From NewsMax.com:
‘Rough Service’ Loophole Skirts Ban on Incandescent Bulbs
by Greg Richter
Just as 100- and 75-watt incandescent light bulbs were banned from sale this year, their 60- and 40-watt counterparts will face the same fate on New Year’s Day.
But one manufacturer whose family has been making lights for generations has found a loophole: the “rough service” bulb.
Rough-service bulbs are essentially the same as any other incandescent bulb, but are built to be more sturdy for heavy-duty applications. Automobiles and subways are among users of rough-service bulbs, which are less susceptible to vibration because they typically have an extra wire to support the filament.
They can, however, be used in homes just like the regular bulbs that are being phased out.
Of course, in Fornicalia — the quintessential Left Coast — incandescent bulbs were banned on January 1st of 2012, to include the 100-watt bulb. A maximum of 72 watts were allowed, including CFLs and LEDs.
On January 1st of 2014, other incandescent bulbs — including the staid and serviceable 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs — will now be illegal to build and sell in the United States of America.
With regard to the “rough service” bulb, however, Wikipedia writes:
Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, stage lighting, plant lights, candelabra lights under 60 watts, outdoor post lights less than 100 watts, nightlights and shatter resistant bulbs.[51]
Continuing, from NewsMax:
(Owner of the Light Bulk Store in New Jersey, Larry) Birmbaum’s Newcandescent.com website offers bulbs up to 300 watts, touting them as “the legal light bulb.”
The rough-service bulbs last about three times longer than regular bulbs. That’s not as long as LEDs, which have been gaining popularity as their price has dropped, but LEDs still cost three to four times as much.
Both incandescents and LEDs offer more safety than CFL bulbs, which made many people wary after the Environmental Protection Agency issued guidelines for safe cleanup of mercury if they break.
CFLs have also been linked to cancer, migraine headaches, and other health problems.
These are issues that I have already identified here and here and here and here. I already possess clear documentation that CFLs do not inherently last longer than regular incandescent bulbs.
And certainly it should not shock you that I possess a rather large and extensive personal stock of ILLEGAL incandescent bulbs. Remember: when incandescent bulbs are outlawed, only OUTLAWS will possess incandescent bulbs — especially 100 watt units.
Check out NewCandescent.com and be your own outlaw.
BZ
Where there is a will there is a way… The ingenuity of the American mind is awesome, and these same clowns think they can ban guns and/or ammo..
Think again…
I suspect there is more coming for 2014 on the 2nd Amendment venue. . .
BZ
Say goodbye to the Easy-Bake oven.
Say Hello to light fixtures that use multiple light bulbs to get the same amount of light as the old 100 watters. Just like when houses started installing multiple shower heads to combat the low flow shower head.
Stupid laws are just begging for rational people to go around them.
Or the low-gallon flush toilet. Which you just flush once more.
BZ
Scofflaw! Keep up the good work.
;^)
BZ
I have a case of them in the lair… 🙂
I refuse to become stupid. If they build a better lightbulb, I will buy it. But they have not. This overpriced monstrosity is not better. Just like putting ethanol in gasoline, it’s purely political. I often wonder what starving people in third world countries think of us when they realize that we have so much food in America, that we use some of it to power our cars.
As for the stupid flush toilet, I removed the water catch. As for my shower heads and faucets, I drilled out the water flow restrictors, and just before they took my lightbulbs away, I bought hundreds of them. I have so many illegal light bulbs right now, if the govt found out, they would have to charge me with intent to distribute.
I don’t understand how politicians think they can legislate progress. It will happen when it happens and only when the rewards of doing so becomes the incentive. Ford didn’t build a better car for less because the govt told him to. Edison didn’t invent the bulb because he was mandated by congress. It was done by men who saw a need and filled it…for a profit.
I think it arrogant for politicians to decree that all cars must get Xmpg in the next 10 years or whatever it is. As if somehow, they command the law of physics to obey them. Same for supposed “gobal warming”, as if man can affect that too. Which I often wonder, how does giving the govt more money stop global warming anyway. Globull warming will kill the planet but give the govt money, and all will be right in the world. Is there a giant anti-global warming machine that is really expensive and being built by the govt? All I see is the money going into the govt coffers to be used to buy votes and redistribute. I am open to any explanation and would welcome any answers to this that would set me straight on how making things more expensive reverses the weather.
Let me throw this out as well:
The US government MANDATED that we use, amongst other resources, wind power.
Then, when the huge props of those turbines began to kill eagles, the US government FINED those energy producers.
What did the US government THINK would happen when you MANDATE there to be HUGE revolving propellers placed high above terra firma?
Then — further — the US government EXCUSED some of those companies, and now it is LEGAL to KILL eagles.
But only on behalf of the environment. Let’s KILL the eagles (on the endangered species list until 2007) in order to protect the environment.
Is this not madness?
BZ