Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Have you all made the switch? « previous next »
Page: 1 2

cyberdude557

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11834
Offline
« : May 18, 2007, 02:17:37 PM »

Al Gore and environmentalists think that it should be mandatory for Americans to switch to the compact fluorescent light bulbs and then ban incandescent light bulbs.

What do you think?

-CFL bulbs use 80% less power than regular bulbs
-CFL bulbs emit 90% less heat, making the rooms you put them in cooler.
-Each CFL bulb you use in replace of incandescent bulbs save you an estimated $66 a year.

leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4438
Offline
« #1 : May 18, 2007, 02:19:53 PM »

I personally have used the CFL bulbs a while now.  No complaints at all.

doobiedoright

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3223
Offline
« #2 : May 18, 2007, 02:20:54 PM »

Long time ago..Replaced the windows with super duper ones this past feb.


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21603
Online
« #3 : May 18, 2007, 02:24:44 PM »

Use some CFL bulbs, the ones I have create a sort of nasty yellow light and not a good white light so I'm not real happy with them.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

mjs020294

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2245
Offline
« #4 : May 18, 2007, 02:33:44 PM »

We have fluorescents in the office and they are replacing the lights above my desk with halogen bulbs because I get migraines under fluorescents.

A study was carried out a few years ago with 8,000 mice.  They place 2000 under white office fluorescents, 200 under sunglow fluorescent, 2000 under light bulb and 2000 under a natural light.   The mice under standard office fluorescents had a life expectancy of about 50% that of the other three groups.  Various tumors and cancers were far more prevalent when exposed to fluorescents 24/7.

I will find the link to that study, but here is some reading for you in the meantime:



http://ehso.com/fluorescent_safety.php

http://www.holisticmed.com/toxic/fluorescent.html

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/12/06/sunlight_lighting_and_your_health_dangers_of_fluorescent_lighting.htm

http://headaches.about.com/od/triggers/a/office_lighting.htm



Buc Wylde

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2035
Offline
« #5 : May 18, 2007, 02:37:56 PM »

Been using the bulbs for a few years now. 12K worth of windows also helps the energy miser in me

Quote from: Raheem Morris
We got to get better at doing something, and that is what we have to set our focus on and that is something to get better at. That\\\\\\\'s what we are trying to do right now.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7110
Offline
« #6 : May 18, 2007, 03:51:55 PM »

Doing my best Joe impression:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn’t include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.

Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) — a move already either adopted or being considered in California, Canada, the European Union and Australia.

According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter’s bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges’ house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state’s “safe” level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.

The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a “low-ball” estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began “gathering finances” to pay for the $2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn’t cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.

Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in energy costs — and assuming that Bridges doesn’t break any more CFLs — it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.

Even if you don’t go for the full-scale panic of the $2,000 cleanup, the do-it-yourself approach is still somewhat intense, if not downright alarming.

Consider the procedure offered by the Maine DEP’s Web page entitled, “What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home?”

Don’t vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask.

Collect the waste material into an airtight container. Pat the area with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth. Finally, check with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be properly disposed.

The only step the Maine DEP left off was the final one: Hope that you did a good enough cleanup so that you, your family and pets aren’t poisoned by any mercury inadvertently dispersed or missed.

This, of course, assumes that people are even aware that breaking CFLs entails special cleanup procedures.

The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.

It’s quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury. Given that there are about 4 billion lightbulb sockets in American households, we’re looking at the possibility of creating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges’ bedroom.

Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in, our homes.

These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs.

As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a “highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children” and as “one of the most poisonous forms of pollution.”

Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the U.S., under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.

And let’s not forget about the regulatory nightmare known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for requiring expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites, along with endless litigation over such cleanups.

We’ll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.

As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine “safety” standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to “safely” contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.

Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures. Should government (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of the world) impose on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill?

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

replica

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2321
Offline
« #7 : May 18, 2007, 11:23:57 PM »

I've replaced most of my bulbs with these, the light is dim for a short while. They are not the same for sure, but what they do for the enviroment (and my wallet) make them worthwhile.

matt

****
Starter

Posts : 529
Offline
« #8 : May 18, 2007, 11:28:01 PM »

Screw that, I live in MICHIGAN...I'm doing everything in my power to INCREASE global warming.

bucnut

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2821
Offline
« #9 : May 18, 2007, 11:52:22 PM »

CFL's...been using them for a lonnnng time!



NFC South BBS  Viva la Grudenistas!  GO GATORS!!!

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21603
Online
« #10 : May 19, 2007, 09:16:55 AM »

Doing my best Joe impression:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

Never notices this. WEnt to the store this morning, not just to do this, but checked. Sure enough all those CFL have mercury in them and have disposal warnings on the packaging. Great I'm saving power with them but doing major long term damage that is likely worse than the power savings. Show the article to my wife and we're going back to old school blubs. Call me when the LCD type technology gets here.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.



Guest
« #11 : May 19, 2007, 09:39:19 AM »

Never notices this. WEnt to the store this morning, not just to do this, but checked. Sure enough all those CFL have mercury in them and have disposal warnings on the packaging. Great I'm saving power with them but doing major long term damage that is likely worse than the power savings. Show the article to my wife and we're going back to old school blubs. Call me when the LCD type technology gets here.

Assume you meant LED. I don't think it will be too long in coming, they've already got small affordable flashlights using LED technology. They put out a very bright, blue-tinted light.


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21603
Online
« #12 : May 19, 2007, 10:39:08 AM »

Assume you meant LED. I don't think it will be too long in coming, they've already got small affordable flashlights using LED technology. They put out a very bright, blue-tinted light.

Staring at my LCD I misspoke :)

The tinting is the big problem. I like white light. I don't like the yellow from the CFL's and I hope they can take the blue out of the LED's.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.



Guest
« #13 : May 19, 2007, 10:56:35 AM »

I have a small, 21 LED flashlight that holds three AAA batteries. It puts out as much light as my Mag-Lite that holds three D batteries. Although the light does have a slight blue tint, it's about the same as the "cool white" bulbs put out. The main problem with it is that if you look directly at the light it blinds you; it's like staring at the frickin sun.

 

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
« #14 : May 19, 2007, 12:29:18 PM »

Doing my best Joe impression:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html


Great post Spartan...we really need to think these things through on our own. I ran into this problem when I disposed of one of these bulbs. I left it inside, and at the top of a trash container. The Garbage collector left it with a note that said they were not allowed to pick this up as it was considered hazardous waste. I did a little research and I have to call a special county division of the waste management to dispose of this - at an extra cost. Got rid of them and went back to the energy "guzzling" 60 watt incandescent bulbs.

The real questions are; how many have been thrown away by consumers that did not read the disposal warnings? How many have been broken by consumers that simply cleaned up the mess with a vacuum cleaner, and then disposed of them inside a trash bag?

This is a little typical I'm afraid - yet another instance of inconvenient truth for Mr Algore (and his ilk). Hyping something he hasn't researched completely. Mercury takes a long time to break down and in that time it contaminates a WIDE area and has tremendous health hazards for all living organisms.

Just so you know Mercury's affects:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg46.html

Like I said Spartan - great post! Thanks for pointing out the hazards of this terrible product.

Incomparable sig by Incognito
  Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Have you all made the switch? « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools