JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

Two words: pollution credits

Who do you think dreamt up that cockamamie idea, and what motivated them
to do so?
A. A whole group of people, some actually on the "green" side...
B. Economics and pragmatism of how to actually make progress towards
achieving something both sides want.

--


What one side wants, in some cases, is to do nothing.

It's not good to blindly worship an industry because you worked in it.

A. Even if it were true (which, in its entirety certainly, it isn't),
they didn't get their way, did they? That's the legislative method at
work. Neither "side" necessarily ever gets the entire piece of pie they
would like.

B. Factual evidence? Your initial allegation has melted away into
personal attack and/or such generalities as to be meaningless on request
for specifics. And, of course, it's not good to blindly accept that
another group is totally correct and not subject to critical thinking,
either.

--


--

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article , dpb wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

put a refundable fee on them like soda bottles and cans.

Just out of curiosity, what %age of cans actually get returned
for
the fee. I've been looking around for that stat in another context
and can't find it/.

Undoubtedly indeterminate.
But it is still be advocated as a good idea? Especially when factor
in the costs of storing, moving it around, etc., before recycling?


At the moment, the return value is so low
compared to the scrap price as to be totally ineffective as an
incentive. Even when first introduced it had only a marginal impact
as the value wasn't seen by most as enough to make up for the
inconvenience of lugging them back. And even w/ current record or
near-record scrap prices, the bulk, even if recycled, go to the
no-pay recycle collection points rather than being collected
individually for scrap.

According to EPA: While recycling has grown in general, recycling of
specific materials has grown even more drastically: 50 percent of all
paper, 34 percent of all plastic soft drink bottles, 45 percent of all
aluminum beer and soft drink cans, 63 percent of all steel packaging,
and 67 percent of all major appliances are now recycled.



Don't remember annual production, but it'll make a bunch of cans.
Hauled the molten Al in large heated vats on flatbed trailers from
the melt facility to the mill--always thought it would be a real
treat for one of them to get into an accident on the I40/I75
interchange in west K-town and avoided being close to them
scrupulously. Suspect 90% of the idjits barreling along at 80 mph
plus had no idea what they were tailgating or cutting in and out of
traffic around...

Sorta like Han Solo when Pizza the Hut cast him in carbon. (Or
am
I getting two movies mixed up again??)


it was "carbomite" Solo was cast in. (no,I'm not a StarWars groupie-geek.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
....

...what of the OTHER stuff buried with the decaying organics?
....

At some point when it becomes economically feasible we'll begin mining
them for the materials...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

Two words: pollution credits

Who do you think dreamt up that cockamamie idea, and what motivated
them to do so?
A. A whole group of people, some actually on the "green" side...
B. Economics and pragmatism of how to actually make progress towards
achieving something both sides want.

--


What one side wants, in some cases, is to do nothing.

It's not good to blindly worship an industry because you worked in it.

A. Even if it were true (which, in its entirety certainly, it isn't),
they didn't get their way, did they? That's the legislative method at
work. Neither "side" necessarily ever gets the entire piece of pie they
would like.

B. Factual evidence? Your initial allegation has melted away into
personal attack and/or such generalities as to be meaningless on request
for specifics. And, of course, it's not good to blindly accept that
another group is totally correct and not subject to critical thinking,
either.


Before we continue, let's clarify what you do not believe. I'll narrow it
down to two things for now:

1) Industries including utilities can and do purchase legislation. True or
false (your belief).

2) Some utilities have arranged to not install sufficient pollution controls
on coal fired plants because they claim it's not economically feasible. True
or false (your belief).

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

Two words: pollution credits

Who do you think dreamt up that cockamamie idea, and what motivated
them to do so?
A. A whole group of people, some actually on the "green" side...
B. Economics and pragmatism of how to actually make progress towards
achieving something both sides want.

--

What one side wants, in some cases, is to do nothing.

It's not good to blindly worship an industry because you worked in it.
A. Even if it were true (which, in its entirety certainly, it isn't),
they didn't get their way, did they? That's the legislative method at
work. Neither "side" necessarily ever gets the entire piece of pie they
would like.

B. Factual evidence? Your initial allegation has melted away into
personal attack and/or such generalities as to be meaningless on request
for specifics. And, of course, it's not good to blindly accept that
another group is totally correct and not subject to critical thinking,
either.


Before we continue, let's clarify what you do not believe. I'll narrow it
down to two things for now:

1) Industries including utilities can and do purchase legislation. True or
false (your belief).

Environmental groups and other special interest groups can and do
purchase legislation. True or false (your belief).

2) Some utilities have arranged to not install sufficient pollution controls
on coal fired plants because they claim it's not economically feasible. True
or false (your belief).

Of course, it isn't always economically feasible (and, again as stated
before) sometimes it isn't even technically feasible. No "belief" about
it, it's fact.

--

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



Because of discussions like this, I wish I had a notepad next to me every
single time I read something on paper, because I never know when I'll run
into someone who needs a cite. I guess you missed some of what I've read
about utilities claiming it would be financially unfeasible for them to
clean up their emissions to modern standards.

More likely politically unfeasible for the governors to stand by and
watch their utility commissions increase rates to where the utilities
could find it feasible. Same outcome.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

Two words: pollution credits

Who do you think dreamt up that cockamamie idea, and what motivated
them to do so?
A. A whole group of people, some actually on the "green" side...
B. Economics and pragmatism of how to actually make progress towards
achieving something both sides want.

--

What one side wants, in some cases, is to do nothing.

It's not good to blindly worship an industry because you worked in it.
A. Even if it were true (which, in its entirety certainly, it isn't),
they didn't get their way, did they? That's the legislative method at
work. Neither "side" necessarily ever gets the entire piece of pie they
would like.

B. Factual evidence? Your initial allegation has melted away into
personal attack and/or such generalities as to be meaningless on request
for specifics. And, of course, it's not good to blindly accept that
another group is totally correct and not subject to critical thinking,
either.


Before we continue, let's clarify what you do not believe. I'll narrow it
down to two things for now:

1) Industries including utilities can and do purchase legislation. True
or false (your belief).

Environmental groups and other special interest groups can and do purchase
legislation. True or false (your belief).

True. When's the last time you heard of a fishery being injured by
environmental legislation?



2) Some utilities have arranged to not install sufficient pollution
controls on coal fired plants because they claim it's not economically
feasible. True or false (your belief).

Of course, it isn't always economically feasible (and, again as stated
before) sometimes it isn't even technically feasible. No "belief" about
it, it's fact.

Correct. But, there's a big difference between a plant being too old, and a
company not wanting to spend the money because it's looking out for
shareholders. The latter reason is of no interest to people downwind, who
are suffering the effects of the pollution.

And, it's not a simple matter of just pollution. For example, it has been
demonstrated that significant tourism revenue is lost when fish in a
particular place are no longer edible. Do I need to explain this further?

Do you think states like NY have spent so much time in court fighting coal
utilities from Ohio, just to practice courtroom skills?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

Two words: pollution credits

Who do you think dreamt up that cockamamie idea, and what motivated
them to do so?
A. A whole group of people, some actually on the "green" side...
B. Economics and pragmatism of how to actually make progress towards
achieving something both sides want.

--
What one side wants, in some cases, is to do nothing.

It's not good to blindly worship an industry because you worked in it.
A. Even if it were true (which, in its entirety certainly, it isn't),
they didn't get their way, did they? That's the legislative method at
work. Neither "side" necessarily ever gets the entire piece of pie they
would like.

B. Factual evidence? Your initial allegation has melted away into
personal attack and/or such generalities as to be meaningless on request
for specifics. And, of course, it's not good to blindly accept that
another group is totally correct and not subject to critical thinking,
either.

Before we continue, let's clarify what you do not believe. I'll narrow it
down to two things for now:

1) Industries including utilities can and do purchase legislation. True
or false (your belief).
Environmental groups and other special interest groups can and do purchase
legislation. True or false (your belief).

True. When's the last time you heard of a fishery being injured by
environmental legislation?

Ever heard of tuna?

2) Some utilities have arranged to not install sufficient pollution
controls on coal fired plants because they claim it's not economically
feasible. True or false (your belief).
Of course, it isn't always economically feasible (and, again as stated
before) sometimes it isn't even technically feasible. No "belief" about
it, it's fact.

Correct. But, there's a big difference between a plant being too old, and a
company not wanting to spend the money because it's looking out for
shareholders. The latter reason is of no interest to people downwind, who
are suffering the effects of the pollution.

Well, that's debatable as well. Some of those people may well be
shareholders as well. And, "looking out for the shareholders" as you
put it, is part of their fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders.

And, it's not a simple matter of just pollution. For example, it has been
demonstrated that significant tourism revenue is lost when fish in a
particular place are no longer edible. Do I need to explain this further?

Do you think states like NY have spent so much time in court fighting coal
utilities from Ohio, just to practice courtroom skills?

No, but have they yet demonstrated the "bought official" you claimed
initially?

As newer generation comes on line, emissions will continue to be
lowered. It isn't going to happen over night but it is gradually
happening. Of course, if you could get the greenies to get behind
nuclear generation and it hadn't been prevented for the last 40 years
from replacing many of these old and inefficient plants, some of the
major emissions sources in all likelihood would have been gone 20 or
more years ago.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

Two words: pollution credits

Who do you think dreamt up that cockamamie idea, and what motivated
them to do so?
A. A whole group of people, some actually on the "green" side...
B. Economics and pragmatism of how to actually make progress
towards achieving something both sides want.

--
What one side wants, in some cases, is to do nothing.

It's not good to blindly worship an industry because you worked in
it.
A. Even if it were true (which, in its entirety certainly, it isn't),
they didn't get their way, did they? That's the legislative method at
work. Neither "side" necessarily ever gets the entire piece of pie
they would like.

B. Factual evidence? Your initial allegation has melted away into
personal attack and/or such generalities as to be meaningless on
request for specifics. And, of course, it's not good to blindly
accept that another group is totally correct and not subject to
critical thinking, either.

Before we continue, let's clarify what you do not believe. I'll narrow
it down to two things for now:

1) Industries including utilities can and do purchase legislation.
True or false (your belief).
Environmental groups and other special interest groups can and do
purchase legislation. True or false (your belief).

True. When's the last time you heard of a fishery being injured by
environmental legislation?

Ever heard of tuna?

2) Some utilities have arranged to not install sufficient pollution
controls on coal fired plants because they claim it's not economically
feasible. True or false (your belief).
Of course, it isn't always economically feasible (and, again as stated
before) sometimes it isn't even technically feasible. No "belief" about
it, it's fact.

Correct. But, there's a big difference between a plant being too old, and
a company not wanting to spend the money because it's looking out for
shareholders. The latter reason is of no interest to people downwind, who
are suffering the effects of the pollution.

Well, that's debatable as well. Some of those people may well be
shareholders as well. And, "looking out for the shareholders" as you put
it, is part of their fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders.

And, it's not a simple matter of just pollution. For example, it has been
demonstrated that significant tourism revenue is lost when fish in a
particular place are no longer edible. Do I need to explain this further?

Do you think states like NY have spent so much time in court fighting
coal utilities from Ohio, just to practice courtroom skills?

No, but have they yet demonstrated the "bought official" you claimed
initially?

Let's try this, since you have such a fairy tale view of government:

Pollution credits: A company prefers to change nothing about their
facilities. For a cost that's less than making the needed changes, they buy
the right to do nothing.

What do you think would make a politician agree to vote for a law which
allows this? Be the lobbyist for a utility in Ohio, whose plant is "emitting
more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than all of the dozen or so coal-burning
plants in New York state, Federal emissions records show."

What do you say to the politicians you need to vote your way?

In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

"willshak" wrote in message
...
on 9/19/2007 9:01 PM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:
"clot" wrote in message
...

This nonsense about mercury is just that!

You're an idiot.

Every fluorescent bulb and every neon tube has mercury in them. They
have been like that for decades. Let's close Times Square and Las
Vegas. Bill

I guess if we were to multiply by ten the number of bulbs being tossed
in landfills, the mercury levels around those landfills won't rise.

Right?

Compared to your average coal-fired electric generating plant,it's
trivial.
--
Jim Yanik

Uh oh. Now I need more information from you.

For every water supply affected by every landfill in America, what are the
current mercury levels, and how far are they from causing this, especially
if the intake of mercury-laden bulbs increases by factors of 2, 5 and 10?
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/ethics/minamata.htm

You have one year to complete this project. Good luck.

Worldwide mercury pollution could go down (or increase could be slowed),
from CFLs reducing need for coal fired plants. A CFL on average has about
3 milligrams of mercury.
If a 15-watter saves 45 watts over 4,000 hours, that's 180 KWH. With
average efficiency from chemical energy in fuel to your socket being
around 35% (with biggest loss in converting heat energy to mechanical
energy, 50% is extremely good), figure out how much coal has chemical
energy of 514 KWH, 1,850 megajoules.

The Wiki article says the energy density of coal is roughly 24
megajoules per kilogram. This means a 15 watt CFL, if it lasts 4,000
hours and is used where the electricity comes from coal and replaces a 60
watt incandescent, saves burning of about 77 kilograms of coal.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_n13641513

says that mercury content in coal is mostly in a range of .07 to .24
ppm. 77 kilograms of coal accordingly have 5.4 to 18.5 mg of mercury.

http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/cair/documents/021406/
coal-washing-credit-example1.pdf

says median mercury content of "washed coal" is .06 pounds per GWh,
which is 14 milligrams for 514 KWH of chemical energy.

At that rate, if USA's electricity is more than 25% from coal, CFLs
replacing incandescents according to the above example actually reduce
mercury pollution. The Wiki article on electricity generation says that
figure is 49.7% in the US.

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
. ..
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

"willshak" wrote in message
...
on 9/19/2007 9:01 PM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:
"clot" wrote in message
...

This nonsense about mercury is just that!

You're an idiot.

Every fluorescent bulb and every neon tube has mercury in them. They
have been like that for decades. Let's close Times Square and Las
Vegas. Bill

I guess if we were to multiply by ten the number of bulbs being tossed
in landfills, the mercury levels around those landfills won't rise.

Right?

Compared to your average coal-fired electric generating plant,it's
trivial.
--
Jim Yanik

Uh oh. Now I need more information from you.

For every water supply affected by every landfill in America, what are the
current mercury levels, and how far are they from causing this, especially
if the intake of mercury-laden bulbs increases by factors of 2, 5 and 10?
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/ethics/minamata.htm

You have one year to complete this project. Good luck.

Worldwide mercury pollution could go down (or increase could be slowed),
from CFLs reducing need for coal fired plants. A CFL on average has about
3 milligrams of mercury.
If a 15-watter saves 45 watts over 4,000 hours, that's 180 KWH. With
average efficiency from chemical energy in fuel to your socket being
around 35% (with biggest loss in converting heat energy to mechanical
energy, 50% is extremely good), figure out how much coal has chemical
energy of 514 KWH, 1,850 megajoules.

The Wiki article says the energy density of coal is roughly 24
megajoules per kilogram. This means a 15 watt CFL, if it lasts 4,000
hours and is used where the electricity comes from coal and replaces a 60
watt incandescent, saves burning of about 77 kilograms of coal.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_n13641513

says that mercury content in coal is mostly in a range of .07 to .24
ppm. 77 kilograms of coal accordingly have 5.4 to 18.5 mg of mercury.

http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/cair/documents/021406/
coal-washing-credit-example1.pdf

says median mercury content of "washed coal" is .06 pounds per GWh,
which is 14 milligrams for 514 KWH of chemical energy.

At that rate, if USA's electricity is more than 25% from coal, CFLs
replacing incandescents according to the above example actually reduce
mercury pollution. The Wiki article on electricity generation says that
figure is 49.7% in the US.

- Don Klipstein )



Interesting, but it doesn't address groundwater.

In article om, RickH wrote:
On Sep 19, 2:43 pm, wrote:

I hate em, to the core of my being I hate em, except in the outside
fixtures where they last long. They make a bad humming sound, put
interference on the power line, and generally give off ugly light,
contain mercury, etc. Now with your fire post I hate em even more, I
never really thought of that.

I like the light of most spirals up to 23 watts, and few of them hum -
none in my experience so far when they have "Energy Star" approval. OK,
many do hum fainly enough to hear faintly from 1 foot away, and then only
in some fixtures.

I get little interference, usually none. Ones with electronic ballasts
are subject to FCC approval. (Dollar store junkers usually lack
indication of this.)

- Don )

In article ,
wrote:
On 20 Sep 2007 16:26:13 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Personally,I do not believe we should be burying our refuse in the ground.
It should all go to a reprocessing plant where everything not combustable
gets removed for reuse and the combustables get burned to generate
electricity/process steam.Then the ash can be put into roadway paving and
construction materials.

You just said what I have been thinking all along. We have recycling
centers for alum cans, tin cans, glass, plastic bottles, paper, etc.
Why not have another slot for florescent bulbs, batteries, and other
things like that. The mercury used in these bulbs should be reusable,
so why not do it.

That is already an option in some areas and mandatory in a few others.
Check out www.lamprecycle.org

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Chuck Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:30:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Two words: pollution credits

Who do you think dreamt up that cockamamie idea, and what motivated them to
do so?

I think Al Gore said he invented them right after he invented the
Internet. Or maybe it was more recent than that.

Check out the Snopes article on Al Gore supposedly claiming to invent
the Internet. This is a Republican exaggeration that sounds to me worse
than the exaggeration that Gore actually committed.

- Don Klipstein )

On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
Worldwide mercury pollution could go down (or increase could be slowed),
from CFLs reducing need for coal fired plants.

Except when CF bulbs break, the mercury is deposited right in my
house.

Maybe y'all could start another topic if you wanna chase this tangent.

In article ,
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:52:34 -0400, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

First I suggest that you take a look at any lamp you have and any CF
bulbs. Make sure it has the UL mark. If it does, I would have to suggest
that it is safe. Nothing is 100% but the UL mark means it has passed tough
testing.

Second there seems to be a problem with some of the higher wattage lamps
from one or more manufacturers as they are designed to burn only base down
and they have not all been properly marked. That has been changed, but
there still may be some on the shelves.

If they are to be used "base down", where will someone use them?
Almost all light fixtures are used base UP, with a few that are
mounted horizontally such as many bedroom fixtures. About the only
place that "base down" exists is table lamps.

I should note that the one that blew sparks and smoke, was one of the
rare fixtures where the base WAS down. In the bathroom.

Both that have burned are GE brand. As far as someone mentioned about
the "Dollar Store" brands, that would most likely be the "LOA" (Lights
of America) brand.

As much as I have had problems with LOA, they look good to me compared
to the "dolar store brands".

While other brands likely exist, I have never seen
any other brands besides these two.

The other 2 of the "Big 3" are Philips and Osram-Sylvania. Other
notable ones include Commercial Electric, Feit Electric, and N:Vision
(currently or recently among the most-promoted brands in the 2 major home
center chains).

- Don Klipstein )

mike wrote in
oups.com:

On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
Worldwide mercury pollution could go down (or increase could be
slowed),
from CFLs reducing need for coal fired plants.

Except when CF bulbs break, the mercury is deposited right in my
house.


how often do you break bulbs,incandescent or FL?
I can't recall the last time I broke a bulb.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:05:17 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

As for reports of actual fires caused by CDFs or ones actually catching
fire - I don't hear of amny of those, and I suspect those are mostly due
to non-UL-listed ones available mainly at dollar stores, and from the few
with safety recalls (which includes one of what I would call a "dollar
store brand").

Are the "Dollar Store" brands any different than the others? They are
all most likely made in China, and very likely all the same maker.
Then the are given a brand name. In my opinion, they are all the
same, except for the price.

I see major differences in:

* Amount of light produced
* Truthfulness in claim of light output
* Color of light
* Color rendering properties of the light
* Accuracy in statement of power consumption
* Rate of early failures
* Rate of failures with smoke, loud sounds, burning glow in base
* Rate of strange flickering, strange heating of the base
* Construction quality - croooked assembly, some come apart easily
* Presence/absence of UL and FCC certification

- Don Klipstein )

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....

Pollution credits: A company prefers to change nothing about their
facilities. For a cost that's less than making the needed changes, they buy
the right to do nothing.

What do you think would make a politician agree to vote for a law which
allows this? Be the lobbyist for a utility in Ohio, whose plant is "emitting
more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than all of the dozen or so coal-burning
plants in New York state, Federal emissions records show."
....

On the other hand, the company that sold the credits had them to sell.
And, eventually, they expire and there aren't an unlimited number of them.

Overall, it again boils down to a compromising action that was able to
be enacted that provides both sides a little of what they wanted. Ugly
maybe, but that's essentially the way all legislation gets enacted.

--

In article ,

how often do you break bulbs,incandescent or FL?
I can't recall the last time I broke a bulb.

Seriously? I must be butterfingered. I break bulbs at least 3-4 times
a year.

In article , dpb wrote:


Overall, it again boils down to a compromising action that was able to
be enacted that provides both sides a little of what they wanted. Ugly
maybe, but that's essentially the way all legislation gets enacted.

--

The other option is get them and then not use them. Retire them as it
where. I get a kick out Gore and others saying that it is okay for them
to have the big houses, etc., because they buy these offsets. If they
were serious, they'd buy the offsets and not use them so total pollution
would go down by that amount.
And don't even get me started on the fraud that is offsetting the
footprint by buying a tree somewhere.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:


Overall, it again boils down to a compromising action that was able to
be enacted that provides both sides a little of what they wanted. Ugly
maybe, but that's essentially the way all legislation gets enacted.

--

The other option is get them and then not use them. Retire them as it
where. ...

Yeah, I was going to suggest that Joe's NY lawyers would probably have
been more effective if they had simply used the resources to buy the
credits instead of filing lawsuits, but thought I'd just retire rather
than lob an incendiary...

--

wrote in message
ups.com...

UL isnt as safe as it should be.

but its no better than the feds. I hapen to know how to easily get a
weapon on a plane. TSA caught the risk in one city but never bothered
to spread the word.

so I called my legislators office arlen spectre.

nothing happened and I would know if it did.

labels like UL and TSA are just that labels


Just do it and then brandish it on-board. They'll listen to you then.

Bob

mike wrote:
On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
Worldwide mercury pollution could go down (or increase could be
slowed), from CFLs reducing need for coal fired plants.

Except when CF bulbs break, the mercury is deposited right in my
house.


So what?

If you eat fish (yum), the Mercury is deposited right in your tummy.

Don Klipstein wrote:

Check out the Snopes article on Al Gore supposedly claiming to invent
the Internet. This is a Republican exaggeration that sounds to me
worse than the exaggeration that Gore actually committed.


Right. That claim is a fraud.

Gore took credit for "the initiative in creating the internet."

Don Klipstein wrote:
Are the "Dollar Store" brands any different than the others? They
are all most likely made in China, and very likely all the same
maker. Then the are given a brand name. In my opinion, they are all
the same, except for the price.

I see major differences in:

* Amount of light produced
* Truthfulness in claim of light output
* Color of light
* Color rendering properties of the light
* Accuracy in statement of power consumption
* Rate of early failures
* Rate of failures with smoke, loud sounds, burning glow in base
* Rate of strange flickering, strange heating of the base
* Construction quality - croooked assembly, some come apart easily
* Presence/absence of UL and FCC certification


Other than that, they're pretty much the same, right?

wrote:
I am looking for facts about fires caused by compact florescent bulbs.
The more I use them, the more dangerous they seem. It's bad enough
they never live up to their normal life expectency, but they also seem
dangerous as far as causing fires. A couple years ago I flipped on
the bathroom lights (two fixtures) with CF bulbs. I sat down on the
toilet when suddenly I heard a loud pop. One of the CF bulbs went
black and at that same moment smoke and sparks began blowing out of
the base of the CF. I got up and flipped off the switch before any
further damage occurred. Yesterday I went into my garage, where I
have 4 CF bulbs. When I flipped on the switch I heard a buzz that
sounded similar to an arc welder but not as loud. One of the lights
flickered and finally lit up. I was a bit puzzled and shut off the
lights and turned them on again. This time the same bulb made that
same sound and apparently died. It would no longer light up. When I
walked near that CF I could smell a burnt odor.

I have been lucky that I was able to be nearby when these occurred,
and it seems the problems happen when the lights are turned on.
However, I am finding these bulbs to be dangerous as far as a fire
risk. Because of this, I am going to be eliminating all of them and
going back to standard light bulbs. I'd rather spend a few dollars
extra per month on my electric bill than risk a fire.

Does anyone know of any facts about fires caused by CF bulbs?


I don't think there have been any.

There are 1.5 million Google hits on "fire+CFL," but most seem to be fans
ranting about some coach in the Canadian Football League.

In article , dpb wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:


Overall, it again boils down to a compromising action that was able to
be enacted that provides both sides a little of what they wanted. Ugly
maybe, but that's essentially the way all legislation gets enacted.

--

The other option is get them and then not use them. Retire them as it
where. ...

Yeah, I was going to suggest that Joe's NY lawyers would probably have
been more effective if they had simply used the resources to buy the
credits instead of filing lawsuits, but thought I'd just retire rather
than lob an incendiary...

--

Buying them doesn't make the lawyers any money and only puts one
on the back pages of the paper... What's the use of that? (g)

HeyBub wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Check out the Snopes article on Al Gore supposedly claiming to invent
the Internet. This is a Republican exaggeration that sounds to me
worse than the exaggeration that Gore actually committed.


Right. That claim is a fraud.

Gore took credit for "the initiative in creating the internet."

That's actually worse than the other wording imo...

The "initiative" came from DARPA and its precursors when Gore was
learning how to shave...

--

In article , dpb wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Check out the Snopes article on Al Gore supposedly claiming to invent
the Internet. This is a Republican exaggeration that sounds to me
worse than the exaggeration that Gore actually committed.


Right. That claim is a fraud.

Gore took credit for "the initiative in creating the internet."

That's actually worse than the other wording imo...

The "initiative" came from DARPA and its precursors when Gore was
learning how to shave...

Gore was the main force in Congress for the Internet to get from that
point to something most people heard of.

- Don Klipstein )

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

SNIP HAPPENS



In some place, the emissions are scrubbed and monitored. But, some utilities
have purchased the appropriate agency appointees so they could avoid
installing the most modern equipment. Surely you've read about that.



Quite an accusation. Sunds almos criminal.

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to specify precisely which utilities have
purchased
precisely which " ...appropriate agency appointees so they could avoid
installing the most modern equipment."

I for one haven't read about that.

If you are going to make shotgun charges of whlesale bribery and
corruption,
it would be really nice to see just who you are accusng, and to weigh the
level of proof, if any, supporting your accusations.

Put up the details, or we will all know that you are a blow hard, a
pervaricator,
a fabricator and a liar, and give any future post of yours on any topic
just the credibility it, and you demonstrate you deserve.

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Check out the Snopes article on Al Gore supposedly claiming to invent
the Internet. This is a Republican exaggeration that sounds to me
worse than the exaggeration that Gore actually committed.

Right. That claim is a fraud.

Gore took credit for "the initiative in creating the internet."
That's actually worse than the other wording imo...

The "initiative" came from DARPA and its precursors when Gore was
learning how to shave...

Gore was the main force in Congress for the Internet to get from that
point to something most people heard of.

I'm not buying, sorry...it didn't do anything that wasn't already
happening...

--

In article , dpb wrote:


Gore was the main force in Congress for the Internet to get from that
point to something most people heard of.

I'm not buying, sorry...it didn't do anything that wasn't already
happening...

--

Especially since it can be rather persuasively argued that the thing
that took the Internet out of the lab and into the living room (the
world wide web) came not from government or with governmental funding.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Pollution credits: A company prefers to change nothing about their
facilities. For a cost that's less than making the needed changes, they
buy the right to do nothing.

What do you think would make a politician agree to vote for a law which
allows this? Be the lobbyist for a utility in Ohio, whose plant is
"emitting more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than all of the dozen or so
coal-burning plants in New York state, Federal emissions records show."
...

On the other hand, the company that sold the credits had them to sell.
And, eventually, they expire and there aren't an unlimited number of them.

Overall, it again boils down to a compromising action that was able to be
enacted that provides both sides a little of what they wanted. Ugly
maybe, but that's essentially the way all legislation gets enacted.

--

Citizens downwind of the filthy plant don't give a **** what the utility's
shareholders want. Pollution credits are a crime.

Now, answer the question: How do you, as a lobbyist get your elected slobs
to vote for a law that allows your corporate sponsor to buy their way out of
being responsible?

"jJim McLaughlin" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

SNIP HAPPENS



In some place, the emissions are scrubbed and monitored. But, some
utilities have purchased the appropriate agency appointees so they could
avoid installing the most modern equipment. Surely you've read about
that.

Quite an accusation. Sunds almos criminal.

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to specify precisely which utilities have
purchased
precisely which " ...appropriate agency appointees so they could avoid
installing the most modern equipment."

I for one haven't read about that.

If you are going to make shotgun charges of whlesale bribery and
corruption,
it would be really nice to see just who you are accusng, and to weigh the
level of proof, if any, supporting your accusations.

Put up the details, or we will all know that you are a blow hard, a
pervaricator,
a fabricator and a liar, and give any future post of yours on any topic
just the credibility it, and you demonstrate you deserve.


You can learn these things for yourself. Has your town been involved in any
construction projects that were unbelievably stupid? Projects which no
private venture capitalist would've touched?


Yes, or no?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Pollution credits: A company prefers to change nothing about their
facilities. For a cost that's less than making the needed changes, they
buy the right to do nothing.

What do you think would make a politician agree to vote for a law which
allows this? Be the lobbyist for a utility in Ohio, whose plant is
"emitting more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than all of the dozen or so
coal-burning plants in New York state, Federal emissions records show."
...

On the other hand, the company that sold the credits had them to sell.
And, eventually, they expire and there aren't an unlimited number of them.

Overall, it again boils down to a compromising action that was able to be
enacted that provides both sides a little of what they wanted. Ugly
maybe, but that's essentially the way all legislation gets enacted.

--

Citizens downwind of the filthy plant don't give a **** what the utility's
shareholders want. Pollution credits are a crime.

Well, those that are also shareholders might as noted previously. And,
no they're not a crime, they're part of established law. Now if you
want the law changed, get busy...

Now, answer the question: How do you, as a lobbyist get your elected slobs
to vote for a law that allows your corporate sponsor to buy their way out of
being responsible?

Same way you get yours to do your bidding...

--

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"jJim McLaughlin" wrote in message
...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

SNIP HAPPENS



In some place, the emissions are scrubbed and monitored. But, some
utilities have purchased the appropriate agency appointees so they could
avoid installing the most modern equipment. Surely you've read about
that.

Quite an accusation. Sunds almos criminal.

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to specify precisely which utilities have
purchased
precisely which " ...appropriate agency appointees so they could avoid
installing the most modern equipment."

I for one haven't read about that.

If you are going to make shotgun charges of whlesale bribery and
corruption,
it would be really nice to see just who you are accusng, and to weigh the
level of proof, if any, supporting your accusations.

Put up the details, or we will all know that you are a blow hard, a
pervaricator,
a fabricator and a liar, and give any future post of yours on any topic
just the credibility it, and you demonstrate you deserve.



You can learn these things for yourself. Has your town been involved in any
construction projects that were unbelievably stupid? Projects which no
private venture capitalist would've touched?


Yes, or no?



It was your assertion sonny. You get to back it up, or be perceived as
a liar.

Its not my job to do research to show that ypou are not a liar.

You can't back up your accusation of criminal activity and bribery.

You are a blow hard,a pervaricator, a fabricator, and a liar.

You have demonstrated that no post of yours, nor you personally,
have any credibility.

"clot" wrote in message
...

This apparent issue about mercury! Salt is bad for you. You can also drink
yourself to death with drinking water. CFLs do contain mercury and we do need
to consider where it will be a major issue if we dispose of many in landfills.
Having one smash in the house is not an issue. Think about the number of
mercury thermometers we used to use and break without us all going loopy. CFLs
are not a health issue to the user; they could possibly be to those involved
in the manufacture and could also be to future users of the planet if we do
not dispose of sensibly. They are not a hazard to the user!

But it's not legal to throw them in your Seattle garbage.

Bob

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Pollution credits: A company prefers to change nothing about their
facilities. For a cost that's less than making the needed changes, they
buy the right to do nothing.

What do you think would make a politician agree to vote for a law which
allows this? Be the lobbyist for a utility in Ohio, whose plant is
"emitting more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than all of the dozen or so
coal-burning plants in New York state, Federal emissions records show."
...

On the other hand, the company that sold the credits had them to sell.
And, eventually, they expire and there aren't an unlimited number of
them.

Overall, it again boils down to a compromising action that was able to
be enacted that provides both sides a little of what they wanted. Ugly
maybe, but that's essentially the way all legislation gets enacted.

--

Citizens downwind of the filthy plant don't give a **** what the
utility's shareholders want. Pollution credits are a crime.

Well, those that are also shareholders might as noted previously. And, no
they're not a crime, they're part of established law. Now if you want the
law changed, get busy...

Now, answer the question: How do you, as a lobbyist get your elected
slobs to vote for a law that allows your corporate sponsor to buy their
way out of being responsible?

Same way you get yours to do your bidding...

How naiive.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
....

Same way you get yours to do your bidding...

How naiive.

Superficially, maybe. Fundamentally, not so much...

If the concept of pollution credits is such an anathema to you, join
with a like-minded group or organize your own and recruit folks to come
along to the party. Develop a proposed legislative solution, understand
_thoroughly_ the issues on _both_ sides (although in reality there are
probably twenty faceted sides to any real issue rather than just the
simple-minded good-versus-evil viewpoint you seem to espouse), draft
some proposed legislation and get some support from your local
representative(s) to introduce it.

Lots and lots and lots of work you say? Yeah, sure. Likely to happen
next week even if you did? No. But, that's the way the system works.
Takes money to get to DC to talk to other congressional representatives
other than when you can buttonhole yours at the local townhall meeting?
Ayup, lots of it. That's why you're gonna' need a bunch of folks to
join the movement. Gonna' get fought tooth and nail by the coal and
utility industries? Most likely; they've got a stake in your plan, too.
Find some allies? Also, quite probable. "Win" totally in the end by
completing eliminating the pollution credits market? Unlikely, but if
you can make a strong enough case you might realistically expect to get
some changes that make some differences in areas you like. That's known
as "compromise" and is how the present state came to be. Welcome to
Washington, Mr. Smith...

--