Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

[Jim Redelfs]

I'm not going to whine and demand a citation. I believe this claim.

Obviously (to me, anyway), "easy" in this context is relative.

Perhaps not, particularly with the proliferation of knowledge due to internet connectivity and access. I'm sure much of weapons nuke technology is well guarded, but not exactly secret anymore. Too bad.

Agreed. You're words have revealed that. I suspect, however, that you are among those that believe that words (diplomacy) should be used well after I think the shooting should commence.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. You are informed and write well. I've enjoyed the "conversation".

Oh, wait. This is usenet: Your muther wears COMBAT BOOTS! (So there)

[dpb]

JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

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.

--

[dpb]

JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

Ever been to visit a US commercial nuclear site?

--

[Jim Redelfs]

Hehehehe! Yeah, I saw that. Then we could hope for magically passive environmentalists when it came to breaking ground.

[dpb]

As I see it, what will happen w/ CFL's is the same thing that currently happens w/ incandescents -- when they burn out, folks will toss them in the trash and that's it, no matter what the rules are. There will be a small number of folks who will go to some extra trouble, but it will be a minute fraction of the population.

--

[Jim Redelfs]

"They" removed the mercury from dry cells (batteries). Now it's CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) turn to be the poster child of a Good Idea with a BAAAAD environmental impact.

How much mercury is in the average CFL? How much REAL damage can they do if introduced into the general waste stream and deposited in a MODERN landfill?

If they are PROPERLY recycled, what happens to the mercury?

If the D.C.Droids can legislate 35mpg and ban the 100w and 75w incandescent light bulb, why do they not address the building "threat" of discarded CFLs?

[dpb]

That they bought them is pretty good evidence. What motivated that want is, also, their business, not mine (nor yours)...after all, marketing folks deserve to make a living, too.

--

[Jim Redelfs]

Is the mercury in the average CFL more dangerous or present a greater potential for environmental impact that does the (presumable) lead in the solder of an incandescent lamp?

Are we simply trading one hazard for another to save a few kilowatts?

[dpb]

Mostly the ad agencies and media outlets paid for the development and air time (of course, they both get "public service" credits from the FCC for pro bono ad campaigns in lieu of some of the actual dollars.

The evidence is that all the efforts have not had much influence on increasing actual ridership of public transportation if market forces and convenience haven't been sufficient on their own. There's absolutely no reason to think that would change w/ a new campaign more than a very small amount.

--

[Phisherman]

In my city the trash service picks up your trash from the side of the house or the backyard which makes the streets look tidy. But, the recycle bins must be placed by the curb, not a big deal. I stopped city-service recycling years ago because...

Dogs, coons, varmints and kids get into the approved recycle bins (dogs around here know when it's trash day)

The recycle people smash all glass items and I'd rather not have to clean up slivers of glass again.

Recycle will not accept some plastics--even plastics with the triangle recycle symbol on them. They do accept any plastics that were used for non-food or any plastics that contained cooking oils. Strange.

Metal containers are to be washed and labels removed. Non-food metal is not accepted.

Cardboard of any kind is not accepted. I guess they can't profit enough.

I compost all my non-meat food scraps, coffee grounds and other items, don't buy magazines/newspapers anymore, so my recycle bin would take a month to fill. I take aluminum cans to the church where they sell it and turn it into money for the needy--better than profit for the recycle folks. Some cities charge per bag of trash which I think is a bad idea--people will secretly dump their trash bags anywhere and everywhere. Trash pickup won't accept appliances nor old tires, which is why you can see many old tires and rusted appliances thrown into a ditch--lovely.

[dpb]

That's not reasonable in that the Federal highway system promotes interstate commerce, not intrastate. Each state (or commonwealth) does have their own state transportation departments which take care of state highways already.

--

[dpb]

Don Klipstein wrote: ...

I would wager you're using far more nonrenewable resources than the bare minimum necessary from the viewpoint of the average _pick_the_nation_ individual but are unlikely to be willing to exchange your lifestyle for theirs. That you have time and resources to spend here is prima facie evidence of your exalted position re: most of the world.

By the same token, it is unreasonable to expect someone else to revert to your level or choices regardless of what you see as "unconscionable".

--

[dpb]

Or, in many locations, there are actual penalties for _NOT_ participating (From higher collection costs for those w/o recycling bins to actual fines).

The point has been pretty amply demonstrated that unless there is coercion, widespread adherence doesn't occur unless it is essentially cost-free (where cost is both convenience and monetary) or there is a penalty that changes the break-even point.

As a prime example, the local County landfill went from no charge to charging for dumping household goods and landscape trimmings in order to recoup some of the costs of the EPA requirements placed on landfills. As soon as that happened, living in the county on the same side of town, we started receiving "gifts" of all kinds from the folks in town who wouldn't pay $12 to get rid of the old couch or the dead limbs.

Of course, what makes this such a big pita is that when I clean up my fields, now _I_ have to pay the dump charge as well as spend the time and effort to pick the crap up.

[dpb]

That would undoubtedly be short-sighted -- a world recession would not be to their benefit either.

And, it's highly unlikely the Chinese would take it "sitting down" any more than we if it became exceedingly onerous. It would be an interesting shift in world politics to see the two team up against the OPEC group though, wouldn't it???? :)

[Kurt Ullman]

I haven;t had a chance to look over the cites with any depth yet (thanks for providing them). But at least the above seems to answer a part of the question. Although that doesn't really answer the question as to whether it is more dangerous spread over a large area (as in emissions) or more concentrated in landfills. Which may or may not be a mitigating factor.

[Jim Redelfs]

Of course. However, my consumption of Cheerios (admittedly made from a renewable resource) has the same effect, if lesser.

What is overlooked by many when it comes to the artificially high (or low) price of gasoline and its effect on those of lesser means is those same folks effect on the environment: They drive older, often MUCH older, vehicles that are in relatively poor condition. As such, they consume a disproportionate amount of fuel and, in doing so, pollute more.

These same poor slobs are disproportionately unlikely to use seatbelts or acquire (note I didn't say "purchase") - and use - child car seats. Are we not all paying for these choices? Where's the solution to this problem? More legislation? More government bureaucracies and control? I think not.

I concede your premise but it is to WHOM we allow to define "necessary" that concerns me greatly.

Compared to 30-40 years ago, too much of my freedom to choose has been legally deferred to another person or government entity. In so doing, they have done a mostly poor job of it. Therefore, I am VERY unwilling to abdicate any more freedom(s) than I currently have.

[Jim Redelfs]

Agreed. Voter apathy is easily one of my biggest frustrations.

[Jim Redelfs]

OK. I'm sorry. That sentiment should have been dead and buried YEARS ago. Sadly, it will always haunt us to some degree.

Heck, I've never been to Chicago, much less any more northeast than that.

You'll recall my diatribe excepted those living in the relative high density areas I called "the rust belt". Given the age of such cities, there is no other, viable transportation than so-called "mass" transit. Just look at the hoards and throngs of people walking back to New Jersey from New York after the twin towers fell.

I'm referring mostly to urban areas like Minneapolis, for example. The design of the bridge to replace the one that fell (apparently) includes accommodation for light rail. It sounds good but too few will use it. Those areas WEST of the Mississippi river that have built light rail (for example) have discovered that the system is woefully underused. But that doesn't shut 'em down: Those that don't and/or never will use the system pay for it because light rail is A Good Idea. This is as unfair to ME as is the gas consumption of my Silverado to "them". Touché.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

HeyBub is a member of the 54%. His affliction is passed on through genetics and upbringing. Only sterilization will solve the problem.

It's too late. The 54% spoke twice, and put one of their own in the White House.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

There's no such thing as diplomacy, just as there's no such thing as honest legislation. There is only the transfer of wealth and influence. Bribery, in other words.