I'm agenst(sp?) banning anything in particular because it is agenst my rights as an American Citizen. Now that I've said that, you could mark up the price until it was unbuyable or make it socially unacceptable to buy them. Something like that I could allow without a fight.

something like that sounds worse than a simple ban.

Just curious why should banning something be against your rights as a US citizen? I mean, child pornography is banned too for example, which is actually good to be banned.
But you seem to like applying double standards on your rights; or are you against the ban of child pornography?

should your government be allowed to ban stuff or shouldn't it be allowed?

something like that sounds worse than a simple ban.

Just curious why should banning something be against your rights as a US citizen? I mean, child pornography is banned too for example, which is actually good to be banned.
But you seem to like applying double standards on your rights; or are you against the ban of child pornography?

should your government be allowed to ban stuff or shouldn't it be allowed?


EDIT: what does this (sp?) mean. saw it several times on the forums but I just don't seem to get it.

(sp?) means 'spelling error?'

I dislike bans, I'm not saying that child pornography should be unbanned, I'm just saying that banning should stop, unless it is something that adversely affects the health (physical or mental) of people. The child is of couse experiencing that could be mentally debilitating for the rest of their lives(I also have a moral objection, but that's not part of law), so it is rightly banned. I'm just jumpy about new bans because they have a tendency to snowball.

Ah, but in a way, the incandescent light bulb is bad for people's health:

1. They use more electricity, which means more fossil fuels are used - which means more pollution in the atmosphere
2. You get through more of them, so there is more shipping involved from production to the home, so more pollution. And as more are made, there is more pollution from their production.
3. There are many occurrences of people falling off chairs and ladders when changing light bulbs. Reducing the number of times we have to change them will reduce this.
4. Most bulbs just get thrown away and end up in landfill - which releases methane which increases global warming, and takes up land which could be used for other things to aid human health.

Ah, ok, Thank you. I didn't think about that part of it. I still dislike the idea of banning anything, we should just make it more profitable to use alternative bulbs or less profitable to sell incandescent ones

incandesant light bulbs do not contain any matirials witch produce methane, nor do thay biodegrade in any sensable amount of time, glass takes 1,000,000 years to decompse naturaly. the metals would slowly oxidise, but thay would not go anywere.

I am pleased to see that at least one other person apart from myself has noticed the physics of the problem. Any light source produces heat because even the light eventually ends up as heat. Energy efficient lamps produce less unwanted heat compared with the wanted light energy. In any environment where supplementary heating is normal, the heat from the lighting is useful. I once worked in an office where the fluorescent lighting was part of the heating design. Therefore the energy efficiency of CFLs is only of significance in outdoor situations where heat is simply dissipated to the surroundings or in indoor situations where cooling (air conditioning) is normal rather than heating.

There is also an environmental problem with LEDs. The manufacture of these and other electronic devices requires the use of rare elements which are expected to become effectively even more rare over the next 10 to 20 years, pushing up production costs. Ramping up production as a replacement for an older technology is a strictly limited option. This is particularly applicable to solar panels.