T i m formulated the question :
Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was inside the actual device -usually the higher power rated
devices.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

After serious thinking Andy Dingley wrote :
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:58:33 GMT, (Sponix) wrote:

It's the phosphor powder on the inside of the tube that is the
problem.

Not usually (_some_ obscure phosphors are hazzardous)

The problem with fluorescents is the mercury vapour in them.

Liquid mercury I believe.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:47:45 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On 11 Feb 2006 09:00:14 -0800, wrote:
The mercury released from the teeth
fillings of the people who died is orders of magnitude higher.
In the UK, it averages 3g per person at the crematorium.

Sheesh - how many people nowadays have Hg fillings in their teeth?

I'm not sure about that, but modern filling materials are stronger and
adhere better than amalgam filling material so when it comes to
replacement


I can't agree there

I've had problems with ceramic fillings falling out

Don't know what exactly that was, but it sounds like something more
complicated than an amalgam or composite filling. An inlay or onlay or
somesuch, and therefore not a direct comparison.

However whilst the modern bonding systems do work they have to be done
absolutely "right". If the surfaces are not prepared properly
beforehand failure can be expected.


my molar fillings are Hg amalgam

Amalgam doesn't stick to tooth material at all, The filling is
retained by the preparation being "undercut" and tamped into position
before it hardens. Therefore the perimeter of the filling is always
vulnerable to the admission of food and bacteria leading to decay. Any
repair always involves a bigger filling. Bigger fillings are subject
to thermal stress and cracking which admits bacteria to the tooth
material under the filling, leading to hidden decay and abcesses.

The undercutting weakens the tooth. Eventually, if the filling is on
the biting surface the filling gets very large, the structure of the
tooth is fatally weakened, and the forces of biting cause the corners
of the tooth to break off.

Apart from this Hg fillings are allright. :-)

Except for the "Mercury" issue.

DG

In message , Harry Bloomfield
writes
T i m formulated the question :
Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was inside the actual device -usually the higher power rated
devices.

The main danger was from insulating heatsink washers - I've got some
somewhere. The danger being from inhaling beryllium dust if one got
broken

--
geoff

In article . com
wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
"Peter Crosland" writes:

The mercury released from the teeth
fillings of the people who died is orders of magnitude higher.
In the UK, it averages 3g per person at the crematorium.

Sheesh - how many people nowadays have Hg fillings in their teeth?

I do. I've still got all my childhood fillings in there. They've done
me for 30 years, why would I change them now ?

Me too. I've had a couple replaced with nice modern ones in colour-
matched resin because the old ones were knackered, but the rest are
still slowly poisoning me :-)

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:12:54 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Harry Bloomfield
writes
T i m formulated the question :
Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was inside the actual device -usually the higher power rated
devices.

The main danger was from insulating heatsink washers - I've got some
somewhere. The danger being from inhaling beryllium dust if one got
broken

Were they the translucent ones you found under 2N3055's ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

In message , T i m
writes
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:12:54 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Harry Bloomfield
writes
T i m formulated the question :
Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was inside the actual device -usually the higher power rated
devices.

The main danger was from insulating heatsink washers - I've got some
somewhere. The danger being from inhaling beryllium dust if one got
broken

Were they the translucent ones you found under 2N3055's ;-)

No that would be nylon

Beryllium is white and hard - a bit like ceramic

--
geoff

raden wrote:
In message , T i m
writes
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:12:54 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Harry Bloomfield
writes
T i m formulated the question :
Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was inside the actual device -usually the higher power rated
devices.

The main danger was from insulating heatsink washers - I've got some
somewhere. The danger being from inhaling beryllium dust if one got
broken

Were they the translucent ones you found under 2N3055's ;-)

No that would be nylon

Never. Mica usually..Mylar also used.

Beryllium is white and hard - a bit like ceramic


No, beryllium is a metal. Its beryllium OXIDE that is hard and white.

In article , raden
wrote:

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On 11 Feb 2006 09:00:14 -0800, wrote:
The mercury released from the teeth
fillings of the people who died is orders of magnitude higher.
In the UK, it averages 3g per person at the crematorium.

Sheesh - how many people nowadays have Hg fillings in their teeth?

I'm not sure about that, but modern filling materials are stronger and
adhere better than amalgam filling material so when it comes to
replacement


I can't agree there

I've had problems with ceramic fillings falling out

I think that used to be the case but apparently there's been recent
developments with "white" fillings that make them stronger than amalgam.
My dentist proposes to replace a persistently troublesome broken amalgam
filling with a white one which he reckons should have a better chance of
survival. More expensive than amalgam and not available on the NHS
because it's not a front tooth but probably more cost effective
considering the number of times amalgam ones in that tooth have broken.

--
Mike Clarke

Kev wrote:

Also bearing in mind that there has been debate this week about fining
people for using a filament bulb and encougaging the use of compact
fluorescent bulbs whether the CO2 saved by using the more efficient
bulbs is going to be more than offset by the extra CO2 used in
disposing of Fluorescent tubes and bulbs.


Kev wrote:

So the upshot is a tube is an environmental hazard but we don't know
what the hazardous material is. It is ok to waste fuel taking it to the
dump but that we should all ditch the use of filament bulbs because
they waste energy and use tubes and compact bulbs but you can't dispose
of them because they are a hazard.

As far as wasting fuel is concerned, crunch the numbers, it's easy
enough.

Let's say you use 1 litre of petrol taking your tube to the dump.

But 1 litre of petrol releases 7 MJ (MegaJoules) of energy.

There are 3.6 MJ per kwh (kilowatt-hour).

So you have used approximately 2 kwh of energy going down the dump.

Your tube has burned for 5000 hours before giving up the ghost.

So the extra energy cost of taking the dead tube to the dump amounts
to a cost of 2kwh divided by 5000 hours = 0.4 watts per hour of
usage.

Strictly speaking, the cost is 0.4W per litre of petrol per dump trip,
so if you live 2 litres away, the savings must amount to 0.8W per tube

Now, as most tubes save about 75 percent of electricity over filament
bulbs, I'll leave it to you to judge whether taking dead tubes to
your particular dump is worth it.

For example, if you replace a 100W filament bulb with a 20W
low-consumption tube, your savings are 80W per hour. Over 5000 hours
that is 400,000 watt-hours or 400 kwh.

This translates to 400 multiplied by 3.6 (kwh to MJ conversion) or
1440 MJ, which is equivalent to 1440 divided by 7 = 206 litres of
petrol.

So if you live nearer than 103 litres of petrol away from your dump,
you will save by replacing one 100W filament bulb with a 20W
fluorescent.

If even if you live in Land's End, and dump your tube in Scotland, the
planet will be better off.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:03:12 +0000, Kate wrote:

Let's say you use 1 litre of petrol taking your tube to the dump.

Lets assume 30mpg, 0.5l to get there, 0.5l to get back, means the dump is
about 3 miles away I doubt many people live that close to a dump these
days. In urban areas the round trip might be 30 miles, rural a 100.

But 1 litre of petrol releases 7 MJ (MegaJoules) of energy.

There are 3.6 MJ per kwh (kilowatt-hour).

So you have used approximately 2 kwh of energy going down the dump.

Those figures don't look right 2kWhr (eh? a measure of power [energy use
per unit time] not energy, joules is energy) to shift a tonne 6 miles at
speed. And what about the (in)efficiency of the internal combustion
engine? You may be putting 7MJ in but you don't get 7MJ at the wheels.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

T i m expressed precisely :
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:12:54 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Harry Bloomfield
writes
T i m formulated the question :
Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was inside the actual device -usually the higher power rated
devices.

The main danger was from insulating heatsink washers - I've got some
somewhere. The danger being from inhaling beryllium dust if one got
broken

Were they the translucent ones you found under 2N3055's ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

Those I think were mica.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Those figures don't look right 2kWhr (eh? a measure of power [energy use
per unit time] not energy, joules is energy) to shift a tonne 6 miles at
speed. And what about the (in)efficiency of the internal combustion
engine? You may be putting 7MJ in but you don't get 7MJ at the wheels.

They're not right - the gross calorific value of petrol is ~10 kWh per
litre, not 2.

--
Andy

On 10 Feb 2006 04:14:32 -0800, "Kev" wrote:

Given the number of old household tubes going to landfill, the volume
of mecury as a total of the of the landfill volume must be in the same
order as the background mecury content.
So the energy inefficient filament bulb is not quite the villain that
all the greens make it ou to be.

I'd just put the sleeve from the new tube on the old one, then put it
to one side for the next time there is another reason to go to the
tip, and dispose of it then.

No need to smash it up to get it in the bin, or make a special
journey.

cheers,
Pete.

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
raden wrote:
In message , T i m
writes
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:12:54 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Harry Bloomfield
writes
T i m formulated the question :
Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was inside the actual device -usually the higher power rated
devices.

The main danger was from insulating heatsink washers - I've got some
somewhere. The danger being from inhaling beryllium dust if one got
broken

Were they the translucent ones you found under 2N3055's ;-)

No that would be nylon

Never. Mica usually..

No, that's not what he's on about

You do get nylon insulation AFAIK

Mylar also used.
Beryllium is white and hard - a bit like ceramic


No, beryllium is a metal. Its beryllium OXIDE that is hard and white.

Yes I know, you pedant

--
geoff

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:03:12 +0000, Kate wrote:


So if you live nearer than 103 litres of petrol away from your dump,
you will save by replacing one 100W filament bulb with a 20W
fluorescent.

If even if you live in Land's End, and dump your tube in Scotland, the
planet will be better off.

;-)

And (as mentioned elsewhere) most of us don't drive to the tip with
just one tube.

And ignoring the fuel use pollution for a sec, wouldn't all the stuff
that would have probably ended up in landfill also equal 'pollution'
if we hadn't bother to filter and recycle it (or bother to dispose of
it properly)?

What I often see is those folk with (typically) Merc 4X4's stacking
empty 42" Plasma TV cardboard packing boxes, XBox boxes, and at least
5 bags of rubbish (each week) up against the nearest lamppost (on a
Thursday night ready for a Monday collection) sigh ;-(

Maybe the one kid they drive 1 mile to school (past the recycling
centre) is illergic to flat packed cardboard (there must be room in
that great big vehicle surely ..?).

OTOH you see an old dear *walking* into the recycling centre with one
carrier bag full of neatly torn up cardboard and one empty sherry
bottle (bless) ;-)

Ho hum ..

All the best ..

T i m

Andy Wade wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Those figures don't look right 2kWhr (eh? a measure of power [energy use
per unit time] not energy, joules is energy) to shift a tonne 6 miles at
speed. And what about the (in)efficiency of the internal combustion
engine? You may be putting 7MJ in but you don't get 7MJ at the wheels.

They're not right - the gross calorific value of petrol is ~10 kWh per
litre, not 2.

You're quite right; shouldn't rely on a fading memory. Found this
table on the web:

Fuel type MJ/L MJ/kg
Gasoline 29.0 45
LPG 22.16 34.39
Ethanol 19.59 30.40
Methanol 22.61 14.57
Gasohol (10% ethanol + 90% gasoline) 28.06 43.54
Diesel 40.9 63.47

This means my figures were optimistic by a factor of four; so don't
live further than 25 litres away from a dump if you only want to take
one dead 20W bulb there.

It's interesting to note the misconception by Dave Liquorice, who you
quoted. When looking at the energy balance, the energy used to move
the car is irrelevant; the important thing is the energy you have to
use (in the form of petrol) to get it to move, which includes all the
energy losses.

After all, you are charged for the energy your low-consumption bulb
uses, not just for the light output it produces. If that was the case
filament bulbs would reign supreme, as you'd only be paying for their
one percent light efficiency and not for the 99 percent heat.

T i m wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:03:12 +0000, Kate wrote:


So if you live nearer than 103 litres of petrol away from your dump,
you will save by replacing one 100W filament bulb with a 20W
fluorescent.

If even if you live in Land's End, and dump your tube in Scotland, the
planet will be better off.

;-)

And (as mentioned elsewhere) most of us don't drive to the tip with
just one tube.

Quite! I was looking at the energy balance for just one bulb; if you
took a crateful, plus all the other junk etc in one run, it makes
perfect energy sense!

It has been pointed out that one of my figures was wrong, by a factor
of four. I posted a reply to that a little while ago. The break-even
trip for one low-consumption bulb is now 25 litres of petrol to the
dump.

Put the wrong figure down to too much sherry over the years LOL.

And ignoring the fuel use pollution for a sec, wouldn't all the stuff
that would have probably ended up in landfill also equal 'pollution'
if we hadn't bother to filter and recycle it (or bother to dispose of
it properly)?

Quite!

What I often see is those folk with (typically) Merc 4X4's stacking
empty 42" Plasma TV cardboard packing boxes, XBox boxes, and at least
5 bags of rubbish (each week) up against the nearest lamppost (on a
Thursday night ready for a Monday collection) sigh ;-(

Maybe the one kid they drive 1 mile to school (past the recycling
centre) is illergic to flat packed cardboard (there must be room in
that great big vehicle surely ..?).

OTOH you see an old dear *walking* into the recycling centre with one
carrier bag full of neatly torn up cardboard and one empty sherry
bottle (bless) ;-)

What astute observations of our modern society. Cheers!

Kate

T i m wrote:

And (as mentioned elsewhere) most of us don't drive to the tip with
just one tube.

Just thinking about it, I went over to low-consumption bulbs about 25
years ago.

At the end of the first year under this new regime, my annual
consumption of electricity fell by 25 percent, and the Electricity
Company came round and changed my meter - perhaps they thought
something was wrong with it ;-)

But I've just thrown away (down the dump) my last lamp of that era, a
25W big heavy beastie that sat unnoticed in the lounge all that time,
gently lighting the corner it lived in.

If it was on for 6 hours per day, that's roughly 2000 hours a year,
for 25 years, = 50,000 hours of use and saving 75W per hour.

That's a total of 3.75 megawatt-hours *saved* by this one lamp alone,
about £300.....

Gasp....

Kate

But I've just thrown away (down the dump) my last lamp of that era, a
25W big heavy beastie that sat unnoticed in the lounge all that time,
gently lighting the corner it lived in.

If it was on for 6 hours per day, that's roughly 2000 hours a year,
for 25 years, = 50,000 hours of use and saving 75W per hour.

That's a total of 3.75 megawatt-hours *saved* by this one lamp alone,
about £300.....

Gasp....


You can do just as well training the nippers to,

!!PUT THAT BLOODY LIGHT OUT"

In the style of Warden Hodges)
--
Tony Sayer

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:44:24 +0000, Kate wrote:


OTOH you see an old dear *walking* into the recycling centre with one
carrier bag full of neatly torn up cardboard and one empty sherry
bottle (bless) ;-)

What astute observations of our modern society. Cheers!

Ta ;-) blush

I do think there is a (inverse proportional) link between the need to
massage 'self' and responsibility to the rest of us and the
environment?

The same folk who put out a whole lorry load of unsorted 'rubbish' out
for the dustman are often the same who drive without seatbelts,
talking on the cell phone, cut though the petrol station / bus lane
and after buying 20 Rothmans leave a trail of celophane / silver foil
(whatever) fluttering in the wind behind them?

And why find somewhere to park the car (truck) and walk to the fish &
chip shop when you can simply park on the pavement outside or in the
middle of the service road and think saying "I won't be a minute mate"
or leaving the hazard flashers on makes it ok?

And emptying the ash tray on the pavement outside my house or slipping
the KFC box / drink / bag under the car (rather than in the bin 4
paces away) is something the rest of us appreciate?

Oh well .. ;-(

All the best ..

T i m

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:15:53 +0000, Owain
wrote:

T i m wrote:
OTOH you see an old dear *walking* into the recycling centre with one
carrier bag full of neatly torn up cardboard and one empty sherry
bottle (bless) ;-)

Or pushing an old pram laden with empty Buckie bottles, depending on the
neighbourhood ;-)

Hey, it's all recycling! ;-)

I helped a mate heave an old and broken photocopier into his skip the
other day (couldn't find a home for it on Freecycle).

We were surprised a couple of days later to see it gone ;-)

All the metal stuff (rads, suspended ceiling stuff etc) he sticks down
the side of the skip and that all goes too .. Pikeys have something
going for them .. (a bit of recycling) and his skip doesn't fill as
fast ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:57:38 GMT, T i m wrote:


We were surprised a couple of days later to see it gone ;-)

All the metal stuff (rads, suspended ceiling stuff etc) he sticks down
the side of the skip and that all goes too .. Pikeys have something
going for them .. (a bit of recycling) and his skip doesn't fill as
fast ;-)

It's all depending on the state of the scrap metal markets. 10 -15
years ago they wouldn't look at ferrous scrap. "Too long for our motor
mate".

DG

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:37:31 +0000, Kate wrote:

It's interesting to note the misconception by Dave Liquorice,

Naw it's the weekend brain doesn't work well at the weekend with the
ankle biters about. B-)

Still not convinced that comparing the energy used by the appliance with
the energy used to transport when dead it is particulary useful. Indeed
it just shows that saving up your waste until you have a full load is
much better as the energy used is then spread over many more items.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:41:04 +0000, Mike Clarke
wrote:

In article , raden
wrote:

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On 11 Feb 2006 09:00:14 -0800, wrote:
The mercury released from the teeth
fillings of the people who died is orders of magnitude higher.
In the UK, it averages 3g per person at the crematorium.

Sheesh - how many people nowadays have Hg fillings in their teeth?

I'm not sure about that, but modern filling materials are stronger and
adhere better than amalgam filling material so when it comes to
replacement


I can't agree there

I've had problems with ceramic fillings falling out

I think that used to be the case but apparently there's been recent
developments with "white" fillings that make them stronger than amalgam.
My dentist proposes to replace a persistently troublesome broken amalgam
filling with a white one which he reckons should have a better chance of
survival. More expensive than amalgam and not available on the NHS
because it's not a front tooth but probably more cost effective
considering the number of times amalgam ones in that tooth have broken.


I think that this is right.

I've had a couple of very early white fillings replaced, but nothing
else that was done in the last 25 years. Equally, I haven't used NHS
dentistry for 25 years either.


I can remember being told at the time of having a repair done to a
lower incisor about 20 years ago that it might not last. It actually
lasted about 10 years and was replaced 15 years ago with new material.
It has remained in good shape ever since.

The situation seems to be a combination of material used and time
taken. I know that a private dentist takes a lot more trouble over
issues like ensuring a proper key and making sure that everything is
dry before placing the filling.

I suppose it comes back to the principle of the 6 Ps.

Proper preparation prevents **** poor performance.


--

..andy

In message , Andy Hall
writes
I'm not sure about that, but modern filling materials are stronger and
adhere better than amalgam filling material so when it comes to
replacement


I can't agree there

I've had problems with ceramic fillings falling out

I think that used to be the case but apparently there's been recent
developments with "white" fillings that make them stronger than amalgam.
My dentist proposes to replace a persistently troublesome broken amalgam
filling with a white one which he reckons should have a better chance of
survival. More expensive than amalgam and not available on the NHS
because it's not a front tooth but probably more cost effective
considering the number of times amalgam ones in that tooth have broken.


I think that this is right.

I've had a couple of very early white fillings replaced, but nothing
else that was done in the last 25 years. Equally, I haven't used NHS
dentistry for 25 years either.


I can remember being told at the time of having a repair done to a
lower incisor about 20 years ago that it might not last. It actually
lasted about 10 years and was replaced 15 years ago with new material.
It has remained in good shape ever since.

The situation seems to be a combination of material used and time
taken. I know that a private dentist takes a lot more trouble over
issues like ensuring a proper key and making sure that everything is
dry before placing the filling.

I might go for ceramics next time then (having just had a couple of gold
caps fitted !)

--
geoff

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:05:23 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Andy Hall
writes


I've had a couple of very early white fillings replaced, but nothing
else that was done in the last 25 years. Equally, I haven't used NHS
dentistry for 25 years either.


I can remember being told at the time of having a repair done to a
lower incisor about 20 years ago that it might not last. It actually
lasted about 10 years and was replaced 15 years ago with new material.
It has remained in good shape ever since.

The situation seems to be a combination of material used and time
taken. I know that a private dentist takes a lot more trouble over
issues like ensuring a proper key and making sure that everything is
dry before placing the filling.

I might go for ceramics next time then (having just had a couple of gold
caps fitted !)


That's more cosmetic, AIUI. The "gold" caps (I have some as well)
are gold and platinum or other noble metals. I'm told that they are
more durable than ceramic but are obviously less aesthetic (if that
bothers you) Personally, mine are near the back and I'm more
interested in mechanics than aesthetics.


--

..andy

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:58:01 GMT, "Harry Bloomfield"
wrote:

The problem with fluorescents is the mercury vapour in them.

Liquid mercury I believe.

Depends on the pressure. There hasn't been significant liquid mercury in
them for years, since concerns over mercury hazards began.

One of the reasons why mercury is such a scare-story is that "mercury
sniffers" are a common hand-held test device for the clueless OHS bod.
With one of these you can find "mercury" traces in almost every old
industrial site.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:28:15 GMT, T i m wrote:

Umpteen years ago some fluorescent tube contained beryllium

Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was in the insulator compounds we didn't use - unless you were
fooling with '60-'70s vintage VHF power transistors. It was also
beryllium oxide, not beryllium metal, which is fragile and a dust
hazard. The metal itself is relatively stable, so nothing like so
hazardous. Old jet engines could be full of it too - watch out for
those igniter harnesses.

Beryllium also turns up as a hardening alloying ingredient in some
bronzes - particularly springs, relay contacts and spark-proof bronze
tools. It always amuses me (I'm sick like that) when I see a big
oil-refinery spanner on eBay described as "Cube brand, freshly polished
for display"

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:22:19 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

It is not actually. The mercury content is very hazardous in large amounts.

When I was a kid I used to make pocket money by collecting old mercury
rectifiers and selling the metal off when I'd filled the carboy (some
tens of lbs).

Dropped one once...

--
10/6 in this size

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:34:04 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:22:19 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

It is not actually. The mercury content is very hazardous in large amounts.

When I was a kid I used to make pocket money by collecting old mercury
rectifiers and selling the metal off when I'd filled the carboy (some
tens of lbs).

Dropped one once...

Mein Gott!

How old are you?

The only mercury arc rectifier I have seen (not to say gone round and
collected, it was a a one off instance) was in Crich Transport Museum,
and I am 59 !

DG

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:54:16 +0000, Derek ^
wrote:

How old are you?

Young enough that these things were getting replaced at the time.

The only mercury arc rectifier I have seen (not to say gone round and
collected, it was a a one off instance) was in Crich Transport Museum,
and I am 59 !

I saw one on Friday - sitting in the foyer of a local cinema.

I think I'll offer to remove their dreadful hazardous device for them
8-) I wish I'd kept one of those glass octopuses.

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:

That's more cosmetic, AIUI. The "gold" caps (I have some as well)
are gold and platinum or other noble metals. I'm told that they are

IIRC, my dentist told me they are a gold and copper alloy, pure
gold being unsuitable. NHS ones are apparently much more copper,
and not worth recovering the gold from.

I did have a rear gold crown 20 years ago. When it failed, my
dentist built the tooth back up with the white quartz resin,
onto which another gold crown was going to be fitted. However,
I wanted him to try leaving the white quartz resin, which has
now lasted some ~15 years in that position. He always comments
on how unorthodox that fix is, and how he's surprised it's
lasted so long. A tiny bit did chip off recently, so it may be
coming to the end of its life, but I'll have the same thing
done again when necessary.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
Derek ^ writes:

The only mercury arc rectifier I have seen (not to say gone round and
collected, it was a a one off instance) was in Crich Transport Museum,
and I am 59 !

There are still some around the London Underground (or at least
were quite recently). I believe they are for escalator and
elevator motors, rather than the trains.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...

Still not convinced that comparing the energy used by the appliance with
the energy used to transport when dead it is particulary useful. Indeed
it just shows that saving up your waste until you have a full load is
much better as the energy used is then spread over many more items.


One also needs to consider the energy expended to recycle / dispose of a
fluorescent tube once it is at the dump, compared to energy expended on a
filament bulb.

James

On 13 Feb 2006 01:27:51 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:

That's more cosmetic, AIUI. The "gold" caps (I have some as well)
are gold and platinum or other noble metals. I'm told that they are

IIRC, my dentist told me they are a gold and copper alloy, pure
gold being unsuitable. NHS ones are apparently much more copper,
and not worth recovering the gold from.

There's various alloys, including palladium and nickel (although some
people have sensitivities to nickel.)




I did have a rear gold crown 20 years ago. When it failed, my
dentist built the tooth back up with the white quartz resin,
onto which another gold crown was going to be fitted. However,
I wanted him to try leaving the white quartz resin, which has
now lasted some ~15 years in that position. He always comments
on how unorthodox that fix is, and how he's surprised it's
lasted so long. A tiny bit did chip off recently, so it may be
coming to the end of its life, but I'll have the same thing
done again when necessary.


Not a bad lifetime at all....


--

..andy

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:28:21 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

|On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:58:01 GMT, "Harry Bloomfield"
wrote:
|
| The problem with fluorescents is the mercury vapour in them.
|
|Liquid mercury I believe.
|
|Depends on the pressure. There hasn't been significant liquid mercury in
|them for years, since concerns over mercury hazards began.
|
|One of the reasons why mercury is such a scare-story is that "mercury
|sniffers" are a common hand-held test device for the clueless OHS bod.
|With one of these you can find "mercury" traces in almost every old
|industrial site.

Maybe that is why ?many? on usenet are mad as hatters ;o)
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
Freedom of Speech, Expression, Religion, and Democracy are
the keys to Civilization, together with legal acceptance of
Fundamental Human rights.

James wrote:


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ill.com...

Still not convinced that comparing the energy used by the appliance with
the energy used to transport when dead it is particulary useful. Indeed
it just shows that saving up your waste until you have a full load is
much better as the energy used is then spread over many more items.

Well, quite. It was just that the OP mentioned taking 'a bulb' down to
the dump, and I thought I'd look at the figures. got it right the
second time around :-)

I f you took a whole load of stuff down the dump, posted some letters
on the way, went to the bank and the post office, and picked up
something for lunch, how ever would that be described in terms of
energy balance?

Even worse if you stopped for a quick pint on the way back....;-)

One also needs to consider the energy expended to recycle / dispose of a
fluorescent tube once it is at the dump, compared to energy expended on a
filament bulb.

Quite so; and then there's the problem of manufacture and distribution
too.

I wish I could find some numbers that confirm the suggestion that of
the pollution created by a car, most of it is at the point of
manufacture....

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:37:31 +0000, Kate wrote:

It's interesting to note the misconception by Dave Liquorice,

Naw it's the weekend brain doesn't work well at the weekend with the
ankle biters about. B-)

Still not convinced that comparing the energy used by the appliance with
the energy used to transport when dead it is particulary useful. Indeed
it just shows that saving up your waste until you have a full load is
much better as the energy used is then spread over many more items.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Where are we expected to save up all this waste to make a bulk run to
the tip with. The tube goes so I get a new tube leaving the old one to
be disposed of. It isn't exactly the sort of thing that you can leave
lieing around. In fact I am surprised that a council that is so pc just
left it on the side of the drive where my children could have stood on
it or the local children played light sabres with it.
I did notice when throwing the cardboard tube out that there is a
useful wheelie bin symbol with a cross through it but nothing to say
how it should actually be disposed of. Perhaps something more prominent
would be useful as I had never realised that tubes were such a hazard.
I only visit the tip once a year if that so having a tube lieing around
all that time is not really on.

Kevin

On 13 Feb 2006 03:17:37 -0800, Kev wrote:

Where are we expected to save up all this waste to make a bulk run to
the tip with.

Sorry I forget some people have to live in modern rabbit hutches that
don't have any storage space, no handy broom cupboard or similar. Mind
having space to put things means that you slowly accumulate vast
quantities of stuff that "might be useful one day" but probably won't be
(until the day after you throw it out...).

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail