Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

Page 7 of 10  


Why must they be accessible and retrievable?
--
--Tim Smith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/2/2008 1:18 AM Tim Smith spake thus:

Ask DOE; it's always been one of their requirements. I would guess because they want to be able to monitor them and make sure they're not getting too hot, leaking, etc.
Just bein' careful, dontcha know.
--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
| For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing | mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving | lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead: | | http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/business/24recycling.html?ref=environment
What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same reason?
Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL) breaks?
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

What I read somewhere is if it breaks and gets on your rug you're supposed to cut out the section of rug.. Jeez. I used to play with mercury when I was a kid, rolled it around in my hand, etc. Now they close a school if a thermometer breaks (they really did this at a Delaware school..) And yet there are near NO cases of mercury poisoning reported in a year.. Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Jun 2008 16:26:25 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

Hi Phil,
A Philips F32T8XLL contains 1.7 mg of Hg and has a rated life of 36,000 hours when operated on instant start ballasts (3 hours per start). It provides roughly the same amount of light as two 100-watt soft white incandescent lamps (~ 3,000 lumens). With ballast losses, we might peg its power consumption at about 30-watts (0.88 BF).
Over the life of this lamp, it would consume 1,080 kWh, whereas the two equivalent incandescents would total 7,200 kWh -- a difference, in this case, of some 6,100 kWh.
Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately pollutes our air, land and water.
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
| Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the | generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg | into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg | contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure | landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas | the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately | pollutes our air, land and water.
But at least those other releases of Hg are not released in my house.
Hg is not by primary reason for avoiding fluorescent lights. But it is one and would be the primary one if the light quality issue gets solved.
That's not to say I like the idea of releasing Hg into the air. For every incandescent lamp used, we should depricate an equivalent amount of coal burned. I'm all for building lots more solar/wind/hydro/nuclear capability (provided it is done in the right way).
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Jun 2008 07:10:53 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

I've broken a number of fluorescent lamps over the years and when one crashes to the floor I basically follow EPA guidelines; for me, it hasn't been a concern. For those who are uncomfortable about the prospect of cleaning up a broken CFL, an incandescent or halogen source may be a better option.

Some are ok with the light, some aren't, and some of us are willing to trade-off a bit of light quality for the other benefits they provide. You have to decide for yourself what makes sense for you.

I think we have to acknowledge the basic truth that incandescent lamps use, on average, four times more electricity than their CFL counterparts and that over half of the electricity currently generated by U.S. utilities is coal fired and that more coal-fired plants will be built to help meet future load growth. Nothing is going to change that, at least not overnight.
With respect to utilities switching to cleaner sources of power, my sense is that most folks support the idea in principle -- they just don't want to pay for it by way of higher electricity rates. If utilities are going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in these alternate sources (and, at the same time, write-off their previous investments in dirty coal), someone is going to foot the bill and we all know who that is, right?
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: | On 25 Jun 2008 07:10:53 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |
wrote: |> |>| Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the |>| generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg |>| into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg |>| contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure |>| landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas |>| the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately |>| pollutes our air, land and water. |> |>But at least those other releases of Hg are not released in my house. | | I've broken a number of fluorescent lamps over the years and when one | crashes to the floor I basically follow EPA guidelines; for me, it | hasn't been a concern. For those who are uncomfortable about the | prospect of cleaning up a broken CFL, an incandescent or halogen | source may be a better option. | |>Hg is not by primary reason for avoiding fluorescent lights. But it is |>one and would be the primary one if the light quality issue gets solved. | | Some are ok with the light, some aren't, and some of us are willing to | trade-off a bit of light quality for the other benefits they provide. | You have to decide for yourself what makes sense for you.
If I get past the Hg issue, I will put FL in some places but not in others. That is, unless the address the light quality issue that I am concerned about. Areas where I will be working for more than 20 minutes at a time will have incandescent/halogen lights.
|>That's not to say I like the idea of releasing Hg into the air. For every |>incandescent lamp used, we should depricate an equivalent amount of coal |>burned. I'm all for building lots more solar/wind/hydro/nuclear capability |>(provided it is done in the right way). | | I think we have to acknowledge the basic truth that incandescent lamps | use, on average, four times more electricity than their CFL | counterparts and that over half of the electricity currently generated | by U.S. utilities is coal fired and that more coal-fired plants will | be built to help meet future load growth. Nothing is going to change | that, at least not overnight.
If they come up with suitable replacements, I'm fine with using them. Maybe the Hg issue won't be much of one. I'm considering the fact that so far I have never broken an FL light outside of some intentional acts when I was a teenager. The spiral of CFLs seems to be a stronger glass than the long tubes, as well.
FYI, I also intend to avoid the E26 screw base in as many places as I can.
| With respect to utilities switching to cleaner sources of power, my | sense is that most folks support the idea in principle -- they just | don't want to pay for it by way of higher electricity rates. If | utilities are going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in these | alternate sources (and, at the same time, write-off their previous | investments in dirty coal), someone is going to foot the bill and we | all know who that is, right?
We have a broad spectrum of people out there that range from wanting to have the lowest price at everyone else's expense, to those willing to pay triple and more to ensure they impact no one else. It will be interesting to watch.
I say "tax it". If you don't want certain things done and can show a good cause why (it impacts others in some way), then tax it. That comes down to electrical usage. Raise the tax on the _generation_ of electrical power that is made from coal. Or just tax the measured pollution produced (leaves open the possibility of developing better cleaning processes). I'm not concerned with the banning of A19/E26 white incandescent bulbs because there are plenty of alternatives. The yellow insect bulbs can be used for reptile warming. I can go with new fixtures that use bi-pin halogens, especially at low voltage.
If I were caught under the silliness of California's law that requires a certain amount of lighting be the high efficacy type, and focuses on the kitchen, where I need good quality task lighting the most (and generally for no more than an hour or two a day, except on 2 or 3 holidays a year), then you will see HPS lights (unused) dominating the kitchen while I still used localized halogen task lighting there.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

I've found tubes that are especially low mercury. So low, they are approved for common trash disposal.
daestrom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:51:07 -0400, "daestrom"

Hi daestrom,
That's correct. In virtually all jurisdictions, lamps that pass federal TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) regulations can be disposed in the regular household trash just like any other light bulb.
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca says...

How about nukes instead?

Would rather read the National Enquirer.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure, why not? Rates will drop like a stone and we'll be awash in so much of the stuff that we'll run space heaters in our refrigerators just to keep it from spilling out on the floor.

<Biting hand> <Gawd, this is killing me...>
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca says...

I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the issue.

You succeed rather well at your wishes. You are indeed a fool.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, what about nukes? What is it that you're asking? I'll check back with you after I finish watching Bill O'Reilly. Thank you.
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus:

Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the NYT *is* a certified fool.
--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you aren't always sure with the NYT.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More to the point: the lies in the NE are obvious, whereas those in the NYT are much more subtle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
|> |>David Nebenzahl wrote: | |>> Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the |>> NYT *is* a certified fool. |> Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you |>aren't always sure with the NYT. | | More to the point: the lies in the NE are obvious, whereas those in the NYT | are much more subtle.
The NE knows that everyone knows they are lying. They don't try to hide it. The NYT tries to make sure people don't know they are lying.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net says...

You're quite sure with the NYT too, but it's a lot less entertaining.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net says... |> |> David Nebenzahl wrote: |> > |> > On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus: |> >
|> > > |> > > I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the |> > > issue. |> > > |> > >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/business/24recycling.html?ref=environment |> > >>> |> > >>>Would rather read the National Enquirer. |> > |> > Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the |> > NYT *is* a certified fool. |> |> |> Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you |> aren't always sure with the NYT. | | You're quite sure with the NYT too, but it's a lot less | entertaining.
Actually, the NYT has been known to "dilute" their publication with some truthful articles from time to time.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.