• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • South Carolina Taking Light Bulb Ban into Its Own Hands

    Fed up with the federal government’s ban of the traditional incandescent light bulb, state representatives in South Carolina are pushing for the state to produce and use incandescents solely for its state.

    The Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act, which unanimously passed South Carolina’s Senate panel, would allow South Carolina manufacturers to continue to sell incandescent bulbs so long as they have “Made in South Carolina” on them and are sold only within the state. Other states have floated the idea, and last year Arizona passed a bill that would have done the same thing, but Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed the legislation.

    Whether the legislation becomes law remains to be seen, and even if it does become law, lawsuits will likely ensue. Regardless, South Carolina’s efforts demonstrate the will to remove the federal government’s ability to restrict individual choice. If the compact florescent light bulb (CFL) is a better choice, consumers will make that choice without the government’s push.

    The complaints of CFLs are fairly well known by now. Many consumers prefer the soft yellow lighting of incandescents to the unnatural, office-like white light of fluorescents. Other critics point out that CFLs do not work well in colder temperatures, so they emit less heat, forcing Americans to use their heaters more. Residents in houses with well-and-septic systems use the heat from incandescent bulbs to keep the water above freezing. Furthermore, CFLs do not work well with dimmer switches, and the lifespan of the bulb diminishes when turned off and on frequently.

    And they’re more expensive. But that’s all right, says the Department of Energy, because they use less energy than incandescents and last longer. Although, as I mentioned on C-SPAN last week, studies have shown that the energy savings from CFLs aren’t as great as initially purported. California utilities have spent nearly $550 million to subsidize CFL bulbs for its consumers, and these utilities were eager to see what kind of savings they were getting to subsidize bulb purchases. It turned out that the savings weren’t nearly as high as the electric utility PG&E thought they would be. In March, The Wall Street Journal reported:

    When it set up its bulb program in 2006, PG&E Corp. thought its customers would buy 53 million compact fluorescent bulbs by 2008. It allotted $92 million for rebates, the most of any utility in the state. Researchers hired by the California Public Utilities Commission concluded earlier this year that fewer bulbs were sold, fewer were screwed in, and they saved less energy than PG&E anticipated.

    As a result of these and other adjustments, energy savings attributed to PG&E were pegged at 451.6 million kilowatt hours by regulators, or 73% less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E for the 2006-2008 program.

    One hitch was the compact-fluorescent burnout rate. When PG&E began its 2006-2008 program, it figured the useful life of each bulb would be 9.4 years. Now, with experience, it has cut the estimate to 6.3 years, which limits the energy savings. Field tests show higher burnout rates in certain locations, such as bathrooms and in recessed lighting. Turning them on and off a lot also appears to impair longevity.

    This does not mean that CFLs won’t save consumers energy in the long run. But be wary of government bureaucrats telling you that you’ll save X dollars or save X amount of energy by buying a more efficient washing machine, air conditioner, vehicle, and other machine with energy-efficiency standards. My colleague David Kreutzer uses a personal example:

    [My] 1993 Maytag dishwasher used nine gallons of hot water and took 84 minutes to clean a normal load of dishes. The current model Maytag dishwasher uses seven gallons of hot water and takes 120 minutes to clean a normal load of dishes. This increase to a two- to three-hour cycle is typical and is the result of efficiency mandates that are met by using fewer gallons of water with much longer cycle times.

    The cost of two gallons of hot water is less than a dime. For many people, the additional cycle time of an energy-efficient dishwasher will be an inconvenience greatly exceeding the 10-cent savings. Some people would alter their behavior (sometimes washing their dishes by hand, for example), which could entirely offset these gains. However, the regulator’s calculation of savings ignores these costs. Markets, on the other hand, do not.

    Furthermore, government mandates can reduce product performance and, most importantly, ignore the fact that consumers can make intelligent decisions on their own without the government forcing choices upon them.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    155 Responses to South Carolina Taking Light Bulb Ban into Its Own Hands

    1. West Texan says:

      I've added to my supply of incandescent bulbs while personally preferring these for my lighting needs. That's freedom of choice regardless of big daddy government's consumer mandates. Who put these control freaks in-charge anyway? Please don't remind me about the duping of America's electorate. It's far too pathetic.

    2. Stirling, Pennsylvan says:

      The CFL/Incandesant lightbulb issue is more an issue of personal freedoms v.s government opression. In the ever-increasing nanny state government it will become clear that those states that stand up against the push into everyones personal freedoms will benefit in the long run when people start fleeing the opression of regulation. If states want to "grow and flourish" just give people an alternative to move financially to their safety of less government. And those states (like California) that want to go bankrupt keep opressing us with regualtion and you will continue to loose population and financially go bankrupt no matter how beatiful your state is.

    3. Pangloss0, Californi says:

      I would agree with the notion that the federal government should keep its hands off the light bulb market, but ONLY if the federal government also kept itself completely out of energy markets. This cannot happen while any kind of federal subsidy, or tax break is given to any kind of energy-related enterprise. We subsidize oil exploration. We de facto subsidize development with cheap leases. We offer energy producers all manner of deductions from their taxes. So, if we are going to take the government finger off one side of the scale, it has to come of both sides. Otherwise, decrying government intervention is just hypocrisy.

    4. Steve, HArrisburg NC says:

      You would NOT believe the draconian procedures a citizen is supposed to follow if you accidentally break a CFL light. Incredible. Might as well be like a nuclear reactor blew up in your home!

    5. Lyn Ridenourk, Wabas says:

      It's the same thing with E85 fuel! It might be cheaper to pump, but it doesn't give the same gas milage as regular gas. Folks, we are having the wool pulled over our eyes in the name of conservation.

    6. Sidney A Bordelon, M says:

      I am quite disappointed that you didn't include at least an acknowledgement of the LED (Light Emitting Diode) bulbs that are now being sold. Thay aren't suitable for all applications, but car manufacturers are making all headlights of the LED type because of their long life and very high light output. Each bulb contains sort of a bouquet of stems with an LED at the end of each stem. Thus if one diode burns out, it is barely noticeable. Cities are now using them for street lights becaue of their reliability and "fail safe" feature. There are no toxic chemicals in these bulbs. Because they are new they are also very expensive, but that will change. A lot of people won't like the bright white color of the light, but the bulbs still will find a lot of niches where they are superior. These bulbs have very low heat output. Sorry I don't have statistics at this writing, but LEDs will definitely become very popular.

      • Craig says:

        Yes, LED bulbs are quite nice, I use one for my desk lamp. It was $24.95 and I'm quite confident it will last me a long time. This debate however, is not about the superior light bulb, it is one about Freedom and Liberty. The question here, is what authority under the Constitution does the congress & federal government have to ban incandescent light bulbs? I am still under the impression that the 10th amendment means ALL powers NOT delegated to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the People or to the States. But hey, if most Americans actually understood our 10th amendment, the federal government would be a much more reasonable size and I wouldn't be stocking my crawlspace with a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs. Government cannot create; it can only coerce, extort and enslave.

    7. Bobbie says:

      I would rather have the discipline not to have things on when they are not needed. These fluorescents would have us leaving the light on when not needed just to save energy? Makes no sense. Totally practical for long hours in businesses and schools who are wise enough to know already.

      All this wasted time, money AND ENERGY, as government wants to desperately convince us government knows better than us!!! Fluorescents are not practical in every light socket of a residential dwelling and we are wise enough to know that already.

    8. Mike, Noble, OK says:

      Our governor here in Oklahoma doesn't have the courage to stand up and say no to this unfortunately.

    9. R Sweeney says:

      That Maytag dishwasher story is even WORSE.

      The 1993 version washed so well and so quickly not just because of more water, but because of superior detergents using phosphates (now banned).

      While new appliances have helped, both our dishes and our laundry are noticeably LESS clean after the ban, despite the fact that we have the high end appliances.

      There is ONE saving grace for the front load high efficiency washer. It's ultrahigh speed spin substantially reduces drying time and thus saves quite a bit on electricity as well as reducing the detergents left in the clothes over our older one. One step forward, two steps back.

    10. This just goes to show do ur research first and sometimes freedom of choice just naturally wins

    11. Mkelley says:

      I recently spent $750 replacing a refrigerator that was not that old. The Sears salesman told us that, while old ones seemed to last forever, the newer models were only good for 10 or 12 years, tops. It seems the coolant that is now mandated by the government does not lubricate the compressor like the old stuff did. The greens are taking away our standard of living one piece at a time.

    12. Susan Phillips, Lake says:

      I believe all the states should come together and start making their own decisions and not let the federal government cross boundaries. It is not for them to demand us to use anything they suggest. That is coming straight from communists. We the people have to start joining together and taking our country back. The (socialistic liberals/communists) are only looking to destroy America not preserve her. They only have their own agendas that they care anything about. I hope Pennsylvania becomes another state to fight it. The only thing is there are quite a few states out there that are already destroyed and brainwashed by the communists who have made them so they can't think for themselves. They have no clue!!!!!

    13. David says:

      If you break a CFL don't you nee a hazmat team for cleanup?

    14. Nelson says:

      These government fiats remind me of the CBO's approach to budgeting. Static models assuming people are too stupid or inflexible to change their behavior based upon changes in incentives.

      our governing bureaucrats, not being accountable to the market, will never get this point

    15. Steve, Hawaii says:

      I refuse to use CFLs because I don't like the type of light they put out and mainly due to the fact that THEY CONTAIN MERCURY and NOONE is raising the red flag and asking how we are supposed to dispose of them!!! I don't want to think of how many of these HazMat ripoffs are being thrown in the trash!!!

    16. richard40 says:

      Interesting how leftists go on and on about how they would never intrude into your bedroom the way those nasty conservatives would. But they seem quite willing to specify exactly what goes into your bedroom lamp, so it looks like their rhetoric about not intruding into your bedroom rings pretty hollow, like most leftie rhetoric.

    17. DonHavlicek, Edmore, says:

      The flourescent bulbs cause radio interference so I will never use them.

      ANY government telling me what I MAY use is going beyond what it is constitutionally permitted.

      When those flourescent bulbs break, you need to call HAZMAT, as they contain hazardous substances.

    18. Mike_K, California says:

      California sails on, impervious to common sense and mandating 33% of energy from "renewable sources" by some date. In the meantime I have stocked up on incandescent bulbs.

    19. pine says:

      I hate these new bulbs, they are expensive to purchase, don't save me anything noticible, and they are dangerous to the environment which I didn't know in the beginning. My entire house has these bulbs. good grief. Go so. carolina

    20. Steve, Pittsburgh says:

      True, your quote that two gallons of hot water cost about a dime. I have no issue with that at all. My issue is that you did not add in the cost of the electricity for the extended cycle time. After 3 loads,or days, this extra twenty minutes per load adds up to one kilowatt hour. Using my last bill, from WestPennPower (sic), comes out to about $.6718 cents. That is without adding in transmission charge = $.68 (assessed at $6.22 for 28 days @ 3 days use), the same is for Customer Distribution Charge of $.179 (rounded up from $.1785) and Kilowatt Distribution Charge of $.98 ( alost a full buck). For a total of $2.5108 for three loads of dishes. Add in the $.05 cents per load (times three for the kilowatt hour) of $.15 cents you then get a grand total of $2.6608. Now how much of that is JUST the dishwasher is up for grabs,I'm not going to figure out the usage of my tv, one light, and laptop. But that dishwasher would be the most expensive thing running.

    21. Two Scoops Rice, Haw says:

      For a couple of hundred bucks, you can go out and buy a stock of incandescent bulbs for every light fixture in your home that will last you a decade or more. That's what I did several years ago. In the meantime, I haven't had to replace a single incandescent light bulb in my entire house, which makes me think my supply of replacements will last more than 20 years.

    22. theBuckWheat, Land o says:

      My wife and I gave up on the dishwasher for the simple reason that there was no longer much difference in time and effort to get the dishes rinsed and ready for it to attempt to wash them compared to just washing them fully by hand. We now use the rack in the dishwasher to hold the drying dishes.

      These enviro-busybodies make me sick. We are now living in enviro-tyranny.

    23. styrgwillidar, Calif says:

      Also theres' the issue of mercury in the CFLs requiring additional precautions/cost for disposal (if federal regulations for HAZMAT are complied with).

      My personal experience with CFLs is they do not last anywhere near as long as incandescents.

    24. Dianne Carpenter, La says:

      It looks like a road trip to S.C. will be in the works!

    25. Mike, San Jose CA says:

      Three-word counterargument: "Wickard v. Filburne". If the government is allowed to tax animal feed grown by a farmer for his own use because "agriculture is inherently an interstate activity", then it's most certainly allowed to prevent a state from acting to circumvent federal regulatory action.

      Even if there were some kind of border inspection stations to prevent the bulbs from leaving, the Feds could still claim that since lightbulb manufacturers are a national concern, then the ICC lets them regulate all lightbulb manufacturing everywhere…

    26. ken in sc says:

      South Carolina has a long history of opposing federal mandates and ukases. When I was in the Air Force, South Carolina enforced state waste disposal regulations on Myrtle Beach AFB, something not usually done in other states. This is not to mention the late unpleasantness that occurred 150 years ago.

    27. chuck in st paul says:

      Here in the Twin Cities I pay $9+ for a 90 gallon garbage cart and $11 for the 'recycling charge'. And that lowers my bill how exactly…?? It turns out the government garbage burner is so expensive to operate that the haulers started hauling to neighboring states to dump. The State passed a law forbidding that. The courts had a moment of clarity and voided the law, but we're still subsidizing the inefficient burn plant and paying all the costs with no return for processing the other recylicables. What a triumph for BS (again).

    28. Kevin Aldrich, Buena says:

      I was able to remove the liberal water restriction plug in my new shower head so I can take good, non-liberal showers. I'm still stuck with a water wasting liberal toilet that won't flush human waste without many flushes and plunging. These liberal light bulbs are expensive and burn out real fast. They also emit radio frequency interference. They have mercury inside them so the next liberal step will be you have to turn in a burnt out liberal bulb to buy a new liberal bulb so the old liberal bulb can be disposed of in the liberal approved manner. I HATE LIBERALS and ALL they represent! Liberalism is the only REAL problem in the world today. Stop liberalism, and you stop the BIG PROBLEM.

    29. NC Mountain Girl, We says:

      The disposal problem is a killer, especially for rural Americans. Our local recycling center doesn't accept them. The electric co-op that serves my area has a special disposal bin in the lobby of their building. Unfortunately that happens to be 40 miles away in a direction I travel maybe 3 times a year.

      When one burned out after just a couple of months I did a bad thing. I wrapped it in with the rest of my garbage and thus polluted the landfill with mercury.

      Private enterprise may be coming to my rescue. On a recent shopping trip I saw that the local Lowes had put a special disposal bin near their customer service desk.

    30. Tlaloc, here says:

      "If the compact florescent light bulb (CFL) is a better choice, consumers will make that choice without the government’s push."

      That's only true if the consumer is presented with all the information but since a great deal of the cost of incandescent bulbs are hidden costs your statement is simply false.

    31. james andrews says:

      Do as the retailer in Germany did when the EU banned the "light" bulbs. Repackage them as "heatballs". They are 97.5% energy effective as a heat unit and they have a side effect of emitting light that can be shielded from your eyes with decorative shades sold for CFL lamps.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/15/us-germ

    32. Susan Gorgo, USA says:

      They can have my incandescent light bulb when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

    33. Sherry Nye Californi says:

      Not all of us that live in California are environmental wacks nuts!! How dare they tell us what we can and cannot use. What about the mercury in the lousy fluorescent lights! What a joke. I am stockpiling the oldfashioned bulbs. Govt. butt out!!!

    34. Hugh Janus, Charlest says:

      Never mind that all of the CFLs are Made in China!

    35. Suzanne, PA says:

      Just don't get me started on the mandate to remove phosphates from dishwasher detergents. Happily, when the ban was announced, I bought lots and lots of Cascade. At the present rate, I think I have about a two year supply, which should give manufacturers time to develop a new, better formula…or get the ban overturned. Many of my friends have returned to washing the dishes before they go in the dishwasher. The most dangerous words: We are your government and we're here to help.

    36. RebeccaH Ohio says:

      I can see it now: semis hauling contraband light bulbs to northern states. Hm, Ohio is a northern state. But we like to vacation in South Carolina, so we'd probably just fill up on our own.

    37. egoist says:

      9.4 : 6.3 Years, no matter, either exceed the life expectancy of California's utilities, let alone its statehood. Way to go SC! I'll put you on my short list of escape hatches.

    38. Donna Adams - Smithv says:

      I have been trying to stock up on incandescent bulbs because too many items that I have read leads me to believe they are really dangerous is you break one in your home. I have young grandchildren that come to visit quite often & I certainly do not want to harm them. Secondly, they are ugly in the hanging lights that I have in my kitchen eating area & the dining room & 2 of our bedroom & bathroom fixtures.

      I don't why they think they can cram this down our throats when so many don't want them.

    39. Pingback: SC taking light bulb ban into its own hands « OBX Tea Party News

    40. Paul Kienow says:

      I have noticed that the EPA when computing the comparative gas efficiency of electric cars is using the KWH to BTU conversion while ignoring the 33% efficiency of all steam power plants. Thus the actual gas mileage being realized by electric cars is about 40 mpg, or about what a hybrid or small gas powered car will achieve. What a terrible scam and waste of energy and resources.

    41. S.Lynn, California says:

      And to go along with running your dishwasher for a longer time, now that phosphates have been banned in dishwashing detergent you either have to hand wash or run the cycle a couple of times to get the dishes clean like they would get prior to the ban. So, to combat the government intervention we have stock piled enough regular lightbulbs probably to last a lifetime and are adding TSP (tri-sodium phosphate) to our dishwashing detergent (1 part TSP to 2 parts detergent) and now my dishwasher works like it used to.

    42. Judi Mott Albion,MI says:

      Leave it to SC to rebel against the federal government! In this case I agree. Our personal freedom is being infringed on again.

    43. Megaera, Virginia says:

      Where on earth did PG&E find a CFL that actually lasted more than 6 months? I know none of the ones I bought ever did, regardless of placement, wattage or usage. I got tired VERY quickly of watching that money go right down my (also) government-mandated toilet … don't know if the bulbs are actually subsidized in this state, but I do know when the subsidies went off in the UK and the true cost of CFLs became known consumers were horrified at the price of the junk they were being forced to buy.

    44. James says:

      I guess be driving down to south carolina for illegal lightbulbs in the future. Illegal lightbulbs…haha…

    45. Ruth Bacon, zip code says:

      Did anyone read the article about the mother who broke a CFL in her daughter's bedroom, and was told it would cost $2,000 to clean it up safely because of the mercury???

      What about those like me who live in older houses. I have three ceiling lights where the screwy looking bulbs do not work. I have stocked up on incandescent bulbs, 60 and 75 watts, and I need a three-way for another pull-down ceiling light. Anyone seen three-way CFL's? I can still get the others, may have to buy three or four.

      CFL's cost more, are dangerous, do not give as nice a light, and the overall energy saving is questionable.

    46. Mike Cakora says:

      Columbia, SC's The State newspaper published my op-ed "In defense of incandescence" several weeks ago. Each light technology – LED, halogen, CFL, and incandescent – requires it's own type of dimmer switch and all but the last are pretty expensive. I point out that incandescents work well for security lights too.
      http://www.thestate.com/2011/04/20/1785448/cakora

      I conclude with this:

      "By the way, I’ve figured out a way to make a killing with a new product: a 3-foot-wide by 3-foot-deep by 4-foot-tall galvanized steel box — just a box with a hinged top, no power cord, no motor, no lights. Per federal energy-efficiency standards, this box would score higher than any competing washer, dryer, refrigerator, dehumidifier, freezer or other home appliance. It would not do what the consumer needed, but it would save consumers untold billions in energy costs. If the feds were in charge, I’d make a fortune, no?

    47. amax says:

      Compact fluorescent lamps become energy inefficient when operated (swithched on) at ambient temperature drops below 60 degrees F, also contains phosphorus elements and heavy metal mercury determind to be on the our governments EPA "bad" list.

    48. Rebecca-GA says:

      I do not get as much light from the new bulbs. I feel like I am going blind. When I put a traditional bulb in a lamp, it's like I can see again. Saved me a trip to the eye doctor!

    49. J.J. Sefton says:

      I understand that some shrewd German businessmen are still selling outlawed incandescents as "warming globes" which have a key side effect that they emit light.

      Let's do it here, please.

    50. Pingback: Moe Lane » #rsrh You can take South Carolina’s incandescent bulbs…

    51. B. Lecil Gibson, Lit says:

      So far no one has mentioned the danger of using florescent bulbs around machinery.

      They go dark 60 times a second and cause a strobe effect leading you to think that moving blades or drills are standing still. I have them in the ceiling of my shop but a low wattage incandescent close to anything that moves.

    52. Jewel - North Caroli says:

      I'm not sure about the supposed "need to conserve water". As a school teacher I have taught the water cycle to elementary children. THEY didn't seem to have a problem understanding that there is NO water loss when water is used. It returns to the ground then, through a process, returns to the sky where the cycle is repeated. So…WHY are we so concerned about not using water? It returns and is re-used. God is the original re-cycler, isn't He?

    53. Janice K, Severn MD says:

      Well written, highlighting some of the issues with government-mandated products which continue to erode personal choice in the country.

    54. Jake J, Salt Lake Ci says:

      It's nice to see the Heritage Foundation talking about the benefits of nullification for once.

    55. swo4h6tygedlnb says:

      This scheme of using the federal government using the commerce clause to exert control over the states is having the effect of weakening the union rather than being a force holding it together. If every state has to pass "made at home" laws to get around federal regulations the we will lose all the economic benefits of interstate commerce and return to the days of independent colonies.

      It is like creeping secession.

    56. mike scarpelli says:

      Good for you SC. The damn CGL's don't last either, so this whole notion of "Green" is BS, there is no saving the environment if you use twice as much and pay 4 times the price. GET the FEDS off our BACKS. Protect individual rights to make our own choices.

    57. Dan P says:

      Incandescent light bulbs emit 90% of the energy they use as heat. That's a poorly functioning product.

      If nobody invented CFLs or commercialized LEDs, these would be the inventions that manufacturers would now be looking for.

    58. Scott Moore says:

      I'll make you save a nickle,

      force you to spare a dime,

      I am the government;

      soon, all will be mine.

      Do as I say,

      not as I do:

      Don't you know,

      I'm helping you?………..

      I am thankful for the courageous people of South Carolina who are not afraid to do what is right and prudent in standing against the tide of falsehood, that so easily disguised as, "helping you".

    59. Eileen Burnett, De P says:

      You forgot one major pitfall of the CFL bulbs. The EPA describes clean up after breaking one of these toxic delights. http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
      Have we gone mad?

    60. Penny, NC says:

      Way to go South Carolina! Hope this passes and incandescent bulbs will be made in your state. I live in NC and make a trek down south a couple of times a year for fireworks. I would definitely add light bulbs to my trip!

    61. Rocketman says:

      It's nice to see that Federalism is making a comeback on a variety of intrusive, nanny-state issues. The movement continues to take back OUR country.

      ~(Ä)~

    62. badswing says:

      and dont forget that the CFL's have MERCURY in them. the hypocrisy is incredible. go to Maine's website and read what they suggest to do if one breaks…like remove small children and pets from the room, throw away carpets, dont use a vacuum or if you do throw out the vacuum,turn off all centralized air, etc etc. thank God for the internet. people can still stay informed b/c the MSM is way out of whack.

    63. Scott Berkley, Michi says:

      You forgot about the Mercury in the CFL's. And that to get rid of one here in South Oakland County, you have to set up an appointment with the local waste recovery center or drop them off in a bag at Home Depot. The bulbs do not last six years. I have had two grocery bags full of burned out bulbs I have had to take to Home Depot.

    64. shorething brigantin says:

      we have two cfl lights on timers, but use real lightbulbs where we sit to read, they have their place but everywhere is not it. it's almost as stupid as saying properly inflating your tires will solve our energy problems, or that windmills and solar cells are dependable, the wind doesn't always blow enough to turn the turbines and except in the alaska (during summer) the sun doesn't always shine. and what about winter with zero sunshine. yeah let's just forget practicality and go for the sound bite.

    65. M.Long says:

      Great for South Carolina! In addition to making a stand against tyranny, jobs will be created. There is no telling what new inventions the entreprenuers will be coming up with as they set up shop to make the light bulbs. It looks like a monopoly has committed suicide and left the field wide open!

    66. Daniel K Columbia SC says:

      And recently a report was produced by researchers in Germany showing that the bulbs emit cancer causing carcinogens from the moment they are turned on. Here is an article about the report from the Telegraph.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8462626/Energy-

      Thanks for the report on SC legislation. SC working for SC sounds great to me!

      Daniel

    67. Steve, Reading PA says:

      Finally, common sense! We can only hope that 49 other states follow South Carolina's lead. The new bulbs will create an environmental nightmare when all that mercury ends up in our soil, water and air. The very purpose of these bulbs was to be out of concern for the environment. Instead, it's going to create an enironmental crisis. Then you can ask these folks where they were when they should have been out protesting these new bulbs, not campaigning to outlaw the current bulbs.

    68. John T says:

      For some consumers, it goes beyond just a preference for the softer light of incandescent bulbs. For people who suffer from migraines the harsh light of fluorescent lights can trigger or contribute to a migraine headache. Beyond that, there have been many studies on the bad health effects of fluorescent lights.

      One dose of the medicine my son takes after he's hit with a migraine headache costs more than any savings due to using less electricity. And that's not even counting the cost of his suffering. Those are costs the federal government never sees and never takes into account. I don't know what we'll do when incandescent bulbs are no longer available for our home.

    69. Crazy Water says:

      Great…now do it in North Carolina!

    70. Peg Cottle Phoenix A says:

      These bulbs create a prison atmosphere with a cold, greying of the room. I have started taking incondescents traveling now, so I can change them in the B&B or hotel room. I am very concerned also with the mercury leached into ground water over time, with millions of bulbs after they are thrown away. Has anyone done a long term study of this. It seems whenever environmentalists mandate for the "green" cause, they end up damaging humans and the environment because the "cause" is emotional, not scientific.

    71. Carl Baxter, Riverto says:

      If you test each type of bulb (curly CFL for home use VS. standard incandescent) using an AmWatt meter readily available, you will find that

    72. John, Cranford NJ says:

      I find that almost all energy efficient appliances have a "HEAVY" or "EXTRA WATER" button. If you press that button, it works almost as well as a normal appliance. If you don't press that button, it makes some noise, but doesn't get a lot of work done.

      So all the energy efficient appliance does is force me to select the heavy duty cycle every time I use the machine. I would like to make that the default, but that is never an option. Big Nanny wouldn't like that…

    73. doloresk,atlanta says:

      What about the disposal dangers – mercury?

    74. Carl Baxter, Riverto says:

      If you test each type of bulb (curly CFL for home use vs. a standard incandescent) similarly rated for wattage and lumens, using an AmWatt meter readily available, you will find:

      1. the curly CFL bulb CONSUMES 3-4 times the wattage of an incandescent;

      2. resulting in higher USE COSTS of the bulb (you're using more watts/money.)

      Conclusions:

      a. curly CFL's cost more to buy;

      b. their lifespan in NOT that much greater when you consider on/off use, temperature, light, breakage, disposal, etc., and;

      c. CFL's COST MORE TO USE. Go ahead, try it yourself!

      South Carolina HAS IT RIGHT! BUY USA REGULAR BULBS!

    75. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    76. Kay , Virginia says:

      the people passing all the laws are not the brightest bulbs on the trees. all you have to do is turn on c-span and listen. the american people are much better choice makers because it is their pocketbooks that have to pay for mistakes. how they got elected is an unknown. of course some people have tremendous sales ability and some people are incredibly gullible.

    77. Carl Baxter, Riverto says:

      Cfl bulb's consume 3-4 times the wattage during use as an incandescent bulb – similar wattage and lumens. AmWatt meter, readily avilable. Try it!

    78. Stephen - North Caro says:

      Patrick Henry said …"Give me liberty or give me death ! " We've allowed the Feds to take our liberty and in exchange they're giving us death by mercury.

    79. peterdub, wicklow says:

      RE "Other states have floated the idea"

      Georgia too, it has passed the senate vote there

      Canada too, Government now proposing a 2 year delay to 2014

      RE "Be wary of government bureaucrats telling you that you’ll save X dollars or save X amount of energy by buying a more efficient washing machine, air conditioner, vehicle, and other machine with energy-efficiency standards"

      This is true – one simple reason being that if energy efficiency lowers energy usage cost, appliances are simply used more, or left on, as shown by Scottish and Cambridge research ( http://ceolas.net/#cc202x , also covering other reasons why energy efficiency regulations don't work, with a focus on light bulbs )

    80. Bob W Maine says:

      We have light fixtures that will not accept CFLs. Our recently remodeled home would need very expensive fixture replacement if CFL type bulbs were required. In addition, the heat generated by our many Halogen lights in the Kitchen is vented into another room above, making the room comfortable when lights are on in the Kitchen…which is most of the time. We also have a large number of lights on Dimmers to save energy and meet our needs, making incandescent bulbs the only practical alternative. We are tired of government "mandating" our lives. Alcohol in gasoline has already cost us too much. Out fleet of seven vehicles has dropped an average of 3 MPG since alcohol was mandated. We have gone from about 19.5 MPG average to less that 17 mpg based on a years record keeping.

    81. kjatexas Dallas, TX says:

      Where in the Constitution, is the federal government authorized to tell us what kind of light bulbs we have to buy, or how much water our toilets can legally flush?

    82. HogTown, US says:

      Technology, like time, marches on. What is going to happen to incandescants when LED lights come to market at a reasonable and competitive price? I agree the Curly Fry Light, as an alternative to incandesants, have undesireable attributes. I'm just hoping and praying that LEDs can come to market sooner rather than later for us lowly consumers and we can put the Curly Fry Light manufactures out of business…

    83. e pluribus unum, Con says:

      It is NONE of government's business what light bulbs I use or how I wash my dishes. I'm the one paying for the electricity from a private company. They have ruined the pleasure of hot showers, ruined the pleasure of relaxing with a nice book under Edison's wonderful invention and they scold me for being an individual rather than a sheep following government leaders. Enough!

    84. kjatexas Dallas, TX says:

      2. Why has no one pointed out the hazardous chemicals that are inside the compact fluorescent light bulbs, that could contaminate our homes should we break one.

    85. Bruce R says:

      Great now do it in North Carolina!

    86. Bill Wyckoff, Kansas says:

      I date each CFL with a Sharpie and they last less than half the advertised time. Aside from the obvious mercury problem, if the glass is broken on a CFL the base will float like a ball forever. Inside the base are at least 27 electrical components soldered to a board. Just the kind of waterway pollution we do not need. However, should an incandescent bulb make it to the sea, the glass turns to sand the base dissolves and nothing is left. Wonder how many of the billion we use are out there floating around?

    87. William B. Moreno Va says:

      So let me get this straight – they use less power than regular bulbs but you can't turn them off or else they burn out; when they do burn out you have a hazardous materials disposal problem ; you will be fined for putting them in the trash, but, no problem, you can drive them to your state approved recycling center; if one breaks you have a nearly imposssible to clean up toxic spill right in your home; and on top of that they are ugly?

      So, whats not to like? No wonder the government has to force us ignorant dolts to use them, we are not near smart enough to do something so obiviously for our own good by ourselves.

    88. Sean says:

      CFL's take a few minutes to warm up. When I throw the switch for the porchlight to light up the entire front yard immediately, CFL's will only illuminate the first few steps. Eventually I can see out to the gate.

      I suspect folks with motion detector lights will experience the same delay.

    89. Spencer, Ohio says:

      Go South Carolina, I wish my state would do it. 1960's Liberal hippies protest the government and are called patriotic, and those involved with civil dispobediance. 2010's: Conservatives protest the government and are called racist.

    90. So Cal Jim says:

      Siegfried Rotthaeuser's "heatball" idea is BRILLIANT!!! I"m going to try to get a franchise for Southern Commiefornia.

    91. Pingback: Carolina Reps. Trying To Free The State From Federal Light Bulb Ban — ExposeTheMedia.com

    92. peterdub, wicklow says:

      Good to see the South Carolina action

      Also notice the Georgia state ban repeal that has passed in the local Senate,

      and now the Canadian Government's recent 2 year delay proposal, to 2014!

      How manufacturers and other vested interests have pushed for a ban on

      the popular but unprofitable simple regular types of light bulbs, and lobbied for favors: http://ceolas.net/ with documentation and copies of official communications

      Besides, no-one was calling for “a ban on energy guzzling radio tubes”

      (similarities with incandescents) when they were abundant, and newer

      transistors (similarities with LEDs) were arriving on the market.

      The tubes got used less anyway – but are still appreciated for special

      uses, without breaking down any power plant (any guitarists out there?).

      Hence:

      If a new product is preferred to the old one, why ban the old one?

      (No point, little savings)

      If an old product is preferred to the new one, why ban the old one?

      (No point, the old one is better)

      Think about it.

    93. Uncle Grumpy, Virginia says:

      Hmm, my wife recently asked if I would consider relocating to South Carolina. I told her I wasn’t sure. Gov. Haley’s place is staring to look better.

    94. Karen Ross, Californ says:

      The candescent bulb lasted 6.3 years??? Really? Obviously these nut jobs have never actually used one of the bulbs. I use one in my outside light and I have to replace it 2-3 times a YEAR!!! And of course I love the fact that I have to get out my hazmat suit to dispose of the thing. Unbelievable.

    95. Pingback: Cold Fury » South Carolina leading the way

    96. Pingback: Saving the American Dream | The Foundry

    97. Robert Bresnahan , Y says:

      ………and look at all the time and money that would be saved by eliminating

      all the studies,estimates, projections, forums,etc.

    98. Scott says:

      High praise for S.C. for doing what is right for the people. This whole CFL scam is just another way for the government and it's pet company GE to milk the public for more money. I live in the Northwest, where CFL's have a tendency to break from the smallest vibration when it is cold out. I've had several new bulbs die simply from me stamping the snow or mud off my feet in my porch. Evidently, the force of my feets stamping on the floor created enough vibration in the structure of the house to blow the bulbs. Never had this problem until I switched to CFLs because they were so "cost efficient".

      More states need to follow S.C.'s lead and tell the Federal Government that they can't exceed their constitutional powers. The Fed is neither all powerful nor all knowing. The constitution gives them 18 powers. The rest of it rightly falls to the state and local levels. But the Federal Government in it's current form, seems to want to control every aspect of our lives. We need to set the line that they will not be allowed to cross.

    99. John, Cranford NJ says:

      Every time I plunger a low flow toilet, I send a thank-you e-mail to Al Gore.

    100. apotheosis says:

      I've had pretty good luck with CFLs in the few applications I've used them in, even applications that are traditionally said to be bad for them or shorten their longevity (enclosed in ceiling globes, recessed fixtures, etc.)

      HOWEVER…that's my CHOICE. The government shouldn't have any place in the matter of whether I use CFL or traditional incandescents.

    101. Spiritof76, NH says:

      Let us save really big. Fire all of the bureaucrats in the alphabet agencies of the government. We will save money and will be better off in our lives. The parasites must go.

    102. Pingback: Must Reads for May 10 | NetRight Daily

    103. Steve @ Dumfries, Vi says:

      I sure hope this law is passed, if only to make the point that the Commerce Clause does not grant unending power to the federal government.

    104. Wesley, OK says:

      No mention of the fact that some people are very sensitive to the light from the CFLs – my daughter lasts about an hour before she gets a migraine from the frequency of the light.

    105. Kedwards says:

      This is just dumb. Its OBVIOUS that the bulbs save money. I haven't had to replace a single CFL in 3 years and my power bill is 20% lower. My next step is to go solar for the water heater. Once again the so called conservatives are anything BUT about conservation. Hope you guys enjoy having your taxes raised to fund energy plants to run your 100 year old light bulb technology. Sometimes its better to upgrade.

      I will be shocked if this gets through the moderators.

      • Daughn Spahn says:

        No see there, this is what infuriates people on the other side of the aisle – your automatic assumptions.
        I would generally be perceived as a conservative, yet, frankly, I know no one who attempts to conserve for than I. Plus, I did so before it was popular.
        1. Five years ago, I put in a "master shower" and redid plumbing to provide gray water to foundation plantings. Did the plumbing myself.
        2. Put in another "master shower" and that took care of the rest of the foundation plantings.
        3. Put in a swimming pool and tried to get solar panels for heating, realized my state was behind the curve and actually helped to propose and write the legislation in my state. Take that!
        4. Dimmers, caulking, extra insulation, I do it all because utilities for my business are expensive. It's called capitalism and the never ending search to squeak by with a profit.

        Let's go one step further because hypocrites should never be tolerated.
        A. At 49 years old, I have probably only had (perhaps) 20 "bottles of water". I thought it was a stupid idea in the mid-90's and refused to buy into the idea that I must spend $1 for a bottle of water.
        B. In a house/business with 4 kitchens/13 bathrooms/and 7 bedrooms I only use about one roll of paper towels per month and NO Swiffers. It's wasteful. This place is five star immaculate and done with common 100% cotton dish towels – for the past 17 years – wonder how many trees I saved???
        C. Founding member and treasurer of a Master Gardener program in our county and region. We build arboretums, educate farmers, businesses and homeowners. How many trees have you planted?
        D. I do business internationally for the purchase of building products – yeah, wood and stone – quarries and forests. I consistently am saught out by factory owners and manufacturers to help them do a better a more responsible job in harvesting their materials.
        E. I have NEVER had a Starbucks coffee – it's just stupid and wasteful.
        F. I don't belong to a gym, I have nine flights of stairs in my home. I work. I save my money.

        You see, I am a conservative, a capitalist, and a business owner. I conserve because it's in my best interest to save money. I do it because it makes sense for my own kids.

        Therefore, the next time you decide to sound off about conservatives in broad sweeping generalities, just take a moment and make sure no one can ever accuse you of being a hypocrite.

    106. Elen says:

      I am stockpiling the same bulbs I have used all my life. The steps that must be taken to dispose of these new bulbs — especially if one breaks — is scary. Most lampshades do not accommodate these new bulbs. A minor problem — no. The money I would have to spend to replace shades — if they are available — wipes out any "savings" the government claims. What I want the government to do — in this issue and many others is to stay out of my life.

    107. Roger S., Mass. says:

      Started stockpiling incandescent bulbs a couple of years ago. (I can soon expect to make some money on the "black market"?) So much for that project.

      Next project is to rip out the electronic controls from my 6 year old washing machine and "re-engineer" with some simple timer and switches of yore. Expect to get shorter cycle times, cleaner laundry, about the same "savings", and above all, something that works "for" me, not against me.

      Federal bureaucrats (all bureaucrats?): Idiocrats!

      Definition: Overpaid mind(less) workers for freedom (from good ideas)!

      Fire them all and double your savings!

    108. Adam, Iowa says:

      About the LED's: They may have much value in the future, but won't solve everything, as seen when I lived in Minnesota. The stop lights were changed to LED's, and in bad snow storms, the snow stuck to the light and covered them up leading to car accidents. This was an unintended consequence when cities were used to the old bulbs creating heat and melting that snow.

    109. Henry says:

      This is called government being in bed with General Electric!

    110. Henry says:

      My made in Mexico refrigerator makes noise like a jet taking off, You cannot purchase made in AMERICA REFRIGERATOR.

    111. gbobbymac, SC says:

      South Carollinians have FIRED on Ft. Sumter AGAIN!!!

    112. Peg Fisk Port Cheste says:

      This is great news to me. Every time I go to a supermarket I buy six or seven boxes of the "real" lightbulbs. Now I can get them from South Carolina!

    113. Heather Kennedy, Mel says:

      Bravo, South Carolina!

      Any chance of exporting this excellent product to Australia?

      My small store of the wonderful old-style light bulbs is — alas — running low… & our lunatic government has ensured that only the dangerous, mercury-filled "icecream" style versions are now available.

      I guarantee you'd find an enthusiastic & eager market for your product here in the Great Southern Land.

    114. JD, Los Angeles says:

      Suppose I have a problem, Menieres Disease, which has a drug called SERC as one of its sovereign treatments in most countries of the world. Can I get it here in the US if I have a prescription and if not, why not?

      No, I cannot. The long "why" is that a researcher whose name became tainted with faulty research had conducted some of the FDA required research into SERC's safety and efficacy. So, the FDA disallowed that research. It is an out of patent product in a small market. So the maker elected not to spend a lot of money on getting the drug approved. So, the FDA says it cannot be sold in this country.

      This inspires a very simple question, "Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government get the right to prevent me from purchasing that drug at my nearby pharmacy?"

      Does this answer resemble the answer to the question about incandescent light bulbs and a consumer's right to choose for him or herself?

      The government has stolen that right from us. And I have come to believe that by a large margin most of what the government does today is equally unconstitutional. Unfortunately for me Medicare and Social Security fall under that category as well.

      {^_^}

    115. Pingback: South Carolina Battles Feds Over Light Bulbs | South Carolina News Press | South Carolina Breaking News Headlines | SC

    116. peter, dublin says:

      Good to see the South Carolina Light Bulb action

      Also notice the Georgia state ban repeal that has passed in the local Senate,

      and now the Canadian Government's recent 2 year delay proposal, to 2014

      (http://ceolas.net/#li1x)

      There is a lack of logic about the ban on the simple regular types of light bulbs:

      No-one was calling for “a ban on energy guzzling radio tubes”

      (similarities with incandescents) when they were abundant, and newer

      transistors (similarities with LEDs) were arriving on the market.

      The tubes got used less anyway – but are still appreciated for special

      uses, without breaking down any power plant (any guitarists out there?).

      Hence:

      If a new product is preferred to the old one, why ban the old one?

      (No point, little savings)

      If an old product is preferred to the new one, why ban the old one?

      (No point, the old one is better)

      Think about it…

    117. Valerie Ambers,Chesh says:

      Congratulations to S.C. doing something about another federal mandate being shoved down our throats by the nanny government. Besides these CFL's costing an arm and a leg the worst part is the disposable. According to the EPA instructions when disposing of them in the event they shatter you have to clear out the room and move pets and people out for hours if possible unless they are dead already, turn off heat or air conditioning, us duct tape to pick up the pieces,no vacuuming,double bag the burnt out bulb,do not use near the head. Now how many people are going to read the instructions!

      They are not recommended for track lighting or with dimmers. With the present bulbs your worst hazard is getting cut and need stitches. The CFL's that shatter is having to call a hazmat team and spend money and/or getting exposed to mercury.Just wait and see after they are completely banned, there will be mercury poisoning,deaths and lawsuits in the future.

      I have been stocking up with the incandescent bulbs for the future.

    118. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      I like the idea of SC making and selling within its borders ILBs. That should be commerce outside the reach of Congress. Oh, you know what they'll say though. SC is affecting interstate commerce by making their own federally-banned ILBs. The statists have to protect their political cash-cow GE by forcing all of us low-life citizen-subjects to buy their CFLs.

    119. Jim50, Kansas City, says:

      Sidney A Bordelon, Morgan Hill, CA … LEDs use toxic materials in their manufacturing. They are expensive. In Northern locations stop lights get covered with ice/snow that the incadesent bulbs melt off but the LEDs do not causing massive traffice/accident problems. LEDs are useful in some cases but they are NOT a replacement for everything. And how much energy/resources does it take to make them? Nobody has mentioned that.

    120. Lisa Sykes says:

      The single BEST reason not to use CFL's is the high mercury content in them. A broken bulb in a household, or many in the landfill, causes serious risks of exposure to mercury, a known neurotoxin, carcinogen, and teratogen. Modern society must move away from mercury rather than putting in every room in our homes!

    121. timb says:

      Wow, a lack of knowledge of the history of federal nullification, Wicjkard v Fillmore, and the cause of the Civil War all combine to make a Heritage blog post which somehow is dumber than the rest of Heritage blog postings.

      How much tax money from South Carolina goes to defending obviosuly unconstitutional bills passed by South Carolina's crusading legislature in the name of "small government." Probably enough to exempt the few rich people in the State from paying any taxes at all.

    122. Pingback: Taking the lightbulb back…for TB « The HabitableZone

    123. william, hopkins, mn says:

      We are all to blame for this lunacy. Our elected officials, and we elected them, listen to and take money from everyone from the Sierra Club, to CFL manufactures, to dishwasher manufactures, etc… Then they get in front of TV cameras and tell us how bad lobbying is. I don't know which is dumber, voting for these people or wasting time bitching about it. It is not the government that is stupid. It is the people who put up with it.

    124. Dave Templeton says:

      Banning incandescents was just another way that the Obama Bin Laden administration could creep into the lives of Americans! I have yet to find one thing they have sponsored or promoted that has helped the economy, reduced unemployment or stopped the sand box wars – after all wasn't that what this immature and unaccomplished token president was supposed to bring to the office?

    125. edf says:

      gee, I wonder who makes the new bulbs;hmmmm, maybe GE(whose ceo visits the white house every day)

    126. Lew Richards Palm Ba says:

      "Thank You" , South Carolina, please put me on your list of Customers for the "REAL American lightbulb"!

      I will buy and use it in every room of my home as I read our Constitution that our founders wrote for us.

      We now have politicans in office whom are as dumb as a burnt out bulb! They are ignorant of America,s Heritage and our Constitution. They wander around in D.C. as if they just appeared from deep within a cave in Kenya.

      Just today I see our 'dictator-in-chief and his mate have invited a "Cop Killer" to read poetry in our White House! Truly a meeting of the "Unfits"!

    127. Steve.N. Adams, Mass says:

      Kudos to South Carolina. The feds have right to regulate our uses and purchases. I hope all the states display the same insight and courage as South Carolina.

    128. Steve.N. Adams, Mass says:

      Kudos to South Carolina. The feds have no right to control what we buy and how we use it. I hope all the states cam display the same insighit and courage as SC.

    129. lights out,NC says:

      Not only is the ban on incandescent bulbs costing us by making us buy more expensive lamps(CFL's) filled with mercury, the cost of clean up,yes you do have to call HAZMAT under certain conditions,your cost of course. It has also cost me my job. All CFL's are made in China!! Be for real!! When is our own government going to start looking in their own backyard and do something to start to bring back America!! All the loos of jobs due to this ban will cost us more then just the price of a lamp in the end. Go SC

    130. Nancy, Virginia says:

      I heard something rather comical last winter regarding the CFLs. A nearby town replaced all their traffic lights with CFLs, and during a heavy snowstorm, they found these bulbs don't generate enough heat to melt snow, so they had to send crews out to clean the snow off the lights. With the cost of worker wages as well as their equipment, I would guess that the CFLs ended up costing more in the long run. How much more stupid can government be???

    131. Marguerite Wincheste says:

      Good Luck, SC! Two hundred people here in Winchester, VA lost their jobs when GE closed the last of its incandescent light bulb factories. Now we must depend on China to light the USA. Am I the only one who feels those new "politically correct" bulbs don't produce enough light. I have eye problems and I find this to be true in my case. Its a sad state of affairs. How are we going to solve the unemployment problem when all the factories are now overseas? And, I understand that GE doesn't pay any income tax. How much money does GE allocate to political agendas?

    132. peterdub says:

      Good to see the South Carolina Light Bulb action..

      Also notice the Georgia state ban repeal that has passed in the local Senate,

      and the Canadian Government's recent 2 year delay proposal, to 2014!

      People don’t save that much in switching anyway.

      One reason is that the heat can be useful as background room heat,

      another is that common cheaper CFLs (“energy saving” lights )

      draw twice the energy from the power plant than what your meter suggests – but users of course have to pay for that eventually too

      (look up CFL “power factor” online, or

      http://ceolas.net/#li15eux with more about the lack of savings from the ban)

      Besides, no-one was calling for “a ban on energy guzzling radio tubes”

      (similarities with incandescents) when they were abundant, and newer

      transistors (similarities with LEDs) were arriving on the market.

      The tubes got used less anyway – but are still appreciated for special

      uses, without breaking down any power plant (any guitarists out there?).

      Hence:

      If a new product is preferred to the old one, why ban the old one?

      (No point, little savings)

      If an old product is preferred to the new one, why ban the old one?

      (No point, the old one is better)

      Think about it…

    133. Tony says:

      Can you say mercury? Amazing how many uninformed people there are isnt it?

      Following the herd without even thinking….

      Anyone looked at studies of being under partial spectrum light for extended periods?

      oh, those silly masses. Amazing there are so many persons still believing that BP, Exxon, the EU, and George Soros loudly and firmly behind carbon taxing is not a red flag on that whole global governance scam either.

      The herd is in for a rude awakening…..Better wake up folks.

    134. steve cormier,reno,n says:

      what would happen if the ban went into effect is after some time a tag would appear on the light bulb box! you would be directed to a disposal center and pay a fee to dispose it ,if the tag did npt show up in the system after the life of the lamp somebody will want to know why!

    135. Pingback: South Carolina Launches the Battle of the Bulb | South Carolina News Press | South Carolina Breaking News Headlines | SC

    136. Margaret Mueller, Ro says:

      The South Carolina legislature is more effective at creating manufacturing jobs than our president.

    137. Kari, MN USA says:

      …not to mention, they give people massive headaches and can seriously affect people with disorders like aspergers, ADHD and autism, due to the rapid flickering (that cannot be seen by the naked eye, but sensed by our brains).

      My brother and sister in law installed them in their home, and she started having massive migraines almost immediately afterwards.

      I have stockpiled incandescents, and buy them every chance I get. Who wants to make a run to SC for some light bulbs? As long as we pay for them while in SC, no one can stop us!

    138. Pingback: Giving New Meaning to State Control « The Prudence Paine Papers

    139. Wes, Danville, CA says:

      Last month I wrote to our local paper of an additional problem with cfl's. One morning I was having breakfast with my wife and one of the 3 cfl's above our breakfast table began to flicker and go out. Moments later I smelled an odd oder and looked up to see smoke pouring out of the bulb base and a bright glow. I immediately turned off the light. If I had left the room for more than a minute I more than likely would have had a fire which I may or may not have been able to control. About a week after my letter was published I was listening to the radio and they were talking about reports around the country where cfl's had caused extensive damage and house fires. Just another hidden deadly hazard our government wont tell us about

    140. H. Steudemier, New Y says:

      The federal government wants what is best for us so it has graciously stepped in to tell us what light bulbs we can and can't use. Remember, Big Brother loves you…

      The incandescent bulb ban sounds like a farce in the Onion. Since when do Americans allow this sort of runaway government to dictate our lives? Bravo South Carolina! Don't let anybody boss you around. Where is Texas though? Not leading the way? Not even joining the fight?

      http://www.rubylee1776.wordpress.com

    141. r. lee, north caroli says:

      good for SC! proud of them &relieved that not everyone is willing to be dictated to. How do we get this in NC?

    142. S. Handeland Iowa says:

      Thank you to the thorough-bred Americans in South Carolina!

    143. dan says:

      BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. In my house these things do not last much–if any–longer than incandescent bulbs. Besides the cost, they all make a buzzing noise. Some are worse than others, but I've had several different brands and they ALL BUZZ. During the day in a noisy environment it isn't noticeable, but trying to read by one at night is nerve-wracking. Moreover the toxic waste in them masks the true cost.

    144. Great American, Flor says:

      You can have my incandescent bulb when you can pry it from my cold, dead fingers!

    145. Harry Snyder Tempera says:

      As an aside: I and some friends in High School Physics class discovered a little ceramic jug with a tag saying mercury. We were curious and poured a little out onto our palms, watching it roll around. A liquid metal! Amazing! I don't believe any of us died from that experience (most of my Class of 1946 are still living!).

      Relating that anecdote to people I know who I didn't go to school with tell me the same stories. And they seem to be quite healthy.

      Remember the mercury fever thermometers? I still have one and do not hesitate to use it. Am I doomed? (Big Brother is watching.)

    146. Cindi says:

      Perhaps the Indian reservations could sell incandescent bulbs as well as tax-free cigarettes.

    147. Ken H says:

      I've been buying and stockpiling incandescents (I now have about 200 stashed away) since I learned of the governments impending ban on these bulbs. I find the erosion of our rights to make free choices absolutely deplorable. What the heck is next? Our food? Oh sorry, I forgot thats in the works too!

    148. Jay Walker says:

      Before I started my own business I didn't think something like finding light bulbs would be important. However, now with rising energy costs I did my homework and shopped around and found that Light Bulbs provides a great selection. I'd definitely recommend this site to find the right bulbs.

    149. wally says:

      all you people should know it is not a question of gov. making us buy a toxic bulb. we have a right to say no.
      to force congress to stop this. i am starting a movement . there is excess amounts of mercury in the ocean
      now they want to give it to us on land? remember they work for us not corporate america! kids are always breaking glass what happens if they break these bulbs home alone and inhale the vapors? i,ll tell you what death! america we need to rise up and demand no mercury poising in our house. if you think it ain,t that bad philadelphia had to change all gas meters that had mercury switchs in them! people got very very sick! call you congressman and senators now!

    150. Monique says:

      "Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act"? Seriously? They make it sound as if light bulbs were sentient beings with rights that need protecting.

    151. Daughn Spahn says:

      I have 172 light bulbs in just the main part of the house. Was anxious to save funds with the new bulbs. I jumped on the bandwagon about 5 years ago at significant expense.
      To date, not one of these bulbs has lasted longer than 18 months and absolutely no noticeable difference in the utility bill.
      We do decorate extravagantly for Christmas and replaced our regular lights with LED's. Over $2,000 to replace the lights and it saves us about $200 per Christmas season on a monthly utility bill. Please note, the propaganda concerning the estimated life of a string of LED Christmas lights being 25,000 hours is patently FALSE. They last no longer than the regular lights – incredibly frustrating and a waste of funds.

    152. betty says:

      It looks like a road trip to S.C. will be in the works!

    153. Evan says:

      Why viewers still use to read news papers when in this technological globe the

      whole thing is accessible on web?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×