OT: best legislative bill title EVER!

Page 4 of 5  


Yep, remember riding the South Shore railroad into the industrial fog, then wishing I had some soot in my nose to kill the smell of the Chicago river when I disembarked. They moved that mess overseas, thank heaven. Now the formerly exploited unskilled make big dollars selling powders in small baggies where they used to make steel.
Man is the only creature to foul his own nest? Cute, but ridiculous, of course. You have seen a bitch lick her pups or the pile of debris under a bluebird box, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Note "under" as opposed to "in". And it seems to me that a bitch licking her pups is all about keeping things *clean*, not fouling the nest. Not sure what your point was, but I think you'll have to keep looking if you want to find a counterexample to the principle that only man fouls his own nest.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nope, only a matter of how it's cleaned up. Only a fool would think that tossing into someone else's world constitutes "cleanup."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nobody ever said that it did. Did you have a point there somewhere?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 2, 3:57 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

"killer smogs" in the US and England that killed thousands outright. causing tens of thousands of deaths.
Over the next couple of decades the mortality due to chronic exposure came to be better understood and it came to be appreciated that air that was clean enough that people didn't die overnight from breathing it was still not clean enough.
--
FF


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

Wow, we agree on something.

In the cases you cite above, I think it is all one agenda, the people in question reject and despise *all* technology (unless they are using it of course). The rest of us are supposed to be living in this idyllic sustenance-level agrarian lifestyle while our betters are zipping around in their Lear jets and limos in order to assure that we, the little people, are living our lives according to their enviro-nazi driven plans.

I think you've got the spelling right, my textbook by him is at work. I had Dr. Beckmann for my junior-level "Introduction to Probability Theory" course when I was an undergrad at the University of Colorado. He was one of the best professors I had during that time. One of his more memorable lines was the statement that "once you have derived the formula once, you have the moral right to just use the formula in the future without having to re-derive it".

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

However the Chernobyl approach to containment left a bit to be desired, as did their approach to dosimetry--the 'blood cell' dosimeter.
--
FF




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

!?? The people who lived and worked near Chernobyl might disagree.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your logic:
People who drive Mercedes, are driving an unsafe vehicle. Just ask Dodi Fayed and Pricess Diana.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's an interesting way to look at it. I would take your logic one step further and say that anything can be unsafe when the human element is involved. BTW, I use to write software that was used to drive operator training simulators for nuclear power plants, so I am well aware of the extreme amounts of training that operators go through.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The reactor design wasn't the problem nearly so much as its operation.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey! We're doing our part by dying young and saving social security $. <g>
(I'm closer to 200 lbs than 300 now, btw.)
-- Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

You win. "Mythbusters" busted the "leave it on, save energy" myth not long ago. IIRC, they found the extra energy burned at start-up of a CF bulb was the equivalent of leaving it on an extra 2.7 seconds. So unless you're coming back sooner than that, it makes sense to turn the light off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2 Feb 2007 18:57:03 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com"

If they did that they they didn't understand the "myth". It's not "leave it on, save energy", it's "leave it on, save the bulb". Every time you turn on a fluorescent light you shorten its life a bit. At one time the numbers worked out that the cost of the reduction in bulb life was about the same as the cost of the power to run it for a half an hour, so if it was going to be off for less than a half an hour it was cheaper to leave it on. Don't know how the numbers work out now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Thy Mythbusters actually evaluated, not whether it would save energy to leave a light on, but whether it would save money to leave it on. They took into consideration the life cycle of a light and its replacement cost, as well as the energy savings. It wasn't the extra energy, but the extra costs, of leaving the light on that they measured. The break-even point for flourescent lights was 2.7 seconds. (For incandescent lights, it was a small fraction of one second.)
One thing they didn't measure was the effect of temperature. I have an unheated shop, so when I turn my (flourescent)lights on, they start out at the ambient temperature, which this past January, has been around 20 degrees F. I suspect that shortens their life considerably. I would be interested in finding out how much.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Those numbers IIRC, work out very differently for fluorescent and incandescent. I have a motion detector switch in the laundry room because I found that we were almost always forgetting to turn it off when we left the room and, being hidden away in the basement, the light would still be burning two days later when we came downstairs to do more laundry. When I replace the switch in the bathroom, the new one will be a motion detector, too. I intend to add a vent fan and I don't want it running for more than a few minutes after the room empties ... but I DO want it running long enough to dry the room out.
I bought the 15 minute model for the basement. I think I'll probably do the same in the bathroom.
Bill
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But the rapid on/off cycles shorten the life of the CF bulbs. Check the details on how the expected life spans are determined. The energy and environmental costs of manufacture/disposal have to be factored into the total lifetime costs of the CF bulbs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Haar wrote:

How do you calculate the environmental costs?
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Further, houses with electric resistance heating realize no energy savings at all with respect to fluorescent vs incandescent bulbs during the heating season.
--
FF


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

Good point, but I doubt that this would as much of an issue for California as for more northern climes. I think we might have reached 10F here today.
On the other hand, your comment seems to be based on an assumption that all the heat generated by incandescent lighting goes into heating occupied space - not true for outside lights.
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.