(NaturalNews) January 1, 2012, was supposed to be the day that the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which was passed by Congress and signed into law by former President George W. Bush back in 2007, came into effect, banning certain high-watt incandescent light bulbs. But all such bulbs will remain on the market, at least for now, thanks to a "rider" that some members of Congress successfully attached to the massive government spending bill.
The phase-out of traditional incandescent light bulbs beginning with 100-watt bulbs on Jan. 1 was a contentious and invasive measure that many Americans vehemently opposed. And even though the ban was signed into law by a Republican president, many Republicans in Congress today made it their mission to nix it. They effectively blocked the government from spending money to enforce the standards until September.
"When the American people gave Republicans control of the House in January, one of the major issues involved was the Democratic ban on the 100-watt bulb," said Rep. Michael Burgess, who conveniently left out the fact that Mr. Bush was responsible for making the ban official. "Republicans have fulfilled our promise to the American people by allowing them to continue to be able to choose what type of bulb they use at home. Consumers should drive the marketplace, not the government."
Mr. Burgess' statements are partially correct, of course. The federal government has absolutely no business restricting the types of light
bulbs people buy, especially when the primary alternative is a highly-toxic, mercury-laden poison bomb that is an environmental and human health nightmare (http://www.naturalnews.com/CFLs.html
). However, in typical American political fashion, Mr. Burgess steers the discussion into a partisan issue rather than a freedom issue.
In truth, incandescent light bulbs are not only far safer than compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, but they also emit a far more pleasant and warm type of light. The fluorescent light emitted from CFLs is abrasively bright, and has been known to cause headaches and other ailments in some people. CFLs also emit high amounts of electromagnetic frequency radiation (EMFs), and have also been found to release cancer-causing chemicals when turned on.
Incandescents, on the other hand, actually emit their own low levels of natural heat, which can lead to energy
savings during the wintertime. They are also far less expensive, and do not create a serious environmental hazard when accidentally broken.Sources for this article include:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec...