I was in Dunelm today. By the checkouts, were rack upon rack of those little
pieces of the devil's work known as CFLs. A large sign at each rack
proclaimed "11W CFL 99p each or 5 for 50p".

My immediate thought was that some little work experience erk had got this
wrong, and it should have read "or 5 for 50p *each* ". But no, it was
correct. Buy one for 99p. Buy five for 10p each. Now I can accept that at
99p each, costs of manufacture, shipping, distribution, and everyone making
their cut, might juuuusssst about work, but at 10p, we're talking plain
ludicrous. I'm pretty sure that even if these things are being slave-made in
China by the million, 10p is only going to cover the costs of the materials,
manufacturing process, and maybe first point shipping. Clearly, the whole
thing is a scam to get people buying these hateful devices, as the ban on
some types of incandescent lamps doesn't seem to have done the trick.

Obviously, there is some heavy duty subsidisation going on here somewhere. I
think we can be reasonably certain that Dunelm and their suppliers are not
going to be losing out on their profits, so at what point in the chain is
this subsidy being injected, and by whom ?

The primary suspects would have to be either our government, or some
faceless eurobollox department in Brussels, but where is the money coming
from ? Out of our taxes ?

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
The primary suspects would have to be either our government, or some
faceless eurobollox department in Brussels, but where is the money coming
from ? Out of our taxes ?

Yes. The true cost of environmentalism is being hidden from the public.
Elements are fuel tax, the proposed taxes on new cars and domestic heating,
subsidised domestic insulation, subsidised CFLs, and more.

Bill

On Oct 26, 10:14*pm, "Bill Wright"
wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message

...

The primary suspects would have to be either our government, or some
faceless eurobollox department in Brussels, but where is the money coming
from ? Out of our taxes ?

Yes. The true cost of environmentalism is being hidden from the public.
Elements are fuel tax, the proposed taxes on new cars and domestic heating,
subsidised domestic insulation, subsidised CFLs, and more.

Bill

Gee thanks for the reminder to go out here (Eastern Canada) and buy a
couple of hundred incandescent bulbs which should last the next few
years. e don't replace very many annually anyway and in any case the
incandescents comprise part of the home heating of this all electric
house!

At around one dollar Canadian per package of four. That's about 25
cents each. They come in 40, 60 and 100 watts. Six of the 40s (6 x 40
= 240 watts), for example, keep our bathroom quite warm, if left on,
so that only in the coldest weather does the 500 watt electric
baseboard heater need to cut in at all!

Since 90%+ of our electricity is hydro generated we understand that
being all-electric is a fairly 'green' way to be?

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
I was in Dunelm today. By the checkouts, were rack upon rack of those
little pieces of the devil's work known as CFLs. A large sign at each rack
proclaimed "11W CFL 99p each or 5 for 50p".

My immediate thought was that some little work experience erk had got this
wrong, and it should have read "or 5 for 50p *each* ". But no, it was
correct. Buy one for 99p. Buy five for 10p each. Now I can accept that at
99p each, costs of manufacture, shipping, distribution, and everyone
making their cut, might juuuusssst about work, but at 10p, we're
talking plain ludicrous. I'm pretty sure that even if these things are
being slave-made in China by the million, 10p is only going to cover the
costs of the materials, manufacturing process, and maybe first point
shipping. Clearly, the whole thing is a scam to get people buying these
hateful devices, as the ban on some types of incandescent lamps doesn't
seem to have done the trick.

Obviously, there is some heavy duty subsidisation going on here somewhere.
I think we can be reasonably certain that Dunelm and their suppliers are
not going to be losing out on their profits, so at what point in the chain
is this subsidy being injected, and by whom ?

The primary suspects would have to be either our government, or some
faceless eurobollox department in Brussels, but where is the money coming
from ? Out of our taxes ?

Arfa
They are subsidised by the Energy companies. I bought some Phillips branded
ones, 5/50p, 'In partnership with British Gas'. Presumably the government
is using some form of persuasion on these companies. Can't see them doing it
out of pure altruism .

mark

In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:
I was in Dunelm today. By the checkouts, were rack upon rack of those little
pieces of the devil's work known as CFLs. A large sign at each rack
proclaimed "11W CFL 99p each or 5 for 50p".

My immediate thought was that some little work experience erk had got this
wrong, and it should have read "or 5 for 50p *each* ". But no, it was
correct. Buy one for 99p. Buy five for 10p each. Now I can accept that at
99p each, costs of manufacture, shipping, distribution, and everyone making
their cut, might juuuusssst about work, but at 10p, we're talking plain
ludicrous. I'm pretty sure that even if these things are being slave-made in
China by the million, 10p is only going to cover the costs of the materials,
manufacturing process, and maybe first point shipping. Clearly, the whole
thing is a scam to get people buying these hateful devices, as the ban on
some types of incandescent lamps doesn't seem to have done the trick.

Obviously, there is some heavy duty subsidisation going on here somewhere. I
think we can be reasonably certain that Dunelm and their suppliers are not
going to be losing out on their profits, so at what point in the chain is
this subsidy being injected, and by whom ?

Being paid for by Gas and Electricity suppliers, forced on them by
the government, so you are paying for them in your gas and electricity
bills.

The primary suspects would have to be either our government, or some
faceless eurobollox department in Brussels, but where is the money coming
from ? Out of our taxes ?

There is no other source of money.

I have a cupboard half full of the things which have come free in the
post, or similar. They're all far too low power to be useful. If they
were 23-25W, then I could use them as 100W lamp replacements. I don't
think there's anything over 11W.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:


I have a cupboard half full of the things which have come free in the
post, or similar. They're all far too low power to be useful. If they
were 23-25W, then I could use them as 100W lamp replacements. I don't
think there's anything over 11W.

Conspiracy theory - foil hats on lads.

The Greenies clearly want us to live in mud huts without any power. These
11w lamps are so we get used to the light of candles gradually.

By introducing bus lanes, speed cameras, speed bumps, cycle lanes etc they
are attempting to get us used to travelling at the same speed as a horse
drawn vehicle.

Starting to make sense innit?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Arfa Daily
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 01:03

I was in Dunelm today. By the checkouts, were rack upon rack of those
little pieces of the devil's work known as CFLs. A large sign at each rack
proclaimed "11W CFL 99p each or 5 for 50p".


Bet you they are some cheap crap that will die in a month thus buggering up
the enviroment even more... Has been my experience of similar cheap ****e
from Tescos.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

The Medway Handyman
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 08:28


The Greenies clearly want us to live in mud huts without any power. These
11w lamps are so we get used to the light of candles gradually.

Be carbon neutral - burn an environmentalist.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

"Tim W" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 01:03

I was in Dunelm today. By the checkouts, were rack upon rack of those
little pieces of the devil's work known as CFLs. A large sign at each
rack
proclaimed "11W CFL 99p each or 5 for 50p".


Bet you they are some cheap crap that will die in a month thus buggering
up
the enviroment even more... Has been my experience of similar cheap ****e
from Tescos.

--
Mine are Phillips brand. Made in P.R.C.

mark

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I have a cupboard half full of the things which have come free in the
post, or similar. They're all far too low power to be useful. If they
were 23-25W, then I could use them as 100W lamp replacements. I don't
think there's anything over 11W.

Conspiracy theory - foil hats on lads.

The Greenies clearly want us to live in mud huts without any power. These
11w lamps are so we get used to the light of candles gradually.

candles produce lots of CO2.

By introducing bus lanes, speed cameras, speed bumps, cycle lanes etc they
are attempting to get us used to travelling at the same speed as a horse
drawn vehicle.

Starting to make sense innit?


Yup!

The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 08:54

candles produce lots of CO2.

But if you make them by stuffing a wick down the throat of a little bird,
they are technically CO2 neutral.


--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

"mark" wrote in message
...

"Tim W" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 01:03

I was in Dunelm today. By the checkouts, were rack upon rack of those
little pieces of the devil's work known as CFLs. A large sign at each
rack
proclaimed "11W CFL 99p each or 5 for 50p".


Bet you they are some cheap crap that will die in a month thus buggering
up
the enviroment even more... Has been my experience of similar cheap ****e
from Tescos.

--
Mine are Phillips brand. Made in P.R.C.

mark


So there we have it. Lots of responses in 12 hours, and not a single one
seems to be in favour of these dreadful things, so why are we all sitting on
our arses, and just accepting all this ecobollox, and the crap that they are
foisting on us as a result of the twisted 'science' that is man-made global
warming' ? What has happened to the spirit of the British people ? Has
membership of the EU and the fear of ever more laws to limit what we think /
say / do, completely neutered us now ?

On the speed limit thing, they have been messing with them all around our
village. They have reduced some, and shifted others such that any journey in
the area is now a highly frustrating exercise in speedo-watching, as the
local woodentops have found somewhere to hide just around a corner from
where a re-placed 30mph starts, and the local 'nothing-better-to-dos' have
joined that scheme where they get loaned a speed gun, and get to point it
importantly at hapless motorists as they come around the corner. I have
lived here for 35 years, and there is absolutely no evidence at all that
this piece of road represents any danger to anyone, nor ever has done. I
have never known it to be a stretch where people do anything other than a
safe 'instictive' speed, which if you try it, tends to be 30mph give or take
a few mph, anyway.

But my point is that a friend of mine got nicked there a few days back. He
was coasting down from the preceding 40mph limit, to the 30mph one he was
entering. A copper leapt out at him as he came round the corner, and had him
for 35mph. Ten yards further on, he would have been as close to 30mph as
didn't matter. The copper came over to him, and patronisingly asked him if
he had any idea why he had been stopped. "Now let me think ..." said my
friend. "Could it be because I was SPEEDING ... ?" The copper then went on
to try to get him to attend a speed rehabilitation course in exchange for a
reduced fine and no points. My friend told him in no uncertain terms to
stick his rehabilitation program up his arse, and to get on with writing out
the ticket, as he hadn't got time to sit there all day debating whether or
not he was a bad person in need of re-education.

Now *that's* the sort of stand we should all be taking against all this
crap, and what we would have been doing before we all got neutered by fear
of offending all these groups, or breaking laws that have been pushed
through without our knowledge, to back up this process of neutering ...

Arfa

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:54:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

candles produce lots of CO2.

Which may or may not be a problem depending on the source of the wax
used to make 'em. Sourced from fossil resource (aka oil) bad as
carbon that has been locked up for millions of years is released.
Sourced from say bees carbon neutral as the carbon was obsorbed from
the atmosphere by the plants the bees foraged on in the last year.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 27 Oct, 01:03, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

Obviously, there is some heavy duty subsidisation going on here somewhere.

There is government pressure on electricity companies to reduce the
CO2 impact of their generation.

The metric for this is written in such a way that cutting consumption
counts as reducing emissions, just as much as more efficient
generation would.

It's cheaper for electricity companies to hand out free CFLs than to
change plant. They still gain the government credit for emission
reduction.

If you hand out CFLs (or loft insulation) for free, few people want
it. If you "sell" it for a trivial sum, if flies off the shelves.

In other news, expect the "Green" Thatcher re-branding soon, for
closing all that mucky old industry down...


So it's largely a cost on the electricity bill, which was already
imposed by legislation that our elected representatives produced, to
some extent because we wanted them to.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
I was in Dunelm today. By the checkouts, were rack upon rack of those
little pieces of the devil's work known as CFLs. A large sign at each rack
proclaimed "11W CFL 99p each or 5 for 50p".

My immediate thought was that some little work experience erk had got this
wrong, and it should have read "or 5 for 50p *each* ". But no, it was
correct. Buy one for 99p. Buy five for 10p each. Now I can accept that at
99p each, costs of manufacture, shipping, distribution, and everyone
making their cut, might juuuusssst about work, but at 10p, we're
talking plain ludicrous. I'm pretty sure that even if these things are
being slave-made in China by the million, 10p is only going to cover the
costs of the materials,


Arfa



I think it may be due to a predicted shortfall in electricity production 'v'
demand in years to come. If the government spends a few million pounds on
getting us to use low energy bulbs and insulate our houses etc., then the
need for new multi-billion pound power stations can be delayed for a few
years.
Just a theory.

mark

Arfa Daily
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 09:55


So there we have it. Lots of responses in 12 hours, and not a single one
seems to be in favour of these dreadful things,

Technically I'm not against all CFLs. I have some "Prolight" 30W and 25W
daylight ones and I'm very pleased with them. They light up like a mini sun
and the colour is excellent for renovation work, including painting.

But they cost somewhat more than 99p.

so why are we all sitting
on our arses, and just accepting all this ecobollox, and the crap that
they are foisting on us as a result of the twisted 'science' that is
man-made global warming' ?

Because not many people can think for themselves. Many who can made it here
in a self selecting way.

What has happened to the spirit of the British
people ?

It's dead. They're too busy watch random crap on the brain sucking box.

On the speed limit thing, they have been messing with them all around our
village. They have reduced some, and shifted others such that any journey
in the area is now a highly frustrating exercise in speedo-watching, as
the local woodentops have found somewhere to hide just around a corner
from where a re-placed 30mph starts, and the local 'nothing-better-to-dos'
have joined that scheme where they get loaned a speed gun, and get to
point it importantly at hapless motorists as they come around the corner.
I have lived here for 35 years, and there is absolutely no evidence at all
that this piece of road represents any danger to anyone, nor ever has
done. I have never known it to be a stretch where people do anything other
than a safe 'instictive' speed, which if you try it, tends to be 30mph
give or take a few mph, anyway.

But my point is that a friend of mine got nicked there a few days back. He
was coasting down from the preceding 40mph limit, to the 30mph one he was
entering. A copper leapt out at him as he came round the corner, and had
him for 35mph. Ten yards further on, he would have been as close to 30mph
as didn't matter. The copper came over to him, and patronisingly asked him
if he had any idea why he had been stopped. "Now let me think ..." said my
friend. "Could it be because I was SPEEDING ... ?"

15 years ago, I had an old Maestro, the one with the digital dash. I was
doing (apparantly) 43mph along an open stretch on the A25 outide of a
village but just into the 30 limit. It's a vastly open road with excellent
visibility and whilst I don't condone excessive speeding, I was young and
it wasn't teh worst place to be going a bit over the limit.

Anyway, mr piggy bounces out from behind a bush (literally) waving his arms
and a speed gun. "Do you know how fast you were going sir?" Methinks to
myself: "Crap! 40 is a fine for sure".

Him: Shows me the gun... "38"

I nearly said "Is that all?" but somehow I managed to gag that and look
contrite.

He let me off, saying the Gatso down the road probably got me already. Like
us locals don't know where our own cameras are...

To be fair to him, that bit of road being vastly open and straight, does
attract some right pillocks doing 60+, so he was probably more after them.

The copper then went
on to try to get him to attend a speed rehabilitation course in exchange
for a reduced fine and no points. My friend told him in no uncertain terms
to stick his rehabilitation program up his arse, and to get on with
writing out the ticket, as he hadn't got time to sit there all day
debating whether or not he was a bad person in need of re-education.

Nice approach.

Now *that's* the sort of stand we should all be taking against all this
crap, and what we would have been doing before we all got neutered by fear
of offending all these groups, or breaking laws that have been pushed
through without our knowledge, to back up this process of neutering ...

It's the subtle introduction of "though crime" that's most worrying. You try
to start a reasoned and balanced debate on "Is excessive immigration bad
for Britain" without being instantly labelled as BNP.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Tim W wrote:

It's the subtle introduction of "though crime" that's most worrying. You try
to start a reasoned and balanced debate on "Is excessive immigration bad
for Britain" without being instantly labelled as BNP.

WEll that is changing. Its not immigration per se, its too many people
full stop. And too liberal social policies that encourage people to NOT
actually work.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:54:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

candles produce lots of CO2.

Which may or may not be a problem depending on the source of the wax
used to make 'em. Sourced from fossil resource (aka oil) bad as
carbon that has been locked up for millions of years is released.
Sourced from say bees carbon neutral as the carbon was obsorbed from
the atmosphere by the plants the bees foraged on in the last year.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:54:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

candles produce lots of CO2.

Which may or may not be a problem depending on the source of the wax
used to make 'em. Sourced from fossil resource (aka oil) bad as
carbon that has been locked up for millions of years is released.
Sourced from say bees carbon neutral as the carbon was obsorbed from
the atmosphere by the plants the bees foraged on in the last year.

BUT if you buried the wax, it would be better.

mark wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
I was in Dunelm today. By the checkouts, were rack upon rack of those
little pieces of the devil's work known as CFLs. A large sign at each rack
proclaimed "11W CFL 99p each or 5 for 50p".

My immediate thought was that some little work experience erk had got this
wrong, and it should have read "or 5 for 50p *each* ". But no, it was
correct. Buy one for 99p. Buy five for 10p each. Now I can accept that at
99p each, costs of manufacture, shipping, distribution, and everyone
making their cut, might juuuusssst about work, but at 10p, we're
talking plain ludicrous. I'm pretty sure that even if these things are
being slave-made in China by the million, 10p is only going to cover the
costs of the materials,

Arfa



I think it may be due to a predicted shortfall in electricity production 'v'
demand in years to come. If the government spends a few million pounds on
getting us to use low energy bulbs and insulate our houses etc., then the
need for new multi-billion pound power stations can be delayed for a few
years.
Just a theory.

mark


Insulation, fair enough. IIRC domestic heating is a large fraction -
maybe 25% - of our total energy use, and insulation could halve that.

Light bulbs? Its completely minimal in the grand scheme of things.

Its simply a solution to be peddled as 'doing something' when in fact
nothing of any real merit is being done at all.

In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:

So there we have it. Lots of responses in 12 hours, and not a single one
seems to be in favour of these dreadful things, so why are we all sitting on

Well, actually I do favour the things, but this government
initiative, just like all government initiatives, is a complete
failure, and much more likely to have the opposite effect than
the one desired.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:55:15 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


So there we have it. Lots of responses in 12 hours, and not a single one
seems to be in favour of these dreadful things,

Ah, I thought we were talking politics. ;-)

We have many of CFLs (and full size flouros) and would have a few more
if only I could get them in the fittings or if they would dim (I guess
you can get dimmable stuff but not a straight lamp swap type thing).

We don't have a problem with them. I fit them (and have done so since
they were first available, no faux eco bandwagon here) and they last
and work (by 'work' I mean they give off light using less energy and
aren't also heaters).

But then we don't buy into this 'your house must have or look like
this' b/s. We do what works for us.

Cheers, T i m

Owain
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 10:49

Or chavs?

Have to be the female ones. The bloke chavs don't have enough fat.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

"Tim W" wrote in message
...
Owain
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 10:49

Or chavs?

Have to be the female ones. The bloke chavs don't have enough fat.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...


I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew that
their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Ash
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 11:14



I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew that
their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Yeah - selfish sods. Think of the polar bears ;-

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:56 -0000, Ash wrote:

I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew
that their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:40:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:56 -0000, Ash wrote:

I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew
that their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.

Isn't it the same thing just over a longer time frame? ;-)

T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:55:15 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


So there we have it. Lots of responses in 12 hours, and not a single one
seems to be in favour of these dreadful things,

Ah, I thought we were talking politics. ;-)

We have many of CFLs (and full size flouros) and would have a few more
if only I could get them in the fittings or if they would dim (I guess
you can get dimmable stuff but not a straight lamp swap type thing).

We don't have a problem with them. I fit them (and have done so since
they were first available, no faux eco bandwagon here) and they last
and work (by 'work' I mean they give off light using less energy and
aren't also heaters).

But then we don't buy into this 'your house must have or look like
this' b/s. We do what works for us.

Cheers, T i m



I wonder how good your eyes are, Tim ? Mine used to be perfect not so long
ago, and I don't think that back then, CFLs would have caused me too much
trouble. Now though, as I get older, I find that my eyes are nothing like as
good as they were, and reading seems to be made much more difficult under
CFL light, than under standard tungsten - or even linear flourescent, for
that matter.
Which is odd, since you wouldn't expect there to be such a difference
between different implementations of what is fundamentally the same
technology. I don't know why, but I find the light from CFLs to somehow be
'offensive', even though they go out of their way to try and colour match
the things to tungsten. Interestingly though, I have no problem at all with
any colour of linear flourescents. I have them in my kitchen, utility room,
and my workshop, where I sit all day.

One of the things that I particularly dislike about CFLs, and which is worse
with some types than others, is the way that the light output ramps up,
especially if we are talking from a 'cold' start, and the way the colour
shifts during that warmup period. Although linear flourescents do 'warm up'
in terms of light output, they don't seem to suffer from the colour shift
thing. Other people I talk to, whose eyes are less than perfect, seem to
agree on the reading thing.

Someone from Canada near the top of the thread also brought up the fact that
the heat output from incandescents is not actually totally lost and wasted,
but in fact supplements the deliberate heating applied to the room. Seems to
me that this is a valid point, and one that is totally ignored by the green
mist brigade, when they vilify the humble, simple and cheap tungsten lamp,
for its claimed planet-damaging inefficiency ...

Arfa

Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.


So ... if they were not releasing fossil carbon, didn't have power stations,
cars, industry belching out pollution etc etc then what made the earth warm
up and bring the ice age to an end? And if the earth can heat up then why
can't it now and if so there's nothing that we can do to stop it ... or for
it to return to another ice age.

Tim W wrote:
Ash
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 11:14


I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew that
their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Yeah - selfish sods. Think of the polar bears ;-

Woolly mammoths. All gone. Sob.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:56 -0000, Ash wrote:

I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew
that their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.

dont be silly. Betwen the end of the ice age and the forestation of
britain, and around 1700, nearly every single tree in the country was
cut down for farming, timber or firewood.

Only coal and iron reduced that to the point we are now more wooded than
at any time in the last 300 years.

Yeah - selfish sods. Think of the polar bears ;-

Woolly mammoths. All gone. Sob

Yeah ... them environmentalists again ... when they band fur and ivory the
poor devils were out of work and couldn't survive ... sniff.

Tim W wrote:

15 years ago, I had an old Maestro, the one with the digital dash. I was
doing (apparantly) 43mph along an open stretch on the A25 outide of a
village but just into the 30 limit.
[...]
He let me off, saying the Gatso down the road probably got me already.

Probably wouldn't now. Got to hit his targets for the month.

Pete

Ash wrote:
Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.


So ... if they were not releasing fossil carbon, didn't have power stations,
cars, industry belching out pollution etc etc then what made the earth warm
up and bring the ice age to an end?

Probably volcanic eruptions..


And if the earth can heat up then why
can't it now and if so there's nothing that we can do to stop it ... or for
it to return to another ice age.


Well if you dont mind going back to 50 million total world population,
and easting raw shellfish, no reason at all.

On 27 Oct, 11:40, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.

Black rocks don't burn well, which is why coal wasn't seriously used
or mined until the Tudor period. You need to have a fireplace and
fairly well-designed chimney to burn coal. Even the first steam
locomotives couldn't burn coal, they had to use coke.

Our use of coal for heat and power really is a very modern invention:
150 years for widepsread power, 100 for electricity. Be afraid. We
broke this place, and we did it very quickly.

In article ,
T i m writes:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:40:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:56 -0000, Ash wrote:

I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew
that their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.

Isn't it the same thing just over a longer time frame? ;-)

No.

Releasing carbon which was captured in the last few years,
or even the last few thousand years, is not an issue
(although lots of ecobollockists don't even understand that).

It's releasing the carbon which was captured during the
carboniferous period which is (possibly) an issue. That's
carbon which was trapped during a 50M+ year period in coal
seams and the like, and resulted in mopping up the high level
of CO2 in the atmosphere at the beginning of the carboniferous
down to the levels at the end of the carboniferous, which are
nearer to what we have today. Rereleased over a 100 or 200
year timeframe, that is a potential cause for concern.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:49:19 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

We don't have a problem with them. I fit them (and have done so since
they were first available, no faux eco bandwagon here) and they last
and work (by 'work' I mean they give off light using less energy and
aren't also heaters).


I wonder how good your eyes are, Tim ? Mine used to be perfect not so long
ago, and I don't think that back then, CFLs would have caused me too much
trouble. Now though, as I get older, I find that my eyes are nothing like as
good as they were, and reading seems to be made much more difficult under
CFL light, than under standard tungsten - or even linear flourescent, for
that matter.

Understood. My eyes certainly aren't what they were, needing strength
(?) 2 ready specs for reading and watching the TV (3's for soldering
etc). Long distance stuff is still fine without. However I do find I
need plenty of light to do detailed work (something a carpenter mate
also noted when we were working outside putting a new roof on my Mums
shed the other day, how easy it was to 'see').

Which is odd, since you wouldn't expect there to be such a difference
between different implementations of what is fundamentally the same
technology. I don't know why, but I find the light from CFLs to somehow be
'offensive', even though they go out of their way to try and colour match
the things to tungsten.

Hmm, I can't say I've noticed that particularly. I do have one of
those 'natural light' spiral type CFL's and that is VERY white!

Interestingly though, I have no problem at all with
any colour of linear flourescents. I have them in my kitchen, utility room,
and my workshop, where I sit all day.

Strange, as you say. I wonder if the coatings on the physically bigger
lamps has a higher fluorescent inertia .. (I've just made that up, the
same a the thermal inertia you get on a heavier filament
incandescent).

One of the things that I particularly dislike about CFLs, and which is worse
with some types than others, is the way that the light output ramps up,
especially if we are talking from a 'cold' start, and the way the colour
shifts during that warmup period.

Whilst I've seen that effect it's only really obvious on one of those
little Ikea 7W mini ES lamps I have over my keyboard area. It comes up
in 3 stages but only takes about 4 seconds to do so (it's quite cool,
looks like a soft start). ;-)

Although linear flourescents do 'warm up'
in terms of light output, they don't seem to suffer from the colour shift
thing. Other people I talk to, whose eyes are less than perfect, seem to
agree on the reading thing.

The Mrs is nearly 60 and has needed fairly strong prescription glasses
since she was 15. She regularly reads in here to an 11W CFL laying on
a bit of radiator heat foil on a shelf 18" from the ceiling (and the
only example of 'mood lighting' we have). ;-)

Someone from Canada near the top of the thread also brought up the fact that
the heat output from incandescents is not actually totally lost and wasted,
but in fact supplements the deliberate heating applied to the room.

So fine in the winter (or Canada when they are always under 6' of
snow). ;-)

FWIW we don't have central heating either and haven't had any heating
on this year yet. There were days when we probably would have turned
it on but we just put a jumper on instead.

Seems to
me that this is a valid point, and one that is totally ignored by the green
mist brigade, when they vilify the humble, simple and cheap tungsten lamp,
for its claimed planet-damaging inefficiency ...

I don't get involved in the politics. I buy them because the work and
(think they) save us money.


Cheers, T i m

p.s. I normally write the install date on these CFL's when I install
them. I recently replaced one that was over 10 years old and it is
used every day for about 6 hours (it's on a time switch so ~22,000
hours). If it was a 20W CFL and gave off the equivalent light to a 60W
and if it cost me £5 10 years ago, would it have saved me any money
over a 60W incandescent?

On 27 Oct, 11:57, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Only coal and iron reduced that to the point we are now more wooded than
at any time in the last 300 years.

We're less wooded, in terms of native hardwoods, than we were in 1914

If we've gained any woodland, it's since 1947 and it's upland
plantation softwoods by the forestry commision

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:34:28 +0000, T i m wrote:

FWIW we don't have central heating either and haven't had any heating
on this year yet. There were days when we probably would have turned
it on but we just put a jumper on instead.

We put jumpers on as well but even so the heating is now starting to
kick in fairly regulary and the oil consumption is now at double the
summer use per week but still only about half that of the winter use
level.

Seems to me that this is a valid point, and one that is totally
ignored
by the green mist brigade, when they vilify the humble, simple and

cheap tungsten lamp, for its claimed planet-damaging inefficiency
....

I don't think it's relevant. The amount of heat given off by a
tungsten lamp will be lost if you open the door. It's a tiny amount
compared to that required for space heating.

p.s. I normally write the install date on these CFL's when I install
them. I recently replaced one that was over 10 years old and it is
used every day for about 6 hours (it's on a time switch so ~22,000
hours). If it was a 20W CFL and gave off the equivalent light to a 60W
and if it cost me £5 10 years ago, would it have saved me any money
over a 60W incandescent?

(22,000 * 20)/1000 = 440kWhrs
@ 10p/unit = £44.00
+ £5 bulb = £49.00

(22,000 * 60)/1000 = 1320kWhrs
@ 10p/unit = £132.00
+ 11 bulbs @ 20p = £134.20

£85.20 saving.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

But my point is that a friend of mine got nicked there a few days back. He
was coasting down from the preceding 40mph limit, to the 30mph one he was
entering.

Why wasn't he coasting down to hit 30 at the sign, rather than later?