Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion


FROM OUR READERS: In the dark about the new light bulbs

To the editor:

President Obama did not have complete information when he pressed for the use of fluorescent light bulbs for the home (Review-Journal, June 30). He did not say:


Most Popular Stories
  • THOMAS MITCHELL: Sacrificing free speech won't appease fanatics
  • EDITORIAL: Stood her ground
  • Smart meters not all they're cracked up to be
  • EDITORIAL: Numbers stink?
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Some things are worth fighting for
  • EDITORIAL: Going to extremes
  • LETTERS: Nursery did the right thing with laborers
  • LETTERS: Teachers not most important learning variable
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Here's a scary thought
  • LETTERS: Agassi remains a good citizen




  • 1) All of the fluorescent light bulbs that he talked about are made in China. Most of the incandescent bulbs used are made in America. What is the cost of the loss of American jobs?

    2) The fluorescent bulbs contain mercury. No proper way has been developed to dispose of this mercury. If a bulb should break at home, most people do not know about the danger of the mercury and will likely end up contaminating the home during cleanup.

    3) Most of the available information about the life and light output of these lamps is incorrect and exaggerated.

    So if the president wants to put American workers out of work and pollute homes, ban the incandescent bulb.

    Sonny Sonnenfeld

    HENDERSON

    Military man

    To the editor

    The June 24 issue of the Review-Journal had on the front page a bio of Ed McMahon. Yes, he was well known as a show business personality, but nowhere was it mentioned that he was a decorated veteran of two wars, World War II and Korea, achieving the rank of colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps. Isn't his military service as a fighter pilot, worthy enough to, at least, be recognized along with his show business record?

    FAYE KITRAL

    HENDERSON

    Got it right

    To the editor:

    As a former San Francisco resident and also a health care administrator, I read the thoughtful Sunday commentaries by Patrick J. Buchanan, "California, here we come!" and Larry Elder, "Forty-five million uninsured?" Both got it right.

    Regarding the first, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had to deal with majority state lawmakers. Spending beyond our means has consequences (more new taxes on the middle class). Also, I agree that "diversity" has lost its glow. Not that diversity is a bad thing, but as I have experienced, it isn't all that good either. Gang wars in he Bay Area, for example, are mostly between "diverse" groups.

    As for Mr. Elder's piece, millions more can access health care through government "socialized" programs already. Why is it proposed that we cut programs such as Medicare by 21 percent in favor of some kind of unplanned expensive (taxpayer) program? Why are out emergency rooms so overcrowded already? Many hospitals have closed their ERs altogether. Where will this trillion dollars go? Most of the injured who come to the ER do not have insurance and are not signed up for Medicare. The hospitals (those that still accept Medicare) are underpaid for their expenses. Those hospitals have to eat the extra costs or pass the "loss" onto "insured" patients.

    I hope our Congress will read these commentaries and get the message.

    SUSAN OVUKA WELLS

    LAS VEGAS

    Lying pols

    To the editor:

    I noticed that your June 26 article about the celebration at the Rio in favor of the domestic partner rights law passed by the 2009 Legislature that there was no mention of elderly or heterosexual domestic partners in attendance. Yet it was for those people, we were told, that in was necessary to use "common sense" and see the "broader implications" in passing the law over voter objections.

    Obviously, legislators snowed the public again about their true agenda. But I guess voters shouldn't be surprised anymore. Recently we have been snowed everywhere from the statehouse to the White House on issues we were told wouldn't or would happen if we elected them. Now their excuse is "things change."

    It would appear the only things that don't change are candidates lying to voters to get elected and voters not holding those they elect accountable for "changing things."

    KENT RISCHLING

    LAS VEGAS

    Energy tax

    To the editor:

    As citizens of this nation, we should all maintain adequate knowledge of what transpires within our government. In these difficult days, people should have focused their attention on the massive energy bill that was pushed through the House of Representatives in an absurdly rushed manner last month.

    The president, leaders of his administration, the speaker and Democratic senators joined in a concerted high pressured effort to induce representatives to vote for this bill, which none of them had an opportunity to even read. Of course, citizens also had no access to the bill before it was jammed through this House.

    The reason for this massive energy bill was allegedly to save the planet Earth from global warming due to man-made CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use. The Democratic Party religion! But why the insane rush? I think now we know. It appears this was all a fraud.

    A few days before this June 26 vote, some good citizen leaked a secret April 2009 draft of an Environmental Protection Agency scientific report on climate change and man-mad CO2 causation, which had been effectively suppressed by the administrator of the EPA and the Obama administration. This scientific report found that the U.N. report indicating global warming was political and unreliable. The EPA study shows no global warming, but actual cooling. The EPA science also shows CO2 gas doesn't raise atmospheric temperature.

    The scientists were immediately ordered to suppress the report and not to talk about it. Threats of firing were involved. It was hidden. Leaked e-mails show the suppression ordered by Democratic politicians. When Obama and his political conspirators learned of the leak, this fraudulent bill was rushed immediately through the House.

    The bill will increase everyone's energy bills, require government approval on use and sales of our homes and generally control everything we do if it affects energy use. The tax on energy is huge.

    Government control of all energy and use? Just business as usual by the most corrupt government ever seen in this country.

    JOHN TOBIN

    LAS VEGAS

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 24 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    DanC wrote on July 04, 2009 09:51 PM: This is some funny stuff! Are these people for real? You're really resorting to the argument now that hundreds of millions of Americans should spend more in electricity bills each month, and waste energy, in order to save the dying domestic light bulb industry? Way to pick your fights, people. And you wonder why the right wing is viewed as obstructionist.


    Report abuse

    StanG wrote on July 04, 2009 07:35 PM: Dear John:
    No, it wasn't some "... some good citizen" who "... leaked a secret April 2009 draft of an Environmental Protection Agency scientific report on climate change and man-mad CO2 causation,...". It was the one person who wrote a memo to his boss complaining that his analysis indicated that the effects of global warming may be so bad after all. That some low lying areas (like New York, New Orleans, parts of Texas, England, Scotland, the Netherlands etc, etc) might be adversely affected, but that Minnessotta and North Dakota would benefit, and Syracuse and Buffalo, NY would no longer experience several feet of snow in the winter. The Russians would have to find a more formidable place to store their political prisoners than in the Siberian Gulag.


    Report abuse

    StanG wrote on July 04, 2009 07:24 PM: Kent:
    What do you claim is the legislature's "true agenda"? You forgot to tell us.
    There were no voter objections. Just the opposite in fact. The voters said they were in favor of the term "marriage" being reserved for a man and a women. They were assured that there was no homophobia or bigotry involved and that no one had any objections to same sex couples sharing in civil rights, just don't call it "marriage" because that would destroy the very fabric of that sacred institute. The legislature did exactly what the voters said. Isn't that what you meant?


    Report abuse

    StanG wrote on July 04, 2009 07:14 PM: A little arithmetic:
    I had four 60 watt incandescent light bulbs over the mirror in my bathroom. I replaced them with six 14 watt fluorescents. They are very much brighter than the incandescents ( they appear to be as bright as my 100 watt incandecents). Instaed of 240 watts, they consume 56 watts. Assuming that they are used only one hour a day, at approximately 11 cents per kilowatt-hour, I save 60 cents a month. I haven't switched over completely yet. In my den, there are eight 100 watt bulbs. They are typically on from about 8 PM to 1:00AM daily. Current monthly cost to run these is about 8x100x4x30=96,000 watt-hours time 11 cents per kilowatt-hour, or $10.56/month. If I replaced them with eight 14 watt fluorescent bulbs, the savings would be $9.08/month.


    Report abuse

    Brent wrote on July 04, 2009 07:11 PM: Palin??? lmao you are a special kind of stupid. Faye I agree, SEMPER FI


    Report abuse

    whatever wrote on July 04, 2009 12:34 PM: Brian sez: "My electric bill went down about 5 dollars a month."

    Something's amiss here. Only $5 a month? When I changed the ones that are used constantly, my bill went down $45 a month.

    Afraid of mercury? Buy the new LED lights that are replacing the compact fluorescent lights. Of course Wally World sells the cheaper versions of the compact fluorescents. They don't last as long.


    Report abuse

    Fair and Balanced Fred wrote on July 04, 2009 12:14 PM: Below, some neo-con, Republicon or other breed of con sez: "I hope your family doesn't lose their eyesight because the amount of illumination is so inferior to incandescent bulbs."

    Please, listen to this con. There are numerous reports of multiple families losing their eyesight from fluorescent illumination.

    BTW, those long fluorescent tubes have been around longer than I have. They illuminated all of my classrooms from K through the University. It's the compact ones that are relatively new.

    " . . . the amount of illumination is so inferior to incandescent bulbs."

    Bull.

    The cons can't lead so they consistently mislead.

    On another topic, I'm worried. If Sarah Palin goes to prison, who's going to keep an eye on Russia?


    Report abuse

    Curious wrote on July 04, 2009 11:32 AM: Brian says he saved "about $5 a month". Just how did he do that? Did he have warmer than normal days in the winter or cooler days in the summer during his measurement period? What was his average daily KWH usage? Was this during the spring or fall? What period was he comparing it against? If he can't answer those questions anything he comes up with is anecdotal.

    A blessed weather event saved him the $5. The new bulb do save you money but to say that they save X $, just proves him to be a blithering idiot.


    Report abuse

    Brian wrote on July 04, 2009 11:10 AM: Brian --

    We recycle everything we can: paper, plastic, cardboard, glass, aluminum. But you CAN NOT recycle fluorescent bulbs. The amount of mercury in them is too toxic. If you have been tossing them in the recycled glass bin, you have been contaminating all the other glass collected.

    "The factories would start making the new bulbs, so no jobs would be lost." Which factories? Where? There are plenty of factories in China making the new bulbs now. No American factories, even working at mandated minimum wage, could make them more cheaply. Most states would not allow a factory to make them because the mercury is too toxic to work with safely.

    I hope your family doesn't lose their eyesight because the amount of illumination is so inferior to incandescent bulbs.

    If you want to really save energy; insulate, set your thermostat higher in the summer and lower in the winter, and buy energy efficient appliances which CAN be recycled. But don't suggest lighting fixtures that pollute and don't save nearly as much energy as other simple steps.


    Report abuse

    Joe C wrote on July 04, 2009 10:50 AM: Thank you Sonny Sonnenfeld and John Tobin but you are both forgetting that the democrats just get it and we don’t.

    Obama is the Messiah and will fix everything with one giant wave of his hand passing a comprehensive fix on thirty or more years of complex problems.
    You just don’t get it.

    Plus none of the drooling worshipers are going to ask what’s going to happen to all the mercury from those that don’t recycle properly.

    As far as made in America, Obama has already nixed the buy and hire American idea.

    At least the kids will have something cool to play with.

    It's too bad you guys just don't get it.


    Read All Comments