Nope. More people, by far, and more property has been destroyed by the use of hydroelectric power than by other forms of electricity generation.
Just one dam failure (Banqaio) resulted in 85,000 deaths in 1975. It created a wall of water 6 meters high and 12 kilometers wide moving 600,000,000 cubic meters of water.
Dams don't often fail, but when they do the result is, um, spectacular.
The Mercury in a CFL is a non-issue. Use of CFL actually releases LESS Mercury into the environment than the extra generation necessary to power incandescent bulbs.
In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury released into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by the reduced power generation.
We can put all that "saved" Mercury into vaccines.
Balderdash! I'm in Texas and in some cattle-grazing areas you can't grow dirt! Even the lizards are stunted.
Do you think cattle are feeding in places similar to Kentucky horse farms? Bah! There's ten feet between each pitiful clump of vegetation! Watch your next "Western" closely - are the cowboys standing in fields of clover? Are they having shoot-outs in the strawberry patch? Do the cattle stampede through forests of mighty redwoods?
IT'S DIRT!
Raw, dry, sterile, DIRT. And not very good dirt, either.
But to the basic question: Vegetables are not food. Vegetables are what food eats.
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair Subject: Re: All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs... References:
Organizati>JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
What you state makes good sense, however, our laws and regulations require disposal of lamps containing mercury and certain other materials under the "universal waste" rules. I'm not certain that a residential consumer is bound by these regulations but business or industrial users are. As it stands now, the end user can use all the electricty he or she wants; If that user chooses to save electricity by using CFL or standard florescent lamps, though, then the rules on disposing of those lamps must be followed.
Yeah, and if god dint want us to eat animals, he wouldna made them taste so good, right?
Fukn Texans don't know shit except the roster of who's being executed this week.
No doubt some land is less arable than others, and in fact some might only be good for cattle grazing.
But are you the agronomist who's done research on what can/cannot be grown on less arable lands? Does that mean that cattle STILL should be bred, even if grass/hay etc is all that can be grown?
Well, yeah, iffin yer a texan.
Think soy protein.
Who said "cattle"?
*Goats* can be raised on land that's practically useless for any other purpose, and in fact are *far* more efficient than cattle at converting vegetable matter into meat.
"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power plants is OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose identity has been CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what mercury levels they could afford to release or control.
I'm surprised you either didn't know this, or that you're pretending it's acceptable.
I think you need to renew the lining in your tinfoil hat, Kanter.
You still don't read much.
One of many articles on the issue:
"The Cheney case centered on whether the GAO could demand to know who met with the interagency task force, chaired by Cheney, that wrote Bush's energy policy. Democrats had argued that Big Business was having too much influence in the process. When Cheney refused to cooperate, the GAO went to court for the first time in its 81-year history."
I think you need to have the nursing home staff bring you the newspapers more often.
Cheney energy papers may have Yucca policy answers LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- Energy policy documents that Vice President Cheney has kept under wraps may indicate why the Bush administration switched its position on Yucca Mountain, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday as he joined a legal effort to unlock the documents.
Nevada lawmakers have voiced concern that a White House task force led by Cheney met privately last year with nuclear industry officials -- but sought little input from Yucca critics -- as they developed a national energy policy. Those meetings may have led Bush to abandon a promise to allow "sound science" guide his decision about the planned high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Reid said.
Bush broke his promise when he approved Yucca in February, before important scientific studies were complete, Nevada lawmakers say.
"The administration needs to stop hiding the truth," Reid said. "They should tell the public which executives the Vice President met with and when he met with them."
Reid on Monday filed an amicus "friend of the court" brief in federal court in support of the General Accounting Office's lawsuit to make certain energy documents public. Many lawmakers want to know who White House officials met with as they drafted the administration's sweeping energy policy released in May 2001. The policy endorsed a national nuclear waste dump amid other far-reaching proposals.
White House officials have declined to release the documents because they say they have a right to solicit information in the protected confines of a private meeting. Bush wants the ability to get candid views outside the government, aides say.
The GAO is the investigative arm of Congress. The White House's position of hiding information about U.S. policy threatens the ability of Congress to do its job, Reid said.
"This administration is systematically pursing a policy of hiding this information from the people -- something which should not be tolerated in a democracy," Reid said.
News, carefully hidden from fools like you, Miller. All based on facts. Next time there's a moth in your house, ask it to read the newspaper aloud for you.
The New York Times
December 23, 2005
Editorial
Mr. Cheney's Imperial Presidency
George W. Bush has quipped several times during his political career that it would be so much easier to govern in a dictatorship. Apparently he never told his vice president that this was a joke.
Virtually from the time he chose himself to be Mr. Bush's running mate in
2000, Dick Cheney has spearheaded an extraordinary expansion of the powers of the presidency - from writing energy policy behind closed doors with oil executives to abrogating longstanding treaties and using the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to invade Iraq, scrap the Geneva Conventions and spy on American citizens.It was a chance Mr. Cheney seems to have been dreaming about for decades. Most Americans looked at wrenching events like the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and the Iran-contra debacle and worried that the presidency had become too powerful, secretive and dismissive. Mr. Cheney looked at the same events and fretted that the presidency was not powerful enough, and too vulnerable to inspection and calls for accountability.
The president "needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," Mr. Cheney said this week as he tried to stifle the outcry over a domestic spying program that Mr. Bush authorized after the 9/11 attacks.
Before 9/11, Mr. Cheney was trying to undermine the institutional and legal structure of multilateral foreign policy: he championed the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Moscow in order to build an antimissile shield that doesn't work but makes military contractors rich. Early in his tenure, Mr. Cheney, who quit as chief executive of Halliburton to run with Mr. Bush in 2000, gathered his energy industry cronies at secret meetings in Washington to rewrite energy policy to their specifications. Mr. Cheney offered the usual excuses about the need to get candid advice on important matters, and the courts, sadly, bought it. But the task force was not an exercise in diverse views. Mr. Cheney gathered people who agreed with him, and allowed them to write national policy for an industry in which he had recently amassed a fortune.
The effort to expand presidential power accelerated after 9/11, taking advantage of a national consensus that the president should have additional powers to use judiciously against terrorists.
Mr. Cheney started agitating for an attack on Iraq immediately, pushing the intelligence community to come up with evidence about a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda that never existed. His team was central to writing the legal briefs justifying the abuse and torture of prisoners, the idea that the president can designate people to be "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain them indefinitely, and a secret program allowing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without warrants. And when Senator John McCain introduced a measure to reinstate the rule of law at American military prisons, Mr. Cheney not only led the effort to stop the amendment, but also tried to revise it to actually legalize torture at C.I.A. prisons.
There are finally signs that the democratic system is trying to rein in the imperial presidency. Republicans in the Senate and House forced Mr. Bush to back the McCain amendment, and Mr. Cheney's plan to legalize torture by intelligence agents was rebuffed. Congress also agreed to extend the Patriot Act for five weeks rather than doing the administration's bidding and rushing to make it permanent.
On Wednesday, a federal appeals court refused to allow the administration to transfer Jose Padilla, an American citizen who has been held by the military for more than three years on suspicion of plotting terrorist attacks, from military to civilian custody. After winning the same court's approval in September to hold Mr. Padilla as an unlawful combatant, the administration abruptly reversed course in November and charged him with civil crimes unrelated to his arrest. That decision was an obvious attempt to avoid having the Supreme Court review the legality of the detention powers that Mr. Bush gave himself, and the appeals judges refused to go along.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have insisted that the secret eavesdropping program is legal, but The Washington Post reported yesterday that the court created to supervise this sort of activity is not so sure. It said that the presiding judge was arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges and that several judges on the court wanted to know why the administration believed eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants was legal when the law specifically required such warrants.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are tenacious. They still control both houses of Congress and are determined to pack the judiciary with like-minded ideologues. Still, the recent developments are encouraging, especially since the court ruling on Mr. Padilla was written by a staunch conservative considered by President Bush for the Supreme Court.
Poor Miller. Reads nothing, spews a lot.
The policy that came out of the NEPDG focused on the need to establish new sources of oil, to make ?energy security a priority of U.S. trade and foreign policy,? and to promote outside investment in oil and gas industries of Middle East and Persian Gulf countries. The task force worked quickly by Washington standards, meeting for less than 100 days to prepare a comprehensive national policy regarding a complex and critical aspect of modern life. The Sierra Club, Judicial Watch and the Government Accounting Office filed separate lawsuits against Cheney, seeking the release of all documents related to the energy task force. Cheney had refused the GAO?s direct agency-to-agency request, saying that it would compromise ?the confidentiality of communications among a President, a Vice-President, the President?s other senior advisors and others.?
In July 2003, the Supreme Court denied Cheney?s bid for secrecy and ordered the NEPDG to release its documents to the public, which showed that members of the task force included Ken Lay, CEO of an already-troubled Enron, along with six other Enron executives; ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond and others from ExxonMobil, and representatives from the American Petroleum Institute.
Other documents described which countries and transnational companies had agreements with Saddam Hussein to develop Iraq?s oil. There were maps and charts detailing Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries, terminals and gas projects. There were also maps of all oil and gas development in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The documents are dated March 2001, two years before the invasion of Iraq.
Cheney?s personal insistence on secrecy didn?t interfere with his role in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA officer who had the misfortune of being married to a man who became a target for what Gore Vidal refers to as ?the Cheney/Bush junta.? The perjury trial of Cheney?s former Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, has revealed that Cheney was deeply involved in the attempt to discredit Plame?s husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, after he blew the whistle on Bush?s claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon.
According to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, ?Cheney enlisted Libby to act as his surrogate and personally respond to reporters? queries about the veracity of Wilson?s allegations by authorizing his chief of staff to leak classified information to journalists.
The classified information that was leaked may have included Plame?s covert status,? Fitzgerald said, ?In retaliation for her husband?s stinging rebukes of the administration?s Iraq policies.?
?There is a cloud over the vice president. ... a cloud over the White House over what happened,? Fitzgerald told the jury. ?That cloud is something you just can?t pretend isn?t there.?
It was Cheney?s office that wrote up the 2002 ?torture memos? claiming the Geneva Conventions don?t apply to ?enemy combatants.? It was Cheney himself who described Sen. John McCain?s legislation banning inhumane treatment of detainees as a law that ?would cost thousands of American lives.? Based on that record, Admiral Stansfield Turner, a former director of the CIA, referred to Cheney as ?the Vice President for torture.?
?Cheney?s manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities,? according to Chas Freeman, who was an ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the first Bush administration. ?It was clear from the start that George W. Bush required adult supervision ? but it turns out Cheney has even worse instincts. He does not understand that when you act recklessly, your mistakes will come back and bite you on the ass.?
The Casper Star Tribune isn?t too pleased with Cheney these days either, saying in a December 2006 editorial: ?During Cheney?s tenure as VP, Wyoming has seen a virtual takeover of our public lands by the oil and gas industry. As the chief architect of the Bush energy policy, Cheney deserves much of the credit (or blame) for the unplanned, uncontrolled sprawl of oil and gas development across Wyoming?s open spaces. So far, it seems that the vice president has brought little more than destruction and embarrassment to Wyoming during his term in office.?
Cheney?s not even a true conservative, according to David Payne, a national security expert and occasional Fox News commentator ? a man so conservative that he considers George W. Bush to be a ?centrist? President. ?For a long time, I was willing to look past Cheney?s growing list of false assertions and support for dubious and decidedly un-conservative policies,? Payne wrote in July 2004. ?For over three years, I observed his misguided embrace of neo-conservatism and his record as chief propagandist for the administration?s unprovoked war against Iraq.?
Payne?s ultimate conclusion was that in order for the Republican party to get back to ?a Reaganite policy of conservative realism that puts America?s national interests first,? the Vice President that he once supported ?simply has to go.?
Rob Lafferty
We get BETTER results with a convection oven. So your argument is specious.
And some people say the opposite. The point is that Noozer's off the cuff idea was nonsense unless heavily qualified, which it was not. And certainly, the idea of a microwave...never mind.
It was the royal "We." I might have been in that meeting, but since the attendance list is secret, I don't know.
Still, the emission levels for coal-fired smokestacks haven't changed under the Bush administration, Cheney's meeting notwithstanding (at least to my knowledge). So, evidently, the "decision" didn't get out.
I dont understand the big push to convert over to CFLs. I did a little googling and came up with this statement:
"Lighting accounted for 9.4 percent of all electricity consumption in U.S. households in 1993, less than air conditioning, water heating, space heating, or refrigeration (Figure ES4). [13] Residential lighting thus represents three percent of total U.S. sales of electricity to all sectors. [14] Because the end-use estimates do not distinguish between indoor and outdoor lighting, this estimate of lighting consumption includes both."
"Virtually 100 percent of households use electricity for lighting, while less than 70 percent use it for air conditioning and less than
40 percent use it for space heating and water heating. However, because space conditioning and water heating are more intensive users of electricity than lighting, they account for a greater amount of the total electricity consumption in the residential sector. In 1993, air conditioning consumed 13.9 percent, water heating 10.2 percent and space heating 12.3 percent. Lighting consumed 9.4 percent. "So why all the hype? I'm all for doing my part, but it hardly seems worth it...
dickm
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ..
Current CFL's have very little mercury and save enough energy that if supplied by a coal fired plant, the mercury reduced at the plant is greater than that in the lamp.
Everybody's a comedian tonight.
Question for you: What is the sum of 2+2+2+2+2?
Well let us know how it works out okay?
And you still don't understand *any* of what little you do read.
Q: What does that have to do with mercury emissions from power plants? A: Absolutely nothing, as is typical for Doug "Moving Target" Kanter.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.