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
,
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.

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 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.

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 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

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.

"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 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.

On 1/20/2011 9:42 AM Smitty Two spake thus:

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.

They may have solved those problems, but what hasn't been solved is the
LED's inherent power inefficiency as the devices get scaled up from
cell-phone size. It's pretty much a brick-wall problem at this point.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconduct...ds-dark-secret


--
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.

"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/

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
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.

I'm just waiting for the price to drop a little more before I start
replacing our CFLs with LEDs. The CFLs saved us a pile of money on our
electric bill although I have been disappointed in how short a lifespan some
of them have--LED lighting will take care of that. Our neighbor who owns a
nightclub has gone with LED lighting including for stage lighting, it not
only saves him money on his power bill but the lights run a lot cooler so he
doesn't have to keep the air conditioning cranked all the time, saving more
money.

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.

DGDevin wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
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.

I'm just waiting for the price to drop a little more before I start
replacing our CFLs with LEDs. The CFLs saved us a pile of money on our
electric bill although I have been disappointed in how short a lifespan some
of them have--LED lighting will take care of that. Our neighbor who owns a
nightclub has gone with LED lighting including for stage lighting, it not
only saves him money on his power bill but the lights run a lot cooler so he
doesn't have to keep the air conditioning cranked all the time, saving more
money.

I've been using almost entirely CFLs for probably 8 years now, and I'm
generally happy with them. They cut electricity consumption
significantly, and unlike some folks, I have no issues with short CFL
life spans, even in a few enclosed fixtures. When I moved to my current
house in mid 2004 I replaced just about all the incandescents (except
closets) with CFLs, now at the start of 2011 I've replaced 1 (one) CFL,
and that was the victim of accidentally being left on a half wave dimmer
overnight.

As affordable LED lamps have been appearing in the stores I've
periodically experimented with them a bit, but so far I haven't found
any that would be suitable replacements for most of my home lighting. I
do have a couple LED down lights in one bathroom that work ok, but if
there was a female in the house using that bathroom they would banned
since the light distribution and color temperature aren't "makeup
grade".

I'm afraid that for LED lighting to go "mainstream" lighting fixtures
need to be redesigned. While CFL technology with it's omnidirectional
output was adaptable to replace omnidirectional incandescents, LEDs are
directional and simply don't work well in current fixture designs. Stage
/ studio lighting had this redesign and as noted are now gaining
popularity for both power and A/C load reduction.

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.

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.

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

"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?

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.

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 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 Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:30:39 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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.


Sometimes things that affect all of us shouldn't be left to the
choices of individuals - or the market. That's why we have a
government run by people that we go vote for. Well, actually the
government is run by the wealthy and corporate power but at least in
theory it's ours.

Corporations have no morals and only care about its bottom line. I
don't trust them to make decisions for me.

The market for incandescents does not price the cost of using the bulb
into the cost of buying them. Lots of folks don't consider the total
cost of ownership. And those who rent or otherwise don't pay directly
for their power may not care that it's actually more expensive to buy
incandescents even though it's better for us as a society, country,
and world, that we use less energy.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:37:38 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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.

Straw man argument. Soon you will not be forced to eat arugula so fine
job of killing the straw man. Throwing absurdities up to mock serious
issues doesn't work.

The market for incandescents does not price the cost of using the bulb
into the cost of buying them. Lots of folks don't consider the total
cost of ownership. And those who rent or otherwise don't pay directly
for their power may not care that it's actually more expensive to buy
incandescents even though it's better for us as a society, country,
and world, that we use less energy.- Hide quoted text -

-

Is the full life environmental cycle cost of producing and disposing
of CFLs priced into their sales price?

NO....

Mark

On Jan 20, 3:45*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Smitty Two" *wrote in message

news
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.

I'm just waiting for the price to drop a little more before I start
replacing our CFLs with LEDs. *The CFLs saved us a pile of money on our
electric bill although I have been disappointed in how short a lifespan some
of them have--LED lighting will take care of that. *Our neighbor who owns a
nightclub has gone with LED lighting including for stage lighting, it not
only saves him money on his power bill but the lights run a lot cooler so he
doesn't have to keep the air conditioning cranked all the time, saving more
money.

In my experience, a CFL will last 1 1/2 years outside in terrible
conditions,
IF you leave it on continuously like I did. I love not having to
change inside or out lamps so often,
and I enjoy the savings.

I'm using these cheap DC to DC converters on my LED's. Big trouble, I
have to
go around and figure on what kind of filter I need to add on about10.
My house is a giant transmitter. My FM radio reception is horrible. I
got carrier buzz all over the spectrum. I just found this out recently
while driving my car.

greg

On Jan 20, 3:45*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Smitty Two" *wrote in message

news
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.

I'm just waiting for the price to drop a little more before I start
replacing our CFLs with LEDs. *The CFLs saved us a pile of money on our
electric bill although I have been disappointed in how short a lifespan some
of them have--LED lighting will take care of that. *Our neighbor who owns a
nightclub has gone with LED lighting including for stage lighting, it not
only saves him money on his power bill but the lights run a lot cooler so he
doesn't have to keep the air conditioning cranked all the time, saving more
money.

Try this again since OGGLE screwd up again.
I get about 12000 hours from a CFL left constantly on outside, and
that includes summertime very high heat inside a closed bell.
The more you turn them on the faster they will go bad.
I have had some go bad at the very beginning. There are so many
manufacturers
its hard to stay with old reliable.

I got a big problem with my LED's, my house transmits for a block.
My FM reception is horrible. I need to install many filters on
the DC current converters.

greg

On Jan 21, 12:44*pm, zek wrote:
On Jan 20, 3:45*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:



"Smitty Two" *wrote in message

news

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.

I'm just waiting for the price to drop a little more before I start
replacing our CFLs with LEDs. *The CFLs saved us a pile of money on our
electric bill although I have been disappointed in how short a lifespan some
of them have--LED lighting will take care of that. *Our neighbor who owns a
nightclub has gone with LED lighting including for stage lighting, it not
only saves him money on his power bill but the lights run a lot cooler so he
doesn't have to keep the air conditioning cranked all the time, saving more
money.

Try this again since OGGLE screwd up again.
I get about 12000 hours from a CFL left constantly on outside, and
that includes summertime very high heat inside a closed bell.
The more you turn them on the faster they will go bad.
I have had some go bad at the very beginning. There are so many
manufacturers
its hard to stay with old reliable.

I got a big problem with my LED's, my house transmits for a block.
My FM reception is horrible. I need to install many filters on
the DC current converters.

greg

I wanted to add, I have maybe 3 in the house I leave on all the time.
Partly for my kittys, and partly, it saves flicking the switch.

My LED's inside are on all the time, and are attached to a battery
backup. There are some in bathroom and kitchen under cabinet.
Will add some more when I finish basement.

zek wrote:
On Jan 21, 12:44 pm, wrote:
On Jan 20, 3:45 pm, wrote:



"Smitty Two" wrote in message

news

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.

I'm just waiting for the price to drop a little more before I start
replacing our CFLs with LEDs. The CFLs saved us a pile of money on our
electric bill although I have been disappointed in how short a lifespan some
of them have--LED lighting will take care of that. Our neighbor who owns a
nightclub has gone with LED lighting including for stage lighting, it not
only saves him money on his power bill but the lights run a lot cooler so he
doesn't have to keep the air conditioning cranked all the time, saving more
money.

Try this again since OGGLE screwd up again.
I get about 12000 hours from a CFL left constantly on outside, and
that includes summertime very high heat inside a closed bell.
The more you turn them on the faster they will go bad.
I have had some go bad at the very beginning. There are so many
manufacturers
its hard to stay with old reliable.

I got a big problem with my LED's, my house transmits for a block.
My FM reception is horrible. I need to install many filters on
the DC current converters.

greg

I wanted to add, I have maybe 3 in the house I leave on all the time.
Partly for my kittys, and partly, it saves flicking the switch.

My LED's inside are on all the time, and are attached to a battery
backup. There are some in bathroom and kitchen under cabinet.
Will add some more when I finish basement.
Hi,

I bought half dozen LED bulbs a year ago for testing. One inside garage,
one outside on a patio light pole, one in my study/ One outside
did not last long, a few moonths, one in the garage there after.
3rd one is still working. In our area street lights in new neighborhood
is all LED lighting some with solar panel.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:36:51 -0800 (PST), Mark
wrote:


The market for incandescents does not price the cost of using the bulb
into the cost of buying them. Lots of folks don't consider the total
cost of ownership. And those who rent or otherwise don't pay directly
for their power may not care that it's actually more expensive to buy
incandescents even though it's better for us as a society, country,
and world, that we use less energy.- Hide quoted text -

-

Is the full life environmental cycle cost of producing and disposing
of CFLs priced into their sales price?

NO....

Mark

It is not figured into their sale price, nor into the published
operating costs. An incandescent bulb requires a lot less energy and
materials to manufacture, and creates a lot less garbage when it is
finished. IF the CFL lamps lasted as long as they are perported to
last, they might be worth while - but by and large they are NOT.

I've got quite a few in use because we are told it's the "right" thing
to do. I'm sure not fully convinced, judging from my experience with
the overpriced crap.

On Jan 20, 8:30*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
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.

Ah but the Government has decided that we must be protected from
ourselves and that we are way too stupid to figure out what is or
isn't good for us. I can't wait until these government BURRO-CRAPS
decide that I am using too many sheets of toilet paper and want to
come wipe my ass for me.

On Jan 21, 8:10*am, dgk wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:30:39 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:





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.

Sometimes things that affect all of us shouldn't be left to the
choices of individuals - or the market. That's why we have a
government run by people that we go vote for.

NO that is NOT what we have the government for, that is a total
fabrication of those who think they should be in control of others.

Well, actually the
government is run by the wealthy and corporate power but at least in
theory it's ours.

Corporations have no morals and only care about its bottom line. I
don't trust them to make decisions for me.


And you think the government Burro-Craps (Jackasses who **** on us
all) should make those decisions for you?

The market for incandescents does not price the cost of using the bulb
into the cost of buying them. Lots of folks don't consider the total
cost of ownership. And those who rent or otherwise don't pay directly
for their power may not care that it's actually more expensive to buy
incandescents even though it's better for us as a society, country,
and world, that we use less energy.

If I decide that I am willing to pay the cost of using, that should be
my choice not yours and not the governments. Rather it is "better for
society" as a whole is a very debatable issue. If in fact you primary
concern is what is best for "society" or the "world" in general, then
rather we use CFL's or incandescents should be the least of your
worries, there are far larger fish to fry.

On 1/21/2011 9:20 AM zek spake thus:

I'm using these cheap DC to DC converters on my LED's. Big trouble, I
have to go around and figure on what kind of filter I need to add on
about10. My house is a giant transmitter. My FM radio reception is
horrible. I got carrier buzz all over the spectrum. I just found this
out recently while driving my car.

What on earth are you talking about?

DC-to-DC converters? Why? Do you run your house on 12 volt batteries?

And are your radio reception problems due to RFI from your inverters? It
must be *really* bad if you're getting interference on FM!

I'm curious about your situation.


--
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.

On Jan 21, 1:01*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
zek wrote:
On Jan 21, 12:44 pm, *wrote:
On Jan 20, 3:45 pm, *wrote:

"Smitty Two" *wrote in message

news

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.

I'm just waiting for the price to drop a little more before I start
replacing our CFLs with LEDs. *The CFLs saved us a pile of money on our
electric bill although I have been disappointed in how short a lifespan some
of them have--LED lighting will take care of that. *Our neighbor who owns a
nightclub has gone with LED lighting including for stage lighting, it not
only saves him money on his power bill but the lights run a lot cooler so he
doesn't have to keep the air conditioning cranked all the time, saving more
money.

Try this again since OGGLE screwd up again.
I get about 12000 hours from a CFL left constantly on outside, and
that includes summertime very high heat inside a closed bell.
The more you turn them on the faster they will go bad.
I have had some go bad at the very beginning. There are so many
manufacturers
its hard to stay with old reliable.

I got a big problem with my LED's, my house transmits for a block.
My FM reception is horrible. I need to install many filters on
the DC current converters.

greg

I wanted to add, I have maybe 3 in the house I leave on all the time.
Partly for my kittys, and partly, it saves flicking the switch.

My LED's inside are on all the time, and are attached to a battery
backup. There are some in bathroom and kitchen under cabinet.
Will add some more when I finish basement.

Hi,

I bought half dozen LED bulbs a year ago for testing. One inside garage,
one outside on a patio light pole, one in my study/ One outside
did not last long, a few moonths, one in the garage there after.
3rd one is still working. In our area street lights in new neighborhood
is all LED lighting some with solar panel.

I count 14 I have around the house. I run the interiors at 50-100
milliwatt
and they will last a looong time. I'm pushing at 3 watts two to spot
my trees.
People will start to get smart and light only the area they want lit.
With lens
is easy. Its not usually necessary to light the whole room.

dgk wrote:

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.

Straw man argument. Soon you will not be forced to eat arugula so fine
job of killing the straw man. Throwing absurdities up to mock serious
issues doesn't work.

No, one of the tests of logic is to take the proposition to the logical
extreme. That this extreme only exposes the presenter to ridicule and scorn
is merely a plus.

A supreme court justice said, just yesterday, that if a certain course of
reasoning were to be adopted, "we are not just throwing a monkey wrench into
the gears of government contracting; we're throwing the whole monkey."

There is no better way to discredit a proposition than to make fun of it.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


There is no better way to discredit a proposition than to make fun of it.

Especially if mockery is all you have.

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


There is no better way to discredit a proposition than to make fun
of it.

Especially if mockery is all you have.

Often that's all you need.