or included from your internet provider to block viruses.
The consumer has cried out and the market responded.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2011
The market has responded with an imperfect solution to the Virus issue. Most virus scanners miss many viruses today, the free/SW scanning programs even more so.

Personally i DO use linux, but this has not changed Microsoft, nor will it.

So, you are saying that the state (federal government) mandating the aboliton of "Seperate but Equal Laws" was a bad thing?

As a counterpoint to negative civil and political rights, they tend to favor state intervention for the purposes of providing economic, social, and cultural rights and ensuring the equitable distribution of the values or capabilities involved


This reads as thus:
Positive rights tend to favor state intervention for the purposes of providing economic, social, and cultural rights and ensuring the equitable distribution of the values or capabilities involved.
Negative rights do not tend to favor state intervention for the purposes of providing economic, social, and cultural rights and ensuring the equitable distribution..
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2011
In my looking at the differences in other published resources on Negative and Positive rights, I see a slightly different definition that is explained in the Wiki page
a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder.


So, you are saying that Positive rights, are bad, negative rights are good.

Positive rights like, Police protection, Right to counsel, public education, national security, military, health care, social security, and a minimum standard of living.

These are a few examples from the Wiki, which you seem to be against. A few others that come to mind are:
Desegregation
Marriage laws
Employee Rights (including right to work laws, they oblige employers/unions to take action)

My main problem with your negative positive rights argument is that any SANE government will have a combination of both enshrined in their laws.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2011
So, J-n, you support the 'positive' right for the govt to take my wealth and redistribute that wealth to you?
If so, you are actually worse than a common thief. A thief would have the courage to take the risk of getting killed for robbing someone.
So, you are saying that the state (federal government) mandating the aboliton of "Seperate but Equal Laws" was a bad thing?

Why do you think that? 'Separate but equal' is based upon 'positive rights'.

J-n, maybe you should look beyond Wiki and read a book. The Law is a good start. It is quite short.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2011
I also support the governments right to take MY wealth and redistribute it to you. I support the ability for the Government to Tax individuals and corporations and redistribute that money to individuals via programs like Social Security, Medicare/caid, etc, to buisnesses via federal grants, loan forgiveness, etc..

The abolition of Separate but equal rights, which forced (for instance) schools in the south to desegregate and obliged people to respect the rights of african americans (IE african americans are entitled to the same rights afforded to whites), according to the definition you provided, and is provided by all other sources i've seen.. is a Positive right.

Positive and Negative rights are really only spoken about by certain political groups (libertarians), and are not something that is typically recognized by governments or extra governmental bodies, as most thinking folks realize that a combination of the two types is the only way a society can function.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2011
are not something that is typically recognized by governments or extra governmental bodies,

Of course they are not recognized by govts because govts want the power to force people to do what they want them to do.

I also support the governments right to take MY wealth and redistribute it to you.

If the state has the 'right' to legally plunder your wealth, why shouldn't they plunder it all?

Separate but equal was created by democrats and would be considered a positive act by the state to infringe upon an individual's negative rights. Something J-n seems to support.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2011
You were the one who brought negative and positive rights into the discussion, and defined what they were. If you wish to again further define them so that the abolition of "Seperate but equal" laws fit into the "Negative rights" category please do so. Telling me to go read a book means that you are unable to explain yourself, so maybe it's a topic you don't fully understand? Please take the time to explain yourself or don't bother entering into an adult discussion.

But yes, the aboliton of seperate but equal laws, does qualify as a "Positive right", that infringes on individual/business property rights.

I am afraid it is you that may be mistaken as to what Positive and Negative rights are. Even looking at it with a libertarian's eye, the right to not be discriminated against when applying for a job based on race, age, religion, etc etc can't be a bad thing. Why then do you seem to be against it? Or are you Re-Defining the terms to mean something else than what you had posted?

J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2011
First of all, i have never implied or stated that Negative or Positive rights were all good or all bad. I believe it was you who made a judgement as to which was right or wrong. All i stated was that i do believe that Positive rights can be a good thing, just as Negative rights can be a good thing.
as most thinking folks realize that a combination of the two types is the only way a society can function.


If the state has the 'right' to legally plunder your wealth, why shouldn't they plunder it all?


The state (government) has the right, and responsibility to collect taxes and redistribute those taxes for a variety of functions. Military, Public Schools, Infrastructure, etc etc. You are against tax collection?

What gives you the impression that i am as Black and White with my opinions as you do? You see, as someone who carefully considers things, i notice that there are benefits and downfalls to both types of rights as you define them (and as i have seen them defined)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2011
You were the one who raised the Separate but equal issue.
But yes, the aboliton of seperate but equal laws, does qualify as a "Positive right", that infringes on individual/business property rights.

No, you have it backwards. The state mandated discrimination just as J-n supports discriminating against the wealthy by confiscating and redistributing their wealth. Both are positive rights concepts that say whites have a 'right to' be separate or the poor have a 'right to' the wealth of the rich.
Abolishing Jim Crow laws is a negative rights concept that enable 'freedom from' govt discrimination, like Affirmative Action.
Telling me to go read a book means that you are unable to explain yourself,

You had to got to wiki for your opinion.
In know its difficult for 'liberal' to understand that the state should have limited power. Maybe if you would read a book by someone who experienced socialism first hand you may gain more insight. It's obvious you like your power trip.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2011
he right to not be discriminated against when applying for a job based on race, age, religion, etc etc can't be a bad thing.

It violates the property rights of the employer, the owner of the business.
The employee has no right to a job and an employer who has competition would be foolish not to hire the best people for the job regardless of their personal prejudice.
A business owner that refuses to hire white men has a right to do so, but he has no right make a profit. He must persuade customers to do business with him. Market forces ultimately balances the scales.
If Affirmative Action had not been in effect at Berkley, Michael Wiener may have been a professor and not a prosperous conservative talk radio host.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2011
"if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all
liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the
organized combination of the individuals right to self defense; if
law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression
and plunderis it likely that we citizens would then argue much
about the extent of the franchise?"
"Under the pretense of organization, regulation,
protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from
one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all
and gives it to a fewwhether farmers, manufacturers,
shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances,
then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically
so."
http://www.fee.or..._Law.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2011
"if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing
what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil
itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it
invites reprisals."
"Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the
law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.
Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it
could not organize labor, education, and religion without
destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and
that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully
extend beyond the proper functions of force."
"When law and force keep a person within the bounds of
justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige
him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither
his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these." The Law.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2011
"But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force,
imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of
education, a religious faith or creedthen the law is no longer
negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of
the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator
for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no
longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does
all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the
people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their
liberty, their property."
http://www.fee.or..._Law.pdf
'Positive' law for 'positive rights' creates the Utopia for the 'liberal'.
Regulating light bulbs is one more step along the road to serfdom.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2011
Once upon time I stood above The Laws of Nature.
Eventually all people debunked me for what I was: God

And there was light.
And it was good.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2011
I'm sorry but your fashion preference threatens the survival of mankind.


So? Its not like we are in any way significant within the scale of time and space.
unknownorgin
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2011
Incandecent light bulbs convert some of the energy used into heat instead of light but they are here to stay because environmental fear of CFLs will grow as the public learns about the many metals used in them and how difficult it is to recycle them ,even the light emmiting diode (LED) is facing environmetal presure because they contain a few atoms of arsenic. Most of the metals used in the incandecent light bulb can be recovered by simple mechanical separation and if lead free solder is used in thier constuction the fear factor should be almost zero. In the long run you cant save energy and you cant build more powerplants so environmentalism will keep us from going anywhere.

More news stories

Making graphene in your kitchen

Graphene has been touted as a wonder material—the world's thinnest substance, but super-strong. Now scientists say it is so easy to make you could produce some in your kitchen.