Republicans Why Are You "OutRaged" by the Mandatory Switch to Compact Fluorescent Bulbs but not to Hi-Def TV?
First, let me just say that I've seen a million commercials recently stating that it will become a "law" that all programs must be broadcast in Hi-Definition.
Don't our politicians have anything BETTER to do than pass such "laws?"
Secondly, How many of them received campaign contributions to pass such a "law?"
Why are Republicans so opposed to switching to Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs?
(Not only will they save the environment, but they'll save you MONEY too! And we all know how much Republicans LOVE their money!)
Why is it okay for BIG Business retailers, Corporations, etc. to use them? Clearly, it's because they're cheaper to run.
Why aren't you as "Outraged" by the Mandatory switch to Digital Cable that will FORCE many of us to buy new TVs or at least a converter(that may or may not work with your TV)? Especially since an HDTV is much more expensive than the CFLs.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I've seen a lot of commercials stating it will become LAW that all programs be broadcast in HD format.
And I've also seen quite a few Republicans on here opposed to CFLs.
You're right, it's not A question...it's SIX questions in one. My bad.
the total mercury from using the CFL is far less than using the incandescent lamp.
Sorry, I didn't know we'd be splitting hairs. The commercials say all broadcasts will be in DIGITAL format. But they do state it's a result of a "law" that's been passed.
To those of you opposed to CFLs, I say give them a try! I have replaced EVERY bulb in my house with them and couldn't be happier. They're extremely bright (depending on wattage) and they don't waste energy in the form of heat as incandescent bulbs do, so they're cheaper. A one time investment (the bulbs need to be replaced ever 9 years give or take) has saved me a lot on my monthly electric bill.
The link I provided you with takes you to two paragraphs that include the EXACT line (incandescent bulbs included) I quoted. Try READING it!
Even when the 5 mg of mercury in the CFL is added to the environment at the end of the lamp's 10,000 hours life, the total mercury from using the CFL is far less than using the incandescent lamp. Mercury emissions will be lower for For lower power incandescent lamps and CFL replacements, but for any incandescent lamp of 40 watts or greater, there will be more mercury added to the environment by using an incandescent lamp than by using a CFL, assuming that the electricity used to operate both is generated by burning coal.
- PfoLv 71 decade agoBest Answer
"First, let me just say that I've seen a million commercials recently stating that it will become a "law" that all programs must be broadcast in Hi-Definition."
It's true, not sure if it's law or convention, but the idea is to switch to purely HD signals. Actually, they wanted to implement this in 2000. The date keeps getting pushed back. Honestly, I'll be amazed if it happens by 2020.
I am somewhat outraged, I think the market should decide what it wants. Non-HD TVs are still being sold, what will happen to viewers that are still buying them? Would TV networks be willing to go to a system where they get a smaller market share by virtue of the fact that TV owners do not have the proper equipment to receive their signals? I highly doubt it.
HDTVs are expensive, and it's pointless to own one if it's less than 30"; you won't see much difference in picture quality. I just got a TV in 2001, I see no need to buy another one yet.
And I do dislike the compact flourescent bulbs, they give off the weakest light, seriously, but I do use them situationally. They don't make good reading light, that's for sure....
- davidmi711Lv 71 decade ago
Much of your information is off. The switch that takes place in next February is not to Hi-Def TV, it is to digital TV. It is NOT the same thing. The legislation that started this switch was signed by Clinton, so if you want to "blame" someone, it would not be the republicans. The switch is needed because our current TV signals are based on 1930's technology. The TV band takes up a LOT of radio bandwidth. Digital takes up far less bandwidth per channel. The converter boxes will work with any TV that has an antenna input, either cable type or terminals. The government is providing vouchers that will pay most or all of the cost of converters.
The light bulb standard does not mandate CFLs. It mandates a minimum lumen per watt output that is higher than most filament based bulbs produce. CFLs, LED, some filament bulbs and various other technologies meet this standard. I don't know anyone that opposes using less power for lighting. I use CFLs almost exclusively (I need to find a dimable bulb to replace 4 bulbs in my house), I can understand the concern people have about the mercury these bulbs contain.
Since you keep making the statement that these commercials state the law will be that TV will be broadcast in HD format after several people have pointed out the law says digital (which is different) you are either lying, mistaken or the commercials are intentionally misleading.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
1. You have NEVER seen a 1 commercial let alone 1 million that state it will become law that TV broadcasts as of 02/09 will be HiDef. What they are saying is all broadcasts will be DIGITAL as opposed to analog. There is a huge difference, cable and satellite have been using digital for years now it's simply a cleaner signal.
2. I have yet to see a single Republican opposed to or outraged about switching to CFL's. Hell I'm a Republican and I switched to CFL's a couple of years back.
3. Perhaps you need to keep your mouth shut more and try listening to the information being provided about such things.
Nope, I am definitely not wrong. The law will require a switch from Analog to Digital it says NOTHING about HD being required. And I've seen Purple Elephants too, trying actually naming a few well known republicans that are outraged as you say or be considered a liar.
- jeeper_peeper321Lv 71 decade ago
Contrary to popular media.
All tv's can easily view HD signals without a converter.
Just not, TV's receiving signals over the air waves.
And how many people do you know, who use an attennea to recieve TV ??
The old TV's will work just fine, for anyone connected to cable or satelite.
You will just not recieve the signal in HD, but the same as you do now.
What I was outraged over, was the Clinton administration, mandating lo-flo toilets,
When there were no reliable lo-flo toilets on the market at the time.
And everyone had to buy faulty lo-flo toilets, that had to be flushed 5 times, instead of just once.
Thus wasting water.
They didn't use a phase in period, like every other program did.
As to CFL's, they have problems.
You cannot put a CFL inside a closed light fixture.
The larger wattage CFl's are huge.
I happen to like CFL's, but I don't use them in every light fixture,
They just don't work in every light fixture right now.
Especially inclosed ceiling lights.
And thats the problem, with politicians trying to make laws ordering new technology.
The politicians just assume that the technology will be able to do whatever they think it should do.
It is the " we landed a man on the moon " syndrome.
Because they don't have the technicial knowledge to know how we used 1940's technology to put a man on the moon, that we can easily solve any technicial problems, if they onlu mandate it.
The next politically ordered mistake, will be electric cars, when no one has the battery technology to make a battery, that is practical for cars yet.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- BDZotLv 61 decade ago
Mainly because the reason for switching to CFL's is invalid: The environment.
CFL's contain mercury, which is toxic and causes problems with the environment much quicker than greenhouse gases (the supposed area that will be "helped").
The radio station here had a reminder from our city-provided waste collectors that CFL's cannot be thrown away in the normal trash. They have to be taken to the hazardous materials dump by the owner...the regular trash collectors won't accept them.
So, on top of mercury polluting our environment, we're generating MORE greenhouse gases because we have to haul the damn things to the dump ourselves.
EDIT: And the other responders are correct. The law doesn't mandate HD, it mandates DIGITAL. Analog will no longer be used after the cutoff date.
EDIT: The link you use for "CFLs contail less mercury than incandescent bulbs" does not even mention incandescent bulbs.Source(s): EDIT: "If the electricity used to operate your lamps is generated from coal and you operate 100-watt incandescent lamps for 10,000 hours, the power generating plant will release between 40 mg and 70 mg of mercury into the environment, depending upon the type of coal being used. In instead of the 100-watt incandescent lamp, you use a 25-watt CFL, the power plant mercury emissions drop to between 10 and 18 mg over the same 10,000 hour period, again depending upon the type of coal used." First off, we draw our power from the South Texas Nuclear project. So, your point is moot. Second, lowering wattage regardless of the type of bulb reduces mercury output from coal-fired plants...so it's not an advantage of CFL's.
- 1 decade ago
First off, I am not a Republican totally and have never voted a straight party ticket - never - and I'm 66.
The majority of americans are on digital TV now ( Cable, Satellite, etc) and there are coupons for converter boxes that make the transition easy. I have not had an outside antenna for years and the folks in my neighborhood that have then also have a satellite dish.
Outraged over the bulbs - yes - I think itis false economy. Want to save gas - overinflate your tires by 2 lbs and leave the a/c off, but don't force me to buy gas with ethanol at the same price when my mileage goes down by 20% and I end up burning MORE oil. Don't force me to buy bulbs that need to be larger sized to read. Then I have to add a lamp. False economy designed to do one thing - sell more advertising!
- 1 decade ago
rant, not a question or anything