?

Log in

They want to ban the only light source I can use? - Moggy Meadows
January 31st, 2007
04:48 pm
[User Picture]

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
They want to ban the only light source I can use?
I don't entirely have time for this, but I needed to put up the alert so folks can write our representatives... If you're in California, Autistic in another state, or friends with an Autistic (er, well, you know me at least :) please write in to our assembly people, governor, etc. about this! Going public to reach the widest audience possible. :-p

A Democratic Assemblyman from Los Angeles wants California to become the first state to ban incandescent light bulbs

For those unaware, fluorescent light bulbs (the kind he wants to force on us) are a total nightmare for people with visual sensitivity. (Anyone know who that is, other than Auties and maybe migraine-prone people?) They can cause difficulty seeing, difficulty reading, migraine headaches, absence seizures, a kind of catatonic state, literal eye pain, and a lot more I'm not recalling right now. In my case, they also make it hard to navigate a room or think at all (as well as causing all of the other crap I mentioned), because everything is being lit by an extremely fast strobe light and kind of vibrates.

Not only would this cause even our own homes to become a sensory hell, it would totally decimate the ability of employees or students to get incandescent light bulbs as an accommodation, and also the additional sensory stress at home would have a seriously negative impact on functionality the rest of the time.

Meaning that fewer people would work (more would end up in poverty on disability), fewer could do the projects (at home or volunteering) that enhance our society, more students that could do brilliant work would have poor grades, more students would develop "behavioral issues" and be forced into small student-teacher ratio classrooms (which in turn tend to ruin the chances of a good college).

Even worse than all of that, the added stress would push more kids/adults onto psych meds/therapy they shouldn't need, and some into suicide that might have been happy. It would also force more of them into the kind of places (in schools, mental hospitals, group homes, etc.) that we tend to be abused/killed in, raising the rates for those problems as well.

This doesn't just apply to people that are formally recognized or even have a clue why they are different. It would affect the many that currently pass as "normal" unaware that they don't have unusual brains at all, likely pushing many to the point that they no longer can blend in. So it's not just that odd kid down the street, or the strange woman at the grocery store; it could be kids/adults that seemed totally "normal" to everyone. Except they might not get an accurate diagnosis leading them to our community; they might just end up in the isolated-and-unhappy-and-I-don't-know-why bin from the past.

Of course, it'd be totally ironic to have California -- the state with the greatest percentage of Autistics and other disabled people in the union -- be the first to do it.

If the bureaucrats are THAT intent on saving money for the state, they should cut their incomes -- if they are THAT intent on saving energy, they should outlaw or subsidize replacement of things with a greater negative impact to start with (huge vehicles, ancient televisions, etc.) and set up funds to encourage employers to let people work from home rather than making a long commute. There's a *lot* they could change instead, but have made very little move to...and they likely never will, because that would affect the upper-middle-to-affluent citizens that fund their damn campaigns.

I'll add links to who to write to later... I spent too much time on this as it is. :-/

Current Mood: pissed offpissed off
Tags: , , , , ,

(23 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
From:cluelessinchi
Date:February 1st, 2007 01:08 am (UTC)
(Link)
There are so many studies stating that the , fluorescent light bulbs cause behavior problems and migraines I had thought the next logical step was to ban those from schools. Not the other types... the light bulbs that doe not cause these problems. Damn! what can I do? The buzzing of those lights drive me batty! I have them here in my apartment and I do not use them. I have one that is totally burnt out. I do not mind that at all! I do not live in CA tho.
[User Picture]
From:wakasplat
Date:February 1st, 2007 01:39 am (UTC)
(Link)
Can you point me to the studies?

My parents are looking for some to send to their representatives.
From:cluelessinchi
Date:February 1st, 2007 02:24 am (UTC)
(Link)
It is just things that I have heard over the years.... I guess the area in which I live is totally against that as well the dangers of certain computer monitors/LANs/cell phones/microwaves etc
But, I found this. http://www.daylighting.com/Article-HealthHazardsofFluorescentLighting.htm
that actually lists health problems that are created or made worse my the lighting. This would be good since there most likely be lots of Aspie and Auties sending in letters and such. This is so many other things that are made worse because of these lights. In this one there is a bit about mercury in the lights themselves... Now it is less but still mercury in the schools and places of work etc????
http://www.mercuryinschools.uwex.edu/curriculum/school_info.htm
more on mercury in the lights...
http://www.medichem.co.nz/fluorescent-waste.htm
http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135--11693--,00.html
more on the health impact that florescent lighting has...
http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/SeeingTheLight.htm
this is about a study with full spectrum lighting vs florescent lighting.
http://www.bluemaxlighting.com/New_lighting_increases_achievement.html

I could find more I just did not want to inundate you with more than you wanted.
[User Picture]
From:qilora
Date:February 1st, 2007 01:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
THE FUCK!

looks like it's a matter of time before us disabled folks are homebound, pissing in buckets and lighting with kerosene!


*pout*
[User Picture]
From:maelorin
Date:February 1st, 2007 04:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
i thought most of us were supposed to be doing that already?

O_o
[User Picture]
From:invisible_k
Date:February 1st, 2007 01:42 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm writing a short comment over at the Digg article on this, linking to your post in said comment, and will contact assembly people when I have time. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are a little better for me than the fluorescent tubes in classrooms (and I had been just taking classes in rooms with fluorescent lights, had no idea that I could have incandescent lights as an accommodation), but even with the purported improvements, they still give me a headache (and my father replaced most of the lights in our house with CFCs, so typing this with the aforementioned headache right now.)

If this bill passes, I guess I'll try to get out of CA by 2012. I probably can, though I like California, or at least like the region I'm not living in. (I'm in what is probably one of the most Republican towns in the most Republican county and fed up with it by now.) I'm more concerned about the people who have no way of getting out, which includes a lot of autistics. I'm not sure it will pass, as it looks like Republican assembly people are against it, and I doubt that all Democrats are for it and think that it's also possible to persuade at least some.
[User Picture]
From:invisible_k
Date:February 1st, 2007 02:19 am (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, the Digg post is here, in case you want to comment. My comment is here. It's brief, and mostly includes a link to your post and a summary so people know what what I'm linking to covers, but Digging it up would be appreciated, especially as I'm not sure how it will be received.
[User Picture]
From:codeman38
Date:February 1st, 2007 02:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
Heh... sorry for my redundant comment just a few minutes after yours. :)
[User Picture]
From:codeman38
Date:February 1st, 2007 02:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
I just found the thread, dugg your comment, and added you as a Digg friend.

Here's the link, for anyone else interested:
California May Ban Lightbulbs by 2012 to Cut Out the Blackout Middle-Man
[User Picture]
From:mymacsucks
Date:November 2nd, 2007 12:48 am (UTC)
(Link)
For what its worth, they WON'T outright ban them. You will still be able to get bulbs for garage door openers, the inside of ovens, and other places where alternatives are not currently available, but you'll probably have to search for these.

Given that the technology to produce an incandescent that doesn't burn out for years, for only a very small amount more of money, has been around for a looooong time, I say fuck the industry for selling defective products. For far too long, these crooks have been selling consumers a product that self destructs just to sell it to them again and again.

Its time we finally put an end to the crooked "Edison Era"... over a century of abuses that of span from electrocuting puppies in the streets to scare people away from wanting to use the competing AC system, the birth of the "recording industry" and the rape of artists rights worldwide by cruel and heartless businesspeople, and last but not least, the hideously inefficient bulbs Edison foisted on the world even 50 years after Tesla's system of Alternating Current had completely and totally eliminated every last DC based plug and socket in every single home in the world.
[User Picture]
From:invisible_k
Date:February 1st, 2007 02:56 am (UTC)
(Link)
Guh, it seems like my brain can't remember CFL as the abbreviation, and just says, "Oh, environment related, starts with letters 'C' and 'F,' must type 'CFC.'" ;-)
From:gisho
Date:February 1st, 2007 01:44 am (UTC)
(Link)
Erk. What a ... misguided approach.

(Hmm. What effects do LED lightbulbs have on sensory issues? I wouldn't think they'd buzz or flicker, but since thy're still hard to find and insanely expensive I havn't installed any myself ... If, heaven forbid, this stupid bill passes, would it be possible to get the government to subsidize LED bulbs?)
[User Picture]
From:fagricipni
Date:February 1st, 2007 06:10 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm not nearly as sensitive as some of you appear to me; however, the tiredness and the fluorescent lighting I am writing this under is occasionally giving "interesting" visual effects. While I don't disapprove of having volunteers allowing themselves to be tested with lightsources generated by exceedingly expensive lab equipment to try to determine the actual problematic issues, I strongly disapprove of a blanket ban on incandescent bulbs; even if cleverness with LEDs does make an acceptable solution (LEDs should be even more constant than normal incandescents, and the narrowness of the spectra might be surmountable by using several different types of LED in the proper combination.) are the fools proposing this willing to subsidize the costs for poor disabled people? I strongly suspect not; I suspect that even if considered it would be a case of: "These people are too few and unimportant to matter." {snarl!}
[User Picture]
From:moggymania
Date:February 3rd, 2007 12:11 am (UTC)
(Link)
"These people are too few and unimportant to matter."

Until they force all of the closeted and unrecognized spectrum people to use the damn fluorescents, at which point they'll lose "nondisabled" functionality and the political gripe will be even worse: "we can't afford to help them, there are far too many of those people draining the system!"

The "too many" is actually one of the things said here already -- there's a very scary Nazi-esque "worthless drain on society" eugenics movement growing. I'm now seeing a huge proportion of comments in every disability-related discussion on average (non-disability-rights) sites that lean heavily in that direction. (I saw recently that many feminist people feel disabled females aren't women -- we're just tools used by men to oppress the "real" women. Talk about being dehumanized...)
[User Picture]
From:mymacsucks
Date:November 2nd, 2007 12:54 am (UTC)
(Link)
California has been fucking the poor and middle class out of a standard of living since the early 80s; its NOT a good state to live in unless you are ALREADY rich.

Take a look at the number of people who have been screwed out of the right to drive by restrictive policies put in place by the state over the last 15 years...
[User Picture]
From:maelorin
Date:February 1st, 2007 04:26 am (UTC)
(Link)
It's like the Australian reaction to the mere possibility that someone might put a bomb in a bin, as has been done in other countries. Bins in public spaces in most public buildings are nonexistent.

This is about appearing to be doing something. about appearing to care.

stupid. but that's populist politics.
[User Picture]
From:pallas__athena
Date:February 2nd, 2007 04:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm still a bit confused about what kind they mean the "regular" kind? I feel a bit silly for missing this post.
[User Picture]
From:moggymania
Date:February 2nd, 2007 11:43 pm (UTC)

They're probably what you already know as "normal" in your home. :)

(Link)
Rushing over to tap out a reply, then back to work... I only learned the word for them a few years ago. (Even though I have a large vocabulary, I seem to learn the meaning of some common terms much later than other people.)

"Normal" lightbulbs, called incandescent, are the only kind that we could buy in stores until a few years ago. They probably are the ones that are in lamps or other lights in/outside your house. They have a metal wire inside that gives off light by glowing (being "incandescent") when heated by electricity, and usually look like one of these:


You can see the metal bit sticking up in the middle of the clear bulbs in the pic. Both frosted and clear can have any of those shapes.

Oh, other common types of incandescent/normal bulb are Christmas tree lights, night-lights (same small size), and most flashlights. If you look at a clear one at a store sometime, you'll see the same metal parts inside.

I hope this helps... By the way, your userpic always makes me smile -- some of my cats do the same thing, and Houdini in particular has a gray version of the same white-and-tabby pattern. :)
From:annomalous
Date:February 14th, 2007 09:15 pm (UTC)

Write to Steinberg!

(Link)
I think we should communicate with Senator Darrell Steinberg, chair of California's Legislative Blue Ribbon Commission on Autism, about this. The autism commission should look into this proposed lightbulb legislation, because it is an autistic issue.

Senator Darrell Steinberg
senator.steinberg@sen.ca.gov

Capitol Office
Phone: (916) 651-4006
Fax: (916) 323-2263
State Capitol, Room 4035
Sacramento, CA 95814

District Office
Phone: (916) 651-1529
Fax: (916) 327-8754
1020 N Street, #576
Sacramento, CA 95814
From:irukai
Date:June 27th, 2007 06:04 pm (UTC)

Those DAMNED F***ING LIGHTS!

(Link)
Yes, this is how angry I am.

I may not be able to go to school full-time or even much in the way of part-time, and definitely not in my major - for this very reason.

I live in Sacramento, and I literally can't see well/function under the lights that any school in the district uses.
[User Picture]
From:mymacsucks
Date:November 2nd, 2007 12:49 am (UTC)

Re: Those DAMNED F***ING LIGHTS!

(Link)
DEMAND BALLAST UPGRADES AND NEW TECHNOLOGY. DONT SETTLE FOR THE FLUORESCENT LIGHTS OF THE 1960s!

P.S. As a former resident, I know all too well that California schools suck. You can thank Proposition 13 for that.
From:irukai
Date:June 27th, 2007 06:05 pm (UTC)

Those DAMNED F***ING LIGHTS!

(Link)
Yes, this is how angry I am.

I may not be able to go to school full-time or even much in the way of part-time, and definitely not in my major - for this very reason.

I live in Sacramento, and I literally can't see well/function under the lights that any school in the district uses. The entire school district uses these awful fluorescent lights, and it's especially bad in the science department.
[User Picture]
From:mymacsucks
Date:November 2nd, 2007 12:35 am (UTC)
(Link)
All of the problems you describe relating to fluorescent lights, are caused by the 60Hz current that creates a 120Hz flicker rate, sometimes with much more visible 60Hz flicker in color tone if the bulb is aged, worn, or badly constructed.

Its easy to tell if you are under such light. Rapidly move your hands in front of the light, and notice the resulting pattern, or lack of it. Under incandescent, you won't see such a pattern. Under certain advanced fluorescent lights, you won't see it either.

While the bulb you likely need will be a little more complicated than the simple inductive ballast fluorescent that consists of not much more than a big coil and an igniter module, the design of such a lamp is NOT complicated if you understand how fluorescent works.

Basically, what is required is that the 120VAC 60Hz be converted into something a little more reasonable for powering your lightbulb. This is actually a LOT easier than it sounds because pure sine wave AC is far from ideal for driving gas discharge bulbs anyways, and in many cases, the energy lost to conversion is less than the efficiency gained by driving the bulb in a more orderly fashion.. so if you want to fight this head-on, the easiest way to approach the issue is to attach a rider mandating the use of high efficiency flicker-free "electronic ballasts".

Try the hand-moving test under five different sources of light to get a feel for what it looks like when you see the pattern:
1. A cheap fluorescent shop-light, the kind with the 4-foot long bulbs. Odds are this is going to be the most flickering.
2. An old television screen tuned to something bright backlighting your hand. This will flicker somewhat.
3. Sunlight. This won't flicker at all, obviously.
4. Incandescent bulb. Won't flicker unless its specially designed to do so, no mass market bulb is for obvious reasons
5. CFL, those spirally fluorescent bulbs. It wasn't as smooth as the sunlight, but it didn't have the visible pattern than the shop light did either. This is because the electronic ballast in it ignites the bulb several times during each cycle.

--

For what its worth, before the CFL bulbs became popular I would use shop lights a lot for indoor light because of the fact that incandescent bulbs have another problem besides putting off 90% of the energy they use in the infrared, as heat. The other problem is that of the 10% that does get made into light, most of it is concentrated in the "red" part of the spectrum that is harder to use to visualize details than the green or blue parts of the spectrum. On the other hand, fluorescent light often did strange things to colors if you got the wrong bulb.

Prior to CFL, I always felt that personally, the most comfortable type of light to fill a familyroom sized area (say 15x20) resulted from 250W of incandescent combined with two of the four-foot bulbs, but with different colored ones each. Say one of the "Cool White" bulbs and one of the "Natural Sunlight" type bulbs. Mixing them seemed to even out a lot of the color oddities, and adding the incandescent helped out a lot with smoothing the reds...

Do you find that the flicker from neon lights also bugs you?
Moggy's Mess at Googlepages Powered by LiveJournal.com