In article , Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message

stuff snipped

Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use?

YES, I do have SOME idea HOW long. And I even know how to spell the word
correctly, too. It starts, ironically, like the disease "Flu" - that's the
mnemonic I use. Flu -ores -cent. Three separate words in one. Aren't you
glad you asked so nicely? (-: You got smarter. You wouldn't want to
present yourself as knowledgeable in a subject you can't spell. People
might not find you credible.

http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Fluorescent (checking to make sure it's not
Brit variant)

Obviously you missed my post where I described in deadly dull detail when
FLUorescents were discovered and came into wide use. The basic principle
was revealed over 150 years ago when Stokes at Cambridge discovered
electrical fluorescence in 1852. Fluorescents came into commercial use at
the NY World's Fair, 1939 when GE introduced the Lumiline bulb after decades
of patent battles and research.

Does being in "wide use" make the mercury in them any less poisonous? Of
course not. Consider this: In 1939, along with the miracle of fluorescent
lighting, we were using the miracle substance asbestos everywhe in car
brakes, in houses, in schools, even in cigarettes. Did the fact that it was
in "wide use" for a long time everywhere mean it was not a deadly
carcinogen? Of course not. "Wide use" is proof of nothing except "wide
use."

Asbestos causes one of the nastiest cancers known to man, mesothelioma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma

We were stupid about asbestos for the longest time but we got smart,
eventually, only after enough people died. People in very different walks
of life, from toll booth attendants who breathed brake dust filled with
airborne asbestos to roofers that worked with asbestos shingles, have died
horribly because we dragged our heels. It's cost billions of dollars to
clean it up and it's still not done. Can we do better with another poison,
mercury, now that we know it's a fast growing health problem? Maybe. I
hope so. But I suspect, once again, a lot of people will sicken and die
before we buy a clue.

It would seem just based on experience with asbestos alone that people might
consider we've been wrong before and we may well be headed down the wrong
path again with fluorescent lighting. But people are contrary cusses. They
know smoking causes lung cancer (especially if they smoked Kent with the
asbestos-filled Micronite filter) but they smoke anyway. People have
difficulty evaluating distant threats.

SNIP from here

At this point, it apears to me that most people who died horrible deaths
from asbestos inhaled visible clouds of the stuff, such as by being
shipyard workers, insulation deplyment workers, etc. or housewives thereof
doing laundry of clothes outright dusty with asbestos.

I hear the word "mesothelioma" mostly in radio ads by lawyers.

Need I say more here?

- Don Klipstein )