This is our Congress at work. I wish they would put as much thought into developing our own Petroleum Reserves.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/75548.html
Quote from: frawin on March 22, 2011, 12:32:58 PM
This is our Congress at work. I wish they would put as much thought into developing our own Petroleum Reserves.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/75548.html
Yes, because there is something wrong with conserving energy. ::)
Quote from: jerry wagner on March 22, 2011, 01:51:03 PM
Yes, because there is something wrong with conserving energy. ::)
Hmmmmm.... And this battle will no doubt be waged for years and years to come, largely
because it's fuelled by America's most plentiful natural resource: Jerry's narrow-minded
self-righteous indignation. You know Jerry, I'm actually a big proponent of using alternative
energy. As a matter of fact, at this very moment, every single watt of electricity in my
home is being provided by an alternative energy source: a low-cost, underground
shunt-wire that my brother-in-law has tapped into my next door neighbor's fuse-box.
Quote from: Warph on March 22, 2011, 03:20:09 PM
Hmmmmm.... And this battle will no doubt be waged for years and years to come, largely
because it's fuelled by America's most plentiful natural resource: Jerry's narrow-minded
self-righteous indignation. You know Jerry, I'm actually a big proponent of using alternative
energy. As a matter of fact, at this very moment, every single watt of electricity in my
home is being provided by an alternative energy source: a low-cost, underground
shunt-wire that my brother-in-law has tapped into my next door neighbor's fuse-box.
Or powered by your insulting swipes at others that do not really state an opinion?
Quote from: jerry wagner on March 22, 2011, 01:51:03 PM
Yes, because there is something wrong with conserving energy. ::)
Do more research.
CFLs:
1. Contain mercury
2. Emit ultraviolet radiation
3. Emit electromagnetic radiation
4. The best part is at the bottom
The British Health Protection Agency said some of the CFL's tested produced UV radiation beyond acceptable levels (this is bad if you use them close to you, like in reading lamps and such). There have already been numerous complaints from people having skin issues due to these bulbs and the issues went away when they switched back to incandescent.
The electromagnetic radiation (radio frequency radiation) can also cause issues. Here's a small quote on some potential issues from that:
QuoteIn Sweden, according to polls, up to 290,000 people, or more than 3% of the population, have reported suffering symptoms of EHS when exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Symptoms range from joint stiffness, chronic fatigue, headaches, tinnitus, respiratory, gastric, skin, sleep and memory problems, depressive tendencies, to Alzheimer's disease and all classes of cancer.
Oh yeah... and the way the government is doing it they are essentially handing GE a monopoly on CFL's. Oh yeah, and they won't be made here in the U.S. No, no, no... they will be and already are made in China.
The best part... in the end, they are likely to have an equal or GREATER "carbon footprint" than incandescent. How so? Manufacturing, operating, AND
proper disposal of the bulbs. Due to them containing mercury the proper way to dispose of them is to reclaim the mercury, which means packaging and shipping them to some company to do so. If they are thrown away, like most people WILL do, then we'll have to clean up the mercury from the landfills so that we don't ruin our water supplies (i.e. lots and lots more money, time, and fuel spent cleaning up the mess with the potential to poison people further).
It requires around 16 times as much energy to produce a CFL bulb. They are heavier as well meaning sturdier packaging (and worse too according to greenies... being plastic and all) and due to them being heavier that means higher transportation costs i.e. lowered fuel efficiency when shipping in large quantities.
Please... tell me how ANY of that make CFL's better than incandescent!
I've been using CFL's cause I thought they looked cool and they do put out quite a bit of light but no more. After the research I've done, and the government wanting to shove them down our throats, I will NEVER support CFL's and am going to stock up on incandescent bulbs before they're all gone.
Quote from: mtcookson on March 22, 2011, 03:36:28 PM
Do more research.
CFLs:
1. Contain mercury
2. Emit ultraviolet radiation
3. Emit electromagnetic radiation
4. The best part is at the bottom
The British Health Protection Agency said some of the CFL's tested produced UV radiation beyond acceptable levels (this is bad if you use them close to you, like in reading lamps and such). There have already been numerous complaints from people having skin issues due to these bulbs and the issues went away when they switched back to incandescent.
The electromagnetic radiation (radio frequency radiation) can also cause issues. Here's a small quote on some potential issues from that:
Oh yeah... and the way the government is doing it they are essentially handing GE a monopoly on CFL's. Oh yeah, and they won't be made here in the U.S. No, no, no... they will be and already are made in China.
The best part... in the end, they are likely to have an equal or GREATER "carbon footprint" than incandescent. How so? Manufacturing, operating, AND proper disposal of the bulbs. Due to them containing mercury the proper way to dispose of them is to reclaim the mercury, which means packaging and shipping them to some company to do so. If they are thrown away, like most people WILL do, then we'll have to clean up the mercury from the landfills so that we don't ruin our water supplies (i.e. lots and lots more money, time, and fuel spent cleaning up the mess with the potential to poison people further).
It requires around 16 times as much energy to produce a CFL bulb. They are heavier as well meaning sturdier packaging (and worse too according to greenies... being plastic and all) and due to them being heavier that means higher transportation costs i.e. lowered fuel efficiency when shipping in large quantities.
Please... tell me how ANY of that make CFL's better than incandescent!
I've been using CFL's cause I thought they looked cool and they do put out quite a bit of light but no more. After the research I've done, and the government wanting to shove them down our throats, I will NEVER support CFL's and am going to stock up on incandescent bulbs before they're all gone.
Touching on your objections:
1.They contain mercury, correct they do as it is well established 0.69mg. However, in Kansas Westar utilizes coal-fired plants to produce 59.5% of its annual production which produce mercury, some of which is removed (25% roughly) due to the scrubbing technology used by Westar. However, until they use clean coal, there is still mercury production. Most studies would indicate that the CFL bulb would decrease mercury production significantly due to the lower consumption.
2. Incandescent light bulbs produce UV radiation as well. Most people don't stand directly under a light bulb all day, but if you do keep 30cm distance between you and the light bulb (either one!).
3. EMF production is the case with most household appliances. You decide whether you can tolerate your cell phone, home phone, monitor, computer, television, electric blanket, power codes, etc. Like I said you decide.
4. CFL bulbs require roughly 9x-10x the greenhouse gas expulsion to produce as do incandescent bulbs, however they generally last 8x longer and utilize 25% of the energy necessary to produce the same lumens of light. Thus, they would consume significantly less over their life as do incandescent light bulbs taking production/operation and scrapping into account.
Continue your resistance to CFL's if you choose, but they are a better and more efficient technology than incandescent. Conservation is a worthy goal.
You can also conserve electricity simply by not using it when not necessary. How about those lights that are left on all the time, my 2 TVs that I think I have to have on simultaneously, running water when not actually using it. It takes more power to fill the water tanks. Besides they are ugly. I have a chandelier that exposes the bulbs. How are those ugly things going to look in my chandelier?
I will bet that you could think of a hundred ways to conserve more electricity than what these nuisance bulbs will do. I am with MT. I am not converting until I can't buy the incandescent any longer.
Quote from: Wilma on March 22, 2011, 04:37:37 PM
You can also conserve electricity simply by not using it when not necessary. How about those lights that are left on all the time, my 2 TVs that I think I have to have on simultaneously, running water when not actually using it. It takes more power to fill the water tanks. Besides they are ugly. I have a chandelier that exposes the bulbs. How are those ugly things going to look in my chandelier?
I will bet that you could think of a hundred ways to conserve more electricity than what these nuisance bulbs will do. I am with MT. I am not converting until I can't buy the incandescent any longer.
There are chandelier ones available, they are not all curly. There are several globe, flame tip, chandelier and other options.
Quote from: jerry wagner on March 22, 2011, 04:23:54 PM
Touching on your objections:
1.They contain mercury, correct they do as it is well established 0.69mg. However, in Kansas Westar utilizes coal-fired plants to produce 59.5% of its annual production which produce mercury, some of which is removed (25% roughly) due to the scrubbing technology used by Westar. However, until they use clean coal, there is still mercury production. Most studies would indicate that the CFL bulb would decrease mercury production significantly due to the lower consumption.
Nuclear. Problem solved.
Quote2. Incandescent light bulbs produce UV radiation as well. Most people don't stand directly under a light bulb all day, but if you do keep 30cm distance between you and the light bulb (either one!).
Uh... what? No they don't. Incandescent bulbs do produce infrared radiation (i.e. heat) but not UV radiation.
Quote3. EMF production is the case with most household appliances. You decide whether you can tolerate your cell phone, home phone, monitor, computer, television, electric blanket, power codes, etc. Like I said you decide.
Fortunately I'm not bothered by it, except for when using dimmers on incandescent bulbs... dimmers drive me nuts. For others though, they should NOT be forced to use a bulb that may bother them.
Quote4. CFL bulbs require roughly 9x-10x the greenhouse gas expulsion to produce as do incandescent bulbs, however they generally last 8x longer and utilize 25% of the energy necessary to produce the same lumens of light. Thus, they would consume significantly less over their life as do incandescent light bulbs taking production/operation and scrapping into account.
Taking into account proper disposal of CFL's can make them overall less efficient than incandescent bulbs. There's nothing in incandescent bulbs that are harmful so you can just trash them without any major consequences like CFL's will have.
Just look at what the EPA recommends if you break a CFL: http://www.epa.gov/cfl/CFL_brochure.pdf
And here is what they say to do just to dispose of them after they burn out: http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflrecycling.html
Just think, with the way our government is now, once CFL's are required and the are so many in landfills that the government has to intervene to clean up the mercury guess who foots the bill? Yeah, us... the taxpayers. So our costs go up for each bulb, the government gets bigger and blows more money it doesn't have, and the lower so called "carbon footprint" is not so low (i.e. more energy is used).
QuoteContinue your resistance to CFL's if you choose, but they are a better and more efficient technology than incandescent. Conservation is a worthy goal.
Conservation is never a bad thing when it is done
correctly. I LOVE having lower bills of any kind but when there are nasty side effects and even the chance that it will NOT be as efficient due to its harmful contents its clear that sticking with incandescent until a BETTER alternative is found.
A better alternative
could be LED bulbs. LED is quite efficient and would likely last even longer than CFL but currently is way too expensive for most people to convert to. Get LED's down on cost and that could be the answer we're looking for. From what I've been able to find LED bulbs do not produce UV radiation though they likely will produce electromagnetic radiation. IR radiation should be minimal.
I like the bumper sticker that says: If I can choose to abort my unborn child I think I should be able to choose my own light bulb. I'm with Wilma. Tried em..don't like them, won't buy them.
So what will become of regular long fluorescent tubes. Anything? They have some drawbacks too.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 22, 2011, 09:40:23 PM
So what will become of regular long fluorescent tubes. Anything? They have some drawbacks too.
Since they are mostly used in businesses I wouldn't worry about it quite as much as the entire population having to use CFL's but I'm sure we could come up with better alternatives.
The more research I do on LED bulbs, the more I like them... except for the cost (though from my reading businesses seem to love going the LED route due to their longevity, efficiency, and in turn cost effectiveness). Aside from the cost, I believe if the people want an efficient alternative that isn't potentially harmful like CFL's, LED bulbs will be the only way to go. Instead of embracing CFL, we need to completely scrap that idea and work toward making LED bulbs cheaper if we want safe, efficient, lighting.
Not only that but they can be even more efficient than CFL's to operate and you don't have to worry about disposal issues. There isn't anything inside them that is harmful like CFL's so they can be tossed like normal incandescent bulbs... however... LED lifespan is typically as high as 50,000 hours. If you were to install one right now and run it for 8 hours a day every day you theoretically shouldn't have to change it for nearly 17 years... or year 2028 (give or take a few months and whether or not the world is even still around by then :laugh: ). Some of the LED bulbs from Sylvania are rated at 25,000 hours, which is still 3 times longer than most standard CFL's and over 2 times longer than the longest lasting CFL I can find on GE's site, which is 12,000 hours.
For the wattage consumed they produce slightly less light output than incandescent bulbs but more than CFL. An 8 watt LED bulb from Sylvania is about the equivalent of a 40 watt incandescent, producing 430 lumen of light output (a Sylvania 40w incandescent ranges from 390 to 470 lumen). GE's best 10 watt CFL initially produces 550 lumen but drops down to a mean lumen of 430 to 450 (they don't list mean lumen for this particular bulb so I had to do a very rough calculation based on other bulbs, the mean being in the 80% range of initial).
What it comes down to in the case above:
Sylvania 8w LED - 53.75 lumen/watt (lm/W)
Sylvania 40w Incandescent - 9.75 to 11.75 lm/W
GE T3 10w CFL - 43 to 45 lm/W
According to the Wiki (I know, I know) incandescent bulbs having a high of about 35 lm/W. CFL up to 75 lm/w while other fluorescent bulbs listed getting as high as 124.3 lm/W. Of the LED bulbs listed the highest of the standard screw base bulbs is 101.9 lm/W and LED bulbs in general have a "theoretical limit" of between 260 to 300 lm/W.
LED has the clear advantage over CFL and if anyone has any sense left in them should clearly see this is the alternative to pursue instead of these horrible CFL bulbs. Whatever the case may be... the government should NEVER tell us which ones we can or cannot use by banning them. Though... I honestly wouldn't mind CFL's being banned due to their major, and downright unhealthy, downfalls (though I would let the states decide that as it shouldn't be the Fed making those decisions). :laugh:
Forgot to add, LED bulbs are UV free and Sylvania even claims IR free. I believe they would still put off EM radiation but not sure how much compared to CFL.
Quote from: jerry wagner on March 22, 2011, 04:23:54 PM
Touching on your objections:
1.They contain mercury, correct they do as it is well established 0.69mg.
Didn't realize you said this the first time around. Quit spitting out your liberal lies and lets get some actual facts here.
From all of my looking around it is nowhere close to being "well established" that they are at 0.69 mg. Not sure where you got that from but from what I've been able to find most say they in the 3 to 5 mg range with some brands as low as 1 mg. GE even says they average at 5 mg.
Edit: I think I might have found where you got that .69 from. Only thing I could find was a Danish study from 1991 where they assumed the CFL bulb tested contained only .69 mg of mercury. From what I can find the pro-CFL groups and the manufacturers seem to agree on 5 mg being around the average. NEMA lamp companies even committed to capping total mercury in CFL's to 5 mg for under 25 watts and 6 mg for 25 to 40 watt bulbs. If they were truly able to make a CFL with around .69 mg of mercury they would be advertising that everywhere they could since everyone else averages out to 5 mg.
Give me a break!
Haven't got all of the way through yet but this seems to be a pretty interesting read: http://donjunior.com/images/The_CFL_Myth_article.pdf
Along with all of the dangers of these bulbs, they will all be made in China which will just increas our trade imbalances even more.
"Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs:
What To Do If A Bulb Breaks "
http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/cfl_fact_sheet_final.pdf
Methinks there is a bigger point being missed here. This is really more about government making unvetted social engineering choices and political power over the lives of every citizen in America than it is about CFLs & their mercury content. People like Jerry should expect to be told how to fold/wad their toilet paper as they live outside the US where milquetoast 'follow all the rules' is the norm. But here we have an legal expectation of liberty. The Congress was wrong to even consider this extra-constitutional law, and Bush was a dipstick for signing it. What does it say (about our citizenry and elected officials) when our leadership is busy dictating our light bulb choices? To me it says our citizenry is asleep at the switch and our leadership is blinded by ideology and too cozy with multinational businesses who have a lot to gain from such laws as this (GE = big political doner, GE= maker of CFLs in China, CFLs from China= much bigger profit margins, pols/GE win = taxpayers pay).
Quote from: Patriot on March 24, 2011, 08:10:46 AM
Methinks there is a bigger point being missed here. This is really more about government making unvetted social engineering choices and political power over the lives of every citizen in America than it is about CFLs & their mercury content. People like Jerry should expect to be told how to fold/wad their toilet paper as they live outside the US where milquetoast 'follow all the rules' is the norm. But here we have an legal expectation of liberty. The Congress was wrong to even consider this extra-constitutional law, and Bush was a dipstick for signing it. What does it say (about our citizenry and elected officials) when our leadership is busy dictating our light bulb choices? To me it says our citizenry is asleep at the switch and our leadership is blinded by ideology and too cozy with multinational businesses who have a lot to gain from such laws as this (GE = big political doner, GE= maker of CFLs in China, CFLs from China= much bigger profit margins, pols/GE win = taxpayers pay).
For lack of anything better, Patriot, shove it. We have legal expectation of liberty as much as you possess in the US if not more on many fronts.
Quote from: jerry wagner on March 24, 2011, 09:14:44 AM
For lack of anything better, Patriot, shove it. We have legal expectation of liberty as much as you possess in the US if not more on many fronts.
You believe you're guaranteed free speech too..... go check the Canadian Constitution.... it ain't there. So much for what you 'think' friend.
Quote from: Patriot on March 24, 2011, 09:42:40 AM
You believe you're guaranteed free speech too..... go check the Canadian Constitution.... it ain't there. So much for what you 'think' friend.
I know what's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.