http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595565026.html

On Jan 20, 10:52*am, Molly Brown wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents? Typical of social engineering solutions,
solve one problem and create two or more that are worse.

Joe

On Jan 20, 12:23*pm, Joe wrote:
On Jan 20, 10:52*am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents? Typical of social engineering solutions,
solve one problem and create two or more that are worse.

Joe

and this part was noteworthy

"Anxious to see what ratepayers got for their money, state utility
regulators have devoted millions of dollars in the past three years
for evaluation reports and field studies."

Mark

In article
,
Joe wrote:

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs.

Not as many as you think. Californians have a laid-back attitude about
things. We live by the "manana"* mantra. Must be the weather that lulls
us in to a false sense of security. We aren't prepared for earthquakes,
either.

Years ago, before cell phones, I read a story in an aviation rag about
accident preparedness. The author quipped "a California pilot's idea of
an emergency survival kit is two dimes for a pay phone."

*Spanish for "tomorrow," coupled with the understanding that tomorrow
never comes.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:50:56 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article
,
Joe wrote:

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs.

Not as many as you think. Californians have a laid-back attitude about
things. We live by the "manana"* mantra. Must be the weather that lulls
us in to a false sense of security. We aren't prepared for earthquakes,
either.

Years ago, before cell phones, I read a story in an aviation rag about
accident preparedness. The author quipped "a California pilot's idea of
an emergency survival kit is two dimes for a pay phone."

*Spanish for "tomorrow," coupled with the understanding that tomorrow
never comes.


carpe diem manana.

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:50:56 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article
,
Joe wrote:

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs.

Not as many as you think. Californians have a laid-back attitude about
things. We live by the "manana"* mantra. Must be the weather that lulls
us in to a false sense of security. We aren't prepared for earthquakes,
either.

Years ago, before cell phones, I read a story in an aviation rag about
accident preparedness. The author quipped "a California pilot's idea of
an emergency survival kit is two dimes for a pay phone."

*Spanish for "tomorrow," coupled with the understanding that tomorrow
never comes.


carpe diem manana.

Yes! The perfect comeback to "you can sleep when you're dead."

Joe wrote:
On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents? Typical of social engineering solutions,
solve one problem and create two or more that are worse.


Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100 years
without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury generated
by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100 years
without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury generated
by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he made
it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Can you say "cumulative toxin"?

(And just curious: why did you capitalize Mercury? You're not of German
descent, are you?)


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100
years without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury
generated by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he made
it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Don't think so. If we've made the collective decision to live with the
hazards of coal-fired power plants, any overall reduction in the amount of
you-know-what has to be a plus. Most would consider a process to convert 90%
the mercury from a power plant into Fulminate of Mercury and scatter it
around the streets of Detroit to be meritorious.


Can you say "cumulative toxin"?

Yes, but not five times real fast.


(And just curious: why did you capitalize Mercury? You're not of
German descent, are you?)

I also capitalized Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Cobalt-thorium-G because I was
taught in an earlier time to capitalize primary elements. Times have,
however, changed along with the rules for capitalization.

Thanks for pointing out my eccentricity and causing me to check. I'll
refrain from it in future so as not to horrify those who are a product of a
more recent education.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:43:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100
years without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury
generated by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he made
it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Don't think so. If we've made the collective decision to live with the
hazards of coal-fired power plants, any overall reduction in the amount of
you-know-what has to be a plus. Most would consider a process to convert 90%
the mercury from a power plant into Fulminate of Mercury and scatter it
around the streets of Detroit to be meritorious.


Can you say "cumulative toxin"?

Yes, but not five times real fast.


(And just curious: why did you capitalize Mercury? You're not of
German descent, are you?)

I also capitalized Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Cobalt-thorium-G because I was
taught in an earlier time to capitalize primary elements. Times have,
however, changed along with the rules for capitalization.

Thanks for pointing out my eccentricity and causing me to check. I'll
refrain from it in future so as not to horrify those who are a product of a
more recent education.


That really changed?

I remember when the lower case G changed. I learned it with a straight
line going down and then it changed to a curly line. Or maybe it was
the other way? Well, no one writes anymore so I guess it makes no
difference, but it puzzled me at the time.

I think Oxygen deserves to be upper case though. While most elements
are critical for something (Carbon comes to mind), where would we be
without good old Oxygen? That makes it more important than most things
that get the Honor of capitalization.

As for CFLs, my anecdotal evidence is that they do not last as long as
advertised. I did just read a big article in the newspaper about
needing to recycle CFLs, so the attempt to get the word out is
working. There was also a whole section on how to clean up after a
broken bulb. That thing was so scary that, in spite of being a good
old lefty, I want to run out and hoard some incandescents. It began
with "open the windows and leave the room for 5-10 minutes, taking any
pets with you. Turn off central heat or A/C".

Here, it was obviously referring to this from the EPA:

http://epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

I mean really, do I want these things in my house?

On 1/20/2011 3:04 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...


Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100
years without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury
generated by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he made
it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Can you say "cumulative toxin"?


Which relates directly to how dangerous the mercury is from a broken bulb.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007...ehugger_14.php

What airborne mercury there is dissipates rapidly, there being no long
term chronic exposure to mercury. Even so, much remains bound up in the
fragments. Don't vacuum.

My general impression is that mercury content of CFLs is falling.
NVision (HD) claims 2.2mg to 3.3mg. I imagine others are following suit.

http://www.nvisioncfl.com/mercury.as...20in%20C FLs?

Jeff

On Jan 20, 8:04*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:





Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556....

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100 years
without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury generated
by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he made
it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Can you say "cumulative toxin"?

(And just curious: why did you capitalize Mercury? You're not of German
descent, are you?)

--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

* *To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
* *who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
* *that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't you have recycle centres over there? In the UK/Europe there are
recycle centre for hundreds of items in most towns, including
fluorescent tubes/bulbs. The mercury is recovered & reused.

harry wrote:

Don't you have recycle centres over there? In the UK/Europe there are
recycle centre for hundreds of items in most towns, including
fluorescent tubes/bulbs. The mercury is recovered & reused.

Sure, we have recycling centers.

It's hardly economical to burn up $3.00 worth of gas to carry a defunct
light bulb to the collection point.

Just thinking out-loud he

Assume the following:
* 120 million households in the US
* Each disposes of 5 CFLs per year
* Each CFL contains 5mg of mercury

That works out (120,000,000 x 5 x 0.005) = 3 million grams of mercury

If this 3 million grams of mercury were distributed uniformly over the
country, that works out to about 3/4 of a gram per square mile, not even
worth considering.

If, however, these 3 million grams of mercury were concentrated - in
landfills for example - one could simply avoid those areas.

We COULD establish a used CFL repository - call it "CfL Object Containment
Area," or "CLOCA Mountain" for short.

Or we could redirect all defunct CFLs to a recycling center.

The current price of mercury is $600/36Kg ($0.02/g), or about $0.00001 per
CFL. If some entity recovered ALL the mercury in the above hypothetical, its
revenue would be... fifty thousand dollars per year (120,000,000 households
x 5bulb/house x .005g/bulb x 1Kg/1000g x $600/36kg = $50.000)

A significant sum indeed.

In m, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100 years
without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury generated
by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he made
it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Can you say "cumulative toxin"?
SNIP from here

I am sick-and-tired of how much some people say whatever this-or-that
which is not widely considered to have existed in the Garden of Eden being
some poison that requires zero tolerance.

As much interest as there is in mercury toxicity, if mercury was so bad,
would there not be some big number count of diagnoses of mercury poisoning
after the days when 4-foot fluorescents had 10-11 times as much mercury as
CFLs on average have, after the days when such 4-footers were allowed to
be dumped into regular trash by commercial and industrial users?

Even in the 1980's, 4-foot fluorescents had 40 milligrams of mercury
IIRC, and schools, offices, hospitals and retail stores were allowed to
dump those into "regular trash". 4-foot fluorescents were the main light
source used in such places at least since sometime in the 1960's, more
likely 1950's.

So even now with lawyers looking for opportunity like that of asbestos,
how many diagnoses of mercury poisoning do we have nowadays?

And how much mercury pollution is attributed to fluorescent lamps, and
how much is attributed to coal burning? The way I hear it, coal burning
is the mercury problem, and even was back in the bad old days of
1960's-1980's when fluorescent lamps had a lot more mercury than they have
now, let alone the even smaller amount of mercury that CFLs have.
--
- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In m, David
Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over
100 years without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference
between incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The
Mercury generated by burning the extra coal is greater than that in
the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he
made it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Can you say "cumulative toxin"?
SNIP from here

I am sick-and-tired of how much some people say whatever this-or-that
which is not widely considered to have existed in the Garden of Eden
being some poison that requires zero tolerance.

As much interest as there is in mercury toxicity, if mercury was so
bad, would there not be some big number count of diagnoses of mercury
poisoning after the days when 4-foot fluorescents had 10-11 times as
much mercury as CFLs on average have, after the days when such
4-footers were allowed to be dumped into regular trash by commercial
and industrial users?

Even in the 1980's, 4-foot fluorescents had 40 milligrams of mercury
IIRC, and schools, offices, hospitals and retail stores were allowed
to dump those into "regular trash". 4-foot fluorescents were the
main light source used in such places at least since sometime in the
1960's, more likely 1950's.

So even now with lawyers looking for opportunity like that of
asbestos, how many diagnoses of mercury poisoning do we have nowadays?

And how much mercury pollution is attributed to fluorescent lamps,
and how much is attributed to coal burning? The way I hear it, coal
burning is the mercury problem, and even was back in the bad old days
of 1960's-1980's when fluorescent lamps had a lot more mercury than
they have now, let alone the even smaller amount of mercury that CFLs
have.

Several years ago I recall some groups getting all exercised about the
alarming levels of mercury in Chesapeake Bay fish. "We're all gonna die!"
was the concerted uproar.

Then somebody wrangled a fish from the Smithsonian that was caught in
Chesapeake Bay in the 1860's.

Guess what?

Yep. The museum fish had higher mercury levels than the most recent fish.

On 1/20/2011 1:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Joe wrote:
On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents? Typical of social engineering solutions,
solve one problem and create two or more that are worse.


Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100 years
without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury generated
by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.


What annoys me as a chemist is the general public thinks mercury in all
forms is toxic. If so, we'd all be dead from the mercury we handled as
kids or the fillings in our teeth or the Mercurochrome we used to use on
cuts.

"Joe" wrote in message
...

And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents?

I've seen discussion of that issue in the news media, repeatedly. It is
also kind of hard to miss when our local hardware store collects CFLs for
proper disposal along with dead batteries. Anyone who hasn't seen this
issue discussed in the news media is perhaps making an effort to see only
what they want to see.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=7431198
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home...s/news/4217864
http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/nov/...bul-ar-297958/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23694819...s-environment/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...ag=mncol;lst;3
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know...ght-bulb/3743/

DGDevin wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message
...

And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents?

I've seen discussion of that issue in the news media, repeatedly. It
is also kind of hard to miss when our local hardware store collects
CFLs for proper disposal along with dead batteries. Anyone who
hasn't seen this issue discussed in the news media is perhaps making
an effort to see only what they want to see.


And avoiding the histrionics of those screech about mercury with the
preamble "Thy Doom is Nigh!"

I don't begrudge the nay-sayers; such crusades give their otherwise
meaningless lives a purpose. I just wish they'd dial back the decibel level
and quit pestering normal folk.

On 1/20/2011 1:47 PM HeyBub spake thus:

DGDevin wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
...

And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury content of
the fluorescents?

I've seen discussion of that issue in the news media, repeatedly.
It is also kind of hard to miss when our local hardware store
collects CFLs for proper disposal along with dead batteries.
Anyone who hasn't seen this issue discussed in the news media is
perhaps making an effort to see only what they want to see.

And avoiding the histrionics of those screech about mercury with the
preamble "Thy Doom is Nigh!"

I don't begrudge the nay-sayers; such crusades give their otherwise
meaningless lives a purpose. I just wish they'd dial back the decibel level
and quit pestering normal folk.

Since you're so obviously of the "don't worry about that stuff--it won't
hurt you! It's just a bunch of namby-pamby enviros agitatin' folks!"
persuasion, why do you even bother to argue that CFL usage is good
because it reduces overall mercury emission by reducing coal burning?
Why would you even care about this? By your lights, we might just as
well go on using inefficient incandescents.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

And avoiding the histrionics of those screech about mercury with the
preamble "Thy Doom is Nigh!"

I don't begrudge the nay-sayers; such crusades give their otherwise
meaningless lives a purpose. I just wish they'd dial back the
decibel level and quit pestering normal folk.

Since you're so obviously of the "don't worry about that stuff--it
won't hurt you! It's just a bunch of namby-pamby enviros agitatin'
folks!" persuasion, why do you even bother to argue that CFL usage is
good because it reduces overall mercury emission by reducing coal
burning? Why would you even care about this? By your lights, we might
just as well go on using inefficient incandescents.

Where did I say that CFL usage is good?

I don't CARE whether CFL usage is good, bad, or smokes a cigar.

I was merely trying to illustrate the silliness of the hand-wringing and
chin-quivering crowd by pointing out we've been using florescenet lights for
over a century with nary a peep out of those who are now hopping up and
down.

As for using "inefficient incandescents," I don't care whether someone uses
legacy bulbs either. If pressed, I'd say let the market decide. If anything,
I'm opposed to the government mandating things that should be a market
decision: such as CFLs or CAFE standards.

I also feel the same way about child-proof caps; I want my children to have
all the same opportunities I had.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

And avoiding the histrionics of those screech about mercury with the
preamble "Thy Doom is Nigh!"

I don't begrudge the nay-sayers; such crusades give their otherwise
meaningless lives a purpose. I just wish they'd dial back the decibel
level and quit pestering normal folk.

When famed American WWII combat photographer W. Eugene Smith began
publishing photos documenting the effect of mercury poisoning on the people
of the Japanese fishing village of Minamata, the company responsible for the
poisoning (by dumping industrial waste) came up with the solution of sending
goons to savagely beat Smith--that being a cost-effective way of
discouraging bad publicity. And of course there were plenty of folks like
you who just didn't want to hear about it, "normal" people who were busy
giving their lives purpose by buying things from companies that like to keep
costs down by pumping toxic waste into the sea or wherever rather than
disposing of it safely. So thousands of people were blinded, paralyzed,
deformed and killed--it's shame, but what business is that of a happy
consumer?

Eventually medical science, politics and the law caught up with the Chisso
corporation, and they had to pay almost $90 million in compensation to their
victims and clean up the mess they had made for over three decades. But
they're still in business, and today one in six American children born has
already been exposed to dangerously high levels of mercury in the womb
thanks to seafood contaminated by mercury, tuna in particular. But what the
hell, you're not going to have any kids at your age, come to think of it you
don't have that many years left yourself. Life is dangerous, and if one of
America's favorite foods isn't safe for pregnant women to eat, how is that
your problem? Damn eco-crusaders, always bitching about something you'd
rather not think about, why can't they leave "normal" people alone?

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

And avoiding the histrionics of those screech about mercury with the
preamble "Thy Doom is Nigh!"

I don't begrudge the nay-sayers; such crusades give their otherwise
meaningless lives a purpose. I just wish they'd dial back the decibel
level and quit pestering normal folk.

When famed American WWII combat photographer W. Eugene Smith began
publishing photos documenting the effect of mercury poisoning on the
people of the Japanese fishing village of Minamata, the company
responsible for the poisoning (by dumping industrial waste) came up
with the solution of sending goons to savagely beat Smith--that being
a cost-effective way of discouraging bad publicity. And of course
there were plenty of folks like you who just didn't want to hear
about it, "normal" people who were busy giving their lives purpose by
buying things from companies that like to keep costs down by pumping
toxic waste into the sea or wherever rather than disposing of it
safely. So thousands of people were blinded, paralyzed, deformed and
killed--it's shame, but what business is that of a happy consumer?

Eventually medical science, politics and the law caught up with the
Chisso corporation, and they had to pay almost $90 million in
compensation to their victims and clean up the mess they had made for
over three decades. But they're still in business, and today one in
six American children born has already been exposed to dangerously
high levels of mercury in the womb thanks to seafood contaminated by
mercury, tuna in particular. But what the hell, you're not going to
have any kids at your age, come to think of it you don't have that
many years left yourself. Life is dangerous, and if one of America's
favorite foods isn't safe for pregnant women to eat, how is that your
problem? Damn eco-crusaders, always bitching about something you'd
rather not think about, why can't they leave "normal" people alone?

Heh!

Did I say ANYTHING about mercury being absolutely safe, or that I wanted it
added to a baby's formula?

My disgust has nothing to do with mercury, tuna, or the Japanese. Read it
again.

My beef is with the "true believers" who pester the rest of us to death and
insist on imposing their lifestyle choices. Soon we'll all be forced to eat
arugula three times a day even though our president as said it is too
expensive.

On Jan 21, 12:05*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message

m...

And avoiding the histrionics of those screech about mercury with the
preamble "Thy Doom is Nigh!"
I don't begrudge the nay-sayers; such crusades give their otherwise
meaningless lives a purpose. I just wish they'd dial back the decibel
level and quit pestering normal folk.

When famed American WWII combat photographer W. Eugene Smith began
publishing photos documenting the effect of mercury poisoning on the people
of the Japanese fishing village of Minamata, the company responsible for the
poisoning (by dumping industrial waste) came up with the solution of sending
goons to savagely beat Smith--that being a cost-effective way of
discouraging bad publicity. *And of course there were plenty of folks like
you who just didn't want to hear about it, "normal" people who were busy
giving their lives purpose by buying things from companies that like to keep
costs down by pumping toxic waste into the sea or wherever rather than
disposing of it safely. *So thousands of people were blinded, paralyzed,
deformed and killed--it's shame, but what business is that of a happy
consumer?

Eventually medical science, politics and the law caught up with the Chisso
corporation, and they had to pay almost $90 million in compensation to their
victims and clean up the mess they had made for over three decades. *But
they're still in business, and today one in six American children born has
already been exposed to dangerously high levels of mercury in the womb
thanks to seafood contaminated by mercury, tuna in particular. *But what the
hell, you're not going to have any kids at your age, come to think of it you
don't have that many years left yourself. *Life is dangerous, and if one of
America's favorite foods isn't safe for pregnant women to eat, how is that
your problem? *Damn eco-crusaders, always bitching about something you'd
rather not think about, why can't they leave "normal" people alone?

Here's another more concerning one for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychl...#United_States


Talking about contaminants, there's also the agent orange/dioxin
scattered about in Vietnam by the USA causing all sorts of problem
even now from cancer to birth defects. I wonder when you're going to
clear that up?
And that was deliberate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

In ,
Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52*am, Molly Brown wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents? Typical of social engineering solutions,
solve one problem and create two or more that are worse.

One thing to keep in mind:

On average, replacing incandescents with CFLs actually reduces mercury
pollution. This is because CFL-decreasable coal burning puts more mercury
into the environment than the CFLs used to replace such incandescents in
question have.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:13:19 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52Â*am, Molly Brown wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents? Typical of social engineering solutions,
solve one problem and create two or more that are worse.

One thing to keep in mind:

On average, replacing incandescents with CFLs actually reduces mercury
pollution. This is because CFL-decreasable coal burning puts more mercury
into the environment than the CFLs used to replace such incandescents in
question have.
That is only true if the CFL has a reasonable fifespan. Even a dirty
coal generating station puts out less mercury than is used in a CFL
bulb if it only lasts for 100 hours.

In , wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:13:19 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52Â*am, Molly Brown wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents? Typical of social engineering solutions,
solve one problem and create two or more that are worse.

One thing to keep in mind:

On average, replacing incandescents with CFLs actually reduces mercury
pollution. This is because CFL-decreasable coal burning puts more mercury
into the environment than the CFLs used to replace such incandescents in
question have.
That is only true if the CFL has a reasonable fifespan. Even a dirty
coal generating station puts out less mercury than is used in a CFL
bulb if it only lasts for 100 hours.

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)
--
- Don Klipstein )

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:20:13 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:13:19 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52ÂÂ*am, Molly Brown wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents? Typical of social engineering solutions,
solve one problem and create two or more that are worse.

One thing to keep in mind:

On average, replacing incandescents with CFLs actually reduces mercury
pollution. This is because CFL-decreasable coal burning puts more mercury
into the environment than the CFLs used to replace such incandescents in
question have.
That is only true if the CFL has a reasonable fifespan. Even a dirty
coal generating station puts out less mercury than is used in a CFL
bulb if it only lasts for 100 hours.

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)
You are getting almost 4 times my (average)cfl lifespan. And I'm
using the bulbs made for the specific use (in this case PAR type
reflector floods in pot-lights)

In article
,
Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595565026.html

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

On 1/20/2011 12:42 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Molly wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595565026.html

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

LED's require a set directional DC voltage. I think that's going to be
the big price drawback. Great for flashlights with batteries but $100
LED bulb with built in AC to DC converter is not worth it.

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 1/20/2011 12:42 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Molly wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595565026.html

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

LED's require a set directional DC voltage. I think that's going to be
the big price drawback. Great for flashlights with batteries but $100 LED
bulb with built in AC to DC converter is not worth it.

I build my own LED night lights to illuminate our halls and bath rooms for
rising during the night. Plug into wall outlets. A diode in series changes
the AC to 1/2 wave DC. Leave them on 24 hours a day. Works great. WW

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:03:39 -0700, "WW" wrote:


"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 1/20/2011 12:42 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Molly wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595565026.html

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

LED's require a set directional DC voltage. I think that's going to be
the big price drawback. Great for flashlights with batteries but $100 LED
bulb with built in AC to DC converter is not worth it.

Don't need one. LEDs ARE AC to DC converters. The problem is dimming them
cheaply.

I build my own LED night lights to illuminate our halls and bath rooms for
rising during the night. Plug into wall outlets. A diode in series changes
the AC to 1/2 wave DC. Leave them on 24 hours a day. Works great. WW

LEDs *ARE* diodes. Another diode in series does nothing except waste power. A
diode bridge around them, making it full-wave DC, is a good idea, however.

In article ,
" wrote:

The problem is dimming them
cheaply.

LM3445, National Semiconductor's triac dimmable LED driver, may fit your
definition of cheap. Or not. But it appears to be serviceable.

On Jan 20, 6:12*pm, Frank wrote:
On 1/20/2011 12:42 PM, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,
* Molly *wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556....

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

LED's require a set directional DC voltage. *I think that's going to be
the big price drawback. *Great for flashlights with batteries but $100
LED bulb with built in AC to DC converter is not worth it.

You can buy LED lightbulbs (mains voltage) in the UK for only a few
pounds.
http://www.ledbulbs.co.uk/

In article , Frank wrote:
On 1/20/2011 12:42 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Molly wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595565026.html

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

LED's require a set directional DC voltage. I think that's going to be
the big price drawback. Great for flashlights with batteries but $100
LED bulb with built in AC to DC converter is not worth it.

Converting AC to DC costs more like 50 cents than $100.

For that matter, in the usual screw-base CFLs, the with-the-bulb
electronic ballast starts with changing the AC to DC for the electronics
to work with. The electronic workings even changes the DC back to AC of a
higher frequency - generally, fluorescents have one end getting starved
of mercury if forced to work for long on DC.
There is even a bit of history of some fluorescent fixtures made to use
where available power of suitable voltage was DC ande not AC - the
ballasting was different and the switch had a 4-pushes-per-full-switch-cycle
design to reverse polarity of DC applied to the fluorescent bulb every
time it was switched on.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On Jan 20, 12:42*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

Well, I have been using CFL's for 20 years. Not exclusively, but now
they are dirt
cheap. Some burn out right away, and I hate Feit brand.. They have
more
parts and have more problems. They burn out quicker the more you turn
them on and off.


I got lights constantly on in the house. I got CFL's and LED's.
I got LED's all over outside. I'm going to do some updating, and found
the new CREE
with high output. I always use the CREE warm white when possible. I
cannot stand blue light.
Blue light is harsh and scatters too much. I saw the new LED style but
have not come
across it yet. The new LED light is almost like a CFL. Its got a large
outer bulb with
florescent material. Inside are a number of UV LED's which illuminate
the outer bulb.


Here is the new CREE dulux and you can easily get 900 Lumen s or
more.....
http://ledsupply.com/creexpg-ww315.php

greg

On Jan 20, 1:47*pm, zek wrote:
On Jan 20, 12:42*pm, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,
*Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556....

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

Well, I have been using CFL's for 20 years. Not exclusively, but now
they are dirt
cheap. Some burn out right away, and I hate Feit brand.. They have
more
parts and have more problems. They burn out quicker the more you turn
them on and off.

I got lights constantly on in the house. I got CFL's and LED's.
I got LED's all over outside. I'm going to do some updating, and found
the new CREE
with high output. I always use the CREE warm white when possible. I
cannot stand blue light.
Blue light is harsh and scatters too much. I saw the new LED style but
have not come
across it yet. The new LED light is almost like a CFL. Its got a large
outer bulb with
florescent material. Inside are a number of UV LED's which illuminate
the outer bulb.

Here is the new CREE dulux and you can easily get 900 Lumen s or
more.....http://ledsupply.com/creexpg-ww315.php

greg

Oh yes, it could also be said, LED's burn out quicker than expected.
When they are run too hot they will go bad. How many
LED's do you see out on bus tail lights. The sun generates huge
amounts
of heat damaging them.

greg

In ,
zek wrote:

SNIP previously quoted material

Oh yes, it could also be said, LED's burn out quicker than expected.
When they are run too hot they will go bad. How many
LED's do you see out on bus tail lights. The sun generates huge
amounts of heat damaging them.

So far, I am not seeing noticeably faded LEDs on buses or in traffic
lights. However, white ones have a phosphor fading issue. Also, LED
lighting units usually get more watts per square inch of exposed surface
than LED automotive taillights and LED traffic lights.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On Jan 20, 1:47*pm, zek wrote:
On Jan 20, 12:42*pm, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,
*Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556....

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

Well, I have been using CFL's for 20 years. Not exclusively, but now
they are dirt
cheap. Some burn out right away, and I hate Feit brand.. They have
more
parts and have more problems. They burn out quicker the more you turn
them on and off.

Heh. I have 6 CFL BR-40's here in my home office. I did some
research and thought the FEITs sounded good. Those *******s all
burned out.

I got lights constantly on in the house. I got CFL's and LED's.
I got LED's all over outside. I'm going to do some updating, and found
the new CREE
with high output. I always use the CREE warm white when possible. I
cannot stand blue light.
Blue light is harsh and scatters too much. I saw the new LED style but
have not come
across it yet. The new LED light is almost like a CFL. Its got a large
outer bulb with
florescent material. Inside are a number of UV LED's which illuminate
the outer bulb.

Here is the new CREE dulux and you can easily get 900 Lumen s or
more.....http://ledsupply.com/creexpg-ww315.php

greg

On Jan 20, 11:42*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

If they can bring the cost down then I am on board in a heartbeat.
The CFL's have proven to be a lot of hype but very little on
delivery. They are touted to last much longer but my experince thus
far has proven that claim to be a total lie. If anything, the life
span for the CFL's have thus far been about 10%-15% shorter than
incadecents but cost 4 times as much. If they are saving anything on
usage it is more than offset by the cost of purchase and replacement.
As for the LED's, I am not about to pay 10 times more for them only to
see the same results.

Sign me SOLD because I have replaced nearly every light in the house
with CFL's and SCREWED because I feel like I was the one screwed in
instead of the lightbulb.

On Jan 20, 7:37*pm, BobR wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:42*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,
*Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556....

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

If they can bring the cost down then I am on board in a heartbeat.
The CFL's have proven to be a lot of hype but very little on
delivery. *They are touted to last much longer but my experince thus
far has proven that claim to be a total lie. *If anything, the life
span for the CFL's have thus far been about 10%-15% shorter than
incadecents but cost 4 times as much. *If they are saving anything on
usage it is more than offset by the cost of purchase and replacement.
As for the LED's, I am not about to pay 10 times more for them only to
see the same results.

Sign me SOLD because I have replaced nearly every light in the house
with CFL's and SCREWED because I feel like I was the one screwed in
instead of the lightbulb.

I write the date on mine when I put them in to keep track of these
claims. So far they seem to last longer, dunno how much longer. The
ends of the tubes go black on some makes (No filiment/ cathode shades
I think)