And the craftsmanship can't be topped!
Posted on 12/21/2007 5:36:22 AM PST by libstripper
“No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”
That comment by New York State Surrogate Court Judge Gideon Tucker in 1866 aptly summarizes the so-called “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,” signed into law this week by President Bush.
First, the law requires auto fuel efficiency standards to increase by 40 percent by 2020. Unfortunately, this goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight — but lighter cars are deadlier cars. So what’s the purported benefit of mandating 4,000 or more deaths per year?
The law’s supporters claim that it may reduce national oil consumption by about 5 percent (400 million barrels of oil per year). Doing the math, your life is now worth about 100,000 barrels of oil. In touting the law, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “it is an environmental issue, and therefore a health issue… it is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue.”
But what exactly is the morality of risking thousands of lives every year to reduce oil consumption by an inconsequential amount?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “it is an environmental issue, and therefore a health issue… it is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue.””
Nancy’s speaking in tongues again. She needs to lay off the bong.
I think that this congress wants us to use bulbs that are as dim as they are.
“Unfortunately, this goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight “
That is simply not true. Most if not all are mileage increases are coming from better engineering of the transmissions and things like shutting off cylinders when they are not needed.
Not to say we cannot reduce the weight and enhance performance. Think fighter planes....
So Democrats will be killing more innocent American men, women and children EVERY year than has died in the War in Iraq?????
I just love it!
Congress tells people what bulb they can use and people get upset.
Meanwhile, Congress has been doing this to business for over a century!
Some people are a little late to the party.
Please don't tell my wife.
Exactly, think fighter planes at millions of dollars a copy. That should give you a feel for what new cars are going to cost to comply with this crap. But don't confuse fighter planes with the performance you can expect.
and Mr. Bush signed this lousy bill?? My opinion of him has gone down a little. If he really believes government should do this then he is no conservative. If he agreed to these measures to somehow find favor with centrists and environmentalists that was a miscalculation too because he will always be tarred as a big oilman/polluter.
Who knew the federal government could outlaw light bulbs! Oh the absurdity. Sadly even if the next president is a Republican we can count on more of this intrusion into our lives if that president is named Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, or even McCain.
Oh, that's good...
Are you saying that cars are going to cost millions and millions and millions...?
Amazing that the fate of our nation is in the hands of people who, for the most part, have been abject failures at every thing they have tried in life. Except kissing butts and making promises with other people’s money for votes.
Its absolutely appalling. Is this the deal that Bush is cutting in order to get defense spending? Its a crying shame.
And which party screams over and over again that you can't legislate morality? God, these people should drown in their own hypocrisy.
As far as killing more men, women, and children every year than died in the entire Iraq war, don't worry. As soon as the insurance companies figure out that these wonderful, fuel efficient cars are more easily damaged and killing more people, driving up their costs, they'll buy off the politicians and we'll suddenly have a national 40 mph speed limit. It will be justified as an energy crisis, and we'll be doing it for the children.
And most of those engineering efforts have been done already. When it comes down to it, you simply need to burn X amount of fuel to move Y amount of mass; so the most direct way to reduce X is to reduce Y. And yes, it can be done, as it is done in fighter planes... but fighter planes, strong as they are for moving through the air, are remarkably fragile when they encounter solid objects.
Not to say we cannot reduce the weight and enhance performance. Think fighter planes...
Are you saying that cars are going to cost millions and millions and millions...?
No, I think he is saying that they will cost millions and completely shatter upon impact.
MERCURY is in the new bulbs and you must take them to a HAZARD DUMP!
What happens when two fighter planes hit?
We should start some type of thread listing all the applications the loss of the lightbulb will have.
This will impact things people won’t even think about offhand.
aquariums
brooders
incubators/hatchers
gardening lights
reptilian lamps
Grow lights for the weed....
That would be under gardening lights ;)
aquariums
brooders
incubators/hatchers
gardening lights
reptilian lamps
Yeah, but said my way, it has a more immediate impact (can you imagine stoners trying to wrap their brains around “gardening lights” - takes ‘em too long).
Better late than never, don’t you think?
All this crap was hit upon so well by Mad Magazine way back in my youth. The cartoon was a hippie musician intro’ing his latest song blasting the man and evil corporations (especially power companies) - then without skipping a beat, states that he needs to plug in his guitar...
I had one of those growing up. It was my favorite toy.
How many Congressman does it take to change a light bulb?
We should start some type of thread listing all the applications the loss of the lightbulb will have.
This will impact things people won’t even think about offhand.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ovens
refrigerators
walk-in freezers
lights that need to be dimmed
lights that need to not emit a ton of EMI and audible noise
lights that need to not be a fire hazard
Not millions, but are you willing to pay $30,000 for a basic compact car? That is the estimate I heard from the auto industry last week.
>>>>lights that need to not emit a ton of EMI and audible noise
Example?
Oh, some therapies use heat lamps too!
I would agree in the past that going to lighter cars would cause more injuries and deaths from automobile accidents, but automotive safety design has advanced quite a lot in the last 15 years. The reason is simple: crash test certification by the NHTSA and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) here in the USA and the European New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP) for European-market cars. This means today’s small cars sport safety features like front and side airbags, better side protection, crush zones to reduce the force of the impact on passengers, rollover protection and even less severity of impact on pedestrians. In fact, if you’re driving the current Honda Fit, you could likely survive an impact at the most common speed for side impacts (about 28-33 mph at intersections) even from most pickup trucks, thanks to side protection on the doors and side curtain airbags to absorb the force of the impact.
The next protest may have to include popping a few fluorescent bulbs on the Capitol Hill steps - eh?
And the craftsmanship can't be topped!
>>>They disrupt electrical measurements in a lab environment, and they trash AM radio reception.
I didn’t know that. Thanks!
1) There's no "give" in the body to absorb the force of the impact--the impact forces transmit all the way to the passenger with deadly results.
2) The interior of the car are full of hard parts that could cause serious or lethal injury when the passenger suffers what's known as the "second impact" when they're jostled around inside the car.
3) The design of the safety belts on older cars may not properly reduce the force of the "second impact" inside the car.
This may be true but after this slow speed crash you’ll more than likely be getting another new car at a guestemet of what $20-30,000?
But that’s still cheaper than a serious injury that could could cost six figures to heal.
“The next protest may have to include popping a few fluorescent bulbs on the Capitol Hill steps - eh?”
CFL Light bulb breaking “terrorists” could bring DC to its knees in a coordinated attack on several locations at once. HAZMAT would be overwhelmed. I hope the bad guys don’t use it as a diversion to tie up resources as part of a real bio/chem attack.
Please don't tell my wife.
LOL...and at $90 a barrell...That's funny.
It is mostly true. During the energy crunch of the ‘70’s they reduced the size of brake rotors on most full size cars and trucks from 10-11” down to 8-9” to cut weight. They then rid themselves of the higher impact metal bumpers with a coil mount system that usually could withstand a bump of 15 mph (try that with any of todays cars, you’re looking at a $2500 price tag). I could go on about it if you need more.
Part of that millions of dollars a copy is to pay for the r&d needed to develope the particular systems/materials.
Thats done.
Sorta like teflon...some of the developed technology will or may become ubiquitous.
remember when gun control was a health issue and because it was a health issue it was a moral issue...
same playbook, just GWBush has lame ducked into this idiocy.
Here is a link to a good article full of technical stuff about CFLs.
::::::::::::::::
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
Hey lady, who are you to shove your morality down my throat?
/liberal argument
.
(Yes, yes, I know, different type of fuel).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.