"Jeff Liebermann Rabid Nut Case "
"Phil Allison"


The metal CRT shadow mask is fairly impervious to x-rays.

** Nonsense - the x-ray attenuation factor of thin Fe-Ni alloy is
small.

The x-rays are produced by the electron beam hitting the metal. One
characteristic of metals is that they have loosely bound outer
electrons........... ad nauseam.


** Just like YOU have loosely bound thoughts.

Loose a a goose.



What
electrons go through the holes in the shadow mask to light up the
phosphor dots, do not produce x-rays.

** Wiki disagrees.
You got a cite for that ?

Got a reference page from whatever Wiki you were reading that says
phosphors emit x-rays when pounded on by electrons?

** Same Wiki page you cited - ****wit.


I don't do any extra work for anyone spewing vague denunciations
without substantiation.


** The onus of proof is on you to provide evidence - ****wit.

Shame you have no idea what that is.



** Irrelevant to the point - fool.

I do have one simple question.....

** You do have one simple brain.

Simply ****ed.

**** off, nut case.



...... Phil

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:54:15 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

Got a reference page from whatever Wiki you were reading that says
phosphors emit x-rays when pounded on by electrons?

** Same Wiki page you cited - ****wit.

Ummm.... I didn't realize that Wikipedia is the only Wiki on the
internet. I guess it's the only one you read. Ummm... you can read?
In the future, assuming you have one, please be more specific.

I cited two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
Where does it say that electrons excite phosphors to emit x-rays?
The 2nd article mentions:
"The screen is covered with a phosphorescent coating (often
transition metals or rare earth elements), which emits visible
light when excited by high-energy electrons."
which is quite the opposite of what you are rudely suggesting.
Pounding on phosphors with electrons emits light, not x-rays.

I do have one simple question.....

** You do have one simple brain.
Simply ****ed.
**** off, nut case.
..... Phil

Nope. You're so much fun to irritate. However, your insults are
starting to become repetitious. Could I trouble you to find some new
material? I get easily bored. Besides, I find it more interesting to
be insulting without the use of profanity.

While you're fabricating another worthless response, you might
consider that the same mechanism that inspires metals to emit x-rays
is what causes phosphors to emit light when pounded on by electrons.
When the electrons in the inner orbits are knocked out (ionized) by
the bombarding the electrons, the outer electrons fall into these
inner orbits to replace them. The distance traveled between the outer
and inner orbits is the wavelength of the radiation produced. The
difference between the binding energies of the inner and outer shell
electrons is the energy of the radiation produced. These are also
some of the basic principles behind x-ray spectroscopy.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann Rabid ****ing NUTTER "


I cited two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
Where does it say that electrons excite phosphors to emit x-rays?

He
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode...zing_radiation

The first line says it.

" CRTs can emit a small amount of X-ray radiation as a result of the
electron beam's bombardment of the shadow mask/aperture grille and
phosphors. "

Also, monochrome CRTs ( which have no shadow mask ) emit x-rays as a result
of phosphor bombardment. Becomes significant with accelerating voltages
above 20KV, just as with colour TVs.

Game over - pal.


Listen up - YOU are nothing but another PITA

STEAMING GREAT BULL**** ARTIST !!!

SO GO DROP DEAD !!




........ Phil

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:00:14 -0500, clifto wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
My memory (which might very well be wrong) was that one of the principal
sources of X-rays was the HV rectifier. GE got into trouble over excessive
X-radiation from their HV rectifier -- though the tube was situated such
that the kids would have had to stick their feet under the set (!!!) to
receive any significant dosage.

Specifically, it was a GE-made 6BK4 that caused the problem, so it ended up
in all brands of sets via repair.

Also the 1B3 rectifier tube. They never did really solve the problem.
Instead, they buried the Hi-V rectifier in a double lead plated steel
cage for shielding. A double shielding was necessary to provide
non-overlapping ventilation holes, where there was no direct path
between the x-ray source and the outside. They also added circuitry
that shut down the Hi-V if the voltage regulation failed (which would
cause the voltage to increase dramatically and produce even more
x-rays. The problem was eventually solved with semiconductor Hi-V
rectifiers.

I vaguely remember that it was all alpha radiation, but don't take my word
as gospel.

Nope. No helium nuclei were produced. They have little penetration
and wouldn't go through a sheet of toilet paper. Bombarding metals
with electrons produces dangerous x-rays, which go through all but the
most dense materials.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:06:05 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Jeff Liebermann Rabid ****ing NUTTER "


I cited two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
Where does it say that electrons excite phosphors to emit x-rays?

Amazing. You can read.

He
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode...zing_radiation

The first line says it.

" CRTs can emit a small amount of X-ray radiation as a result of the
electron beam's bombardment of the shadow mask/aperture grille and
phosphors. "

Well, then Wikipedia is somewhat wrong. Phosphors emit light
wavelengths, not x-rays. However the phosphors are doped with various
other materials, which possibly do contribute some X-rays. I did some
quick Googling and couldn't find any references to phosphors directly
emitting x-rays. There was plenty on how they emitted light, but no
mention of x-rays. If phosphors did belch x-rays, then the CRT
picture would be serisously smeared as the emitted x-rays excite
adjacent phosphor dots or lines.

Also, monochrome CRTs ( which have no shadow mask ) emit x-rays as a result
of phosphor bombardment. Becomes significant with accelerating voltages
above 20KV, just as with colour TVs.

Well, there you got me, maybe. Most references say that x-rays are
not a problem with mono CRT's because of the lack of the shadow mask
and lower accelleration voltages. I found several Zenith patents and
references for 20-30KV mono CRT tubes (mostly used for medical
imaging) that never mentioned x-rays or showed any indication that
x-rays were a problem. All said that the lead in the glass was
sufficient to limit x-ray leakage to within FDA safety limits. (0.5
milliroentgens per hour at a distance of 5 cm). Perhaps that's
because the x-rays produced by the dopants in the phosphor are rather
small? Dunno. I'll see if I can find something but not tonite.

Game over - pal.

Yep. It's a game to you. Is that why you find it necessary to add
insults to almost every line? Also, ease up on the double spacing.
The world supply of white space is limited.

Listen up - YOU are nothing but another PITA
STEAMING GREAT BULL**** ARTIST !!!
SO GO DROP DEAD !!

But who will play games with you if I do that?
Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be stuck.

....... Phil

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

While you're fabricating another worthless response, you might
consider that the same mechanism that inspires metals to emit x-rays
is what causes phosphors to emit light when pounded on by electrons.
When the electrons in the inner orbits are knocked out (ionized) by
the bombarding the electrons, the outer electrons fall into these
inner orbits to replace them. The distance traveled between the outer
and inner orbits is the wavelength of the radiation produced.

Uh huh. Yeah.

Please review your quantum physics.


The difference between the binding energies of the inner and outer
shell electrons is the energy of the radiation produced.

That's much closer to correct.

On 04 Apr 2008 03:42:35 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Another source of lead is CRTs, many of which are still in use.
They contain about 5 pounds of lead each for radiation protection,
quite a bit more than is contained in the solder in the PC boards.

And the replacements, flat screen monitors, have mercury in
the fluorescent backlights.

If you've ever seen the size of a fluorescent backlight for an LCD
you'd realise that scrapping even a few hundred of them produces three
fifths of seven sixteenths of bugger all mercury.


--

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:43:52 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Mike
wrote:

On 04 Apr 2008 03:42:35 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Another source of lead is CRTs, many of which are still in use.
They contain about 5 pounds of lead each for radiation protection,
quite a bit more than is contained in the solder in the PC boards.

And the replacements, flat screen monitors, have mercury in
the fluorescent backlights.

If you've ever seen the size of a fluorescent backlight for an LCD
you'd realise that scrapping even a few hundred of them produces three
fifths of seven sixteenths of bugger all mercury.

Yes, something about mercury here

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multil...leID=3204&l=en


martin

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 04:17:32 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .

While you're fabricating another worthless response, you might
consider that the same mechanism that inspires metals to emit x-rays
is what causes phosphors to emit light when pounded on by electrons.
When the electrons in the inner orbits are knocked out (ionized) by
the bombarding the electrons, the outer electrons fall into these
inner orbits to replace them. The distance traveled between the outer
and inner orbits is the wavelength of the radiation produced.

Uh huh. Yeah.
Please review your quantum physics.

I'm not much of a fizzixist. Where did I go wrong? Digging...

According to my understanding of the Neils Bohr model of the atom, the
emitted wavelength is:
Wavelength =
1240 Electron-Volt-NanoMeters / (Energy difference between orbits)
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/applets/Bohr/content_files/section2.html

Oops. I'm wrong. The wavelength is not the distance travelled. It's
proportional to the difference in orbital energy levels, not the
distance travelled.

The difference between the binding energies of the inner and outer
shell electrons is the energy of the radiation produced.

That's much closer to correct.

Unless there are some losses involved that I don't know about, the
energy of the emitted radiation is exactly the difference between
orbital energies.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:00:14 -0500, clifto wrote:

I vaguely remember that it was all alpha radiation, but don't take my word
as gospel.

Nope. No helium nuclei were produced. They have little penetration
and wouldn't go through a sheet of toilet paper.

That's exactly why my head is telling me it was alpha; I remember thinking
how silly this all was when the radiation probably wouldn't penetrate the
wood beneath the chassis. I would have thought that if it was beta, some
of it would penetrate wood, and of course gamma would go right through.
But then, I wasn't paying careful attention, and I could certainly be wrong.

--
$109,000,000 in income! Capitalism works GREAT for Billary...
...why does she want Marxism for us?

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:14:40 -0700, stratus46 wrote:

On Apr 3, 7:13*pm, exray wrote:
wrote:

You mean the fumes from the flux. You don't believe you're
breathing
solder vapors, do you? In the 40+ years I've been using solder, I
doubt I've used 5 lbs and I do quite a bit of soldering.

GG

I've never turned on my shop spectrometer to determine if it was
the
flux or solder. *I just know that the new stuff doesn't smell as
friendly to my human nose.

40+ years, 5 pounds, yadda,yadda...how much 'new' solder have you
used?
* I suspect you're just trying to pick a fight. *I'm not playing.
*See ya.

Heavens no. I don't fight. I just try to state facts to the best of my
knowledge with as little embellishment as I can. I don't know about
your soldering tools but we now use only Metcal soldering stations at
work besides my personal one at home. Point is a Metcal has a very
well defined temperature not likely to vaporize solder - though what
tool would?

Apparently, a VERY HOT iron would:
http://www.bmed.mcgill.ca/REKLAB/man...370_solder.pdf
"...BOILING RANGE
Flux chars above 250°C. The vapor pressure of lead may be significant
above 500°C."

Cheers!
Rich

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On 04 Apr 2008 03:42:35 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Another source of lead is CRTs, many of which are still in use.
They contain about 5 pounds of lead each for radiation protection,
quite a bit more than is contained in the solder in the PC boards.

And the replacements, flat screen monitors, have mercury in
the fluorescent backlights.

If you've ever seen the size of a fluorescent backlight for an LCD
you'd realise that scrapping even a few hundred of them produces three
fifths of seven sixteenths of bugger all mercury.


--

Which is, in turn, about the same level of threat to the environment, as
lead in solder ... d;~}

Arfa

On 05 Apr 2008 20:31:02 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

nospam wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

Allodoxaphobia wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:

At 30th tonnes, the potential environmental impact of the lead in
solder, even if you *did* dump it all in the ground, is minuscule.

And, where do these pin-heads think the lead came from, in the first
place?

It came from deep within the ground, in the form of lead ore, which I
think is much less of a health hazard than metallic lead decomposing in
a landfill and seeping into the water supply.

By this I meant that if it's deeper than groundwater, there's
a nearly zero chance of it getting into the water, or being a
problem in any other way.

Also, I had run into some information about lead toxicity several
years ago that said that naturally-occurring lead compounds are
not as much a problem as artificial (industrial) ones, because
living beings are evolved to handle the "organic" (I think it
was orthophosphate, but am not sure) form of lead, and can more
easily flush it out of the body, preventing bioaccumulation.
I tried just now to find that info again, but couldn't.

Lead is an element, it is composed of lead and can't decompose. It is so
soluble that water pipes and roofs are made out of it......

Lead is an element, it is a toxic element, and it can react chemcially
to make toxic compounds. It can corrode when exposed to water,
and the corrosion by-products are soluble enough that lead found
in drinking water comes mostly from the lead in pipes and solder
used to hold the pipes together.

References:
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/pollairpolead.html
http://www.epa.gov/lead/
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/lead.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/t-ioc/lead.html

I went to the EPA site and did a search on "lead" because it
became clear to me from previous discussion here that I really
didn't know enough about lead toxicity to write at my usual
level of knowledge. As I've said, I know more about other,
more toxic, heavy metals, and lead has not been of big concern
to me.

What I read at the EPA's site confirmed that there isn't much
cause for concern with regards to the lead in solder. They
say that although there is cause for concern, lead doesn't
have as great a bioaccumulation factor as other heavy metals.
And they didn't say anything at all about electronic solder
or people who work with it, so it looks like those who said
they got blood tests that showed no problem are justified
to feel they are ok. (If it were me, and maybe it is, I'd
still get the test done that uses a hair sample, just to
make sure.)

Most of the fuss in the past was about lead-based paint and
lead from car exhaust. Both of those have been phased out.
(Although recently there have been problems with lead paint
being used on toys made in China.)

The EPA hardly mentioned solder at all. As far as I could
find, only with regards to water pipe and tin cans (where
it is also no longer used).

Looks like I was right about the lead smelting operations,
though. And wouldn't you know it, most of that is done in
the general region of the planet in which I live (SW USA).
By far, most of the lead in use is for car batteries,
so I don't see any need to give up leaded solder just
for that.

In the Wikipedia article for "solder", it is said that
smoke from solder flux can contain a little lead oxide,
and that the flux smoke itself can be toxic. So I'll be
a little more careful to have good ventilation while
soldering. Pretty simple!

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say anywhere
(at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

Jay Ts

The search engine string "lead toxicology" should help find the rest
if the interesting information.

Martin Griffith wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:43:52 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Mike
wrote:

On 04 Apr 2008 03:42:35 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Another source of lead is CRTs, many of which are still in use. They
contain about 5 pounds of lead each for radiation protection, quite a
bit more than is contained in the solder in the PC boards.

And the replacements, flat screen monitors, have mercury in the
fluorescent backlights.

If you've ever seen the size of a fluorescent backlight for an LCD you'd
realise that scrapping even a few hundred of them produces three fifths
of seven sixteenths of bugger all mercury.

Yes, something about mercury here

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?
DocumentID=284&ArticleID=3204&l=en

Wow, that was amazingly informative considering the
moderate length of the article.

I'm very concerned about mercury, having had all
my mercury (dentists call it "amalgam") fillings
replaced, and as a result noticing huge improvements
in my ability to mentally focus and concentrate on
tasks for extended periods.

I've been adverse to fluorescent lamps for a long time,
not just because of the mercury. But last year, I read
that CFL bulbs have only about 20 mg of mercury each,
and due to the power savings, even if the mercury from
the new CFL bulbs were released into the environment,
it be less than that of a coal-fired power plant while
generating the difference in power between a CFL and
its incandescent equivalent.

Following that, I was advised that the best ambient lighting
to have for doing digital image editing was 6500K (daylight-
balanced) fluorescent lights, so I decided to give it a try.
That got me hooked, and now practically every bulb around here
is a CFL! And I am _wondering_, was that info regarding the
mercury savings at the power plant actually for real, or was
it mostly mind-control (marketing, "public relations" type
of stuff)? It's just too easy for corporations to spin the
facts to their marketing advantage, and then spread the
deceptions into the media, to be later passed around by
people ... er, like me! I am suspicious.

The next part of the story is that one day I was changing
a CFL bulb to try out a different brand for comparison,
and I dropped it about 5 feet onto a carpeted floor,
and ... wait for it ... IT BROKE! I looked down, realized
what I just did, and laughed to myself that in spite of
all my concern, I'd just given myself my dose of mercury.
I assume that the mercury in the bulb is mostly in vapor
form, and that the rest of it evaporated and I suppose
I ended up breathing at least some of it. I didn't find
any little drops of mercury anywhere.

But at least it was I, the one who chose to purchase the bulb,
who was affected the most, and first, with the consequences.
There's good justice in that, which I fully accept. I'll be
a lot more careful in the future.

I am using CFLs for now, hoping that there will be a better
daylight-balanced choice (LEDs...) by the time the bulbs need
changing. And also, I hope that by that time, I will be able
to give the CFLs to a recycling center.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

Jay Ts wrote:
Martin Griffith wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:43:52 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Mike
wrote:


On 04 Apr 2008 03:42:35 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:


Another source of lead is CRTs, many of which are still in use. They
contain about 5 pounds of lead each for radiation protection, quite a
bit more than is contained in the solder in the PC boards.

And the replacements, flat screen monitors, have mercury in the
fluorescent backlights.

If you've ever seen the size of a fluorescent backlight for an LCD you'd
realise that scrapping even a few hundred of them produces three fifths
of seven sixteenths of bugger all mercury.

Yes, something about mercury here

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?
DocumentID=284&ArticleID=3204&l=en


Wow, that was amazingly informative considering the
moderate length of the article.

I'm very concerned about mercury, having had all
my mercury (dentists call it "amalgam") fillings
replaced, and as a result noticing huge improvements
in my ability to mentally focus and concentrate on
tasks for extended periods.

I've been adverse to fluorescent lamps for a long time,
not just because of the mercury. But last year, I read
that CFL bulbs have only about 20 mg of mercury each,
and due to the power savings, even if the mercury from
the new CFL bulbs were released into the environment,
it be less than that of a coal-fired power plant while
generating the difference in power between a CFL and
its incandescent equivalent.

Following that, I was advised that the best ambient lighting
to have for doing digital image editing was 6500K (daylight-
balanced) fluorescent lights, so I decided to give it a try.
That got me hooked, and now practically every bulb around here
is a CFL! And I am _wondering_, was that info regarding the
mercury savings at the power plant actually for real, or was
it mostly mind-control (marketing, "public relations" type
of stuff)? It's just too easy for corporations to spin the
facts to their marketing advantage, and then spread the
deceptions into the media, to be later passed around by
people ... er, like me! I am suspicious.

The next part of the story is that one day I was changing
a CFL bulb to try out a different brand for comparison,
and I dropped it about 5 feet onto a carpeted floor,
and ... wait for it ... IT BROKE! I looked down, realized
what I just did, and laughed to myself that in spite of
all my concern, I'd just given myself my dose of mercury.
I assume that the mercury in the bulb is mostly in vapor
form, and that the rest of it evaporated and I suppose
I ended up breathing at least some of it. I didn't find
any little drops of mercury anywhere.

But at least it was I, the one who chose to purchase the bulb,
who was affected the most, and first, with the consequences.
There's good justice in that, which I fully accept. I'll be
a lot more careful in the future.

I am using CFLs for now, hoping that there will be a better
daylight-balanced choice (LEDs...) by the time the bulbs need
changing. And also, I hope that by that time, I will be able
to give the CFLs to a recycling center.

Jay Ts

http://creelighting.com/index.aspx

these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and
last 50,000 hours.

Cheers
Terry

In article 1207696617.47982@ftpsrv1, Terry Given
wrote:

these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:59:28 -0500, clifto wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:00:14 -0500, clifto wrote:

I vaguely remember that it was all alpha radiation, but don't take my word
as gospel.

Nope. No helium nuclei were produced. They have little penetration
and wouldn't go through a sheet of toilet paper.

That's exactly why my head is telling me it was alpha; I remember thinking
how silly this all was when the radiation probably wouldn't penetrate the
wood beneath the chassis. I would have thought that if it was beta, some
of it would penetrate wood, and of course gamma would go right through.
But then, I wasn't paying careful attention, and I could certainly be wrong.

So we can learn to be more Chinese, one country, two systems.

Smitty Two wrote:
Terry Given wrote:

these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/

And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite no-go.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

On 08 Apr 2008 22:46:49 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

I've been adverse to fluorescent lamps for a long time,
not just because of the mercury. But last year, I read
that CFL bulbs have only about 20 mg of mercury each,
and due to the power savings, even if the mercury from
the new CFL bulbs were released into the environment,
it be less than that of a coal-fired power plant while
generating the difference in power between a CFL and
its incandescent equivalent.

The State of Maine did some research on the handling of broken CFL
lamps to avoid mercury poisoning. Basically, let the mercury vapor
dissipate before cleaning up the mess. See:
http://maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/cflreport.htm

I did some Googling for how much mercury is found in CFL lamps. The
numbers vary from 2.5mg to 10.0mg depending on size. Several
manufacturers advertise low or reduced mercury content in their CFL
bulbs. Methinks 20mg is far too high, unless it's a very large bulb.

You might find this analysis of interest:
http://eartheasy.com/live_energyeff_lighting.htm
"Mercury is a toxic metal associated with contamination of water,
fish, and food supplies, and can lead to adverse health affects. A CFL
bulb generally contains an average of 5 mg of mercury (about one-fifth
of that found in the average watch battery, and less than 1/100th of
the mercury found in an amalgam dental filling). A power plant will
emit 10mg of mercury to produce the electricity to run an incandescent
bulb compared to only 2.4mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same time.
The net benefit of using the more energy efficient lamp is positive,
and this is especially true if the mercury in the fluorescent lamp is
kept out of the waste stream when the lamp expires."


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The State of Maine did some research on the handling of broken CFL lamps
to avoid mercury poisoning. Basically, let the mercury vapor dissipate
before cleaning up the mess. See:
http://maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/cflreport.htm

Thanks for that, Jeff.

I really wish I'd read that before breaking the bulb! ;-)

At the time, I just did what seemed like the best thing
to do, but I only got it about half right.

Nice trick, to use duct tape instead of a vaccuum cleaner.
Now I need to put a new vacuum cleaner on my shopping list.
Thing is, I have 2 of them, and I don't remember which one
I used to clean it up! I assumed that because I didn't see
any mercury, I was just vacuuming up a few tiny bits of
glass. Bummer.

I did some Googling for how much mercury is found in CFL lamps. The
numbers vary from 2.5mg to 10.0mg depending on size. Several
manufacturers advertise low or reduced mercury content in their CFL
bulbs. Methinks 20mg is far too high, unless it's a very large bulb.

It was huge. I'm not sure now, but it might have been a 150 watt equiv.

Fortunately, I've already been through the heavy metal detox thing,
and know how to flush the stuff out of my body pretty quickly. (As
in a couple of years.) Metallic mercury isn't so bad, as compared
to methyl mercury. I was amazed at how quickly I started feeling
better after I had my mercury fillings removed.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

"Jay Ts" wrote in message
.com...
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The State of Maine did some research on the handling of broken CFL lamps
to avoid mercury poisoning. Basically, let the mercury vapor dissipate
before cleaning up the mess. See:
http://maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/cflreport.htm

Thanks for that, Jeff.

I really wish I'd read that before breaking the bulb! ;-)

At the time, I just did what seemed like the best thing
to do, but I only got it about half right.

Nice trick, to use duct tape instead of a vaccuum cleaner.
Now I need to put a new vacuum cleaner on my shopping list.
Thing is, I have 2 of them, and I don't remember which one
I used to clean it up! I assumed that because I didn't see
any mercury, I was just vacuuming up a few tiny bits of
glass. Bummer.

I did some Googling for how much mercury is found in CFL lamps. The
numbers vary from 2.5mg to 10.0mg depending on size. Several
manufacturers advertise low or reduced mercury content in their CFL
bulbs. Methinks 20mg is far too high, unless it's a very large bulb.

It was huge. I'm not sure now, but it might have been a 150 watt equiv.

Fortunately, I've already been through the heavy metal detox thing,
and know how to flush the stuff out of my body pretty quickly. (As
in a couple of years.) Metallic mercury isn't so bad, as compared
to methyl mercury. I was amazed at how quickly I started feeling
better after I had my mercury fillings removed.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

Whenever I see references to amalgam fillings in this context, I always
wonder just how 'real' the improvement in perceived well-being is. I don't
doubt that you feel better now you have had them removed, but I really
wonder how much of that is because you *expected* to feel better, because
that's why you were having them removed ? Kind of like the double-blind
placebo tests, when they are evaluating the efficacy of new pharmaceutical
drugs. Have you located any studies as to whether people who have amalgam
fillings actually have a higher level of mercury in their bodies than would
be expected for their given location / lifestyle, and did these levels
actually reduce, or at least stop going up, once the amalgam had been
removed ? I'm interested to know, not least because I have an amalgam
filling in just about every 4 - 8 tooth, both sides, top and bottom, and
have had for 40 years or more since I was a kid, and they were the 'norm'.
Although my memory, particularly short-term, is not as good as it was,
otherwise, I would have rated my health as 'OK', and not any worse than I
would expect for a mid 50's man with my location and lifestyle.

Arfa

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Arfa Daily wrote:

Whenever I see references to amalgam fillings in this context, I always
wonder just how 'real' the improvement in perceived well-being is.
...
Have you located any studies as to whether people who have amalgam
fillings actually have a higher level of mercury in their bodies than would
be expected for their given location / lifestyle, and did these levels
actually reduce, or at least stop going up, once the amalgam had been
removed ? I'm interested to know, not least because I have an amalgam
filling in just about every 4 - 8 tooth, both sides, top and bottom, and
have had for 40 years or more since I was a kid, and they were the 'norm'.

Loadsa mercury in my mouth too, but I was told by my dentist that *more*
would be released into the body and absorbed during the process of having
the fillings drilled out and replaced, than would be released by simply
leaving them in place. Folks our age are going to die of *something* in
two or three decades, regardless. I think that mercury, or lead, or
whatever-other-heavy-metal poisoning is the least of our worries.

Cheers,
Pete.

Pete Wilcox wrote:

Folks our age are going to die of *something* in
two or three decades, regardless. I think that mercury, or lead, or
whatever-other-heavy-metal poisoning is the least of our worries.

We are disposable containers for our genes.

I think there is a quite reasonable argument that with our bodies having
(by design) a limited life if they are not knackerd and contaminated by the
time we die we have to some degree wasted them.

--

"nospam" wrote in message ...
Pete Wilcox wrote:

Folks our age are going to die of *something* in
two or three decades, regardless. I think that mercury, or lead, or
whatever-other-heavy-metal poisoning is the least of our worries.

We are disposable containers for our genes.

I think there is a quite reasonable argument that with our bodies having
(by design) a limited life if they are not knackerd and contaminated by the
time we die we have to some degree wasted them.

I wonder, should we ever be able to extend our lives to hundreds of years,
what that might mean for our lifestyle.
Living extremely healthy and avoiding pollution of all kinds, perhaps?

Mark

On 09 Apr 2008 10:34:48 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The State of Maine did some research on the handling of broken CFL lamps
to avoid mercury poisoning. Basically, let the mercury vapor dissipate
before cleaning up the mess. See:
http://maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/cflreport.htm

Thanks for that, Jeff.

Y'er welcome. I hadn't even thought of exposure issues prior to
reading it myself.

I really wish I'd read that before breaking the bulb! ;-)

At the time, I just did what seemed like the best thing
to do, but I only got it about half right.

Nice trick, to use duct tape instead of a vaccuum cleaner.

I use a dust mask and a broom for broken glass. I've shredded at
least 2 paper vacuum cleaner bags trying to vacuum broken glass with
sharp edges.

Now I need to put a new vacuum cleaner on my shopping list.
Thing is, I have 2 of them, and I don't remember which one
I used to clean it up! I assumed that because I didn't see
any mercury, I was just vacuuming up a few tiny bits of
glass. Bummer.

I don't think the amount of mercury involved was sufficient to justify
a new vacuum cleaner. Just replace the bag and be done with it. If
paranoid, clean out the vacuum cleaner with a compressed air hose, but
do it outside.

I did some Googling for how much mercury is found in CFL lamps. The
numbers vary from 2.5mg to 10.0mg depending on size. Several
manufacturers advertise low or reduced mercury content in their CFL
bulbs. Methinks 20mg is far too high, unless it's a very large bulb.

It was huge. I'm not sure now, but it might have been a 150 watt equiv.

Some manufacturers will identify the amount of mercury in their lamps.
If you can identify the manufactory, you can lookup the mercury
content. Most of it will be vaporized when you broke the bulb, so the
real danger is doing the cleanup in a closed room. That's why I
suggested that if it happens again, give it time for the mercury to
dissipate.

Also, 5mg of Hg is a small volume thanks to the high density of
mercury. At 13.6g/cm3, 5mg will be only 0.000368 ml in volume.
http://www.allmeasures.com/formulae/static/materials/63/density.htm

I've worked with large amounts of metallic mercury. Safety is always
an issue but accidents do happen. When spilled, the easiest way to
pickup the droplets is by first freezing the area with dry ice (frozen
CO2). The mercury will harden, where it can be picked up with
tweezers or a broom. When the CO2 melts, errr.... evaporates, the
mercury returns to its liquid state.

Fortunately, I've already been through the heavy metal detox thing,
and know how to flush the stuff out of my body pretty quickly. (As
in a couple of years.) Metallic mercury isn't so bad, as compared
to methyl mercury. I was amazed at how quickly I started feeling
better after I had my mercury fillings removed.

Some medical details on heavy metal poisoning:
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz..._poisoning.jsp
Heavy metals are stored by the body in various places, usually the
fatty tissues. They can sit there for years and not have any effect
on your health. However, as the fat content of the body cells are
consumed by exercise, the metals are extracted, disolved in the blood,
where it can do some real damage. This incidentally is why some
people feel really lousy when engaged in a weight loss program.

I've discussed amalgum removal with my dentist. He indicated that it
can often go wrong, where more mercury is released during the
extraction, than would ever be released by leaving them in place. The
issue is apparently controversial, and the procedure somewhat
expensive. He suggested that unless I exhibit symptoms of heavy metal
poisoning, to do nothing.

About 20 years ago, one of my wisdom teeth decided to crack open while
eating. I accidentally swallowed the entire filling and half the
tooth. Other than a compulsion to waste huge amounts of time
answering questions on usenet, there have been no obvious symptoms.

There is something to the colonics, chelation, detox, and similar
exercises in cleaning out the plumbing. I've done it twice, with some
minor positive effects. My guess is that I was feeling better only by
comparison, as I was feeling really lousy prior to and during the
flush. The accompanying change of diet was also a big help.

Incidentally, when I was much younger, I developed a rather large
number of dental cavities. The fillings in my teeth are evidence of
this era. When I was about 18, I suddenly decided that tooth paste
was a problem, not a solution. I switched to using baking soda, or
just plain water for brushing my teeth. I still had a few residual
problems for about 5 years, and one root canal, but otherwise have had
almost perfect teeth since then. I wish I had figured that out
earlier.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

TheM wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message ...

Pete Wilcox wrote:


Folks our age are going to die of *something* in
two or three decades, regardless. I think that mercury, or lead, or
whatever-other-heavy-metal poisoning is the least of our worries.

We are disposable containers for our genes.

I think there is a quite reasonable argument that with our bodies having
(by design) a limited life if they are not knackerd and contaminated by the
time we die we have to some degree wasted them.


I wonder, should we ever be able to extend our lives to hundreds of years,
what that might mean for our lifestyle.
Living extremely healthy and avoiding pollution of all kinds, perhaps?

Also ensuring that a frontier is available; e.g. serious efforts at off-world
colonization.

Michael

Arfa Daily wrote:

Although my memory, particularly short-term, is not as good as it was,
... would expect for a mid 50's man with my location and lifestyle.

Arfa

Aha! Another glaring testimony to the insipid dangers that we can
expect from buying/disposing of CFLs (or electronic solder) due to
MERCURY (or LEAD) which has been proven to be FATAL (...in some cases).
Yes, the snipping was intentional.



-Bill
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

msg wrote:
TheM wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...

Pete Wilcox wrote:


Folks our age are going to die of *something* in
two or three decades, regardless. I think that mercury, or lead, or
whatever-other-heavy-metal poisoning is the least of our worries.


We are disposable containers for our genes.

I think there is a quite reasonable argument that with our bodies having
(by design) a limited life if they are not knackerd and contaminated
by the
time we die we have to some degree wasted them.



I wonder, should we ever be able to extend our lives to hundreds of
years,
what that might mean for our lifestyle.
Living extremely healthy and avoiding pollution of all kinds, perhaps?


Also ensuring that a frontier is available; e.g. serious efforts at
off-world
colonization.

Michael

"the meek shall inherit the earth"

because the brave will be out conquering the universe.

Cheers
Terry

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:43:51 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

"the meek shall inherit the earth"
because the brave will be out conquering the universe.

Cheers
Terry

Apparently you haven't read much history. The history of exploration
and colonization is liberally laced with misfits, criminals, and evil
scum of varying sorts. Anyone that is successful and comfortable in
the home country, is not going to go out exploring. They already have
what they want, so why bother risking it on the unknown? It isn't so
much bravery that inspired the age of exploration. It was the
intolerance created by various despotic rulers than inspired those
with nothing to lose to get out of town and go exploring. Same with
those that were persecuted for religious and political reasons.

The initial explorers may by the brave and the daring, going to places
where no sane person would consider living. However, those that
follow will be quite different. The 2nd wave will be the tourists.
Those with bigger pocket books than concern for their own safety.
After that come those that can't get along with anyone, in any
country, on any planet. Kinda like the moutain men and mad hermits.
Next come the immigrants, that just want some different or better
place than the living hell they came from. Eventually, space travel
will be mundane enough for the carpetbaggers, bureaucrats,
politicians, hookers, pimps, salesmen, and the rest of the trash that
constitutes civilization.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:43:51 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:


"the meek shall inherit the earth"
because the brave will be out conquering the universe.

Cheers
Terry


Apparently you haven't read much history. The history of exploration
and colonization is liberally laced with misfits, criminals, and evil
scum of varying sorts.

indeed. one does not need to look far back in history (9am today will
suffice) to discover that, on average, humans are nasty. Our
"civilisation" is a pretty thin veneer, which is entirely absent in
large swathes of the world.

luckily, not in my back yard .


Anyone that is successful and comfortable in
the home country, is not going to go out exploring. They already have
what they want, so why bother risking it on the unknown? It isn't so
much bravery that inspired the age of exploration. It was the
intolerance created by various despotic rulers than inspired those
with nothing to lose to get out of town and go exploring. Same with
those that were persecuted for religious and political reasons.

The initial explorers may by the brave and the daring, going to places
where no sane person would consider living. However, those that
follow will be quite different. The 2nd wave will be the tourists.
Those with bigger pocket books than concern for their own safety.
After that come those that can't get along with anyone, in any
country, on any planet. Kinda like the moutain men and mad hermits.
Next come the immigrants, that just want some different or better
place than the living hell they came from. Eventually, space travel
will be mundane enough for the carpetbaggers, bureaucrats,
politicians, hookers, pimps, salesmen, and the rest of the trash that
constitutes civilization.


abbrev. "people"

However unlike Earth, space is a lot bigger so it should take a lot
longer to ruin it. perhaps even long enought that we'll learn to play
nice, but I doubt it.

I always liked that line in Amused to Death: "Give any one species too
much rope and they'll **** it up"

Cheers
Terry

Whenever I see references to amalgam fillings in this context,
I always wonder just how 'real' the improvement in perceived
well-being is. I don't doubt that you feel better now you have
had them removed, but I really wonder how much of that is
because you *expected* to feel better, because that's why
you were having them removed?

It's been shown that amalgam fillings release mercury vapor only when you
grind down hard on them. They're otherwide inert.

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Jay Ts" wrote in message
I was amazed at how quickly I started feeling better after I
had my mercury fillings removed.

Whenever I see references to amalgam fillings in this context, I always
wonder just how 'real' the improvement in perceived well-being is.

I feel like I know exactly what you're thinking, because that is
what I used to think too! But I kept meeting people who told me,
"I'm so glad I had it done" that at one point, it was the next
thing to try, to see if I could recover from my chronic health problems.

I don't doubt that you feel better now you have had them removed, but I
really wonder how much of that is because you *expected* to feel better,

I didn't expect to notice *any* improvement right away, and I'd
never heard of that happening. But it did. After the painkillers
wore off and I got a night's sleep, the very next day I got a definite,
very-hard-to-ignore boost in mental acuity, and to use an overused
saying, "felt like a fog had been lifted off me". Nothing else had
changed in my life that could have accounted for that.

I had put off having it done for about 10 years due to the cost,
ordeal of it, and because I never had anything objective to latch
onto to feel confident that it would result in any kind of noticeable
improvement. Other people I've talked to don't get any, but they're
usually still "glad they had it done."

"YMMV" is the simplest answer I can give to you, and there's
not much of any way anyone can tell you in advance what your
experience would be.

I'm interested to know, not
least because I have an amalgam filling in just about every 4 - 8 tooth,
both sides, top and bottom, and have had for 40 years or more since I
was a kid, and they were the 'norm'. Although my memory, particularly
short-term, is not as good as it was, otherwise, I would have rated my
health as 'OK', and not any worse than I would expect for a mid 50's man
with my location and lifestyle.

As compared to say, other people who also have amalgam fillings? ;-)
Unfortunately, that's the rub of it. Heavy metal toxicity is usually
very sneaky. It sinks in gradually, and you can't tell it's there, and
I think for almost all cases, it never gets bad enough to cause acute
symptoms that doctors can diagnose.

But then I heard of a woman (friend of a friend) who was suffering
from MS for many years, and after a lot of other things, she
tried getting her mercury fillings removed. And then she simply
recovered! So who knows? There's no proof that the mercury removal
did it, but she had no other explanation for it. (Miracle?)

BTW, I regret that I cannot reveal personal details about other
people, to protect both them and dentists who remove mercury fillings.
Dentists are still persecuted by the ADA and other organizations in
some areas.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

Pete Wilcox wrote:
Loadsa mercury in my mouth too, but I was told by my dentist that *more*
would be released into the body and absorbed during the process of
having the fillings drilled out and replaced, than would be released by
simply leaving them in place.

Yes and no and/or maybe. Mercury is released during removal,
so you'd need to find a dentist that observes proper technique for
the operation. If you can, find one that has been trained by Dr.
Huggins, the guy who brought this issue into the public view with
his book "It's All in Your Head". (Hint: search Amazon.com for that,
and check out the reader comments too.)

I've heard that there are many dentists doing mercury removal,
and you need to be careful to find one that does it "right".

Some dentists even have something like a DMM to check electric
potentials of each filling, to make sure to take them out in
the proper order. I'm not kidding! (And no, I don't have any
idea if the theory that is based on is really scientifically
grounded or not.)

Folks our age are going to die of
*something* in two or three decades, regardless.

I might die tomorrow, and if it happens, that's not a problem
for me. What DOES matter is that I have a high-quality and
enjoyable life with value in the meantime.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Whenever I see references to amalgam fillings in this context, I always
wonder just how 'real' the improvement in perceived well-being is. I
don't doubt that you feel better now you have had them removed, but I
really wonder how much of that is because you *expected* to feel
better, because that's why you were having them removed?

It's been shown that amalgam fillings release mercury vapor only when
you grind down hard on them. They're otherwide inert.

That's what the ADA and ADA-trained dentists like to say.
It is my opinion that they are in deep denial regarding the
issue. Not surprising considering that the ADA was formed by
a bunch of mercury-using dentists who got together and decided
that dentists in the organization were not allowed to tell
their patients that mercury was bad for them.

However, the information that I've reviewed says that there
have been research studies done that have shown it's just not true -
mercury dissolves a little in saliva, and a lot more in acidic
stuff like lemon juice, tomatoes or carbonated beverages.

I haven't actually read it, but I expect there's a lot more
informatin on this in Dr. Huggins' book.

So keeping in mind that I'm not an expert...

I think the rate of dissolution varies with individual body
chemistry, and the type, number and condition of fillings. And
some people seem to be a lot better than others at flushing out
toxins from their body (I'm in the low end on that one, so I have
to be a lot more careful). Or maybe some people are simply more
tolerant of having toxic bodies. To me, there seem to be a
lot of people in that category.

I regret the pun, but I find the whole topic of mercury filling
toxicity, along with the general topic of heavy metal toxicity
to be a "grey area" (sorry. It's really difficult to pin down
in a well-defined manner in a way that doesn't beg for debate.
The more I've studied it, the closer it seems to "conspiracy theory".
I wish it were simpler.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

Some dentists even have something like a DMM to check electric
potentials of each filling, to make sure to take them out in the proper
order.

Bull****. A filling is so small that no meter made can read the
resistance of it, nor is there an instrument than can measure any subtle
differences from one to the next. That is aside from the fact that one
would have to have the filling out to be able to access it across its
breadth in order to take any such reading to begin with.

Total and utter bull****.

Thank you so kindly for your warm reception to my post.

I was merely passing on the information because I had
found it amusing. I thought it was fun to mention it and
go "on topic" for the newsgroup as a change of pace.
But you didn't seem to get the intent or the joke. I
am so sorry.

They don't measure resistance. To re-include the
full context:

| Some dentists even have something like a DMM to check electric
| potentials of each filling, to make sure to take them out in
| the proper order. I'm not kidding! (And no, I don't have any
| idea if the theory that is based on is really scientifically
| grounded or not.)

I put it right there in front of you: They measure ELECTRIC
POTENTIAL otherwise known as "VOLTAGE", between a filling
and a reference point.

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

It has to do with electricity... different metals
in a salty solution, currents and movement of metal ions.
Of course, there's absolutely no physics behind that,
right?

Seriously, I don't know if tiny currents in
the mouth could dislodge enough mercury to cause
a problem, ok? The people who come up with these
ideas are dentists, not physicists. Sometimes they
are just off on some parts. But I haven't read
Dr. Huggins' book, so I shouldn't knock him without
listening openmindedly first. The guy has saved a
lot of people. Take a look at the reader comments on
his book at Amazon.com.

Is Rosie O'Retard your favorite celebrity?

Other than your mention of it, I have no awareness
of that entity. Apparently, you are much more of a fan than I.

Again, thanks very much for your post, I think
that made my day.

Peace and Happiness,

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

"Jay Ts" wrote in message
ng.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Jay Ts" wrote in message
I was amazed at how quickly I started feeling better after I
had my mercury fillings removed.

Whenever I see references to amalgam fillings in this context, I always
wonder just how 'real' the improvement in perceived well-being is.

I feel like I know exactly what you're thinking, because that is
what I used to think too! But I kept meeting people who told me,
"I'm so glad I had it done" that at one point, it was the next
thing to try, to see if I could recover from my chronic health problems.

I don't doubt that you feel better now you have had them removed, but I
really wonder how much of that is because you *expected* to feel better,

I didn't expect to notice *any* improvement right away, and I'd
never heard of that happening. But it did. After the painkillers
wore off and I got a night's sleep, the very next day I got a definite,
very-hard-to-ignore boost in mental acuity, and to use an overused
saying, "felt like a fog had been lifted off me". Nothing else had
changed in my life that could have accounted for that.

I had put off having it done for about 10 years due to the cost,
ordeal of it, and because I never had anything objective to latch
onto to feel confident that it would result in any kind of noticeable
improvement. Other people I've talked to don't get any, but they're
usually still "glad they had it done."

"YMMV" is the simplest answer I can give to you, and there's
not much of any way anyone can tell you in advance what your
experience would be.

I'm interested to know, not
least because I have an amalgam filling in just about every 4 - 8 tooth,
both sides, top and bottom, and have had for 40 years or more since I
was a kid, and they were the 'norm'. Although my memory, particularly
short-term, is not as good as it was, otherwise, I would have rated my
health as 'OK', and not any worse than I would expect for a mid 50's man
with my location and lifestyle.

As compared to say, other people who also have amalgam fillings? ;-)
Unfortunately, that's the rub of it. Heavy metal toxicity is usually
very sneaky. It sinks in gradually, and you can't tell it's there, and
I think for almost all cases, it never gets bad enough to cause acute
symptoms that doctors can diagnose.

But then I heard of a woman (friend of a friend) who was suffering
from MS for many years, and after a lot of other things, she
tried getting her mercury fillings removed. And then she simply
recovered! So who knows? There's no proof that the mercury removal
did it, but she had no other explanation for it. (Miracle?)

BTW, I regret that I cannot reveal personal details about other
people, to protect both them and dentists who remove mercury fillings.
Dentists are still persecuted by the ADA and other organizations in
some areas.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

Hmmm. Your passion for this subject is clear. I do, however, remain
unconvinced that this is anything other than placebo effect, which has been
shown in proper clinical trials, to be an extremely powerful entity. As far
as I am aware - and I haven't read anything about this for some time - the
human body is not good at removing heavy metal toxins from itself, without
external help, so I would be surprised if your body had managed to just
'clean itself' - especially overnight - of any mercury that might have been
in there as a result of your fillings.

As far as fillings dissolving as a mechanism for getting the mercury into
your body goes, I have some that have been in my mouth untouched for
probably 30 years. All of the saliva / beer / coca cola / lemon juice / tea
/ coffee / other drinks, don't seem to have touched them one iota. If they
are smaller than they were, then it's by a fraction of a mm. I attend a
dentist regularly, and he has not seen fit to replace any of these long-term
fillings through reason of them being worn below what is acceptable for
their function. He has, of course, had to replace the odd one from time to
time over the 35 years that I have known him, for clinical reasons.

Considering the (relatively) small proportion of the filling that is mercury
in the first place, any such mercury ingression as a result of this
dissolution, must be infinitessimally small, and probably absolutely
negligible in comparison to other sources of mercury ingression, such as
airborne from power stations or in the many pounds of tuna fish that I have
eaten over the years. If you could show me a study that didn't call on
hearsay and personal anecdotal evidence, and that could show that a body's
mercury content decreased, or at least arrested in its upward climb after
such fillings had been removed, then I might be more inclined to accept that
there's something in it. Can you show any such study conducted under proper
scientific protocols ?

Arfa

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

That's what the ADA and ADA-trained dentists like to say. It is my
opinion that they are in deep denial regarding the issue. Not surprising
considering that the ADA was formed by a bunch of mercury-using dentists
who got together and decided that dentists in the organization were not
allowed to tell their patients that mercury was bad for them.

More bull****. Back when that organization was formed, silver/mercury
amalgam filling were all there was available for the task. So no
"selling" was required, nor practiced, idiot.

Gold and early plastics were already in use before
amalgams were introduced. Just now I found that information
in the entry for "dentistry" in The New International
Encyclopaedia in Google Books. There were also other materials
in use, including lead and tin. (Note for the dense:
that is me playfully trying to go on-topic again.

According to a Wikipedia article linked below, amalgams
came into use "because they are malleable, durable, and
more affordable than gold or composites."

In other words, because they are _cheap_ and _easy_.

The info in my previous post came to me through a holistic,
mercury-free dentist, who may have been a little biased. The
story was that there were dentists at the time (c. 1850,
roughly) who were against the use of mercury, and started
an organization that included only those dentists. But another
organization was formed by the mercury-using dentists, and they won,
eclipsing the first one. That is now the American Dental Association
(ADA).

The article said that the term "quack" came from the mercury-using
dentists. "Quack" was short for "quicksilver", another term for
mercury. This article at Wikipedia more-or-less supports that
info:

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

And there is a link at the bottom of that page to this one, on
Dental Amalgam Controversy:

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

Information in that article supports my comment about the
origin of the ADA. See the section, "History and overview".
It does a lot better, but I think I did pretty well considering
I was going on a single article handed to me 8 years ago,
before I had Wikipedia, and I was going just on memory of that.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, msg wrote:

TheM wrote:

I wonder, should we ever be able to extend our lives to hundreds of years,
what that might mean for our lifestyle.
Living extremely healthy and avoiding pollution of all kinds, perhaps?

Also ensuring that a frontier is available; e.g. serious efforts at off-world
colonization.

Would require a MAJOR reduction in the birth-rate though, at least
initially, in order to avoid over-population. This reminds me of Tim
Leary's "SMILE" formula - the three major areas of development for the
species over the coming decades should/will be (SM) = Space Migration,
(I^2) = Increasing Intelligence, and (LE) = Life Extension. Despite the
fact that he was a drugged-out nutter, these seem to me to be quite
reasonable objectives.

Cheers,
Pete.

one reply got into print

* The Guardian,
* Thursday April 10 2008

Getting the lead out

Thank you for publishing the article on tin whiskers (Within a whisker of
failure, April 3). Too much attention has been given to well-meaning people
who are pushing the environmental agenda but with very little science behind
what they are trying to achieve. Some of the green community captured the
public attention and pushed through the no lead on electronics, when there
was not sufficient test data available (actually there was a lot of data on
US military aircraft). Now we are finding the problems of having a political
agenda and not one based on science and facts.
Steven Adamson, IMAPS president and Asymtek market manager


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/