So why did you vote for Kerry last time around, Kanter?
So the man had a problem, and overcame it -- and had the stones to admit it on
national television, too. Perhaps on your planet, that makes him an object of
derision; to most people on this planet, it's worthy of admiration.
I'd like to see a quote from even one "arms control expert" who would
say that eliminating civilian nuclear power would stop rogue nations
from developing nuclear weapons. I'd venture that "expert" would be
self-anointed or propounded by one of the "green" organizations w/ a
vendetta against nuclear power.
An enriched-U weapon doesn't require a reactor at all as the most simple
example. There's sufficient highly-enriched material already extant in
Russia that has yet to be diluted that diversion is one of the highest
paths for organizations w/ sufficient money.
I'm pretty sure it's based on the CFLs being disposed of improperly,
with the mercury that would be released being less than the amount
released by a coal fired plant for the 75% of electricity the CFL saves
vs. incandescent. I saw some comparison with actual numbers somewhere,
but I don't know where.
Interesting. Most of the stuff I saw was silent specifically but
usually detailed that they should not be tossed in the garbage, should
be sent somewhere or taken to a hazmat disposal site and all sorts of
stuff that very few people are likely to do in real life (g). I was
wondering if concentrating the mercury at landfills was different than
the spreading out of the mercury over large areas through smoke
I was talking about if all of the mercury in the CFLs got into the
environment, as if the worn-out CFLs are all ground up and incinerated in
If any are disposed of through lamp recycling outfits, then reduction of
mercury pollution would be even greater.
- Don Klipstein ( email@example.com)
About all I can find on my county, the big city nearby and
state websites (as well as the EPAs) is what the proper ways to dispose
of the CFLs. Nothing on the local and nothing I can find right off on
the EPA on the question of how they came to that conclusion. It may very
well be correct, I'm just saying I can't find anything right off to back
it up. Until then it is a rumor (g).
This comment is really special coming from a guy that in another part
of this thread posted a link to an article that used OPEC, officials
in India, and the secretary of state of MA as credible sources pinning
the high price of oil on speculators. LOL
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.