The AM Forum

There's been global warming since the last Ice Age. - 1UJR  :-[

Lifted from -> www.pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=168072&ac=PHnws

===========

Maine would be the first state to ban most uses of ordinary incandescent light bulbs under a bill submitted by a Portland lawmaker on Thursday.

Sen. Ethan Strimling, D-Portland, wants to ban the bulbs by 2010, except for special uses such as appliance lamps and marine lamps.

His bill also would create a 25-cent deposit and collection system for compact fluorescent bulbs, more efficient alternatives that are gradually replacing the incandescent version invented by Thomas Edison 129 years ago.

Other states have considered bans, but not since Congress adopted efficiency standards in December that will effectively phase out inefficient bulbs starting in 2012.

Strimling said those standards would not be phased in completely until 2020, and that's too late, given the urgent need to fight global warming and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

"(Congress) is taking 12 years to do what we should be doing in two years," he said. "The technology already exists. We're finally going to find out how many legislators it takes to change a light bulb."

Compact fluorescent bulbs are 75 percent more efficient than incandescent bulbs, reducing electricity use and power plant pollution that contributes to global warming.

But there is sure to be strong opposition to the bill, including from General Electric Co.

The light bulb maker is developing a new generation of efficient incandescent bulbs, said Kim Freeman, a GE spokeswoman in Louisville, Ky.

By 2012, she said, GE will have an incandescent bulb that uses as little energy as the compact fluorescent bulbs sold today.

"We would oppose any legislation that would ban a particular technology," she said. "Giving consumers more choices is the appropriate approach."

The company supports the standards passed by Congress in December, according to Freeman. That law requires bulbs to be 25 percent to 30 percent more efficient starting in 2012.

Strimling said he would not object to accelerated efficiency standards instead of a ban. "As long as it starts by 2010, I'm at the table," he said.

Fluorescent bulbs that are thrown in the trash can end up adding to the mercury pollution that contaminates Maine lakes. And fluorescent bulbs that break in a home can expose inhabitants to dangerous mercury levels if not cleaned up properly.

Vacuuming a broken bulb, for example, can spread the contamination through a house, according to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. (For cleanup advice, go to: www.mainedep.com.)

Time to make another Home Depot run. I guess this waste of time is a good excuse for not dealing with real issues.
Hey, Maybe they can come up with a pill for mercury poison.

A crock of BS.
CFLs contain 1 to 5 milligrams of mercury each. Where do they get the idea that a broken light bulb contains enough mercury to be a household hazard?

There's tiny amounts of mercury in conventional fluorescent bulbs, too. A lot more than in any CFL. Why no hysteria about that? As far as I know, I've never heard about needing a hazmat team after breaking a fluorescent light bulb (which I've done many times), nor do they need to go to a hazardous waste disposal site. I guess they *aren't* so hazardous after all.

This supposed mercury issue with CFLs is a red herring.

Having said that, both the Federal and proposed Maine light bulb regulations are invasive, unnecessary, poorly thought out, and I don't support them, either.

how does that compare to a fish....?
I just read this generation of kids is starting to have lower levels of lead in their systems now that we took it out of the gas.
Why is mercury acceptable now when three drops on a classroom floor clear a building.

Who said that mercury was acceptable?

What was said is that there's a point where a quantity of mercury is so small that it shouldn't be considered a hazard. You don't need to call a hazmat team if you drop a thermometer on the floor.

Walking by the antenna on a wireless hub, or even a thousand wireless hubs isn't the same as sticking yer head in a microwave oven

I'm curious why there are so many global warming posts on a ham radio website?   Last I checked, scorn for the theory wasn't a requirement for either a ticket or to operate AM.   If you don't agree with the prevailing attitudes shown on this site and debate it the post just gets pulled.  Why post it to begin with?   Ed

Shoot, the way it is now, even 'amateur radio theory' isn't a requirement for a ticket either.


From the front page:
QSO
The QSO area is for any subject except political and religious posts. It is like the AM Bar and Grill and of course anything that is posted must be following the guidelines.

As long as this one doesn't evolve into a political flame war, we're good.

Just my 25¢ (.02¢ after inflation)

I use a few CFL's in the house for lights that stay turned on a lot, but despite claims to the contrary, I have experienced unacceptable levels of rf interference from ones operating near any AM receiving equipment, be it ham radio, shortwave broadcast or regular MW AM broadcast.  I use only incandescent lamps in the shack. 

I also sometimes use them for heating purposes - a cheap, easily obtainable low-power spot source of heat, for example, keeping the oil pan warm under frigid conditions, and keeping epoxy warm enough to accelerate its setting without overheating.

I don't think banning them is the solution.  Let the market decide.  As fuel and electricity costs go up, people will buy them to cut down on the electric bill.  As fewer bulbs are sold, they will become scarcer and more expensive for those who have a specialised use for them.

At the local farmer's supply, they sell special long-life, low efficiency bulbs that are actually rated for130 volts and built like the proverbial brick outhouse, @ only 50 cents each.  They are ideal for portable work lights.  You can practically drop the light on concrete without blowing the bulb.  And they  make excellent heat sources.  I think I'll begin stocking up while they are still available and cheap.

Freedom of Choice*

*Subject to government approval of said choice, determination of said approval based on said chocie's appeal to the opinions (informed or otherwise) of the Government's elected officials' campaign contributors (or, in rare instances, their constituents).

My choice is change all the 100 watt bulbs to 60 watters.
Need more light add a fixture and use 2 40 watt bulbs or even a pair of 25 watt bulbs. I have 10 lights in the shack with small bulbs. Easier on the eyes and plenty of light. They are on 3 different circuits. I have changed from 4- 100 watters to mostly 40 watters and have plenty more light and can turn off a third of them most of the time.

If you think your free to choose... think again.

Try exercising any one of numerous rights that our fore fathers took for granted...
Free Speech --  Not if its "politically incorrect" or advocating freedom and liberty.
Clear cut your OWN land -- good luck, unless your a developer with enough $$ to buy off the neighbors.

Now the gov guys are passing "environmentally friendly" legislation, with little or no scientific advice.

I can't wait for them to get control of the medical care...  I can see it know.

" before the doctor can take out your ruptured appendix, you must fill out the MD Form 1257-a (in triplicate) and have a representative of the Federal Dept of Medico approve the form.  3-6 weeks and we should be able to operate."
 :-\

I just replaced 3 CFL's in the kitchen today with three 60 watt incandescents.  For some reason as of late the batch of CFL's I bought 3 or 4 years ago were not behaving and would crap out after month or so.  I got tired of dickin' with them.  I don't know if it's a heat issue or what.  Others of the same brand that are installed else where in the house are ticking right along without any trouble.  I can't understand why after 3 years without any trouble with this brand all of a sudden the same brand of CFL's would only last a month in this fixture.  Do unused CFL's have shelf life?

I called the epa once. Someone in my neighborhood is draining their washing machine in the stream behind my house. They did nothing
OH they did come out and move some leaves out of the way so the suds could continue down stream.
Create an issue to avoid real work.
Mercury will hurt you as it collects in your liver. Last time I looked it was heavier than water so no point in digging it up from under a stream bed.

You should see how grass grows with laudry detergent laced water...

Ok,  so global warming is a hoax, gift from Al Gore, all of us dumping exhaust from our power plants, tail pipes, jets and chimnys could not possibly amount to anything.   Any attempt to convince people to conserve is just a pc plot against our God given liberties.  Not being a scientist, I can't say for sure that global warming is happening (I'm not sure they can say so either).   I'm inclined to believe based on the evidence that we've all read and what appears to be approaching scientifc consensus.  I'm pretty darn sure that the environment is under siege in some way from the waste byproducts of our society and needs a little better stewardship than most of us are willing to freely give.  What exactly is the solution if you don't want mandates of any type?   The reason I believe that these debates are likely to get pulled here is that essentially it's impossible to seperate public policy from politics and it's the lack of good public policy that keeps us from making progress on reducing demand and finding new, cleaner energy sources. 

Thanks,  Ed

No, not a hoax. but a dmamn good excuse to have the governments get bigger...
and bigger.
The world is getting warmer, has been for the last 10K years.  You can't blame that all on humans, being responsible and findining new energy sources is a good thing, using bad science to justifiy oppressive gobernemnt regulation is another.

But it;s always worked so well in the past...

"Big Brother is watching, and he likes what he sees"

Hi Ed,

 I like your post, Nothing political, But your right...I sometimes get the Corporate Bureaucracy confused but after considerable reading, age might be a factor too on my end I am Very Against This Corporate melding taking Place..but on to my point.

 The problem is the solution, we today have become satisfied with what we have..although it is having an effect on the biosphere..obviously...we're not looking in the right direction..at least not that i know of..or have seen..as of Yet...the problem is Locomotion...we're living on internal combustion for modal motion...OK..basic physics Force, in motion..OK...the need of...Well it's so much easier using the internal combustion engines...obviously.. than to adapt to the field that we already have ..Gravity..it's free..it's surrounds us, protects us, the Basic operand of the universe....

 Unlock Gravity unlock our problems at least that's the conclusion i have come too...sometimes I wished I'd of payed a little more attention in school..instead of Looking at the girls...LOL....

73...

If you ever have had the opportunity to travel to one of the bigger lesser developed countries and breath the air I think the value of emissions control will be pretty clear.   If your view of the last 50 years of pollution controls is that it was all junk science then I don't see too much point in engaging in debate.  That may not be what you are saying as I don't understand the bit about no longer being able to see the air unless you mean that the smog is reduced?  It is interesting to see the advent of new technology coming to the market place and I'm sure it's going to take several generations of CFL's and hybrid cars before the tech is up to snuff. It's pretty clear to me that most of the advances in pollution control were the result of legislative mandates rather than voluntary compliance.  73  Ed

Right on Ed because it is only about making money at any cost to the next guy.

Mack, the point about the larger lesser developed countries is that you can't breath in their streets not how wonderful they are.  In fact I have no love for these countries and their backward, repressive, crooked power structures.   I would venture that the extreme pollution is obvious to anybody who has ever traveled or even read about the horrible conditions that come about where there are no emissions laws.  No silly songs here just stating the obvious.   I really think that comment is basically rude and off base in what has so far been a civil discussion.  We can agree or disagree without resorting to comments like that.  Actually, I haven't come out and said that the proposed CFL law was something I supported because I haven't fully considered it.  My point was that environmental laws are responsible for most of the advances we have made and I for one am very happy for the 40 year old Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act which clearly needs to now be strengthened, at least in my opinion.  Your criticisms of the faults of some of the past efforts seem like they are right on track but I don't believe that those details outweigh the overall good of environmental laws.  My own experience here has been that CFL's work great and the light is fine once you get used to it.   I myself have not run into the tree hugging Walmart folks and in fact most of the folks that fit the "tree hugging" term are anti-Walmart and everything it stands for.   Noted about American inventions, a very well known phenomenon that I am not disputing.   If you're reading something anti-American in my discussion then I would suppose that it's a misunderstanding as it's not the case.   73 de Ed

Your point is valid Ed.

Would it not be for environmental laws, America's infrastructure would largely resemble China's current environmental mess. The problem I have is when we allow goods to enter our country, from a country which does not have the same environmental standards, and allow said goods to compete with our domestically made goods. I'm all for legislation which improves the quality of our environment, as long as we require the other guy to bear the same burden, be it through tariff or taxes.

I think that we all agree that business's only function to return maximum profit to their owners or shareholders.
Unless there is a positive effect to the bottom line, you'll never see a business make changes in any course, environmental or otherwise. There is nothing evil or wrong in that, that's just what business does.

Businesses which are now taking the "green approach", mine included, are doing so because they believe it will result in an improvement to the bottom line. Any other approach would be a violation of the fiduciary responsibility that business management has to its stakeholders.

Government's job, is to regulate business in a way that works for the greater good, without harming said business's ability to function and create wealth for stakeholders. Again, nothing evil per say in that, that is what government is here for. It is when government legislation strangulates business for the sake of "doing good", that the problem occurs.

There's nothing like a stiff tariff to level the playing field!  ;)

Bruce:

Many folks in my position (I run an import department for an American corporation) are rabid free-traders, I don't count myself amongst them.  I don't understand why there isn't more reciprocity in tariffs.   Regarding American made consumer goods, not only is the horse out of the barn but in many cases the barn is torn down.  It's a shame.  On the environmental side, believe it or not some of the larger companies take positions that do not appear to be directly connected to the bottom line.   I have seen where companies have corporate responsibility officers that check they type of chemicals used in production, make sure workers have rights, are paid higher than prevailing wages, an mandate worker safe environments, limit overtime etc.   This is probably motivated by brand protection as the last thing you want to be accused of is being a sweat shop if your brand is considered high end.  No doubt the least expensive products do not have these protections at all.   My own experience is that corporate responsibility officers and folks involved in the sustainability initiatives are usually seeking these positions based on their own personal convictions.   I know a few and have discussed this at length.  Maybe the corporations mostly do it to protect the brand but a good dose of do-good motivation is mixed in to the mix?   

73 de Ed (it's fun to say best regards, this is Ed using only two letters and two numbers)

Yep, problem #1, tearing "down the barn".
Bad for national interest, bad for the American worker, and ultimately bad for Liberty.
In my opinion, that is also bad for the "bottom line".

Ed, isn't brand protection just another word for concern about the "bottom line"?
If a brand is diluted or damaged, it adversely impacts on the value of a product.
Hence, once again the bottom line.

I had a staff member visit China last month, he spent about a week in Hong Kong and then the mainland.
He was enthralled with the rapidity of manufacturing, and related a story about how driven the Chinese government is to develop business. He stated that if a business plan was presented to the government, they had the ability to build a factory in something less than 48 hours. First a large concrete slab was poured, then a large tent constructed on top of the slab. The company now moved in, and began operations under the tent. Once operations were commenced, the government then built a formal structure over the tent, and when that was completed, the tent was simply removed, leaving an instant factory!

I recommend Robert Reich's latest book, "Supercapitalism"   He argues (and people surely argue with him) that expecting companies to take care of the environment, their workers, etc., is foolish. This latest push for Corporate Social Responsibility is silly.   Corporations are there to produce deals for their customers and good returns for their shareholders.   Anything else is a myth.

He also does a good job of explaining how we got where we are, contrasting things in the US of A during what he calls the "Almost Golden Age", 1945 - 1973 to what we have today, what changed and how we got here. 

I going to throw my 2 cents in here. Having worked and continue to work for a chemical/pharmaceutical company that has tons of restrictions on its emissions. I happen to calibrate those devices that measure those emissions. If you knew what 'green government' makes us do, then you would understand why companies continue to ship factories to countries with less stringent environmental regs. We bitch about jobs going overseas but nobody seems to complain about us cutting off our nose despite our face! Then the rest of the world wants to give the under-developed nations a free pass so that they can have jobs and feed their people. Sorry for the rant but this kind of shit just pisses me off especially when I see it with my own eyes.

I've never been in a walmart, What's it like. Bruce is right on. The government needs to close the loop. You pack up and leave, don't send your slave produced products here. One generation of a dead manufacturing model and we could easily lose a war with nobody able to operate a hack saw. The reason we ramped up so quickly in WW2 was the nation was filled with manufacturing plants full of skilled labor. All they needed was a new set of prints to work from and we pumped out stuff faster than we could ship it. Fast forward to today and nobody knows nuttin sept computer games.
Sure don't take care of your employees since they are stupid anyway. They can use sticks next invasion.
I also see it every day Mike and I see who gains and who loses and I hope the gainers have an answer when they have to depend on the clueless losers.

Keeping the air & water clean is just common sense. Put it back the way you found it is what my mother always told me.

The theory of man made GW, which seems to driving many of the latest laws, now that's a completely different matter scientifically speaking. Seems to be more religion than science since since increases in CO2 FOLLOW not LEAD increases in global temp.

Read what a real climatologist has to say on the issue.

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

Terry you said:  "Read what a real climatologist has to say on the issue,"   Isn't it true that all the national academies of science in the major industrialized countries and most major scientific organizations have said that global warming is most likely taking place due to increased greenhouse gasses?   I realize that scientific consensus has a way of being wrong over time but it seems to me that the issue is like so many others, people form their opinion and then latch onto the proof that supports it.  I guess I ascribe to the belief that I'll never have a rational basis for knowing with 100% certainty that it is true but either the belief is a religion, as you suggest, or one whopper of a conspiracy theory, or more likely the honest consensus of the scientific with a small minority dissenting. I for one am going to proceed with the "dunno, but it makes sense to keep the environment clean" approach.

By the way, Many years ago I went to a dinner at a local club where the speaker was a climatologist discussing the idea of a new ice age and I found it fascinating.  Whenever I look at the idea of scientific consensus, I think of Immanuel Velikovsky (probably mispelled), whose ideas in the 1950's seemed completely crazy but over time many aspects of his theories have become more widely accepted while large parts of the canon of what was then scientific consensus has now been rejected.  I think his more famous book was "Worlds in Collision" where he had the idea that the earth once shifted on its axis causing global climatic calamities, an idea that now gets favorable play?   

Very Best,   Ed

I'll give you a real example here of how we as a country make our own companies shoot themselves in the foot. We have an incinerator here ~50MM BTU's that is used to burn off fugitive emission emissions from tanks that contain VOC's, (ethanol is one of them!!!). All have a blanket of about 6"H2O of nitrogen to keep vapors suppressed. Those that do escape, go through a trim condenser and any condensate falls into a 'knock-out' tank where it is drummed and shipped off site for incineration (@$K/gal). If there is still any VOC's present in the stream, they are drawn into the incinerator via blower, (with still another knock-out tank in line). Where they are burned. The burned gases migrate down through a quench pot which cools them. Then the gases are forced up through a scrubber, which is a very large tank with plastic 'wiffle-balls' in them. They have a caustic solution of about 10pH that cascades down over them, and the gases, (which incineration causes a acidic condition) are neutralized. The white plume you see coming out the top is nothing more than steam. Oxygen levels are kept at roughly 2.0% and CO emissions are barely detectable. Essentially these are lab quality instruments designed for outside environments. If the incinerator goes down for any reason, despite all the catch-alls in line, we are in violation if we can't get it up and operating in 5 minutes. And that is at $20K per event. Now tell me why manufacturing is going over seas!

To Ed, W1XAW

The National Academy of Sciences is made up of 2100 members "each of whom is affiliated with one of 31 disciplinary sections". These sections range from math to chemistry to physics to ecology. For a complete list of these , click this link:http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_classes_sections

Further it is unclear, from a review of the members in the Environmental Sciences and Ecology section, whether any are Meteorologists and if so what their expertise is. Maybe some are experts in the field, maybe not.

Furthermore, man's contribution to the "greenhouse gases" is a feeble pitance.

Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Contribution to the GreenHouse Effect         
Expressed as % of Total         
         
Contributors   All Sources   Natural Sources                  Man Made Sources
Water Vapor   95.000%            94.999%                        0.001%
CO2                3.618%         3.502%                            0.116%
Methane              0.360%       0.294%                          0.066%
Nitrous Oxide      0.950%       0.903%                          0.047%
Misc. Gases      0.072%       0.025%                          0.047%
Total             100.000%       99.723%                           0.277%

One has to ask oneself whether a contribution of .00116 of the total CO2 has significance. 


Notwithstanding all of the above, the evidence that atmospheric levels of CO2 lag global temps (by hundreds of years) is the clincher. It is stunning piece of evidence that closed the deal for me.

Now I agree totally that we should keep the water & air as clean as we can. I hate the stink of air pollution & the filth of water pollution buit CO2 is not a pollutant and Anthropogenic GW does not pass the reasonableness test.

It makes me wonder why it is being so heavily pushed from so many corners. I understand the UN & the KYOTOites. These developing nations want our money, that one is easy. I understand Mr. Gore, he is a politician looking for a constituency & I believe none of what politicians say (he refuses to debate the issue which is a huge red flag). I understand some of these "scientists". They are looking for grant money.
I guess I understand the media, they love scare stories, the more apocalyptic the better (but I thought they loved horse races too, i.e., GW vs No GW).

However, I really look askance at anyone who proposes taking any of my money or any of my freedom to throw on the alter of GW based on their "evidence".  It bothers me that our children & grandchildren are having this stuff foisted on them in our schools based on the flimsiness of the evidence. I fear these people are up to something else.

As many others have pointed out, there needs to be a cost/benefit analysis in our zeal to reduce CO2. Right now the costs seem high in terms of lost jobs & US wealth & standard of living, the benefits seem so tiny as to be unmeasurable.

And to think Kentucky wants to name Chicken it's Fav picnic Food..and The PETA folks are having a Bird...Go Figure...there's a Cause for everything...Sheeze...

It's not just our National Academy of Sciences but that of every major industrialized country.  I'm not ready to dismiss that based on some idea that they are all going along with this for money or to readily accept the dissenting voices without wondering why so many scientists don't agree.   The examples we hear about pollution controls costing jobs are real but the overall good outweighs the bad in my opinion.  The same argument was raised against every major effort to clean up the environment.   As a kid the Kennebec River in Maine was a primordial stew of sewerage and paper company discharges.   Today it is clean.  I caught the first known salmon in years on the lower part of the river when I was twelve.  I shudder to think what it would have been like had laws not been passed.   For a whole host of reasons the paper industry has seriously declined here as has tanneries.   To pin it all on the pollution control is a bit of a jump.   I'd be looking at the wages and currency exchange rate first.  In consumer goods its mostly about the wage rate in my opinion.  It's hard to compete (and unfair) with almost zero.   I also agree its unfair to let countries compete with us that have no teeth in their labor and environmental laws.   If you are aware of these issues then you are very much in the minority.  For most people its all about the retail price.   


I wanted to throw one more thing out there.  In the past, a lot of our major producers of technological consumer goods shifted their gaze on lucrative military contracts where the cash was plentiful, sometimes to the detriment of consumer goods.  The decline in domestic manufacturing wasn't totally about labor when it was taking place.  It would be hard to get that base back today as the consumer is all about retail price and the field is not level at all.    Ed

Want to check something cool. Right after 911 all aircraft was grounded. One thing that changed quickly was air quality. This is very well hidden.

No one wants pollution, but CO2 is NOT pollution. Why burden the American people with the loss of jobs, productivity & income by burdening them with CO2 concerns when Co2 is not a pollutant? it amounts to economic suicide & environmentalism run amok.

 

Ed said:

Yeah that may be fine and good but, when the air you are saving in this country is being violated in another does exactly make the good out weigh the bad does it?

Ed later stated:
I think you are wrong here Ed. Why do you think the companies first went to Mexico and now overseas. The wages are low, and no EPA to contend with. At first the climate in Mexico was good for them to do this. But now the US is trying to put Mexico in environmental line. Vietnam and China are pretty much immune from the USA's and Europe's environmental lobbying. Since they are communist governments, they will tell their people what is good for them. Ed, do the math, if its cheaper to business overseas with less environmental oversight than it is in the US, where would you go?

Mike,
Would you live next door to your plant? I have no problem with the cost of clean air. I do have a problem when a company moves off shore to get away with generating the same waste and dumping it. Then importing their product like they are doing the world a favor. My place is 5 miles away from a nuke plant so I in favor of pollution control.

_Adaptation_ Forget the past....

Frank said:
Knowing what I know, absolutely! As a matter of fact, when we were applying for a permit for our waste solvent incinerator, the local faction of Greenpeace attempted to raise hate and discontent amoung the community. Letters in the newspapers, staging protests in front of our plant entrance, the usual sort of thing. The community told them to go pound sand! We got our permit and our incinerator. However, with the price of energy, we are being paid big money for our waste solvents since they have a high BTU content. So the incinerator doesn't even run. It did bring a natural gas line over into our plant and to the borough of Riverside.

CFLs save electricity. We make electricity by burning coal which releases mercury (among other things) into the environment. CFLs release less aggregate mercury into the environment than an equivalent output incandescent bulb.
Yes, mercury is scary (ref: mad as a hatter), but let's not rely on a falsehood or hypocrisy to rationalize away the value of CFLs.
If we look at GW since the beginning of the industrial revolution we see a perceivable increase in temperature. But then, we can look at other periods in history and observe warmings and coolings that have materially changed the earth and its occupants sans Man.
I am very much in favor of running business in an environmentally friendly manner. 'don't mean to "gore" anyones ox, but relying on the (classic oxymoron) "government experts" or other bureaucrats to provide guidance is about like asking Hugh Heffner for parenting advice. Except, Mr. H probably wouldn't have much in the way of other agendas so he, at least, would most likely be honest.
We don't use candles and oil lamps (for the most part) for primary illumination any longer because they are a relatively dirty and inefficient method of creating light. But they were not banned. Natural evolution obsoleted this method of illumination. . . But we are still free to use them if we must. Our freedom of choice has not been circumvented by an over controlling government in this case.
Why would we allow government to do so with CFLs? Is the all inclusive "public good" as defined by those who seem to be most motivated by controlling you enough?

I went to Home Cheapo today and stocked up on a bunch of 40, 60 and 100 watt incandenscents. These should last me about 15+ years. By the time I need to refresh I'll probably be in a home somewhere.

The nice thing about incandescents they are heat efficient.  I like using them during the winter.

 "Unfortunately it seems that the modern phrase "provide for the common good" means you must abandon the stipulations of the preamble completely?"

I'm sure Hu Jintao, Fidel Castro, and Idi Amin all state(d) they are/were acting on behalf of the "common good", yet they preside(d) over very restrictive governments that I would be unwilling to live with, and which would not be considered free. I don't like that the US is going this way in the name of "political correctness" or some other glossing over (modern terminology) for government control over every facet of my life.

"The nice thing about incandescents they are heat efficient.  I like using them during the winter."     

Now that's what I'm talking about. One mans wasted energy is another's heat source. . .and what's going to happen to those easy bake ovens . . .

This Art, was my primary concern. Ever try to bake a cupcake with a CFL?

My entire collection of E-Z Bake Ovens will be worthless!

(You know, on this site this has come up a number of times. I've enjoyed reading about how a number of people here have figured out how to save money on energy.
I've got no problem with that.

I'm a little different. When I have a problem....like high energy costs....I look for a way to make MORE money. So the increased cost doesn't matter.

About 3 1/2 years ago, I sent my wife, who has a BFA with honors from Michigan State in 1973 back to school to get a degree in Geology. Well she did that, getting her degree last May along with an award from the Association of Women Geoscientists as outstanding senior student. She was 56. Then on to a semester of Graduate work.

Taught her the ropes in the Oil & Gas Industry. Now she can make well into 6 figures.

So is the cost of gas, natural gas, oil, propane, and electricity up?

Yeh, but who cares?

I'd rather figure out how to make more money, then spend my time figuring out how to save a few bucks.

73

From a self employed Republican.

Marty WB2RJR)

73 to all

Marty WB2RJR

Capital Idea OM... I always wanted to be a Gynecologist....Age shud never be a barrier in the pursuit of Plenty...

73.

Jack,

Age should never be a barrier to being WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE.

If you make more money doing that, so much the better.

BEWARE those who would stop you...........for whatever reason.

You can do far more than the people around you think you can.

I've known this. My wife didn't believe it until I helped her do it. She had bought into the common knowledge...........You can't change and are going NOWHERE.

Now she tells her friends who say people can't change.........That's not true I CHANGED. She has become a Petroleum Geologist and can command a good living BY HERSELF without me.

If I get run over by a bus and am dead, my wife can make all the money I could have. I consider this better than a life insurance policy.

Does she have to work?...........Yes, but so did I.

No free rides here.

73

 Marty WB2RJR

Exactly Marty....that's why i said this earlier...





We Gotta forget the past it's over..the world is changing again..."Education"...ya gotta Adapt...

Ooooh Noo, Not the "R" word...gee gads...insensitivity ...Insensitivity ... INSENSITIVITY...


Call the War Room...our Filaments are under Attack.... DC Everything...

more like rob from the poor to feed the rich

---

POSTED: Avoid politics here.

---

You want to talk about CFLs go ahead, light the world with your opinion.

Banning incandescent lighting reminds me of the toilet wars from the past.   That is when it was upheld by the courts that banning the sale of the old style toilets that used more than a certain amount of water was legal.   Now you have to flush the new ones a couple of times instead of just once.    Personally I hope that CFL's be encouraged but that incandescents be available for sale to people who just don't like them.

Sir
You are espousing freedom, please.

Actually they've done well developing the low-flush toilet in the time since the first generation of them came to market.

We just got a new one during downstairs remodeling, and they've figured out that the use of a larger flapper increases water velocity and creates a better pushout.

Still not quite a royal flush by any means, but no longer need to hit the handle twice either, like the ones we have upstairs.

When the low-flush toilets first came out, there were black market sales of "commercial" toilets that were not limited to 1.6 gal. Also, Canadian Commodes started floating across the border, and there was a Collector Commode market created from discarded but still serviceable 6 gallon jobs.

We are on a well and a septic system here, so I've got no problems with cutting the effluent.  If worse comes to worse I can follow the dog out to the woods.

I have two new Koholer crappers that use the new flow limits and it has no problems flushing anything I've put into it. The old American Standard we have has trouble and uses 3 times the water.
They only cost me about $300 and no weird blatter just a 4 inch trap door to power hit the 10-1000 down the sewer

Frank,
You don't have your email listed under your personality so: I understand you are very enthusiastic in your views and appreciate them to the extent that I can. However, the information you are posting in a political vein is inappropriate and unwelcome.
Just because Marty referred to himself as a Republican does not mean a political statement has been made and all rules are suspended. This is the same as someone referring to a specific action as a dumbshit move does not refer to the bodily process of waste elimination and merit an extended discourse thereon.
Thanks for your understanding.
Art

I wasn't sure where I stood on the proposal that Bruce posted about but my first reaction was to reject it and after considering it from all sorts of angles, this hasn't changed.  While I don't think that the eventual possibility of mandates on this matter or others involving demand should be categorically ruled out, I don't support Mr. Strimlings proposal (remember the initial post?).   What I'd like to see is a period where public figures, including elected ones, use their bully pulpit to try to persuade people to select more energy efficient means of lighting, driving, etc. where they are available and new ideas can be phased in.  My goal in my original post was to state that there are am ops who are not as convinced as others that global warming is hogwash. I thought that the "global warming as hoax" side was over represented on these pages so I wanted to counter it.  I appreciate that some people don't like the idea of anybody other than themselves deciding anything and look at such as an attack on personal freedoms, but I think that is not how our republic actually works, that a lot of good laws are established for the common good, and the folks who make those laws are not necessarily directly related to Che and Fidel.  Anyway, thank you.    Over and out.  Ed     

Sorry I forgot only 1 political view allowed here.

Wizzing on the american standard. It has a nice ring to it.  :D

That rule only applies in government & quasi government controlled markets or monopolies such as public utilities where by force of law, the consumer has their choice limited. The US Postal Service & The City of Cleveland Division of Water are examples of such recent price increases that I am aware of.

In free markets, such as  commodities markets, for a given level of aggregate supply, a decrease in aggregate demand will bring downward pressure on price.   

A day or two of watching the action of the commodities markets will convince you of this where even a hint or threat of some potential demand or supply interruption has an immediate effect on the bid & ask prices.

We had the same thing happen here in CT.   The power company promoted savings by getting everyone to convert to CFL's and other energy saving devices.  When their bottom line tanked as a result of their promotion they asked for an increase in rates.  Naturally the governing bodies relinquished and gave it to them.  We've seen this at least 3 times in the last year and half. 

I had savings on the E bill long before when I switched to CFL's and put many devices on timers. All that changed with the rate increases.  I'm seeing bills that equal what I was paying before going to timers and CFL's. I had temporary savings but no more.  I can't reduce anymore otherwise I'd be in the dark and cold.

I can understand promoting this on the idea of saving their infrastructure but come on.  This to me seems like ruse in their favor not mine/ours.  I guess I'm an idiot for not seeing it in advance. And they haven't done a damn thing to improve their infrastructure, the power still fluctuates and goes out.

I wonder if I was able to go independent, if they'd still send me a bill....

Well, one thing's for sure all Is Well in the Land of Light Bulbs...Business as usual...

I just don't like the things..I don't like the light they give off..and i don't like concern on removal...Like my Dad used to say Turn the lights off boy we don't live in the city...

If some kind of savings is realized...I don't know...if your the type that leave the lights on all the time i guess there is a savings...beats me..Myself I'm for going Solar and change all my lights to DC...heck with em..

I have heard of utility increases and surcharges because of reductions in utilization (maybe on this board). Even if it costs the same, reducing consumption is good by me. If, and only if, I don't have to reduce my standard of living to accomplish the savings. There's far too many examples of people preaching about the benefits of conservation while not changing their habits a whit. Personally, I like CFLs. I like LED arrays more and use them where I can replace CFLs. Geez, I shouldn't have mentioned that. Next they will be banning CFLs.
Now, if you want the government to provide (guaranteed not direct) SBA loans to LED lamp research and small businesses getting ramped up to produce them. . . .I'm up for it. To try to legislate away individual choice in the name of the greater good implies knowledge beyond the scope of our politicians as far as I have observed. CFLs exist and they can be a better choice for energy conservation than incandescents. Hybrid cars exist and can be a better choice for conservation than conventional gas vehicles. Shall we ban conventional gas vehicles? Where does it stop once we go down this path?
Just because some laws are on the books, have been rationalized as being for the common good, and have done good things (the Hudson won't burn any more, or LA air is less visible from Riverside, for instance), does not mean we should have our individual choice diminished in any area the government wants. That applies to candles, oil lamps, gas lamps, incandescent, CFL, or LEDs. What next, special home 'taps' to determine if you are using the wrong lamp, have an old radio, or are running legal limit on 80? . . . wouldn't that be for the greater good. . . .  to those who would choose to eliminate your choices? Should real toob transmitters be banned because there are class E and D TX available?

-ap

with my old electric provider, I got a price break for using over 5 megawatt hours per month. so i thought. I switched, and get the same price now no matter what.

I have put CFLs in all household sockets. In some cases, the 'pretty' fixture glass cannot be used with them. OK by me. (future fixtures should accommodate the new CFLs) If I don't have enough light, I use Y adapters to install as many as 4 CFLs, so OK I am using 150 watts, but I am getting 400 watts worth of light. Either way, I tend to like them in the house. In the lab (shack), regular inductive ballasts and filament-type lamps are used because CFLs will interfere with measurements by adding noise in some cases.

Many people argue that LEDs are more efficient than CFLs, but I think not, they seem to be more like halogen lamps for efficiency.

My AM gear? it uses alot of electricity, but that is not a material issue due to the low duty cycle.

as for fuel-burning, and I won't bring up my M35 military truck.. I need a pickup truck, and the company car allowance says a 'car' has to be a 4-door. So I have a big 15MPG guzzler, but it is only a 1/2 ton silverado. I sure have no idea how to build an affordable 30MPG 1/2 ton 4-door pickup truck, and I can afford only one car for commuting (the insurance companies, instead of insuring us as drivers, cheat us by separately insuring the vehicles -but I can only drive one at a time.). Recently, new small high-tech 2-seat cars are being invented that have a <20HP engine-generator and hybrid power. Ok, so I am in Texas, doing 70MPH, and I turn on the air conditioning in one of those, and if the a/c has any beans at all, there goes half the power.. and I get rearended and killed by a ford focus.

These things won't be solved overnight.

In a free & competitive market, raising your prices would be a suicidal strategy. It would just be another nail in your coffin. Your competitors would throw a party.

Ford is saying they will be introducing a diesel F-150 in the 2010 model year. Reports are it will use either a 3.6L or 4.4L engine. It ought to get upper 20s in the MPG department.

Do a web search for details, look for the Ford press release of a few weeks ago.

Depends on if you are selling on price or value.
There is an old Volvo commercial I recall, "There are those who know the price of everything, and the value of nothing."

Most Americas buy on price, hence the success of Wal-Mart.
But for margins, here Neiman-Marcus has the edge.

Dell sells more computers, but Apple holds much higher margins.
Have you compared the share price between the two?

A certain demographic of Americans can and will pay more for something if they realize value attached to it, hence the sale of diesel cars despite the premium attached to such. Other folks, because of previous life decisions, have to buy what they can afford.

Price is not always the deciding factor.

Which is the problem with many of these government mandates, they raise the cost for those who can afford it the least.
Then the bureaucrats engage in the redistribution of wealth to subsidize said policies.
Hence the TV box convertor "voucher" or so called "economic stimulus refund"; that's not free money folks, that came from you and me.

In business, one almost always runs a cost v. benefit analysis before engaging in a behavior or process.
Unfortunately government is not held to that standard, they only need to raise taxes, and damn with the results.
Given that goverment seems to be increasingly engaged in social engineering, I'd like to see a little accountability.
To that end, I'd be all for applying the SOx (Sarbanes-Oxley Act) to government at the local, state and federal levels.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act
What's good for the goose.....

Value is the ratio of price to perceived quality. Price by definition is a factor in the equation.
 
The wealthiest among us still love to get a deal.

Or, as my grandma used to say, "The more (wealth) they have, the cheaper they are.."

LOL

Wal-Mart is not the point of my posting, though that would be a good thing to discuss...once we solve all the other ills of the world.  ;)
Here is the point about the "do good" legislation referenced in the initial posting:

---
Which is the problem with many of these government mandates, they raise the cost for those who can afford it the least.
Then the bureaucrats engage in the redistribution of wealth to subsidize said policies.
Hence the TV box convertor "voucher" or so called "economic stimulus refund"; that's not free money folks, that came from you and me.

In business, one almost always runs a cost v. benefit analysis before engaging in a behavior or process.
Unfortunately government is not held to that standard, they only need to raise taxes, and damn with the results.

Given that government seems to be increasingly engaged in social engineering, I'd like to see a little accountability.
To that end, I'd be all for applying the SOx (Sarbanes-Oxley Act) to government at the local, state and federal levels.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act
What's good for the goose.....

----
Basically my observation is that the National Public Radio set, the most vocal proponents of "do good, feel good" legislation, can easily afford the cost. What they fail to realize is that those on the bottom of the food-chain are often the ones who must bear the brunt of the costs...factories closing, jobs being sent overseas, increased taxes and prices, etc.

Sure it sounds good, but all too often that which sounds good, is not, in fact that which does good.
Government sees a problem, throws money at it, hopes it goes away, and never checks to see what the Return on Investment really is.
Accountability is a language that most governments don't speak.
Your rising tax bill tells the tale.

Flourescent lamps don't work in cold temperatures that incandescents do.  The flourescents start to have trouble in the low 60's.

Also in hallways and stairways where the light is only on for 10 seconds is impractical for florescents.

Only when LED array bulbs are available do I see the higher efficiency niche fulfilled for hallway, basement, garage, outdoor porches and the classic refrigerator light - 2 whammies; 37 F. AND only 5 seconds.

The oven bulb - not even LEDs would cut it, incandescent only. 

What are my congressmen thinking?

I guess people have had mixed results with CFLs and radio.

Every bulb in my house is a CFL.... except the refridge.

I have one on the desk here, not 3 feet from my open link-coupled tuner, and 2 more within 10 feet.

I have yet for them to be a source of hf noise.


In the fixture in the kitchen, ( a 3 holer ) a set of incandescents would last no more than 3 months....
The CFLs have now been in the same fixture for over a year and a half......


Go figure.........

So true and the very same Gov't that is "bailing out" these borrowers & lenders helped create the problem with their insistence on loosening certain lending practices.

It reminds me of the health care mess that gov't created & now wants to "fix". Through the tax code, they created a special type of business deduction known as the  "qualified health & welfare plan". Under the tax rules the employer's cost for providing these plans (mainly health insurance plans) can be deducted as a business expense but the employee need not claim the value of the insurance as income on their own tax returns. Pretty slick eh'.   

This scheme encouraged employers to offer (and employees demand) health insurance as an employment benefit. This arrangement has increased demand for health care like a rocket as there is now no price barrier to treatment.   It also put a 3rd party (the insurance company) between the doctor & the patient. The doctor no longer had to give his neighbor the bill & expect him to pay it & the patient didn't have to worry about paying the doctor. Surprise, surprise prices went up & up & up, far outpacing inflation.

Instead of fixing the problem by simply doing away with the tax law that started it all, they want to "fix" it in other ways. Lord help us.

When I built my garage many years ago, I put  CFL lights in it.    On final building inspection, the inspector insisted that I remove them because they wouldn't work in the cold weather.    I have dimmers for all the main room lights in my house.    Do they make dimmable CFL's that work with present day dimmers?    I would expect line powered LED's would be dimmable. 
According to the spell checker here dimmable is not a word, but you know what I mean.

I'll attest to the same thing...I replaced six 75-watt candelabra base bulbs in our overhead kitchen light fixtures with six 15-watt GE CFL bulbs (with base adapters).

I was constantly changing those bulbs, too.

450 watts for maybe 8 hours/day vs. 90 watts.
3.6 KWH/day to .72 KWH/day.

180 KWH/month @ .08/KWH= $14.40 a month just for the kitchen lights using incandescents, vs. 21.6 KWH/month @ .08 = $1.73 a month using the CFLs. I'll do the math, annual savings of $152. For ONE room's lighting.

That's a complete no-brainer, and I haven't had to replace one yet. No RFI at all from 160 through VHF. Using three warm whites and 3 cool white CFLs and the combined color quality is indistinguishable from incandescents.

Yes, there are dimmable CFLs at Home Despot and Lowe's.

When they're outside and in the cold, it takes up to a minute for them to come up to full brightness. You need to decide if you need instant, full brightness, or if you leave your garage lights on a lot. Otherwise, stick with incandescents.

Medical insurance through the employer originated in the US during WW2.  Price and wage controls had been imposed by the federal government due to the war emergency, so companies found a loophole by offering their employees medical insurance at no extra cost, or at a fraction of the real cost of premiums.  This "benefit" was not considered wages or taxable income and thus not subject to the wartime limits on wage increases.

Back in 1959, as a reaction to the panic over Sputnik, congress passed the National Defence Education Act to improve technical and scientific education in the US. One of the things I recall that our local high school got out of the deal was a brand new, state of the art foreign-language lab that really worked.

A new teacher started his job as a high school physics instructor, and noticed that the lab equipment was outdated and inadequate, so he asked his department head if there was any way they could get some better lab equipment.  The department head was thrilled to announce that yes, the new NDEA would fund just what he was asking for, and urged him to order anything he even thought he could use, and handed him a couple of recent catalogues for school  lab equipment.

After the teacher had looked through the catalogues and prepared his list, he stumbled across a couple of older catalogues for the previous year (before NDEA was passed).  The exact same lab equipment was listed in the catalogues from the same exact companies, down to identical catalogue numbers, at about a third the current price, now  that Uncle Sam was footing the bill.

We just got five more inches of white stuff last night here in Collins Country.  We are about 2' ahead of normal for snow accumulation for the year.  What Global Warming? 

I've been using CFL's throughout the house for about a year or so with no bulb failures, no noticeable RFI and a substantial savings on the monthly power bill.   The only place that doesn't have them is the dimmer in the dining room.   The hall light is something like a 7 watt bulb and it is very dim when first turned on.  I discovered that this doesn't make any difference for walking through and we simply leave it on for the high traffic times of day (just like we did with the incandescent).   I bought mine with a substantial, immediate, state sponsored rebate so I'm happy to report that Paul, Bruce, Tim, Larry, Thos. and others are subsidizing my lighting!   By the way, I'd say the proposed ban has a snowball's chance in hell of actually passing here right now so I wouldn't get your panties in a knot if it bothers you.   Very best,   Ed

I have 2 CFL's that are the light equivalent of 250watts each in the garage (they consume 55w per).  The garage is cold about 40degrees right now and they come up to full brightness within 15 seconds with no flickering at all.

One question to all who have CFL's, do you find a reliability vs. cost relationship?

I haven't seen that. Skewing the results is the fact the manufacturers are constantly improving them. Today's cheapo CFL is better in many respects than the pricier ones from five years ago.

What I have seen is a shortening of their life if they're cycled on and off two dozen times per day or more. We had one in an office restroom and regardless of brand, it never lasted much more than a year. We also once used one in a radio station "On Air" light that was cycled many times a day, and it never lasted longer than a year, either. For normal use, this doesn't appear to be an issue, but I'm mentioning it as a point of interest. Like any fluorescent light, they don't like to be frequently power cycled. That'll also shorten the life of incandescent bulbs, for that matter. So yes, you can kill them prematurely if you try hard enough.

No, I am self employed, no employees & just pay my own insurance. I agree that lawsuits have added greatly to the cost of health care as well as most other things in our society (ladders, airplanes, autos, tires, etc.).  The English Rule would fix most of that but attorneys have one of the strongest lobby groups in the US (National Bar Association) so don't count on that any time soon.

Health Care's great disconnect between provider/biller & user has contributed greatly to it's ultra high inflation rate.

I doubt that litigation is a main driver of health care cost increases.   The conservative Cato institute says

"The major culprit in the seemingly endless rise in health care costs is found to be the removal of the patient as a major participant in the financial and medical choices that are currently being made by others in the name of the patient."

I found a few more studies that said the same thing mostly refuting other studies that blamed new, expensive technology. Some talked about the big increase in chronic disease like diabetes.  None of the studies singled out litigation or the cost of malpractice insurance.   CA, at least, has a statutory limit on pain and suffering -- $250K.  It's my understanding this limit has helped limit malpractice costs in this state.

I can't help but note that the same drugs can cost twice as much here as in Canada, that health insurance companies are making money hand over fist, and that overhead costs with our complicated system are very high.

I pay my own health insurance.   It costs a fortune and pays for almost nothing.   If there is anything Blue Shield of California is good at it's finding reasons to not reimburse.   I better stop.  I feel a real rant coming on.
--------
PS:  Have been using CFL's for most applications for years.   Only one RFI emitter.   They have lived up to life expectancy claims.   You can now purchase by color temperature to get whatever look you like.   My favorites are the old Philips bulbs because they come on oh so slowly just like I do in the morning.   I can't find those any more but the originals are hanging tough.

And people who don't have medical insurance are billed the full $450 and are expected to pay every penny of it out of pocket, with no discount.  What a ripoff! 

Of course,  there are people can't or won't pay any of it at all, so they end up having the entire bill written off.



Medical items and educational items are two things that are nearly always way overpriced.  I recall years ago when I used to do field service work, when I would service stuff at hospitals and be astounded at how much they said some of the medical equipment cost.  Knowing what was inside the enclosure, I could see no way it could have been worth what they paid, and often the very same equipment, in non-medical applications, would cost a fraction of what it cost to hospitals.  Prices are highly inflated because they know the cost of medical equipment will trickle down to the insurance companies and ultimately to the policyholders, and the cost of educational equipment will be passed on to the taxpayers.


You can thank Medicare Part D for that.  A friend of mine, a former bus driver, has been on blood pressure, cholesterol and glaucoma medications for years.  He retired several years ago because other vision problems he developed disqualified him from driving the bus, so he went on Medicare, before Part D went into effect.  He tells me that with Part D, he pays a monthly premium and still has a  high deductible before Part D kicks in, in addition to a substantial co-pay for each prescription.  But just as soon as Part D was enacted, the prices of his medications immediately took a big jump.  So his annual out-of-pocket expenses for medications (co-pay, deductible plus Part D premiums) is now about the same or a little more than what he paid out of his own pocket before the Part D plan was created.

The price of healthcare jumped when doctors and health care professionals were replace by bean counters and lawyers. Next time you visit your doctor, ask him what he pays for his malpractice insurance. This is the price you pay. Do you want capitalism or socialism? If we could reign in the lawyers or put a curb on the malpractice, I think your health care will go down.

Global warming is happening right now but we are having about as much affect on it as you would if you pissed on a volcano. This is a cycle that the sun goes through every so many years.Mars is warming up faster than the earth. All the outer planets even Pluto which is headed away from the sun now  is getting warmer when it should be getting colder.They have found crocodiles under the ice in Greenland so this has happened in the recent past when we were not recording history.The government plans to fix this wont fix it . The plans are designed to take your money and mine.We cant stop the sun from heating up but it looks like they will find a way to tax us for it. What are they going to ban next?

There's been global warming since the last Ice Age. - 1UJR   ;)