• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Mercury (CFL) bulbs cost to triple?

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
The dangerous mercury (compact fluorescent) light bulbs we are now forced to expose our families to are about to become more expensive.

Eco-bulb cost to treble: Makers cash in as the ban on old-style bulbs kicks in | Mail Online

Yet another lie foisted upon us by the ruling class turns out to not fulfill any promise made by those who substitute their judgement for that of individuals.

CFL bulbs are dangerous, more expensive, and will make absolutely no difference in the global climate.

Thanks ruling class, you idiots have screwed the country class once again.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Just to play devil's advocate here . . .

Can you link me to your research on this subject? I was unaware you conducted studies on light bulbs and how they affect our planet and came up with non-conclusive evidence. Also, conservative blogs are not acceptable answers.

I mean, from a completely uneducated observation (uneducated as in having done no research on the subject at hand) and just a quick read of that article, it seems the old bulbs used up a lot of energy. Thus, finding alternatives would help on energy bills and thus costs and eventually will lead to less energy usage. Lastly, that will mean less of a strain on the environment. Not to sure how that's a "lie" nor did I know the UK was your 'ruling class' :rolleyes:

You could also argue that man's quest for energy has not harmed the environment, in which case you'd be swiftly defeated.

If anything, I think the UK government is taking action a bit too soon by pulling all the energy guzzling bulbs and should have put a bit more research into the lower energy alternative bulbs first.
 

C-Mach

Registered Member
The LEDs use much less energy, don't have any mercury in them, and are much less expensive to produce than CFL light bulbs, and are even cheaper than incandescent light bulbs. And another thing, why do we having a government telling us what light bulbs we should use? That's just going too far.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
@ Cons: What source would you like? One that shows mercury is a dangerous toxin to humans? One that shows that the US has a law in effect that will ban incandescent bulbs? If you want one that shows man made global warming has ceased due to laws banning incandescent bulbs then man-made global warming must first be proven to exist through the use of the scientific method (not consensus of "scientists").
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Something tells me no matter what evidence is brought to you, you'll just shrug it off regardless of anything. Global warming doesn't even matter here, this is about energy conservation. I'm not sure why it's even been brought up. I don't see why you see purpose in villainizing a cause that could only mean lighter bills for you and I. Like I said, I think the only problem here is that they didn't have a proven alternative ready after they banned the first bulbs.

Also, FYI, 'will ban' is different than 'ban'. Oh and can I get a link to that law too, please?

You've also missed a few parts of my post. Where's your personal research? Why are you referring to the UK government as the ruling class? How about my last comment, do you agree that with a proper alternative, this would be okay?
------
The LEDs use much less energy, don't have any mercury in them, and are much less expensive to produce than CFL light bulbs, and are even cheaper than incandescent light bulbs. And another thing, why do we having a government telling us what light bulbs we should use? That's just going too far.
I guess that whole "energy consumption" thing just flew over your head, eh?

The UK is trying to make headway in energy conservation. The end results in theory are only good things for you and me. The US has been slow to embrace the idea since we are after all, a culture of over-indulgence. By taking the bulbs that consume more energy and replacing them with better, more efficient ones we all win.
 
Last edited:

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
@ Cons: I'm not against energy conservation, I'm against the government telling me what light bulb I am not allowed to use. I am against paying much more for a product that they decided I should use. I'm against exposing my daughter to the extremely toxic metal mercury should one of these poison grenades break in my house. I'm against being told that I can not choose a product that has worked great for years with no risk of exposing my family and our environment to mercury. I am against the government supported wide disbursement of a toxic substance that will not be disposed of properly (please google for yourself the proper disposal of and clean up procedure for broken CFL bulbs) and is known to accumulate in fish.

So here's a link to the law that you will not read, but I'm sure that you can confirm for yourself that this law will effectively make the currently available incandescent bulb unavailable in the US. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/html/PLAW-110publ140.htm

Personal research? Where's yours? :lol:

Ruling class (for this thread) = those that decide for the rest of us what type of light bulb we are allowed to use.

Ruling class in US - google "ruling class codevilla"

And finally: no, it would not be alright to force me to use a certain light bulb if you decide it is a better alternative. If it is truly a better alternative for me then I will choose it.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
@ Cons: I'm not against energy conservation, I'm against the government telling me what light bulb I am not allowed to use. I am against paying much more for a product that they decided I should use. I'm against exposing my daughter to the extremely toxic metal mercury should one of these poison grenades break in my house. I'm against being told that I can not choose a product that has worked great for years with no risk of exposing my family and our environment to mercury. I am against the government supported wide disbursement of a toxic substance that will not be disposed of properly (please google for yourself the proper disposal of and clean up procedure for broken CFL bulbs) and is known to accumulate in fish.
So I take it you're not going to answer my question? Do you think the problem is just the alternative not being researched enough so that it's both effective AND safe?

So here's a link to the law that you will not read, but I'm sure that you can confirm for yourself that this law will effectively make the currently available incandescent bulb unavailable in the US. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/html/PLAW-110publ140.htm
I did some research and you've yet to give me one good reason why this is so bad. Although, I was surprised to see it was Bush who signed it into law since energy conservation was never something he paid much attention to.

The phase-out of incandescent light bulbs was supported by the Alliance to Save Energy, a coalition of light bulb manufacturers, electric utilities and conservation groups. The group estimated that lighting accounts for 22% of total U.S. electricity usage, and that eliminating incandescent bulbs completely would save $18 billion per year (equivalent to the output of 80 coal plants).[24] Light bulb manufacturers also hoped a single national standard would prevent the enactment of conflicting bans and efficiency standards by state governments.

Is something in here supposed to upset me or the American public? By these estimates, even if they're close, I could give less than a shit if people are forced to buy different bulbs. If this is even remotely close to the kind of money that could be saved, I'm just not going to be too concerned with peoples' bitching. Besides, some issues are just a tad more pressing than this one.

Personal research? Where's yours? :lol:
Uh uh, you made the ridiculous claim first, means you have to show something for it first. ;)

Ruling class (for this thread) = those that decide for the rest of us what type of light bulb we are allowed to use.

Ruling class in US - google "ruling class codevilla"
Why am I being sent to an article about America's ruling class? Is there something in there about the UK? I'm doubting it. I also don't really have the time or focus to read through 30+ pages of opinion so you'll have to forgive me here. Besides, after Googling and hearing how much Rush loved it, I can't see myself finding too much appeal in it. Nevertheless, I'll bookmark it for now.

And finally: no, it would not be alright to force me to use a certain light bulb if you decide it is a better alternative. If it is truly a better alternative for me then I will choose it.
So what about outdated car parts? So what if some of them may make your car blow up, pfft, it's your choice right? I think what you're missing here is this is part of a larger scheme than just "I love Joe-Bob's light bulbs and I'll never buy anything else!". It's about reducing energy usage. You and I both know that most of the time, to get a change like this rolling, you have to push people. You can't just sit and wait, people are too stubborn for that and we don't have enough time to sit and wait for those generations to die off.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
@ Cons: I did answer you question, it is about being forced to accept the choice of light bulb that was made by others, not by market driven forces. If mercury bulbs were better then I would choose them. They are not. We are unleashing a poison to be dispersed widely in small amounts. Any true environmentalist should be upset by this. When LED bulbs are cost effective then I will choose them. I don't need a law to make me choose. Your political advocacy reference means nothing to me other than there exists a special interest group that supports taking away my freedom of choice and forcing me to potentially expose my family to an extremely toxic substance.

That would be cool if you actually take the time to read the Codevilla piece. It is long, but you might understand me better and we may find some common ground. I hope you do. Start a thread about it with your thoughts!

We will just have to disagree about forcing people to accept decisions about how to go about their lives. Remember when we needed to stop using paper bags for our groceries for the sake of the environment? :lol:
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
Its one of the dumbest and most dangerous laws that has been passed in the past decade.
>CFL bulbs are dangerous because of the mercury (Mad Hatter).
>All of the US incandescent bulb plants were closed down and these cfl bulbs are all made in China: General Electric to Close Kentucky Light Bulb Plant.
>Any law that is dumped on us to save $18B is extraordinary dangerous as there are thousands of other laws that can be and have been passed to save money. What to eat, what to drive, what house to live in, etc.

Yes the law was signed by Bush and supported by many Republicans such as Fred Upton the current Energy and Commerce chair. The ruling class that SS talks about is not Democrats or Republicans they are any politicians that are convinced they know what is good for us and hand us these dumb laws telling us what we can't do.
 
Top