Hazardous Waste Collection Days

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Chickie

Hazardous waste collection days are coming up in towns surrounding the Lakes Region over the next few weekends. Yesterday's Citizen had a list of items accepted and those which are not. I note that unbroken CFL bulbs are accepted, but apparently broken ones are not. As you are not supposed to place them in your regular trash, what do you do with the broken ones? I don't understand the push for the country to go to CFL bulbs when they are apparently so dangerous and there appears to be no way to dispose of those that get broken.

Another example of the Federal Government thinking for you - these CFLs never made any sense, there was no problem at all with incandescent light bulbs, yes they did consume more energy, but were not hazardous. Of course any way to conserve energy is a good thing, but to what end? I agree LEDs seem to be a good alternative without the hazards. However politicians these days just like to wave their legislative wand with feel good regulations not taking under consideration the repercussions of such decisions. Sadly the electorate continues to keep these bums in office so the nonsense continues with no accountability whatsoever.

Thankfully I stockpiled a ton of incandescent bulbs so with any luck I have enough to keep going with them until the cost of the LEDs comes down enough to make them somewhat reasonable in price.

[Seaplane Pilot]

I would mail them to Al Gore. Let him deal with it.

[thebix]

The government regs never specified what kind of bulbs to replace incandescent. All they did was require that light bulbs meet a specific level of increased efficiency. The existing incandescent bulbs could not be re-engineered to meet the standards so they were effectively banned. Initially the industry had only CFL and halogen technology that could meet the standards. Now, the LED technology has improved to meet the needs for general purpose domestic use, and the price / availability / styles increased to where LED is the 'way to go'.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by thebix

The government regs never specified what kind of bulbs to replace incandescent. All they did was require that light bulbs meet a specific level of increased efficiency. The existing incandescent bulbs could not be re-engineered to meet the standards so they were effectively banned. Initially the industry had only CFL and halogen technology that could meet the standards. Now, the LED technology has improved to meet the needs for general purpose domestic use, and the price / availability / styles increased to where LED is the 'way to go'.

Those that wrote the bill knew full well that the only practical alternative at the time the bill was passed was CFL. They didn't need to specify. More idiotic regulations from "those on high that know better than us".

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Another example of the Federal Government thinking for you - these CFLs never made any sense, there was no problem at all with incandescent light bulbs, yes they did consume more energy, but were not hazardous. Of course any way to conserve energy is a good thing, but to what end? I agree LEDs seem to be a good alternative without the hazards. However politicians these days just like to wave their legislative wand with feel good regulations not taking under consideration the repercussions of such decisions. Sadly the electorate continues to keep these bums in office so the nonsense continues with no accountability whatsoever.

Thankfully I stockpiled a ton of incandescent bulbs so with any luck I have enough to keep going with them until the cost of the LEDs comes down enough to make them somewhat reasonable in price.

I did the same thing. I couldn't stand the CFL's.