"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
...and I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.

Ever been to visit a US commercial nuclear site?

--


No. But, my trust level these days is virtually zero.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 25, 8:11 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:
I
I wonder how much of that statement is based on the assumption that
the CFLs are going to be gotten rid of the way they should be,
which
is
not likely to be the way they are.
I was talking about if all of the mercury in the CFLs got into the
environment, as if the worn-out CFLs are all ground up and
incinerated
in
bonfires.
Interesting. Would you have a cite or two, I haven't seen anything
like that and would like to read them. Thanks.
If your county has a web site, you might find some links there.
About all I can find on my county, the big city nearby and
state websites (as well as the EPAs) is what the proper ways to dispose
of the CFLs. Nothing on the local and nothing I can find right off on
the EPA on the question of how they came to that conclusion. It may
very
well be correct, I'm just saying I can't find anything right off to
back
it up. Until then it is a rumor (g).
Currently, and into the foreseeable future, the EPA is not a reliable
source
for environmental information.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This comment is really special coming from a guy that in another part
of this thread posted a link to an article that used OPEC, officials
in India, and the secretary of state of MA as credible sources pinning
the high price of oil on speculators. LOL

++++++++++++++++++++++


I'm absolutely positive that everyone in that article was more qualified
than you are to comment on the subject in question.

And I'm absolutely positive that the EPA is more qualified
than you...

As I see it, what will happen w/ CFL's is the same thing that currently
happens w/ incandescents -- when they burn out, folks will toss them in
the trash and that's it, no matter what the rules are. There will be a
small number of folks who will go to some extra trouble, but it will be a
minute fraction of the population.


Most people don't even know how to open the yellow pages and find a hardware
store. If they figured out where to take hazardous waste, it would be the
result of the wind randomly blowing the phone book open to the correct page
that showed local government offices.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

You're right, but prepare to be spanked by a few of the delusional
here.
No dilusions here. They wanted the SUV they bought. What more reason
do they
need?
--

JR


How do you know they wanted them? ...

That they bought them is pretty good evidence. What motivated that want
is, also, their business, not mine (nor yours)...after all, marketing
folks deserve to make a living, too.

--


A lot of them bought the sizzle. Or, they were just stupid. Example: A
couple I know had an Escalade, thinking it would be great for hauling around
the three kids and some groceries, something I did easily with my 92 Taurus
sedan and I was buying enormous loads of groceries at the time. The wife
later got a job that involved a 40 minute commute. She was surprised to find
that she was getting about 12 mpg doing 55 on a flat highway. They sold the
tank and bought some GM sedan.

Surprised? Did she expect the tank to get significantly better mileage than
the numbers on the window sticker? What an idiot.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

Twice a week, I pass by a park & ride lot. It's as empty as
it's been for many years.
An advertising campaign would help that.
I doubt it. Such an advertising campaign would help only those entities
promoting the campaign.



In this specific example, which entity would be helped by an ad campaign
encouraging carpooling?

Mostly the ad agencies and media outlets paid for the development and air
time (of course, they both get "public service" credits from the FCC for
pro bono ad campaigns in lieu of some of the actual dollars.


zzzzzzz...........

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



What about the fact that it's right thing to do? It didn't happen
overnight,
either. There was advertising involved.
Minority probabaly do it because of that. Like most everything else
in life.


By the way, it is NOT free.

Where it is successful, generally it is free to the person doing the
recycling. Taxes may be involved, but it is the actual out-of-pocket
(or more precisely the lack thereof) that is the main constraining
veriable where it makes any kind of real impact.


No, it's not free.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

By offering two extreme examples (tiny car vs. government control), you're
acting like a clone. There are some in this newsgroup who actually ARE
clones, but you're not one of them, so don't talk that way.

Yes, dear. sigh

Here's an idea: How about educating the buying public, so they understand
what they're really getting? Give them the knowledge to take advertising
with a grain of salt?

The public isn't getting enough "education"? Far from it. The SUV has been
under constant, in-your-face, attack from all directions for years. Yet, they
continue to sell well. Do you think even MORE attacks on the genre will have
greater effect? I think not.

For example, in snowy climates, all smart people (100%, in other words) know
that assuming your car has enough ground clearance, the best thing in the
world for snow-covered roads is front wheel drive and a good set of snow
tires. 4WD is sorta OK, but when it's off, you're left with rear wheel
drive. Bleh. Don't argue with this. My information is better than yours.

Your cavalier attitude reveals much. It is entirely likely that you have NO
idea of the information I have, good, better or best.

Having lived in the snowbelt for 54 years, and now in my 6th year of
ownership of my first ever four-wheel drive vehicle, and having driven
numerous front-drive cars, I can assure you that 4WD is better by far in poor
traction conditions.

Have you ever owned (not just driven) a 4WD vehicle?

Give me a Taurus or a Camry with a set of Blizzak snow tires and I'll
be cruising happily while SUVs are sliding through intersections.

Don't be too sure of that. We have ALL had four-wheel "stop" since the early
1930s. It's the "going" part that places a 4WD vehicle, piloted by a
competent driver, well ahead of ANY configuration of two-wheel drive, killer
snow tires notwithstanding.

There is a world in between econo-box and your Silverado.

You got THAT right! I often miss my Metro, and not just at the gas pump.
--

JR

"Phisherman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:42:19 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Why do people recycle containers & paper when it would be so much easier
to
just throw the stuff into the regular trash?

Because it is free where it is successful?


In my city the trash service picks up your trash from the side of the
house or the backyard which makes the streets look tidy. But, the
recycle bins must be placed by the curb, not a big deal. I stopped
city-service recycling years ago because...

Dogs, coons, varmints and kids get into the approved recycle bins
(dogs around here know when it's trash day)

The recycle people smash all glass items and I'd rather not have to
clean up slivers of glass again.

Recycle will not accept some plastics--even plastics with the triangle
recycle symbol on them. They do accept any plastics that were used
for non-food or any plastics that contained cooking oils. Strange.

Metal containers are to be washed and labels removed. Non-food metal
is not accepted.

Cardboard of any kind is not accepted. I guess they can't profit
enough.


In some places, they can't sell certain materials for some reason. That's
the explanation I heard about why we only recycle plastics #1 & #2 here, but
not the other stuff.

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

I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.
You can stop wondering. You can probably even relax a bit.

There is a nuke operating perhaps 25 miles from where I am typing. It's
along
the Missouri river. Security there is ridiculously tight. Also, my
son-in-law is an engineer at a nuke perhaps 40 miles east of his home.
The
(generic) stories he tells about security are impressive.

Besides, any terrorist strike on a U.S. nuclear-powered, electricity
generating station will not be a ground-based assault. It will come from
the
air - and will be a dismal failure as core containment here is extremely
OVER
built. FWIW: There was NO containment structure at Chernobyl.
--

JR


If these features are present everywhere, I'll be happy. Actually, though,
security is pretty tight at the Ginna plant east of here (Rochester).
Fishing boats occasionally drift too close to the security zone, and it
raises holy hell. The containment structure is another issue - I have no
idea what it's like.

Those features _ARE_ present everywhere as it is a standard part of NRC
licensing rules.

As for containment, it'll stand anything up to a direct hit from a
bunker-buster or similar ordinance. If there were anywhere I'd choose
to be in an earthquake or such, inside containment would be one real
safe choice...

In reality, any external assault is extremely unlikely to do any damage
to anything other than secondary equipment outside containment such as
the turbine-generators or the switchyard. The most likely way for a
real incident to occur would be as an "inside job" where an employee
became a mole.

My other concern is whether it would be possible for a bunch of idiots to
plan another joke like the Shoreham plant (Long Island). It eventually died
an appropriate death because the evacuation plan was also conceived by
idiots who never bothered to look at a map of Long Island.

In reality, there would never be a need for a massive evacuation in a
panic mode--the requirement for one is simply a current licensing
stipulation inserted as a pacifier to the anti-nuke crowd. A LWR fuel
assembly simply is not highly enriched enough to make a nuclear
explosion--the worst that can happen is a core melt incident similar to
TMI which takes on the order of hours even if the operators make
essentially every possible wrong decision as they did there in the early
stages of the accident(*).

(*) If they had simply left the situation alone and let the HPI and RC
pump systems on, all would have been over within a couple hours and they
could have restarted in a few weeks at the outside after reworking the
HP relief valve on the pressurizer that stuck open after the reactor trip.

--

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

By offering two extreme examples (tiny car vs. government control),
you're
acting like a clone. There are some in this newsgroup who actually ARE
clones, but you're not one of them, so don't talk that way.

Yes, dear. sigh

Here's an idea: How about educating the buying public, so they understand
what they're really getting? Give them the knowledge to take advertising
with a grain of salt?

The public isn't getting enough "education"? Far from it. The SUV has
been
under constant, in-your-face, attack from all directions for years. Yet,
they
continue to sell well. Do you think even MORE attacks on the genre will
have
greater effect? I think not.


The only negatives people are hearing about SUVs is about their relatively
lousy gas mileage.



For example, in snowy climates, all smart people (100%, in other words)
know
that assuming your car has enough ground clearance, the best thing in the
world for snow-covered roads is front wheel drive and a good set of snow
tires. 4WD is sorta OK, but when it's off, you're left with rear wheel
drive. Bleh. Don't argue with this. My information is better than yours.

Your cavalier attitude reveals much. It is entirely likely that you have
NO
idea of the information I have, good, better or best.

Having lived in the snowbelt for 54 years, and now in my 6th year of
ownership of my first ever four-wheel drive vehicle, and having driven
numerous front-drive cars, I can assure you that 4WD is better by far in
poor
traction conditions.

Have you ever owned (not just driven) a 4WD vehicle?


I own one now. A Tacoma 4WD, with Blizzaks on it, and I am the best on
earth. Therefore, my conclusion is so perfect and flawless, it aches to
think about its flawless perfection.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

They wanted the SUV they bought. What more reason do they need?

How do you know they wanted them?

Uh, because they BOUGHT them?

Then again, perhaps many were coerced into the purchase by operatives of the
Detroit underworld. Scary. :\

Remember something very important about sales and advertising:
"Sell the sizzle, not the steak". Do you know what that means?

Yes.

Do you have any idea how well it works?

Yes.

However, if SUV popularity were based solely - or even mostly - on hype and
advertising, the REPEAT BUYER would be a minority. S/he isn't.
--

JR

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

it's a sure bet that the suits in D.C. will NEVER (ever)
relinquish that control. Sorry.

The voters are able to fire and replace them on such
basis should they care enough to do so!

Agreed. Voter apathy is easily one of my biggest frustrations.

Wrongly placed. If they don't care, they're likely to be even less
informed...if anything, it should be _MORE_ difficult to vote, not less...

--

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

In this specific example, which entity would be helped by an
ad campaign encouraging carpooling?

The advertising agency that creates the campaign and the media entities that
disseminate it. It's pretty simple, really.
--

JR

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

They wanted the SUV they bought. What more reason do they need?

How do you know they wanted them?

Uh, because they BOUGHT them?

Then again, perhaps many were coerced into the purchase by operatives of
the
Detroit underworld. Scary. :\

Remember something very important about sales and advertising:
"Sell the sizzle, not the steak". Do you know what that means?

Yes.

Do you have any idea how well it works?

Yes.

However, if SUV popularity were based solely - or even mostly - on hype
and
advertising, the REPEAT BUYER would be a minority. S/he isn't.
--

JR


What percentage of first time SUV owners bought another SIMILAR one? Not
from a Cherokee to a RAV4, but from a Cherokee to a vehicle with similar gas
mileage specs?

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

In this specific example, which entity would be helped by an
ad campaign encouraging carpooling?

The advertising agency that creates the campaign and the media entities
that
disseminate it. It's pretty simple, really.
--

JR


That's silly. I'm talking about the "annuity" effect, like that received by
construction companies which magically get contracts to repair a county's
highways forever.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Why do people recycle containers & paper when it would be so much easier to
just throw the stuff into the regular trash?

For two reasons: They believe they are "making a difference" and/or they are
required by law to do so.

Just remember: Adolph Hitler made a difference.

I "recycle" my containers and paper using the general waste stream, confident
that it will eventually return from whence it came. There is enough landfill
space to last virtually forever.

Modern landfills have a minimal environmental impact. Further, capturing the
methane gas they produce, is providing RENEWABLE energy - such that it is.
Given that, we obviously need MORE landfills. [ducking]
--

JR

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

In article , Jim Yanik
wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:


Plutonium comes from breeder reactors.

Not all of it.

Most nuclear power plants are not breeder reactors.

No,but the spent fuel rods still contain usable amounts of PU.

I do remember from back in the late 1970's and around 1980 that the
anti-nukers complained even-more against breeder reactors on basis
that those made plutonium useful for making bombs and non-breeder ones
did not.

Are non-breeders safe in this respect or is another old lie by
1970's
anti-nukers being exposed now?

- Don Klipstein )


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

says that's how India obtained their nuclear bombs.

So,I guess that exposes the anti-nukers for what they are.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

What about the fact that it's right thing to do?

Sez you.

By the way, it is NOT free.

You got THAT right.

I have a good friend - a "small" business trash hauler - whose plan for
comfortable retirement was RUINED by the recycling craze.

He had to build a huge pole shed to accommodate a new aspect of the business
and purchase thousands of household bins. He sadly showed me the "recycled"
milk jugs that occupied fully one-third of the new shed from the ground to the
rafters because, at that time, there was no market for the plastic.

Our local, city-contracted hauler has stopped picking-up glass at curbside for
recycling. What's with that? Could it be that there is not enough gasp
PROFIT in it? I honestly don't know why the change was enacted.
--

JR

Jim Redelfs wrote in
:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Physically building the bomb itself isn't very complicated.

Please issue a "spew warning" before posting such humor.

If not the most ignorant statement I've read in a *LONG* time, it is
certainly among the funniest.

I'm not saying we should eliminate nuclear power generation, but if
you believe it's a good idea

It is. You said so yourself.

then logically, you forfeit the right to act surprised or annoyed
when countries like Iran start rattling their swords.

That's a lot of NONSENSE,as Iran signed the NPT,agreeing to monitoring of
their entire nuclear program,not just the visible civilian power part of
it.
Once they violated their agreement.....off come the gloves.


I cheerfully forfeit that right - right now.

However, I RETAIN the right to be extremely annoyed when myopic
pacifists whine and cry when we forcibly SILENCE their sword rattling.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Let's see....11:55 PM....you were drunk.

OK. I'm sober now and you're still wrong (and ugly).

Hehehehehehehe!
--

JR

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:17:20 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

If any are disposed of through lamp recycling outfits, then
reduction of mercury pollution would be even greater.

"They" removed the mercury from dry cells (batteries). Now it's CFLs (compact
fluorescent lamps) turn to be the poster child of a Good Ideatm with a
BAAAAD environmental impact.

How much mercury is in the average CFL? How much REAL damage can they do if
introduced into the general waste stream and deposited in a MODERN landfill?

If they are ahem PROPERLY recycled, what happens to the mercury?

If the D.C.Droids can legislate 35mpg and ban the 100w and 75w incandescent
light bulb, why do they not address the building "threat" of discarded CFLs?


There's a good article in "Scientific American" about the impact of
mercury contained in disposed CFL. If you are at all concerned about
the environment, it's scary.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Why do people recycle containers & paper when it would be so much
easier to just throw the stuff into the regular trash?

Because it is free where it is successful?


OTOH,why don't they just process the "regular trash" and separate
recyclables from it,burn the rest for electric and steam generation?
What's left is much smaller and less apt to damage ground water or spread
pollution.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

In , JoeSpareBedroom wrote in part:

As far as mass transport being foisted on people, do you know anyone
who takes the train into Manhattan to get to work?

I didn't think so.

I dopn't live or work in Manhattan, so I don't know anyone there,
but I
have been there a few times during rush hour, and I have seen those
trains. They do fill up.

- Don Klipstein )


I've used Boston's "T" mass transit;there was just no parking to be had in
downtown Boston.Trouble is,you had to walk blocks after getting off it to
get to your destination,or pay for a taxicab.In bad weather,that's not much
fun.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Redelfs wrote in
:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.

You can stop wondering. You can probably even relax a bit.

There is a nuke operating perhaps 25 miles from where I am typing.
It's along the Missouri river. Security there is ridiculously tight.
Also, my son-in-law is an engineer at a nuke perhaps 40 miles east of
his home. The (generic) stories he tells about security are
impressive.

Besides, any terrorist strike on a U.S. nuclear-powered, electricity
generating station will not be a ground-based assault. It will come
from the air - and will be a dismal failure as core containment here
is extremely OVER built. FWIW: There was NO containment structure at
Chernobyl.

except the many spent rod holding pools have no containment.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
Jim Redelfs wrote in
:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.
You can stop wondering. You can probably even relax a bit.

There is a nuke operating perhaps 25 miles from where I am typing.
It's along the Missouri river. Security there is ridiculously tight.
Also, my son-in-law is an engineer at a nuke perhaps 40 miles east of
his home. The (generic) stories he tells about security are
impressive.

Besides, any terrorist strike on a U.S. nuclear-powered, electricity
generating station will not be a ground-based assault. It will come
from the air - and will be a dismal failure as core containment here
is extremely OVER built. FWIW: There was NO containment structure at
Chernobyl.

except the many spent rod holding pools have no containment.

So what? They can't physically make a nuclear explosive in any
configuration as they are insufficiently enriched even before being
"burned" in the reactor which only further reduces the enrichment (and
adds fission product "poisons").

--

In article , dpb wrote:


That's not reasonable in that the Federal highway system promotes
interstate commerce, not intrastate. Each state (or commonwealth) does
have their own state transportation departments which take care of state
highways already.
--

I would have agreed with that assumption during construction of the
Interstates. Now, however the State Highway Departments are largely
responsible for maintenance of even Federal Highways, albeit with Fed
dollars to a certain extent. I don't see any real reason for the Fed
taxes to continue since all it is doing is siphoning off money that the
states could be using for stuff they need/want instead of what the Feds
impose.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
...and I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.
Ever been to visit a US commercial nuclear site?

No. But, my trust level these days is virtually zero.

Well, maybe some education on issues you're ranting against would be a
worthy objective as a New Year's resolution.

--

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

They wanted the SUV they bought. What more reason do they need?
How do you know they wanted them?
Uh, because they BOUGHT them?

Then again, perhaps many were coerced into the purchase by operatives of
the
Detroit underworld. Scary. :\

Remember something very important about sales and advertising:
"Sell the sizzle, not the steak". Do you know what that means?
Yes.

Do you have any idea how well it works?
Yes.

However, if SUV popularity were based solely - or even mostly - on hype
and
advertising, the REPEAT BUYER would be a minority. S/he isn't.
--

JR


What percentage of first time SUV owners bought another SIMILAR one? Not
from a Cherokee to a RAV4, but from a Cherokee to a vehicle with similar gas
mileage specs?

At the same gas price point, undoubtedly quite a large number. There's
no difference no than at the time of the 70s gas crunch when there was a
temporary shift(*)--the shift will occur on its own as the cost
outweighs the perceived benefit.

(*) I, otoh, needing a larger vehicle at the time, took advantage of the
disfavor and bought a large, almost new vehicle which had been traded in
for a smaller one. Owing to the market, I got that vehicle with all its
comfort and size for far less than another vehicle and over the lifetime
of the car that difference in initial investment made for a much cheaper
transportation alternative with far higher convenience. Them is market
forces.

--

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

Twice a week, I pass by a park & ride lot. It's as empty as
it's been for many years.
An advertising campaign would help that.
I doubt it. Such an advertising campaign would help only those entities
promoting the campaign.


In this specific example, which entity would be helped by an ad campaign
encouraging carpooling?
Mostly the ad agencies and media outlets paid for the development and air
time (of course, they both get "public service" credits from the FCC for
pro bono ad campaigns in lieu of some of the actual dollars.


zzzzzzz...........

Now _THAT_ was enlightening...

--

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

In this specific example, which entity would be helped by an
ad campaign encouraging carpooling?
The advertising agency that creates the campaign and the media entities
that
disseminate it. It's pretty simple, really.
--

JR


That's silly. I'm talking about the "annuity" effect, like that received by
construction companies which magically get contracts to repair a county's
highways forever.

So you're going to have us magically be "beamed aboard, Scotty" instead?
Whatever system it is, there is maintenance in perpetuity unless you
simply stand in one spot forever.

--

Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Why do people recycle containers & paper when it would be so much
easier to just throw the stuff into the regular trash?
Because it is free where it is successful?


OTOH,why don't they just process the "regular trash" and separate
recyclables from it,burn the rest for electric and steam generation?
What's left is much smaller and less apt to damage ground water or spread
pollution.

One word--cost.

Second word--practicality.

The second reduces to the first in large part, but there are some added
factors...

--

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:


That's not reasonable in that the Federal highway system promotes
interstate commerce, not intrastate. Each state (or commonwealth) does
have their own state transportation departments which take care of state
highways already.
--

I would have agreed with that assumption during construction of the
Interstates. Now, however the State Highway Departments are largely
responsible for maintenance of even Federal Highways, albeit with Fed
dollars to a certain extent. I don't see any real reason for the Fed
taxes to continue since all it is doing is siphoning off money that the
states could be using for stuff they need/want instead of what the Feds
impose.

Because the infrastructure is there and continues to need expansion at a
macro scale as well as micro.

--

In article , dpb wrote:


Because the infrastructure is there and continues to need expansion at a
macro scale as well as micro.

Which the states do. Heck the new Interstate that they are talking
about doing around here (extension of I-69) is pretty much being run
(and largely paid for) with state funds. Feds don't really have any dog
in this hunt anymore that the states can't do on their own.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:


Because the infrastructure is there and continues to need expansion at a
macro scale as well as micro.

Which the states do. Heck the new Interstate that they are talking
about doing around here (extension of I-69) is pretty much being run
(and largely paid for) with state funds. Feds don't really have any dog
in this hunt anymore that the states can't do on their own.

Disagree...

--

In article , dpb wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:


Because the infrastructure is there and continues to need expansion at a
macro scale as well as micro.

Which the states do. Heck the new Interstate that they are talking
about doing around here (extension of I-69) is pretty much being run
(and largely paid for) with state funds. Feds don't really have any dog
in this hunt anymore that the states can't do on their own.

Disagree...

--

Agree to...

In , Jim
Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

If any are disposed of through lamp recycling outfits, then
reduction of mercury pollution would be even greater.

"They" removed the mercury from dry cells (batteries). Now it's CFLs
(compact fluorescent lamps) turn to be the poster child of a Good
Ideatm with a BAAAAD environmental impact.

How much mercury is in the average CFL?

Aout 3-4 milligrams.

How much REAL damage can they do if introduced into the general waste
stream and deposited in a MODERN landfill?

Well, I do breate air, and it gets mercury from coal fired power plants.
I also eat stuff that gets whatever is in the air. I like to eat fish,
and they say mercury gets into fish because of the way the food chain and
aquatic life work.
With half our power coming from coal, replacing a 60 watt incandescent
with a 15 watt CFL for 4,000 hours reduces electricity consumption enough
to prevent 7 milligrams of mercury from being spewed into the air by coal
fired power plants.

If they are ahem PROPERLY recycled, what happens to the mercury?

http://www.everlights.com/serv_fluorescent.html

says mercury actually gets recycled and is sold as raw material. It
also says some gets trapped in filters - I imagine those filters get
disposed of in landfills rated for such waste.

If the D.C.Droids can legislate 35mpg and ban the 100w and 75w incandescent
light bulb, why do they not address the building "threat" of discarded CFLs?

I thought DC did make schools, hospitals, industrial buildings, offices
and large retail facilities dispose of their fluorescent lamps in a proper
manner. As recently as the 1980's, 4-foot fluorescents had on average 80
milligrams of mercury. And they did go into dumpsters that recently.

As for what you can do? To see what is required of you, and what is
available to you, as a function of where you live, go to:

http://www.lamprecycle.org

- Don Klipstein )

On 25 Dec 2007 17:45:29 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Why do people recycle containers & paper when it would be so much
easier to just throw the stuff into the regular trash?

Because it is free where it is successful?


OTOH,why don't they just process the "regular trash" and separate
recyclables from it,burn the rest for electric and steam generation?
What's left is much smaller and less apt to damage ground water or spread
pollution.

Akron, OH had a trash burning power plant 10-15 years ago. It was
state of the art at the time, but ran into numerous problems,
including explosions resulting from chance mixtures of "stuff" in the
waste stream, constantly exceeding air pollution regulations due to
burning of toxic materials in the waste stream that were not practical
(at least then) to identify and separate, and having to treat all the
remnants from the burning process as hazardous waste because of very
high heavy metal and toxics concentrations. Yes, there was less
material to dispose of, but what remained was very nasty. They
finally shut it down. Maybe technology has advanced now, but
separating a high volume solid waste stream into stuff that is OK to
burn and stuff that isn't OK to burn is a hard problem. Especially
when you consider that materials that by themselves may be OK to burn,
may *not* be OK to burn when combined with other materials.

What might be more practical is more point of origin waste burning
power generation, such as is done at sawmills. When you know with
some degree of certainty what's in the waste stream, it's a lot easier
to burn it without problems. Burn the stuff that can be safely burned
before it gets mixed in with stuff that can't or shouldn't be burned.
Of course, that might work for industrial situations, but it's
probably not practical for co-mingled household waste streams.

Paul F.

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Do you actually know *anything* about ANWR?
Seems more than you do.

Oh, when is that going to be demonstrated?

Errr, Kurt... we're still waiting for a demonstration
that you know anything at all about this.

Or did you just notice you'd been discussing the back
of my hand with me?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Dec 23, 3:28*am, Jim Redelfs wrote:
The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition to
putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck industry,
kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally DEVASTATING electric
lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. *(Thomas Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. *They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15 years on
the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow" fixtures to CF
lamps. *I am considering switching BACK the one beside the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. *Mostly, I switch-on the front porch light
when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light. *

However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact fluorescent lamp *
outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable light worth a damn for a
minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't, over
the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy
consumption. *Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy
consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the world
cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs. *Conservation alone is
NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem. *We have adequate stores of
fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren cool or
warm and productive. *Whether we can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby,
do-gooders that think they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our
land "off limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental impact
YEARS ago. *But that's not good enough now. *We simply CAN'T do it because of
some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact. *That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when vast
miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska Pipeline
was finally built. *But, Shazam! *The devastation to the environment and
wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened. *They were WRONG. *They're
wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if there
was a problem. *Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. *Let's go get it. *-Jim Redelfs

400 posts later and only a few hit it

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


It's too late. The 54% spoke twice, and put one of their own in the
White House.

In spite of an occassional setback, we will prevail. It's the "Roe Effect."

For those that don't know, the "Roe Effect" is the result of legalizing
abortion.

It is estimated that, in 1982, there were 50,000 abortions in Florida. Those
that were not born in 1982 would have been eligible to vote in 2000. Bush
won Florida, and with it the presidency, by 500-odd votes.

A more detailed explanation he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect

The liberals are destroying their seed corn.

Regretable, but we conservatives always try to look on the bright side.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Never being held accountable and sometimes manage to just walk away
are two very different things. In superfund cases, the EPA in most
cases has extracted money from the companies responsible. They do it
when it's clear who is responsible, they are in business and have
assets. The problem is with many of these superfund sites, eg dump
sites, the dumping had been going on for decades and many of the
companies involved no longer exist. In other cases, the legal system
has extracted huge amounts from corporations for the mistakes they
made. John Mansville wound up bankrupt after paying out claims for
asbestos. The tobacco companies paid billions to settle their
claims. The point Pete C made about environmental groups generally
being able to make false claims, use the legal system to block
projects and then walking away with no consequences is a valid one.

But often the "mess" has bankrupted companies who were completely blameless.

I refer, of course, to the tragedy over silicone breast implants. Not only
was DowCorning significantly harmed, but millions and millions of (real) men
were deprived of a signal joy in life.