Change a Light Bulb, Pullute the Land, Poison the Environment
By clrumfelt
@clrumfelt (5597)
Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
June 19, 2008 10:04pm CST
There is an energy bull going through Congress that bans incandescent
light bulbs by the year 2014. They want us to use the energy saver bulbs
instead. Every American should be concerned about this. Watch the video
on You Tube and you will see why.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg
4 responses
@beautyqueen26 (16030)
• United States
20 Jun 08
I'm always concerned about the
environment and applaud any moves
that the government makes to help
us all more environmentally aware.
I hope this change makes the difference
we are seeking.
Much more still needs to be done,
in the way of cutting off the car
and using less gas.
Gas is still a major pollutant.
Everyone has to do their part.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
20 Jun 08
I think efforts by the government to help Americans conserve energy are admirable. But
some of the things they come up with are just ludicrous(e.g. the low energy flourescent
light bulbs.)Some of these bulbs are already in use, but should the use become
widespread because the incandescent bulbs aren't available any more, it will be
dangerous. Visit this link for information on cleaning up the mess from just one
broken bulb.
ttp://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#fluorescent
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
20 Jun 08
Here is a reposting of the above link:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#fluorescent
@academic2 (7000)
• Uganda
26 Jul 08
I dont see a big problem with the idea of energy saver in it self, but making it compulsory defeats the very idea of choice which Americans uphold, I mean, if someone can afford the energy Bill, why bother him with energy savers? So it is a suspect bill-it appears the Industrialists are seeking some kind of legislative reward-in any case, they do a lot of fund raising for politicians, they dont just do this for nothing or do they?
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
26 Jul 08
That's a good point. This proposal reeks of the special interest groups that influence our elected officials.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
20 Jun 08
I figure the lobbyists for the energy saver bulbs have been very hard at work. Otherwise, how could such a bill giving one kind of product such an advantage over the other even be considered. Incandescent bulbs have not outlived there usefullness and they are safer. I'm beginning to think all of Congress is either on the take or stupid.
1 person likes this
@rpegan (596)
• United States
20 Jun 08
Would you care to summarize the video for me? My computer has recently stopped playing sound. I tried to read the comments to get a basic feel for the video, but I stopped when I realized that the comments are mostly individuals insulting one another for completely stupid reasons.
About those light bulbs...they really do help with the electricity bill. My family has replaced almost all of the light bulbs in our house with the energy saver bulbs, and we've saved quite a lot on our electric bill.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
20 Jun 08
The video features a man from Texas explaining why Contress should not vote to replace the incandescent light bulbs with the more energy efficient flourescent ones. Besides that Congress should not have the authority to tell people what kind of bulbs they can use, he describessafety concerns connected to the useage of the flourescent bulbs. That is the gist of his
statements, but here is another link describing the very real threat of murcury contamination
the described in the video:http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#fluorescent
