1 edit | reply to PrntRhd
Re: Another CFL (compact fluorescent light) question PROVE that running a multi-10's-of-megawatt plant for the milliseconds it takes to power a single CFL for it's lifetime generates MORE mercury then is enclosed in said CFL - I don't believe it.
Don't reference any government websites either - they're the ones mandating the use of CFL's...
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !' |
|
PrntRhdPremium
join:2004-11-03
Fairfield, CA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| But the thread subject is not about mercury in CFLs, I was simply responding to Eregular's reply where he was dancing on the head of a pin. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
If you really do have independent evidence the government site is using falsified basis for their claims, you should post it, otherwise it is just opinion. |
|
|
|
| said by PrntRhd:But the thread subject is not about mercury in CFLs, I was simply responding to Eregular's reply where he was dancing on the head of a pin. Not that there is anything wrong with that. If you really do have independent evidence the government site is using falsified basis for their claims, you should post it, otherwise it is just opinion. Translation - "My post is also opinion." Done.
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !' |
|
PrntRhdPremium
join:2004-11-03
Fairfield, CA Reviews:
·Comcast
4 edits | EPA estimates the U.S. is responsible for the release of 104 metric tons of mercury emissions each year. Most of these emissions come from coal-fired electrical power. Mercury released into the air is the main way that mercury gets into water and bio-accumulates in fish.
Your opinion is uncorroborated. Mine is not.
www.nescaum.org/documents/rpt031104mercury.pdf/
»members.4cleanair.org/rc_files/3···cury.pdf
»www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20···1654.htm
»www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integr···ons.html
»www.scientificamerican.com/artic···ule-over |
|
 TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | reply to jay_rm
said by jay_rm:PROVE that running a multi-10's-of-megawatt plant for the milliseconds it takes to power a single CFL for it's lifetime generates MORE mercury then is enclosed in said CFL - I don't believe it. Don't reference any government websites either - they're the ones mandating the use of CFL's... Those "milliseconds" quickly add up when there are millions or billions of CFLs replacing incandescent bulbs around the world. To think otherwise is foolish! With your logic, we might as well make every 60 watt bulb a 100 watt bulb since the energy production at plant level is negligible for one bulb!
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-:-
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."~Ronald Reagan |
|
| reply to jay_rm
I have used CF bulbs since the early 80's in Europe with absolutely no problems whatsoever. they last longer they are far cheaper to run and they can be used in ANY fitting with enough clearance. If there is too much heat buildup inside a fitting then a normal incandescent bulb would produce the same, if not worse condition.
The mercury issue is not really an issue, all florescent bulbs contain a minute amount of mercury, no one has complained before about dangers. |
|
