Ban Incandescent Bulbs - Dateline Maine

[WA1GFZ]

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.

[W8EJO]

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

[Ed W1XAW]

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

[W3SLK]

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!

[W8EJO]

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.

[ka3zlr]

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...

[Ed W1XAW]

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".

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

[WA1GFZ]

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.

[W8EJO]

  The examples we hear about pollution controls costing jobs are real but the overall good outweighs the bad in my opinion.   Ed

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.

 

[W3SLK]

Ed said:

The examples we hear about pollution controls costing jobs are real but the overall good outweighs the bad in my opinion.

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:

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 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?

[WA1GFZ]

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.

[ka3zlr]

_Adaptation_ Forget the past....

[W3SLK]

Frank said:

Mike,
Would you live next door to your plant?

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.

[Art]

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?

[W1RKW]

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.

[Art]

 "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 . . .

[WB2RJR]

  . .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

[ka3zlr]

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

73.

[WB2RJR]

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

[ka3zlr]

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

_Adaptation_ Forget the past....

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

[ka3zlr]

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


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

[WA1GFZ]

more like rob from the poor to feed the rich

[WA3VJB]

POSTED: Avoid politics here.

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

[K3ZS]

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.

[W8EJO]

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.