Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann

Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/4/2011 4:24:17 PM)
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/michele-bachmann-light-bulbs-agenda-21?page=1 Does any of this sound familiar?

Lucylastic -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/4/2011 4:36:33 PM)
More of the same mangling from michelle the cupid stunt

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/4/2011 6:23:09 PM)
Mother Jones inaccuracies sound familiar yes. Eg: "In reality, no one's stopping New Hampshirites (or anyone else, for that matter) from buying any kind of lightbulb they please—even the incandescent variety that Bachmann warns will be outlawed unless we pass the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act that she supported. " In CA 100 watt incandescents are out this year, all of them by 2018. And as CA goes so goes the nation. Unless of course the rest of the country wakes up to the hype. Their lifetime has been exaggerated by as much as 50% based on CA studies.

MileHighM -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/4/2011 6:38:49 PM)
Moonbats are moonbats, right or left of the spectrum----On the topic of light bulbs, Energy efficient bulbs are beneficial to the consumer. They will save the average person a lot of money. Part of my job in the solar energy field has me consistently looking at energy saving measures to make renewables more economically viable. CFLs and such use significantly less power and have a much greater life span. Just as Bachmann thinks sustainability is a conspiracy, the lefties over reached with the incandescent ban/restrictions. The truth is certain bulbs like CFLs are full of mercury or other harmful heavy metals. They shouldn't be used in nurseries or around small children. They have to be recycled and handled like hazardous material when broken. The average consumer is unaware of those facts. I wish people knew a thing or two about science and would stop politically reacting to every little special interest concern. Besides, why didn't the dems just tax the bulbs--help with the debt and encourage consumers to make the switch. I usually wouldn't say such a thing, but look at how effective it was with smoking. Yet, it still allows people the freedom of choice.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/4/2011 6:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM Moonbats are moonbats, right or left of the spectrum----On the topic of light bulbs, Energy efficient bulbs are beneficial to the consumer. They will save the average person a lot of money. Part of my job in the solar energy field has me consistently looking at energy saving measures to make renewables more economically viable. CFLs and such use significantly less power and have a much greater life span. Just as Bachmann thinks sustainability is a conspiracy, the lefties over reached with the incandescent ban/restrictions. The truth is certain bulbs like CFLs are full of mercury or other harmful heavy metals. They shouldn't be used in nurseries or around small children. They have to be recycled and handled like hazardous material when broken. The average consumer is unaware of those facts. I wish people knew a thing or two about science and would stop politically reacting to every little special interest concern. Besides, why didn't the dems just tax the bulbs--help with the debt and encourage consumers to make the switch. I usually wouldn't say such a thing, but look at how effective it was with smoking. Yet, it still allows people the freedom of choice. Perpetuating social engineering via the tax system is exactly what we're trying to get away from. If the savings are real then no tax incentives are needed...thats real freedom of choice. What about LEDs? Thats what Ive been switching to.

MileHighM -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/4/2011 6:50:43 PM)
Well if I had a choice I would agree with you. But, we are stuck with a lot of retards on both sides of the aisle in congress

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/4/2011 6:53:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM Well if I had a choice I would agree with you. But, we are stuck with a lot of retards on both sides of the aisle in congress See my question in the edit above. Thanks.

DomKen -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/4/2011 8:11:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM The truth is certain bulbs like CFLs are full of mercury or other harmful heavy metals. They shouldn't be used in nurseries or around small children. They have to be recycled and handled like hazardous material when broken. The average consumer is unaware of those facts. The truth is there is much less mercury in a CFL than there is in a standard flourescent tube and those have been used without problem for decades. The mercury lie has been debunked for a long time. http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

DomKen -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/4/2011 8:13:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Mother Jones inaccuracies sound familiar yes. Eg: "In reality, no one's stopping New Hampshirites (or anyone else, for that matter) from buying any kind of lightbulb they please—even the incandescent variety that Bachmann warns will be outlawed unless we pass the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act that she supported. " In CA 100 watt incandescents are out this year, all of them by 2018. And as CA goes so goes the nation. Unless of course the rest of the country wakes up to the hype. Their lifetime has been exaggerated by as much as 50% based on CA studies. yes, traditional incandescants are going away. However nothing is preventing manufacturers from releasing energy efficient incandescant bulbs. BTW do you know how much energy is wasted as heat from a traditional incandescant compared to how much energy is actually transfrmed into light?

Sanity -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 3:42:01 AM)
That heat is desirable for two thirds of the year in Northern climates, theyre even used specifically for their heat in certain applications quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen yes, traditional incandescants are going away. However nothing is preventing manufacturers from releasing energy efficient incandescant bulbs. BTW do you know how much energy is wasted as heat from a traditional incandescant compared to how much energy is actually transfrmed into light?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 6:18:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity That heat is desirable for two thirds of the year in Northern climates, theyre even used specifically for their heat in certain applications quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen yes, traditional incandescants are going away. However nothing is preventing manufacturers from releasing energy efficient incandescant bulbs. BTW do you know how much energy is wasted as heat from a traditional incandescant compared to how much energy is actually transfrmed into light? The prob is, sanity, that they aren't all that efficient in converting electricity to usable (for residential purposes) heat either. Add that to the fact that light bulbs tend to be at the top of a room and heat rises and it's just not a good use of energy. The only thing I can think of that is more inefficient is "ceiling heat" which was popular in the 50's/early 60's. All that did was make your attic hot.

MileHighM -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 7:42:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM Well if I had a choice I would agree with you. But, we are stuck with a lot of retards on both sides of the aisle in congress See my question in the edit above. Thanks. LED's aren't economical yet. Although they can be dimmable more easily and have a more pleaseant glow about them to most people than a CFL, over the life of a quality LED, they will still cost more than or the same as an incandescent. Despite not being full of mercury, the diode used in the LEDs contains arsenic. While usually encapsulated in plastic, don't let your toddler swallow one. Also the average LED at Home Depot or other outlet, still does not pump out the same number of lumens per watt as that of a CFL. I do like LEDs. I think they overall safer than CFLs. New LED technology in the lab is putting their efficiency well over 100 lumens per watt, making them some of the most efficient bulbs around. However, it is still very hard to make a single LED that uses more than a few watts, meaning the bulbs you buy are usually a series of them inside. They just need more time to be a truely competitive product on the market. I updated my whole house with CFLs. I am saving 22$ month on the electricity bills. And my LED Christmas lights save me 40$ a month when they are up (yeah I light the shit out of my house, think Clark Griswold in Christmas Vacation). Still, Will, Utilities are a public entity (Yeah a private company but thouroughly regulated by the state). 99+% of Americans get their power from one of these public entities. How we use power from these entities is something that can be regulated to some extent. Hell, they can cause rolling blackouts and there is nothing we can do about it. Completely privatizing the utilities is a non starter, like privatizing all the roads in the US because of the infrastructure involved. We need a government to do a few things to ensure regular commerce and development.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 7:49:04 AM)
Every incandescent light bulb in My office (several of the old decorative fixtures that I kept during the remodel use them) gets replaced with a flourescent when it dies. Why? It's not to save the environment. It's to save money. They are cheaper in the long run. MONEY in your pocket. People that whine about incandescent bulbs being 'outlawed' are just pissed off they didn't think of it first.

mnottertail -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 7:55:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity That heat is desirable for two thirds of the year in Northern climates, theyre even used specifically for their heat in certain applications quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen yes, traditional incandescants are going away. However nothing is preventing manufacturers from releasing energy efficient incandescant bulbs. BTW do you know how much energy is wasted as heat from a traditional incandescant compared to how much energy is actually transfrmed into light? The prob is, sanity, that they aren't all that efficient in converting electricity to usable (for residential purposes) heat either. Add that to the fact that light bulbs tend to be at the top of a room and heat rises and it's just not a good use of energy. The only thing I can think of that is more inefficient is "ceiling heat" which was popular in the 50's/early 60's. All that did was make your attic hot. Yeah, and not only that, his comment is pure asswipe at any rate. Here in northern climates, we use infra-red heaters, if we use electricity for any heat. A fucking 100W bulb wouldnt keep a fuckin fly warm if they were crawling on the fuckin thing.

MileHighM -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 7:57:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM The truth is certain bulbs like CFLs are full of mercury or other harmful heavy metals. They shouldn't be used in nurseries or around small children. They have to be recycled and handled like hazardous material when broken. The average consumer is unaware of those facts. The truth is there is much less mercury in a CFL than there is in a standard flourescent tube and those have been used without problem for decades. The mercury lie has been debunked for a long time. http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp Lie?? Read your own article.... Snopes is a bit dubious at times but lets go with it. They admit the bulbs do contain mercury. I do admit, one bulb does not contain enough to pose a "grave" danger as they put it. They admit, you still have to take special percausions when dealing with a broken bulb. You can't vaccuum them, you have ventilate the room, and you can't throw them out. They have to be disposed of like batteries or any other toxic waste. The truth is one bulb---no big deal. But, you can have dozens of these things in your house. Over time, if you are not responsible in dealing with these things, the aggregate effect in your home could lead to elevated mercury levels for the inhabitants, and greater risk to increases mercury in the environment. Flourescents have been used safely, but almost exclusively in overhead fixtures. CFLs end up in floor lamps and other fixures more likely to be damaged or broken. infants are at a higher risk of mercury poisoning than that of adults. I am just saying know the facts and be smart. I use them in my home, but I am also not some douche ignoramous who forgets to put child locks on the chemical cabinet. If you have small children, you should be aware. Sure they aren't drain cleaner, but neither are paint chips, and you won't let your kids eat those, even if they don't contain lead.

MileHighM -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 8:14:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Every incandescent light bulb in My office (several of the old decorative fixtures that I kept during the remodel use them) gets replaced with a flourescent when it dies. Why? It's not to save the environment. It's to save money. They are cheaper in the long run. MONEY in your pocket. People that whine about incandescent bulbs being 'outlawed' are just pissed off they didn't think of it first. If you read my posts, I agree they SAVE MONEY. But, why not just ban the sale of carbeurators (at least in new engines)??? They are horribly inefficient compared to fuel injection. Cars, lawnmower, motorcycles, etc are responsible for far more pollution than light bulbs. Well your lawn mower would probably double in price, thats why. The reality is you just don't ban shit for the sake of your cause. Educate and encourage. The consumer will get wise. Hell, when I was in the Dominican Republic a few months back nearly everyone had the CFLs. They get it, so can we. Money savings will always attract buyers. You must also realize competition also fuels innovation. Early CFLs cast off horrible bluish light that was hard on the eyes. Now look at them, they have soft white, bright white, natural white, etc. Leaving incandescents on the market will only inspire a better energy efficient bulb to attract more consumers.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 8:30:22 AM)
The only reason it said I was replying to you with the post was I posted just after you. We're in agreement.

MileHighM -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 8:32:05 AM)
Sorry for the freak out then [;)]

Hillwilliam -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 8:34:57 AM)
No worries.

rulemylife -> RE: Paranoia, sustainability and Bachmann (8/5/2011 8:59:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM Just as Bachmann thinks sustainability is a conspiracy, the lefties over reached with the incandescent ban/restrictions. The truth is certain bulbs like CFLs are full of mercury or other harmful heavy metals. They shouldn't be used in nurseries or around small children. They have to be recycled and handled like hazardous material when broken. The average consumer is unaware of those facts. I wish people knew a thing or two about science and would stop politically reacting to every little special interest concern. Explain to me how the average consumer is unaware of those facts when they have been well-publicized.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875