The Dangers of High Efficiency Light Bulbs

[Joseon]

every corporate store or domain is using these bulbs to save on electricity costs.

Well,

I've been in Marriot, Whole Foods, Olive Garden.. Every big chain has these lights now. It gives me a headache. I suspect is the poisoning of the mercury which are probably leaking a small amount of Mercury. Any amount of Mercury is extemely toxic to biological organisms.

I have a cat that has been fed Organic food and smart water, not vaccinated. Such a witty,clever, intelligent and boisterous cat.. Other cats from a friend, were obese, dull, depressed, (good souls though), not as sharp as my cat.

THat is the difference in the food you eat, water you drink, the injections you take and the air you breath via Mercury light bulbs and Chemtrails.

[SongBird]

Such a witty,clever, intelligent and boisterous cat..

My parakeets are the same, lil' bastards.

[planning4acrash]

Eco-bulbs 'a health hazard for babies and pregnant women due to mercury inside'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1340938/Eco-bulbs-health-hazard-babies-pregnant-women-mercury-inside.html#ixzz19DZqf7H7

This article shows some of the mental illness or, downright propaganda that makes tyranny possible. We hear that nameless "researchers claimed they can release potentially harmful amounts of mercury if broken."

It would be news, only that the official government website states that broken CFL lightbulbs should be considered hazardous bloody waste. Why can't the stupid, or corrupt? "journalist" do an infintessimal amount of research to see that the government knows full well that it is poisoining us by mandating these medieval mercury laced death traps.

"The public should contact the local authority for advice on where to dispose of broken or intact CFLs as they should be treated as hazardous waste and should not be disposed of in the bin.": http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/lightbulbs.htm

Here's a clip in Congress about similar EPA guidlines: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/343.html

And then some idiot human hater from Greenpeace says that we'll see less mercury from power stations, so that its OK to have mercury bulbs in our houses. Well, not so useful if I tranfer mercury from a distant power station into a child's bedroom, right?! And there's no reason why we can't scrub mercury from smokestacks, so the argument is asinine, and childish, but its all we are given on issues that are real. This need not descent into yet another farce or moral relativity where, just because some lisping, politically correct upstart can make a counter argument that therefore there has to be an ongoing debate with no discernable right or wrong.

Well, those in the right must learn to keep a coming and realize that the tyrants won't back down. We must learn to turn around and simply say no, no to your bull and, no to your mercury in MY HOUSE, PERIOD!

One question remains, why on earth are we putting up with bureaucrats from Brussells telling us what lightbulb we can use. Because if they can ban perfectly safe incadescent lightbulbs, mandating toxic bulbs, that cause way more harm to the environment. If they can train us to accept this, they can train us to do anything. And these awful so called journalists who give us an illusion that the government doesn't know full well what it is doing. Welcome to the Soviet Union where Orwell's crimestop and doublethink becomes a way of life.

We use 150 watt incandescent bulbs with a dimmer switch on low setting. They last forever because the fillament is so thick. Time to stock up. I imagine the new black market in non-toxic bulbs. Criminal gangs everywhere, just like during American prohibition!
 

[spindle]

This post was so full of inaccuracies and vagaries that it should not be taken seriously, it is this type of post that makes Alex Jones and us look like a bunch of kooks when viewed by knowledgeable people. 

In any case, even a flicker as low as 100 hertz is more than enough to trigger severe episodes of epileptic seizures.  Video games are well known to do the same at a mere 60 Hz.

Ordinary incandescent bulbs have a flicker rate of 60Hz so by that logic they also should cause seizures. In point of fact photosensitive epilepsy is usually triggered where the flicker rate is between 16Hz to 25Hz.

Judging from the bands of radiation released, the frequency is far beyond 120 hertz, so just start adding lots of zeros to get the point about how likely they are to trigger epileptic seizures.

That is absurd, photosensitive epilepsy is not triggered by higher frequencies.

The radiation from these bulbs directly attacks the immune system, and furthermore damages the skin tissues enough to prevent the proper formation of vitamin D3.

Nobody gets enough vitamin D from sunlight, bulbs or no bulbs everyone has a vitamin D deficiency and should be taking a vitamin D supplement.

Take for example how long a standard flashlight will produce bright light with one or two small batteries.  On the other hand, just try to power an oven with those same batteries for an exercise in futility.  The whole thing was fascinating to the point that I knew this program of study was meant for me.

That is a stupid statement a flashlight draws milliwatts while an oven draws killowatts.

By the types of radiation that the new bulbs emit, we know that they must operate at frequencies astronomically higher than the 120 hertz that they are said to.

Have you measured said frequency with frequency counter?

Furthermore, are we expected to believe that none of the companies or regulators involved ever bothered to test these new light bulbs with an oscilloscope during the testing?

You can test them yourself by holding a portable AM radio close to the bulb the radio will make a loud buzz, if the buzz dissipates at 2 feet away then is quite safe. Even at that the RF radiation produced is only a few microvolts thats not enough to hurt a fly.

The F.D.A. states that in addition to visible light (U.V.A.)

UVA is not visible light, UVA is ultra violet light. Without the white coating inside compact fluorescent lights emit only ultra violet light, the white coating filters out the UV light.

The proof is already before you to observe at your leisure ― how they interfere with radios, cordless phones, and RF remote controls.

Compact fluorescent lights dont interfere with above devices that are 2 or more feet away.

Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, who cataloged these findings with empirical data about the frequency ranges for both the radiation coming from the bulbs, and the 'dirty electricity' radiation that pulses throughout entire buildings.

Compact fluorescent lights do not affect the entire building, this noise is easily detected with a portable AM radio, if this were true the radio would buzz loudly at any location in the house. Most buildings in the city are full of dirty electricity to begin with.



As for mercury it is safely contained inside the bulb which is of no danger if you dont break the bulb.

The reason why I dont like compact fluorescent lights is they are useless in the cold they wont light up in the cold so they are useless for a porch light or tool shed light. The are supposed to last years longer but I have had some last less that a year and since they cost more to buy are no bargain. The only way to make them last is to leave them on and never shut them off because turning then on and off shortens there life, so they are no good for intermittent use.

Take portable AM radio and carry it around you house, bring it close to your wall sockets and cords going to running electrical appliances. if it buzzes loudly you have dirty electricity, now turn off every CFL in the house and see if you still have dirty electricity, most people in cities have dirty electricity to begin with its carried by the grid, you can get filters that you can plug in your wall sockets to filter dirty electricity out.

CFLs are only money saving in certain specific uses provided they last as long as they claim. CFLs are practically useless in many situations therefore incandescent bulbs should not be banned. LED lamps may be the solution when their light output increases and their cost comes down. They only real reason they want us to use CFLs, smart grid and other ways to get us to conserve electricity is so they can charge us more for it to make more money without putting in any new generating plants and infrastructure.

[planning4acrash]

As for mercury it is safely contained inside the bulb which is of no danger if you dont break the bulb.

Nonsense. The lightbulbs loose their efficacy over time because the gases leach out slowly over the bulb's lifestyle. I also reject any notion that a bulb is safe, if breaking it will contaminate a room. Think of the children please!

[Joseon]

This post was so full of inaccuracies and vagaries that it should not be taken seriously, it is this type of post that makes Alex Jones and us look like a bunch of kooks when viewed by knowledgeable people.  >:(Ordinary incandescent bulbs have a flicker rate of 60Hz so by that logic they also should cause seizures. In point of fact photosensitive epilepsy is usually triggered where the flicker rate is between 16Hz to 25Hz.That is absurd, photosensitive epilepsy is not triggered by higher frequencies.Nobody gets enough vitamin D from sunlight, bulbs or no bulbs everyone has a vitamin D deficiency and should be taking a vitamin D supplement.That is a stupid statement a flashlight draws milliwatts while an oven draws killowatts.Have you measured said frequency with frequency counter?You can test them yourself by holding a portable AM radio close to the bulb the radio will make a loud buzz, if the buzz dissipates at 2 feet away then is quite safe. Even at that the RF radiation produced is only a few microvolts thats not enough to hurt a fly.UVA is not visible light, UVA is ultra violet light. Without the white coating inside compact fluorescent lights emit only ultra violet light, the white coating filters out the UV light.Compact fluorescent lights dont interfere with above devices that are 2 or more feet away.Compact fluorescent lights do not affect the entire building, this noise is easily detected with a portable AM radio, if this were true the radio would buzz loudly at any location in the house. Most buildings in the city are full of dirty electricity to begin with.



As for mercury it is safely contained inside the bulb which is of no danger if you dont break the bulb.

The reason why I dont like compact fluorescent lights is they are useless in the cold they wont light up in the cold so they are useless for a porch light or tool shed light. The are supposed to last years longer but I have had some last less that a year and since they cost more to buy are no bargain. The only way to make them last is to leave them on and never shut them off because turning then on and off shortens there life, so they are no good for intermittent use.

Take portable AM radio and carry it around you house, bring it close to your wall sockets and cords going to running electrical appliances. if it buzzes loudly you have dirty electricity, now turn off every CFL in the house and see if you still have dirty electricity, most people in cities have dirty electricity to begin with its carried by the grid, you can get filters that you can plug in your wall sockets to filter dirty electricity out.

CFLs are only money saving in certain specific uses provided they last as long as they claim. CFLs are practically useless in many situations therefore incandescent bulbs should not be banned. LED lamps may be the solution when their light output increases and their cost comes down. They only real reason they want us to use CFLs, smart grid and other ways to get us to conserve electricity is so they can charge us more for it to make more money without putting in any new generating plants and infrastructure.

do you really think that you can mislead people that easily with you BS? honestly who do you think you are trying to fool. this forum is a truth forum. It consists of very intelligent people that will not be deceived by your utter garbage that you spew out of your mouth

Secondly, if you are trying to mislead the newbies, then think again.

[kurtaxis]

Actually, I found the alternative view to the first post rather refreshing, it presented a second view.  I actually wondered why, when using the energy efficient bulbs, my electric bill's discount was negligible.  I also tried that radio test, since I don't have an oscilloscope, and found it interesting.  I am going to look into this "dirty electricity" more.

One other thing,  the you tube link that was presented in this thread no longer exists, one of the reasons why I do not rely on you tube videos, does anyone know what was the name of the video?

[spindle]

do you really think that you can mislead people that easily with you BS? honestly who do you think you are trying to fool. this forum is a truth forum. It consists of very intelligent people that will not be deceived by your utter garbage that you spew out of your mouth

Secondly, if you are trying to mislead the newbies, then think again.

What I said is true, I am not misleading anyone.

[phasma]

@ spindle - what if you break a bulb?

and please explain away my symptoms - flickering / overbright vision and headaches when i am in a room lit my these bulbs?

[donnay]

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

By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 9:05 AM on 3rd January 2011


The price of energy-saving light bulbs will treble as the final supplies of traditional bulbs dry up, industry experts have warned.

The Government has ordered energy companies to scrap the subsidies that have kept the price of eco-bulbs artificially low for the last few years.

At the same time, manufacturers are increasing wholesale prices to take advantage of the European ban on ‘energy guzzling’ old-style bulbs.


Cash in: With the 100 watt lightbulb axed, manufacturers are set to take advantage and ramp up prices at the same time as subsidies are removed

Retailers also claim bulbs that currently cost only 33p are expected to sell for more than £1 within three months. Some will cost £3 or more.

The move comes as Britain is gearing up to phase out the last incandescent light bulbs in an effort to meet climate change targets.

The EU has already banned shops from buying stocks of 100watt bulbs and stopped them stocking up on any type of frosted incandescent bulbs.


Read more

[freedom_commonsense]

There's nothing sinister about forcing people to use a certain type of light bulb, when the previous type did no harm... oh no. 

[phasma]

I remember the claims that these bulbs would last 10 years !

Yeah right !

[phasma]

can they? interesting. Though mercury vapour etc probably would have some effect

[planning4acrash]

I just bought 200 100watt incandescent bulbs for £60. May go get some more next week!!

When they run out, I'll be using oil lamps or candles. WILL NEVER use the energy bulbs again.

[donnay]

in case it wasn't mentioned, this kind of bulb can contribute to hair loss?

I did not know that either!  *SIGH*

[feeditup]

So in the euro the old bulbs are band ? did I read that right ?

[freedom_commonsense]

Apparently heating up tungsten elements is killing the earth. 

[mbacolas]

So in the euro the old bulbs are band ? did I read that right ?

yep, and soon we will all be forced to buy whatever harmful household products they want us to buy. Wouldnt be surprised if organics became illegal

[phasma]

if in the UK - its still possible to import NORMAL bulbs en mass!

[donnay]

Kiss your 100-watt lightbulb goodbye

By Tracy Seipel

tseipel@mercurynews.com

Californians can start saying goodbye to traditional 100-watt incandescent light bulbs now that the state has become the first in the country to require a new standard for the screw-base bulbs.

Experts say the new rules, which took effect New Year's Day, will save residents money and energy. California is already the nation's leader in energy-efficiency standards.

As of Saturday, what used to be a 100-watt light bulb manufactured and sold in California will have to use 72 watts or less. The 72-watt replacement bulb, also called an energy-saving halogen light, will provide the same amount of light, called lumens, for lower energy cost.

Similar new standards for traditional 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent bulbs will go into effect in California over the next few years, with wattages reduced to 53, 43 and 29 respectively.

The new rule does not ban incandescent light bulbs; it just requires those bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. And it only affects incandescent light bulbs manufactured in 2011 or later, not those already in use or on store shelves.

The new lights are comparably priced to the regular incandescent lights. A two-bulb package of 100-watt incandescent bulbs is about $4.32 at Lowe's, while a four-bulb package of new 72-watt halogen bulbs is $8.66, or $4.33 for two. By contrast, a two-bulb package of energy-saving compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) is $11.28.

"The 72-watt bulb is improving Edison's original idea,'' said Adam Gottlieb, a spokesman for the California Energy Commission.

"Consumers will still have the amount of light they need for the task at hand,'' said Gottlieb. "But they'll see lower electricity bills.''

Noah Horowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the new regulation "a great thing for consumers." He played a key role in the development and passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, upon which the new regulation is based.

"The 125-year-old incandescent light bulb is far and away the least efficient product in our homes, because 90 percent of the electricity is wasted as heat,'' Horowitz said.

The new standard, passed in 2007 by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, becomes effective nationwide on Jan. 1, 2012. But California and Nevada, which already had energy-efficiency standards in place for lighting products, were able to adopt the law earlier. Gottlieb said Nevada legislators could have voted to do so before Dec. 31, 2008, but they let the deadline expire.

California's energy commission said the state's move will avoid the sale of 10.5 million inefficient 100-watt bulbs this year and save consumers $35.6 million in higher electricity bills.


Continued...

[mbacolas]

theyll just stop making the incandescent bulbs then, this is an excuse to outlaw them. Unless people can get off their arses and make incandesents safe and more effective

[planning4acrash]

Maybe they want all the tungsten to fill their gold bars?!

[spindle]

I see a 9 year warranty on a package a CFL came in, if I do end up having to use CFLs I will keep the package and the receipt as they usually dont last me a year. I dont know what they expect me to use for a porch light CFLs are useless in the cold.

[buckwheat]

The good news is high efficiency LEDs are looking to replace compact florescent bulbs within a few years. The LEDs last for decades, are sealed solid to pose no real damage risks and use even LESS energy than florescent bulbs.

Instead of worrying about the damages of what will end up being the Betamax of lighting (Compact florescent bulbs) we should be singing the praises of the next big thing that will bury it once and for all (LED).

[iks83]

Yes the LEDs are awesome although it can be a shook when you look at the prices. But the higher the energy price and the longer they burn per day the faster you get a return on investment.

I got myself 2 of those for my room. So instead of 80 W I burn 16 and have even more light. Well it will take a bit over 1,5 years to have the costs back in but when they really last 20 years that shouldnt be a problem.

They also have a nice calculator where you can compare 2 bulbs.

[donnay]

Energy saving bulbs 'release cancer causing chemicals', say scientists

Energy saving bulbs emit cancer causing chemicals it was claimed last night as new fears were raised about their safety.

Scientists said they should not be left on for long periods of time or placed close to a person's head because they release poisonous materials.

The EU has unveiled plans to phase out 'normal' incandescent bulbs by the end of next year as they try to cut carbon emissions.

They should not be used by adults to read or kept near a child's head all night, the experts said.

While it is already known that harmful amounts of Mercury are released if one of the new 'green' bulbs is broken, the latest research shows other carcinogenic chemicals are emitted when they are switched on.

The German research shows that the chemicals are released as a form of steam.

The harmful substances include phenol - a poison injected by the Nazis to kill thousands of concentration camp victims during World War II - and the human toxins naphthalene and styrene.

Continued...

[Kilika]

Yes the LEDs are awesome although it can be a shook when you look at the prices. But the higher the energy price and the longer they burn per day the faster you get a return on investment.

I got myself 2 of those for my room. So instead of 80 W I burn 16 and have even more light. Well it will take a bit over 1,5 years to have the costs back in but when they really last 20 years that shouldnt be a problem.

They also have a nice calculator where you can compare 2 bulbs.

Agreed, LED's are the way to go. As more are used and produced, the prices will drop, but they are already within reason though a little expensive. Having an incadescent here and there though isn't a problem like they claim. The added heat and energy use is insignificant. Most areas of a home actually don't need that much lighting anyway. Kitchen and bath is pretty much it for any high-intensity lights, and those are used only a smaller portion of the day. Maybe a lamp at a chair for reading, that's it. Lighting isn't the neergy hog to be addressing, it's the major appliances like a central air unit. That's the big culprit, and right behind is the water heater and frig.

And these days it seems everything has a power cord, so all these various small electronic items and computers are using more than I think we realize. And they want us to use electric cars too? So where is all that energy come from? Your local power utility. One source for all your power needs. I thought we are told to not put all our eggs in one basket!

Now we see why homes being "off-grid" is made so difficult, and independent home energy plants don't exist because the government wants to call them generators and building codes tend to not allow homes to be powered by a generator as a primary energy source. Go figure.

[phasma]

I saw the "bulbs cause cancer" link yesterday - finally my OH now believes what i have been telling him all along !

I`m switching to LED - i can`t find "normal bulbs" in my local shops anymore !

[EvadingGrid]

I don't particularity mind the compact fluorescent - but I much prefer the LED who have made vast leaps in technology.

What really gets me is the lies and the lack of choice

[phasma]

. . . and the noxious chemicals !

These people are batsh*t crazy. How do they come up with this stuff really?

[iks83]

Agreed, LED's are the way to go. As more are used and produced, the prices will drop, but they are already within reason though a little expensive. Having an incadescent here and there though isn't a problem like they claim. The added heat and energy use is insignificant. Most areas of a home actually don't need that much lighting anyway. Kitchen and bath is pretty much it for any high-intensity lights, and those are used only a smaller portion of the day. Maybe a lamp at a chair for reading, that's it. Lighting isn't the neergy hog to be addressing, it's the major appliances like a central air unit. That's the big culprit, and right behind is the water heater and frig.

And these days it seems everything has a power cord, so all these various small electronic items and computers are using more than I think we realize. And they want us to use electric cars too? So where is all that energy come from? Your local power utility. One source for all your power needs. I thought we are told to not put all our eggs in one basket!

Now we see why homes being "off-grid" is made so difficult, and independent home energy plants don't exist because the government wants to call them generators and building codes tend to not allow homes to be powered by a generator as a primary energy source. Go figure.

Yeah there is lots of suppression everywhere you go. But power consumption usually goes down with better technology. Look at TVs or computerscreens. I'm replacing the old 19" tube monitor for my spare computer with my flatscreen 19" I have now. Tube one 120 Watt, flat one 40 Watt. And I get a new 22" wide screen that uses 45 Watt.

Same probably goes for TVs but I dont watch TV so I dont know.

About the article regarding the poisonous bulbs... there is nothing to worry about... didnt you read that the department for environment says that they are totally safe? Who can you trust if not the government. They care so much about us!

[dre4dwolf]

I hate these light bulbs anyway, they have an orange tint to them that just bugs my eyes out.... I have eyes that are sensitive, I can see the lights flickering (ie I see the hz)
This always bothered me because I guess my eyes are faster than most, I used to have to shop around for really good monitors , because I would see the refresh rate line on the old CRT'S (you know how crts look when you put a tape recorder and record them? you see that line coming up and down the screen.... refreshing the image) I used to see that line on almost all monitors and it would drive me crazy, needed a monitor that was 75+ hz just to not notice it so much.

Nowadays with LCD'S its a lot better, I think because of progressive scan tech where the lines refresh more often....


With the new laws they are putting you will only be able to buy these poisonous things....



How are Xenon bulbs? and LED bulbs?

The LED bulbs Im sure are OK for health, because they are all solid state (there are no real gases involved really) and they work off of just a few Watts 5 to 10.... you can touch them with your hands when they are on they are so cold.... not even warm to the touch really.... only problem is they are dim, (normal 60 w bulb is like 800 lumens, a 3 watt LED bulb is probably only 100 - 200 lumens), and the LED bubls that are like 500 - 900 lumens are expensive (about 15-30$ a bulb ) but hey they last like 100,000 hours.... so its kinda worth it in the long run, and they burn 1/100th the electricity that conventional "energy efficient" bulbs burn, so if you leave the lights on a lot, they would pay for themselves in like a month or two... which isn't that bad.

[iks83]

Yeah I know what you mean. My eyes arent that fast that I would see a line on the old monitors but I notice the flickering. 75 hz is minimum for those old monitors.

As for LEDs and light intensity you can say its like 100 lumen per 10 watt for the old bulbs so a 60 watt bulb should have around 600 lumen. But LEDs can flicker too. I have one of those. I dont know if has an error from manufacteuring or if its normal for that kind of bulb. I like the Bioledex bulbs. They dont seem to have a big company behind them like Phillips, etc. Its time the big ones get phased out.

I'm just curious if LEDs will go the same way as the old bulbs from 50000 hour life to 1000 just to sell more of them. But Bioledex already stated that they wont do that, that they will produce bulbs with a long life span to not waste resources.

[Kilika]

That's the thing about LED lights. They were made for a certain reason, so they can't change LED's or that would mess with the other uses of LED's. Using them for home lighting is a repurposing of technology.

[Kack vroben]

Hello HealthWyze.Your post is awesome dear.This information is quite new for me.Thanks for the post.I think everyone should aware of this information that high efficiency bulbs are harmful for health and we should avoid to use them.

[donnay]

The Battle of the Bulb: How an obscure lightbulb law became a Tea Party rallying cry

By Coral Davenport
National Journal

House GOP leaders are ginning up excitement for Tuesday's high-wattage vote to roll back lightbulb efficiency standards—or, as Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, likes to call it, the "Save the Lightbulb" bill.

The bill, and the rallying cry of "Save the Lightbulb!" have become unlikely hallmarks of the tea party movement, touted by presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann and talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Tea party conservatives have targeted an obscure lightbulb efficiency provision tucked into a broad 2007 energy law as symbolic of what they call government overregulation. They passionately decry the law as a "ban" on the familiar incandescent lightbulbs that Americans have used for most of the last century.

Despite all the political crossfire over lightbulbs, it's unlikely that Republicans will succeed. A vote on the measure had been scheduled for Monday evening but has been pushed off until Tuesday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's office said Monday afternoon.  The House vote will take place under a procedural rule requiring a two-thirds majority, which makes it uncertain whether it will pass—while it is certain to die in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The provision requires that by 2012, lightbulb manufacturers produce bulbs that generate the same amount of light, but use less electricity to do it. It would not outlaw incandescent bulbs, nor mandate production of the curlicue-shaped compact fluorescent bulbs. The new energy-efficient bulbs, which hit hardware and drugstore shelves this year, are similar in appearance from the old bulbs—they have the familiar "bulb" shape and cast the same warm light. They are more expensive than the old bulbs but last longer and have the net effect of saving consumers money, according to the Energy Department, which estimates that the bulb law will save Americans $6 billion annually in energy costs.

PICTURES: Biggest Stories from the First Half of 2011

At the time it was introduced, the legislation was championed by Democratic and Republican leaders alike. The original 2007 lightbulb efficiency language was co-sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Ill. It passed easily through the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was added as an amendment to a bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 86-8, the House by a vote of 314-100, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

So how did Republicans get from there to here on the lightbulb law?

The answer has very little to do with energy policy, and everything to do with tea party politics.

Barton, the bill's sponsor, turned his attention to the lightbulb law last fall, when he found himself pitted in a bitter contest with Upton for chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. The rivalry played out in the weeks after the November elections, when Republicans were giddy with excitement over their tea party-fueled takeover of the House.

The conservative Barton, who has declared that he was "tea party before tea party was cool", rode that wave in his campaign against Upton, digging up pieces of his opponent's record that he believed would show that Upton was too moderate to hold a prominent leadership post. Among them: Upton's sponsorship of the lightbulb standards.

ANALYSIS: Why This Default Debate Is Different

Barton turned Upton's support of the lightbulb standard into one of his key pieces of ammunition against the moderate Michigander, launching the "Save the Lightbulb" campaign. It was promptly picked up by Beck, Limbaugh, and Bachmann. Barton ultimately lost the contest for Energy Chairman, but his lightbulb campaign became a top talking point for conservatives.

By February, it had gained steam and a Senate companion bill, introduced on February 17 by Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo. In a sign of its momentum, 27 other Republicans signed on to the bill that day.

All of that alarmed manufacturers, who had begun producing the new bulbs, and feared the rollback of the standards would undermine their investments in developing energy-efficient bulbs. Bulb-maker Philips began an aggressive lobbying campaign, meeting with lawmakers and staffers on Capitol Hill, urging them not to roll back the lightbulb law. They brought along samples of the new bulbs, similar in appearance from the old bulbs.

"The new energy efficient incandescent bulbs look and feel just like the old lights that consumers are used to. The only real difference Americans will notice with the new lightbulbs is their lower electricity bills. Electricity savings per family will be about $100 per year," said Randy Moorhead, Vice President of Government Affairs for Philips Electronics, reprising the pitch he's been making tirelessly to GOP lawmakers.

Continued...

[Kilika]

Apparently they are reconsidering the ban on light bulbs.