View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 23rd, 2014, 12:39 pm



Reply to topic  [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's 
Author Message
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
Ok, lets go over your list.

1) Litter
2) Smog restrictions
3) Dumping used oil out anywhere
4) Waste sewage treatment
5) Dumping of waste from production plants
6) Radiation output
7) Etc, I could go on forever

What do all of them have in common? They were all dealt with in different ways until the 70's when someone was smart enough to come up a remarkable innovation called recycling. Now we pay tax dollars for the government to collect and recycle (or store in the case of radiation) and then make a profit on. I'm not gonna harp on the government making a profit off of something we pay for, but let's focus on the recycling. It was an innovation that arrived out of the need for a solution. The innovators in this country have always come up with new ideas to solve problems UNTIL the government started ramping up its involvement to give incentives for innovation. Now people work only on problems that the government is paying for. You can call it people being greedy, but just like the poor not wanting to give up something they get for free, even business men won't walk away from a freebie.

Anything the government has given incentives for, the results have been subpar. No one here is arguing that we don't want things to be better in the environment and to have a cleaner place to live, but not like this. See, there's a difference than the above list that everyone knew were issues but there was no recycling at the time to something like lightbulbs where we're talking about using a slightly smaller amount of electricity. The people that use more pay more on their electric bill, no?

The issue people are having with your position is that you're advocating removing choice from the equation. The government has a lot of money invested in these projects and they want a return on it. Instead of letting the free market decide and letting the chips fall where they may, they're stacking the deck. That's what we're against. Not the lightbulbs themselves. And that's what you're failing to realize.

As to the fires.. c'mon lol. Just because some people are idiots and have started fires doesn't mean that all normal lightbulbs are dangerous. Does your remote make you watch Dancing with the Stars? Does your keyboard make all those typos? I could post link after link about cars that blew up, does that make all cars dangerous? Its like saying your connecting the dots, but hiding yourself placing the dots where you want them before you start drawing lines. Just because a study is done, doesn't mean the study is accurate. It depends on the parameters of the study. Facts can be wrong if they're in the wrong context.


May 14th, 2011, 1:21 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
njroar wrote:
Does your remote make you watch Dancing with the Stars? Does your keyboard make all those typos?

Instant Classic! :lol:

But, he'll probably blame his typos on his cellpone, even though his cellphone with internet access requires more energy from coal powered plants to recharge than one without such access does. Perhaps, we should ban them too!

_________________
Image


May 14th, 2011, 10:01 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
slybri19 wrote:
Steensn, since you obviously like to look things up, I've got a small task for you. How about finding the amount of mercury in a CFL bulb and the amount of mercury expelled from a coal powered energy plant? Next, assume that all energy produced by the coal plant is only used to power CFL bulbs and see which exposes us to more mercury. I highly suspect that CFL bulbs are a greater mercury threat to us than a coal plant when all things are considered equal. Then again, doing that would destroy your narrative, and expose the fraud you're trying to convey. And yes, I do think you're an EnviroNazi. Once you stop advocating for taking away our choices to further your own agenda, I may change my stance, but I doubt you will ever do this. It's sad to see what you've become in the few short years you've lived in Cali. :(



You'd be significantly wrong...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... 4Ir8e_ow4A

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 14th, 2011, 10:17 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
slybri19 wrote:
Steensn, since you're in Cali, what do you think about them cutting off water to farms to preserve some 2 inch long smelt fish, otherwise known as bait? What's more important to you? A farmer's livelihood and our affordable access to farm products or some irrelevent fish? Your response should be telling whether you're a true EnviroNazi or not.


Nope, I don't care about a stupid fish, I've made a clear distinction on what I think we need to protect... and it is US. Do I think some protection needs to be had for some animals we are putting in danger? Sure, but not if it means killing someones livelihood. I couldn't have been more distinct in my reasoning for CFL's, smoking, and poop disposal. Same function, more efficiency, safety of our natural resources for OUR use. Making sure we don't let individuals put everyone in at a resource stress point. Individuals cannot make that decision, it doesn't fit their decisions for purchase. That is when the gov't needs to get involved, when the sum of the consumeristic decisions WILL lead to unsafe resource consumption. It's all about OUR ability to sustain ourselves.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 14th, 2011, 10:23 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
slybri19 wrote:
Also, do you own a fridge with an ice maker? They're thinking about outlawing them too. What's next? Perhaps your Long Dong Silver Anal Penetrator could be at risk? Or something else you truly care about. Wake up dude.


We do, but the water here sucks so we don't want to use the nasty water frozen in our drinks. So we use filtered water in regular ice cube trays. That being said, I'd like to have one. I don't have an opinion because I don't know the trad-off. Fridges are a significant quantity and large % of our energy usage.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 14th, 2011, 10:26 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
steensn wrote:

Holy Libtard EnviroNazi Propoganda Link Batman!

I like how they state that lighting uses close to 20% of energy in homes, while not mentioning the more significant energy uses of industry. Try calculating that to determine a more informed opinion on the matter. Nice try.

_________________
Image


May 14th, 2011, 10:36 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
njroar wrote:
Ok, lets go over your list.

1) Litter
2) Smog restrictions
3) Dumping used oil out anywhere
4) Waste sewage treatment
5) Dumping of waste from production plants
6) Radiation output
7) Etc, I could go on forever

What do all of them have in common? They were all dealt with in different ways until the 70's when someone was smart enough to come up a remarkable innovation called recycling. Now we pay tax dollars for the government to collect and recycle (or store in the case of radiation) and then make a profit on. I'm not gonna harp on the government making a profit off of something we pay for, but let's focus on the recycling. It was an innovation that arrived out of the need for a solution. The innovators in this country have always come up with new ideas to solve problems UNTIL the government started ramping up its involvement to give incentives for innovation. Now people work only on problems that the government is paying for. You can call it people being greedy, but just like the poor not wanting to give up something they get for free, even business men won't walk away from a freebie.

Anything the government has given incentives for, the results have been subpar. No one here is arguing that we don't want things to be better in the environment and to have a cleaner place to live, but not like this. See, there's a difference than the above list that everyone knew were issues but there was no recycling at the time to something like lightbulbs where we're talking about using a slightly smaller amount of electricity. The people that use more pay more on their electric bill, no?

The issue people are having with your position is that you're advocating removing choice from the equation. The government has a lot of money invested in these projects and they want a return on it. Instead of letting the free market decide and letting the chips fall where they may, they're stacking the deck. That's what we're against. Not the lightbulbs themselves. And that's what you're failing to realize.

As to the fires.. c'mon lol. Just because some people are idiots and have started fires doesn't mean that all normal lightbulbs are dangerous. Does your remote make you watch Dancing with the Stars? Does your keyboard make all those typos? I could post link after link about cars that blew up, does that make all cars dangerous? Its like saying your connecting the dots, but hiding yourself placing the dots where you want them before you start drawing lines. Just because a study is done, doesn't mean the study is accurate. It depends on the parameters of the study. Facts can be wrong if they're in the wrong context.



No I actually totally realize what you are arguing about choice, I am saying it is BS, so please go back and read my post where I directly called that out a hypocrisy. Don't act like I don't get what you are trying to say, I've been consistently acknowledging it and calling it hogwash.

You cannot dismiss the stuff about about "recycling" and everything changing in 1970 BS. It was ILLEGAL for me to dump my trash where I want for centuries. Where is my choice in that? Why the hypocrisy?

I can't buy, make, or distribute atomic weapons and no one bats an eye regarding that restriction. Why the hypocrisy?

I can't dump my oil in your favorite fishing spot. Why the hypocrisy?

The point is, WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ON THINGS YOU GUYS AGREE WITH. Everyone here has environmental regulation they AGREE with. Stop acting like you guys have some "principles" you are trying to uphold.

Stop the red herrings complaining about how "dangerous" something is then find excuses why something else isn't. The point of my post was to show just how stupid 2 fires caused by a bad manufacturer is compared to how dangerous it is for consumers to use the old light bulbs and misuse them. Misuse was the complaint above.Funny how you guys can't link these nonsensical claims together as you are all grasping for "reasons" to hate and "reasons" to stand by fake principles.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 14th, 2011, 10:39 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
slybri19 wrote:
steensn wrote:

Holy Libtard EnviroNazi Propoganda Link Batman!

I like how they state that lighting uses close to 20% of energy in homes, while not mentioning the more significant energy uses of industry. Try calculating that to determine a more informed opinion on the matter. Nice try.


WHAT? What are you even trying make up this time? Sorry Sly, I'm gonna hafta call this response as plain stupid. It is only focused on what the impact is of lighting, mercury, and home usage. If you want to create a nonsense red herring after GETTING THE ANSWER YOU ASKED FOR I'm just going to write this off as a drunken post. This responce proves my point, you have no interest in learning a dang thing, you only want to make up objections and call them facts.

Honestly, I'm astonished at this ridiculousness... wow...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 14th, 2011, 10:43 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
Steensn, in fairness, I don't think you understood exactly what I was asking for and that's why your link didn't address the hypothetical question I posed. So, I've spent the last few hours doing the research myself and now my head is spinning because of it. It's amazing how much the info/data/facts change between websites depending upon their viewpoint/agenda. Therefore, I'm gonna use average/median numbers to show what I was getting at. It will also show that I was wrong in my assumption, depending upon which criteria/speculation you use.

My question was whether a coal powered plant would produce more mercury than all CFL's powered by that plant if they were the only thing utilizing that power. Well, the average coal plant in the US produces 667 MW/hr, while the average CFL uses 15 watts. This translates to the plant being capable of powering 44,466,666 CFL bulbs. At 5 mg of mercury per bulb, that's 222,333,333 mgs or 490 pounds worth of mercury being utilized.

The estimates for how much mercury a coal plant produces varies wildly, but 25 lbs for every 100 MW per year seems to be the average. Therefore, a 667 MW plant would produce 167.5 lbs. of the stuff per year.

Now, this is the tricky part. How many of those 44 million CFL bulbs break or are improperly disposed of per year? Half would equate to 245 lbs of mercury while a quarter would result in 122.5 lbs. I think reality is closer to a quarter, so the coal plant creates slightly more mercury per year than the CFL's.

Ya see, I can admit when I am wrong, but it wasn't by much. :D

_________________
Image


May 14th, 2011, 2:41 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
I evidently get the question you asked because it is flawed thinking and irrelevant. It gives no insight as to whether the impact of the mercury of in the bulbs then translate into more mercury being exposed to us compared to using a different technology. There is no relation to how much mercury produced by a coal plant and if all it powered where cfl's how much mercury that is. It tells us nothing...

What does matter then? How do we determine whether the mercury impact from the bulbs does more harm than good. THAT is what I posted, something relevant.

Here is relevant statistics, comparing the 1) amount of mercury released by a coal plant to power a traditional light bulb to 2) amount of mercury released if a bulb breaks in a land fill + the amount of of mercury released by coal plants to power a CFL.

The link I posted above shows that the amount of electricity used by the traditional light bulb amounts to a mercury emission of almost 4 TIMES the amount of mercury produced by the CFL electrical consumption + the mercury released by a broken bulb in a land fill. So in real life situations where every bulb breaks in the landfill, there is a net reduction in mercury.

Now, what is the WORSE case, worse case is that all the mercury is released and every bulb is broken and released into the environment. That would STILL be less mercury than the amount released into the environment by a traditional light bulb by it's power consumption by a bit more. Even worse case it is still less!

So what is the point about the mercury? There is none!

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 14th, 2011, 6:55 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
Steensn won't like this article one bit:
American Thinker wrote:
The Dangers of CFLs Even Greater Than Previously Known
By Edmund Contoski

New evidence of CFLs causing fires -- even exploding -- as well as new environmental concerns have come to light since my article The CFL Fraud published. Here are some of the additional fires:


"I had one of these CFL's in my garage socket, and it blew a component (not the glass corkscrew) and caught fire. Fortunately, I was standing four feet away at the time. I turned off the power and smothered the bulb with a towel." LINK


"I heard a sizzling sound like bacon, looked in the direction of the sound and watch the CFL burst into flame with flames licking up onto the ceiling of my house." LINK


"I've had two burn through their base, leaving a hole large enough to stick my little finger in, and scorching the fixture. They are a fire hazard." LINK


"I've had TWO catch fire. I don't trust them. Plus they look silly." LINK


"I've had two CFLs explode on me. One in our bedroom overhead light.... I took a long time cleaning the bedspread and carpeting, because of fears of the mercury residue. Had another one explode in the family room." LINK


How was that bedspread cleaned? Was the person aware it must not be put in a washing machine, according to EPA, "because mercury may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage"? Was that person aware EPA also says never to use a vacuum cleaner to clean up a broken CFL on a carpet? Vacuuming will disperse mercury into the air and contaminate the vacuum cleaner, which for all practical purposes is impossible to decontaminate. LINK


In recognition of the problems of fires and exploding CFLs, Armorlite is marketing a product with a package labeled "A Safer CFL." It is a CFL inside what looks like the shell of an incandescent bulb made with some special coating. Notice that is says a "safer CFL" -- not that it is "safe," just "safer." In other words, less dangerous. The package states: "We do not make any claims or provisions that mercury or glass cannot escape coating."


Armorlite claims a lifetime of 10,000 hours, or nine years, based on 3 hours of use per day, but the warranty is for only two years. So much for all the B.S. about how CFLs last so many thousands of hours longer than incandescents.


If the bulb fails in two years, you can get a replacement from the company. The package states: "This replacement is the sole remedy available and LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQENTIAL DAMAGES IS HEREBY EXCLUDED," except for some states which do not allow such exclusion. So if your house burns down, all you are likely to get is a new bulb. And to get it you have to have saved your proof of purchase and your register receipt for two years and mail them together with the broken bulb to the company's Florida address. The warranty explicitly states: "Do not return to the store."


Of course, as I pointed out previously, state and federal environmental laws have effectively eliminated the mail-back programs of CFL manufacturers. Researchers found the only legally acceptable shipping container is "a double box with a zip closure foil-plastic laminate bag between the cardboard layers" if CFLs are to be shipped by U.S. Postal Service or common carrier. To ignore this requirement would subject violators to the penalties of the law, which would surely exceed the value of a replacement bulb. The cost of the acceptable container and the postage/shipping charge must also be paid by the consumer returning the product. The result is that probably nobody is ever going to return a broken CFL to Armorlite. It's not worth it. And I would wager that many disappointed customers will not consider it worth their time and gas to deliver a failed bulb to a recycling collection point either. Even if the government inspected everyone's trash -- think of the cost of that! -- to prevent people from "smuggling" CFLs into their discards, I suspect we would see an increase of CFLs in other people's trash or strewn along roads.


Rick Delair of the Edison Tech Center writes:


"CFL bulbs contain many nasty toxic substances. You likely know of the mercury they contain already, but they also have things like lead (stabilizer in the plastic ballast housings), arsenic in the electronic parts, phenol in circuit boards, cyanide to process metals for parts, toxic phosphors, and the list goes on and on! They can't be tossed in the trash can, and have to be saved and recycled (expensive!) when they burn out. Incandescents are not only easily recycled, but can be discarded in the trash -- the glass and metals used are inert."


Though Armorlite claims its product contains lesser amounts of mercury and lead than some CFLs, it contains additional hazardous substances Delair doesn't mention: cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and polybromated biphenyls. Why not let people buy incandescents, which don't have any of these?


The new Armorlite product has not solved other CFL problems either. Its package states:


"Do not use in luminaries controlled by a dimmer, electronic timers, 3-way socket or photocells, illuminated switches, totally enclosed luminaries, or where directly exposed to weather. Do not use with emergency fixtures or emergency lights. This CFL may interfere with other products like radios, cordless phones and others."


Incandescents have none of these problems.


LEDs (light-emitting diodes) are frequently cited as the next generation of lighting technology, supplanting CFLs. Many people believe their very high cost will come down, and many recommend them even at today's prices because of CFL shortcomings and the belief LEDs have no environmental problems. However, recent LED research at the University of California at Irvine found the lead content was over 8 times the regulatory limit, and the nickel content was over two and one-half times. Under California's environmental law, most LEDs would qualify as hazardous waste, though California does not currently classify them as toxic and disposes of them in landfills. The study was based on LED multicolored Christmas lights, traffic lights, and automobile headlights and brake lights.


A recent news release from the university about this study states:


"Those light-emitting diodes marketed as safe, environmentally preferable alternatives to traditional lightbulbs actually contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially hazardous substances, according to newly published research.


"'We find the low-intensity red LEDs exhibit significant cancer and noncancer potentials due to the high content of arsenic and lead,' the team wrote in the January 2011 issue of Environmental Science & Technology....Results from the larger lighting products will be published later, but according to Ogunseitan [who headed the study] 'it's more of the same.'


"Lead, arsenic and many additional metals discovered in the bulbs or their related parts have been linked in hundreds of studies to different cancers, neurological damage, kidney disease, hypertension, skin rashes and other illnesses. The copper used in some LEDs also poses an ecological threat to fish, rivers and lakes."


"Risks are present in all parts of the lights and at every stage during production, use and disposal, the study found. Consumers, manufacturers and first responders to accident scenes ought to be aware of this, Ogunseitan said....Crews dispatched to clean up car crashes or broken traffic fixtures should don protective gear and handle the material as hazardous waste."


Statists believe government can determine people's economic interactions better than the people themselves. In short, they believe government economic planning is superior to the free market. Politicians are always looking for ways to demonstrate this to justify the statist ideological conviction and retain the political power to force it on the public. From low-flow toilets to ethanol subsidies and mandates, to creating the housing bubble that collapsed (taking the rest of the economy with it), and everything in between, they have a consistent record of failure. Now it's CFLs. People are being forced to switch from a reliable, economical, environmentally safe product to one which is none of these -- and a health and safety hazard to boot.


The politicians who passed the law phasing out incandescents wanted a trophy they could hold up to the voting public and say, "See, we gave you something better than what a free market could give you. We advanced society." Instead of a trophy of success, they have a monument to the failure of their ideology and their ignorance of economics. Politics is no substitute for economics. It can only produce an uneconomic result: if the result were economic, it wouldn't require government coercion. I write these articles and my books to demonstrate this.


The Big Government advocates are as ignorant of history as they are of economics. How did Edison's carbon-filament bulb lead to the worldwide popularity of incandescent lights for well over a century? Was it because government shoveled subsidies of taxpayer money to Edison to develop it and make it economic? Or because government passed laws requiring people to buy those bulbs? No, Edison developed the bulb on his own, and it had to prove itself to consumers. It had to be better for them -- in their judgment, not that of politicians -- than the competition from kerosene lamps or Welsbach gas burners.


And how did kerosene lamps achieve their popularity over the coal oil and whale oil lamps which had been in use long before kerosene came on the market? It was because buyers -- not government -- found kerosene an excellent product, and John D. Rockefeller's business efficiency and revolutionizing of the petroleum industry enabled him to sell it for less than competing oils. (Rockefeller became the richest man in America by selling kerosene, not gasoline, which came later.)


Now we are being forced to buy CFLs -- judged inferior by many people, whose choices are overridden by the "superior" wisdom of arrogant, ignorant politicians -- and costing far more than incandescents. We're going in the wrong direction, led by people who don't know what they are doing, who have no understanding of the nature of human progress -- that it results from the exercise of individual rights, not government obliteration of them. Free markets allow for the exercise of those rights. CFLs are a metaphor for America gone wrong.


Late note: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on May 12, 2011 issued a recall order for sixteen models of Telstar and Electra brand CFLs in twelve different wattages. "Hazard: The light bulbs can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers." LINK


http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_dangers_of_cfls_even_great.html

_________________
Image


May 19th, 2011, 8:01 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
Haha... anyone can plainly see that article doesn't address the concern at all but pulls together a list of issues.

Funny thing is, when customers are dumb about CFL's it is the products fault for not being known what to do if something bad happens. But when a traditional light bulb burns a house down it is the idiot persons fault...

This article sheds light on nothing (pun intended). It simply pulls together all the horror stories and does what you guys fault global warming alarmist for doing. Completely hypocritical.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 19th, 2011, 9:53 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
Well, most fires caused by incandescent bulbs are because somebody put it too close to the drapes or something else flammable, so it is the idiot person's fault. LCD's, on the other hand, just catch fire by themselves. Big difference there, steensn.

And these are real horror stories, unlike the made up bullshit also known as global waming alarmism. No hypocrisy there. Facts are facts.

_________________
Image


May 19th, 2011, 8:45 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
Not a big difference if the issue is the user doesn't know how to use them. It's the same dang thing. You are picking a handlful of isolated incidents to insight emotion instead of facts. More people die from fires due to traditional light bulbs than CFLs would cause at their current rate if used exclusively.

So which is more unsafe? Practically speaking?

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 20th, 2011, 9:47 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Randy Paul, Crappers, and CFL's
steensn wrote:
More people die from fires due to traditional light bulbs than CFLs would cause at their current rate if used exclusively.


And you know this how? Once CFLs become the only bulb in town, most people will buy the cheapest brand, especially in this economy. Those are the bulbs that present the greatest fire hazard, and as a result, more fires will result by their widespread use. Right now, I'd imagine that most poor or lower middle class people continue to buy incandescents due to the price above anything else, while those purchasing CFLs are better off and are buying quality over cost. Once they become mandatory, that trend will reverse, with the cheaply made, more hazardous CFLs becoming more popular. I can see the headline now - Housing Project Burns Down; 29 Dead; Faulty Light Bulb To Blame. Try to spin this one, steensn. :lol:

_________________
Image


May 20th, 2011, 11:38 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.