Comments | moggymania: They want to ban the only light source I can use?

moggymania

They want to ban the only light source I can use?

Jan 31, 2007 16:48

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 ( Read more... )

employment, california, disability rights, education, autistic advocacy, autistic rights

Comments 21

cluelessinchi February 1 2007, 01:08:41 UTC

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.

wakasplat February 1 2007, 01:39:25 UTC

Can you point me to the studies?

My parents are looking for some to send to their representatives.

cluelessinchi February 1 2007, 02:24:16 UTC

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 ( ... )

qilora February 1 2007, 01:23:42 UTC

THE FUCK!

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

*pout*

invisible_k February 1 2007, 01:42:16 UTC

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 ( ... )

invisible_k February 1 2007, 02:19:48 UTC

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.

codeman38 February 1 2007, 02:23:41 UTC

Heh... sorry for my redundant comment just a few minutes after yours. :)

codeman38 February 1 2007, 02:22:48 UTC

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

Thread 6

gisho February 1 2007, 01:44:23 UTC

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?)

fagricipni February 1 2007, 06:10:52 UTC

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!}

moggymania February 3 2007, 00:11:13 UTC

"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...)

mymacsucks November 2 2007, 00:54:03 UTC

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...

pallas__athena February 2 2007, 16:48:27 UTC

I'm still a bit confused about what kind they mean the "regular" kind? I feel a bit silly for missing this post.

They're probably what you already know as "normal" in your home. :) moggymania February 2 2007, 23:43:35 UTC

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:

( ... )