Light bulbs and big government

    The precise number of people who recently rallied in Washington, D.C., for a national "tea party" is hard to come by. Left-wing reports have it at less than a hundred thousand participants, while some right-wingers put it over a million.
 
    Whatever the count, it was refreshing that so many people were concerned about "out-of-control government." It would be easier to take them seriously if they had marched eight years ago to oppose warrantless wire-taps, indefinite detentions, torture and the like, but better late than never.
 
    One persistent big-government complaint I've encountered concerns our familiar incandescent light bulbs. In 2007, Congress passed a law mandating new efficiency standards. It didn't exactly outlaw incandescent lamps, but no such bulb on the market then could meet the standard -- which was easily met by the odd-looking compact fluorescent bulbs.
 
    Why would anyone object to a lower electric bill from more efficient lighting? I don't recall any anger about the improved efficiency standards for electric refrigerators that took effect in 1993.
 
    Well, there are some people who get headaches from fluorescent bulbs. They've never bothered me -- my indoor work history includes many hours under sickly blue-tinged light in newspaper offices and industrial laundry washrooms -- and such headaches as I suffered had nothing to do with the light.
 
    But I am married to a woman who sometimes reacts adversely to bluish fluorescents, and I prefer the warm yellow glow of incandescents. Neither of us, however, is fond of paying any more than necessary to Xcel Energy. We've replaced most household incandescents with CFLs that mimic the warm glow, and so far, it's worked out pretty well. The light has a tone that pleases me, it doesn't give Martha headaches, and we consume less electricity.
 
    Further, I read that the incandescent lamp is becoming more efficient, and the new ones will meet the 2012 standards.
 
    Even so, there's still the complaint that "the damn government is telling us what kind of light bulbs to use."
 
    And I thought "doesn't the government already tell us what kind of light to use?" For instance, our Victorian forebears used gas lights, and surely they're illegal now, given the heat and fire hazard.
 
    Some nosing around the Internet produced a site devoted to gas lights, which pointed out some modern safety features that shut off the gas if the flame goes out, so that the building doesn't turn into a bomb. It also said their legality is determined by local building codes.
 
    I called Bill Paradise, a Chaffee County, Colo. building inspector (the office also conducts inspections in our county's three municipalities).
 
    He told me that your insurance company might have problems if you used gas lights, but they're allowed under the International Building Code used here and in many other jurisdictions.
 
    Blinding electric arc lights? No problem with the building code, he said, and the same held for hot halogen lamps, kerosene and gasoline lanterns, lime lights (hydrogen and oxygen aimed at calcium oxide, used in 19th-century theaters and thus the phrase "in the limelight"), acetylene, candles, whatever other illumination I could think of.
 
    He said the only lighting measure in the International Building Code used by the county was a requirement that recessed lighting fixtures be sealed.
 
    Thus I was wrong when I thought that "the government" already regulated what kinds of lighting you could use in your own home.
 
    And if you're really fond of those inefficient incandescent bulbs that turn 90 percent of their electricity into heat rather than the light you want, you can still use them -- you'll just need to stock up now, or develop a black-market connection, because someday soon you won't be able to buy them legally, and they do burn out.