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?
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.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
On Feb 2, 3:57 pm, email@example.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.
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
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
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
On 2 Feb 2007 18:57:03 -0800, " firstname.lastname@example.org"
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.
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.
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.
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
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.
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.
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.