Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HPilot who wrote (84735)	1/9/2012 2:37:54 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 90947

Something STINKS about this.

To: HPilot who wrote (84735)	1/10/2012 1:01:11 AM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Don't think of CFL's as politics. CFLs aren't politics. Heavy regulation of what type of bulbs people can use is. Plenty of specifications and testing results to know that they are indeed an improvement. For a consumer product, what is an improvement is largely subjective.

To: HPilot who wrote (84735)	1/15/2012 12:46:03 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

CFL bulbs: shedding light on misleading performance claims Kirk Myers Seminole County Environmental News Examiner January 12, 2012 http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/cfl-bulbs-shedding-light-on-misleading-performance-claims This article, the second in a series, focuses on the misleading performance claims surrounding the “more energy efficient” compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs now replacing traditional incandescent bulbs. These potentially harmful mercury-filled lamps (see my previous column describing the dangers) are being forced on consumers by the U.S. congress with support from the Green Lobby and light-bulb manufacturers like GE, Sylvania and Phillips. These and other manufacturers stand to make huge profits selling the more expensive CFLs (more on that issue in my next column). There is a growing body of evidence undermining claims of the EPA, environmental lobby and light bulb manufacturers touting the performance advantages of mercury-laced CFL bulbs. Exaggerated lifespan Real-world reports from the home front show that the claimed extended lifespan of CFLs is often greatly exaggerated. There is ample data indicating that the frequent switching on and off of CFLs greatly shortens their life. A study by H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and co-author Amanda Berg concludes: “Unfortunately, except under a fairly narrow range of circumstances, CFLs are less efficient than advertised. Manufacturers claim the average life span of a CFL bulb is 10,000 hours. However, in many applications the life and energy savings of a CFL are significantly lower. “Applications in which lighting is used only briefly (such as closets, bathrooms, motion detectors and so forth) will cause CFL bulbs to burn out as quickly as regular incandescent bulbs . . . When initially switched on, CFLs may provide as little as 50 percent to 80 percent of their rated light output and can take up to three minutes to reach full brightness.” According to a story in the Wall Street Journal, Pacific Gas & Electric originally estimated the useful life of CFL bulbs at 9.4 years. But based on real-world results, the company was forced to lower its estimate to 6.3 years, meaning that it had overstated bulb life by 49 percent. “The early burn-out rate, along with several other factors, meant that the actual energy savings were 73 percent less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E,” the Journal reported. Less bright, more dim with age As many consumers have noticed, CFL bulbs grow dimmer as they age. In a 2003-2004 study, the U.S. Department of Energy reported that one-fourth of CFLs, after only 40 percent of their rated service life, no longer produced at their rated output. And according to Wikipedia: "CFLs produce less light later in their lives than when they are new. The light output decay is exponential, with the fastest losses being soon after the lamp is first used. By the end of their lives, CFLs can be expected to produce 70-80% of their original light output." After conducting its own tests on bulbs from several manufacturers, The Sunday Telegraph in London “found that under normal conditions, using a single lamp to light a room, an 11W low-energy CFL produced only 58 percent of the illumination of an ‘equivalent’ 60W bulb – even after a 10-minute ‘warm-up.’” The European Commission, which led the effort to ban incandescent bulbs in Europe, said that claims by manufacturers that CFL’s shine as brightly as old-fashioned bulbs are “not true.” Posted on its website for consumers was the warning that “exaggerated claims are often made on the packaging about the light output of compact fluorescent lamps.” Higher heating bills Go-Green advocates like to complain about the fact that 90 percent of the energy from incandescent lights is given off as heat, with only 10 percent providing illumination. But they ignore one important fact: The extra heat given off during the winter months can actually lower energy bills. According to a study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, “The heat of incandescent lights – more than 341 Btu per bulb per hour – can help to warm a room. Therefore, if the cost of electricity is low relative to the cost of home heating fuel, there may be an economic case for changing to incandescent bulbs in colder seasons.” In other words, on a cold day when you’re running your electric heater, it makes sense to flip on all those incandescent heat sources. Of course, the contribution of incandescent bulbs to lower heating bills is conveniently missing from pro-CFL literature. Unsuitable for outdoor lighting What about the use of CFLs for outdoor lighting? Forget it. Most do not operate well in low temperatures, a performance shortfall that makes them virtually useless for home-security lighting, including as lights in motion detectors. By signing the incandescent bulb’s death warrant, congress has effectively rendered useless outdoor lighting systems that keep away intruders and discourage home break-ins. Myth of mercury reduction One of the most misleading arguments advanced in defense of CFLs is the assertion that they reduce harmful mercury levels (a dubious proposition given that the bulbs themselves are laced with mercury). Case in point: In a letter to the Wall Street Journal in December, CFL advocate Nicole Lederer claimed that “coal-fired power plants produce about half of all mercury.” In his Jan. 5 response, Charles Battig of Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment-Virginia called the statement “scientifically vacuous and misleading.” Battig cited data from an op-ed ("The Myth of Killer Mercury" by Willie Soon and Paul Driessen) that broke down mercury contributions as follows: “U.S. coal-fired plants, about 41-48 tons per year; forest fires, about 44 tons per year; Chinese power plants, 400 tons per year, while recurring geological events such as volcanoes and geysers emit 9,000-10,000 tons per year.” “With these missing pieces of information, wrote Battig, the U.S. power plant contribution of mercury is closer to a 0.5% value than the "half of all mercury" claim by Ms. Lederer.” Battig then offered this advice: “Would that Ms. Lederer and the Environmental Entrepreneurs expend an equal amount of environmental anguish over placing compact fluorescent lamp bulbs indoors in homes, schools and factories. These mercury-containing, stealth-pollution bulbs bring the mercury threat right into your living room and nursery.” No good reason for switchover The fact is there is no good reason for consumers – even energy-conscious go-green enthusiasts – to replace their old incandescent bulbs with the much-overhyped and potentially dangerous CFL lamps. The sole beneficiaries of the forced switchover are light bulb manufacturers who stand to make huge profits selling CFL bulbs whose shelf price has been artificially lowered (but still is higher than incandescent bulbs) through hefty subsidies paid to them by taxpayers. In light of the facts, the switchover to CFL bulbs has become a real consumer turn-off.

To: HPilot who wrote (84735)	1/15/2012 12:50:36 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Many consumers in the dark about dangers of CFL bulbs Kirk Myers Seminole County Environmental News Examiner January 4, 2012 examiner.com The is the first in a multi-part series of articles exposing the lies and misinformation behind legislation mandating the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with potentially unsafe compact florescent light (CFL) bulbs. Most consumers by now are aware of a federal law mandating the phased transition from incandescent light bulbs to controversial mercury-activated compact florescent light (CFL) bulbs, starting this year. According to provisions of legislation passed by congress in 2007, the 100-watt incandescent bulb was to be off the shelves this January, followed by a phase-out of the 75-watt version in January 2013 and the 60- and 40-watt versions in January 2014. But last month congress granted consumers a reprieve by including in its spending bill a measure delaying enforcement of the ban until the end of the 2012. Mercury – a deadly neurotoxin From the time it was first proposed, the ban has run into opposition from consumers who are understandably concerned about outfitting their home light fixtures with bulbs containing, on average, 5 milligrams of mercury, enough to contaminate 6,000 gallons of water. Mercury is one of the most deadly neurotoxins on the planet. According to Wattsworks.com, “Breaking a single CFL bulb in a room can result in mercury vapor levels 300 times in excess of what the EPA has established as safe for prolonged exposure. Serious health effects are associated with mercury exposure. Unborn and young children, elderly and those with weakened health are particularly vulnerable.” The EPA continues to downplay safety concerns, but urges consumers to follow these safety precautions if a bulb is broken: Open a window and ventilate the area for 15 minutesAvoid vacuuming the area (to prevent the spread of mercury dust)Use cardboard, not a broom, to sweep up the remains of the bulbWhile wearing rubber globes use a wet paper towel to wipe the areaSeal the contents in a jar with a lid or plastic bag for disposal “If clothing or bedding materials come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powers from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away,” the EPA recommends. The EPA claims the amount of mercury in a single bulb is not enough to create a health hazard. But according to test data released in December 2010 by Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA), mercury levels from broken CFLs were 20 times higher than regulations allow in the surrounding air for up to five hours after breakage. The American Thinker reports: "Based on a new method to measure mercury from broken CFLs, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection reports that only one-third of the mercury release occurs during the first 8 hours after breakage. During the following two-week period, 17 percent to 40 percent of the mercury is released into the air." In a report last March, Fox News exposed the potentially dangerous health hazards of mercury-laced CFL bulbs: “Mercury . . . is a potent, developmental neurotoxin that can damage the brain, liver, kidneys and central nervous system. Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to mercury’s toxic effects. Even at low levels, mercury is capable of causing a number of health problems including impaired motor functioning, cognitive ability and emotional problems. Higher or prolonged exposure can result in much more serious health problems.” Mercury Instruments, a Littleton, Colo., firm that specializes in removing mercury contamination, states the following on its Web site: “If you break a "CFL" Compact Fluorescent light bulb and attempt to clean it up yourself, there is absolutely no way to know that you have removed the mercury unless you screen the area with a mercury vapor monitor . . . Without the proper equipment, equipment you will never be able to locate where the mercury came to rest.” Concerned about mercury contamination, many environmental agencies have adopted strict regulations for the disposal and recycling of CFLs. In California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, it is illegal to improperly dispose of florescent bulbs in trash or landfills. Consumers face stiff fines if they violate the law. Investigate Magazine says this about broken CFLs: “The real cost is not one broken light bulb, but how badly affected homes will be after 20 years of amateur attempts to clean up one of the deadliest neurotoxins on the planet.” Mercury vapors – another health hazard? Toxic mercury from broken bulbs might not be the only danger posed by CFL lamps. During tests last year at Berlin's Ala Laboratory, scientists discovered that various carcinogenic chemicals and toxins, including phenol, naphthalene and styrene, are released when CFL are switched on. Environmental experts in Britain have downplayed the findings, insisting that CFLs are not a danger to the public and that more studies are needed to back up the German research. But Peter Braun, who carried out the tests at the lab, claims that CFL lamps emit poisonous vapors when turned on and “should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head.” This report comes on the heals of research by Israel’s Haifa University suggesting that the CFL’s bluer light emissions, which closely mimic daylight, might interfere with the production of the hormone melatonin, contributing to higher rates of breast cancer. In addition, the Migraine Action Association is warning that CFLs could trigger migraine headaches, “and skin care specialists have claimed that their intense light could exacerbate a range of existing skin problems,” according to a report in London’s Daily Telegraph. Consumer anger Many consumers are fuming over what they see as government meddling and are stocking up on incandescent light bulbs before the ban goes into effect. Judging from the pointed buyer comments on Amazon.com, the legislators who voted for the ban might want to update their resumes. “You can pry my 100 watt incandescent from my cold dead hand (all apologies to Charlton Heston),” says Dukesuxheelrule. “Only a liberal green weenie would replace a perfectly safe tool of illumination with a much more expensive, lower quality, and highly hazardous product.” Jeddy3 chimes in: “Every time the do-gooder nanny state shoves something down our throat "for our own good," you can bet it'll be found later that it wasn't safer/better after all. If it were better, safer, or more economical, it wouldn't be necessary to legislate its competition out of business.” Another incensed buyer bashes the Green movement and defends freedom of choice: “They [the incandescent bulbs] work well, shine bright, and - best of all - make me feel constantly proud to be screwing the eco-nazis,” said ahtimsa1970. “Screw you, Al Gore! Keep your hands off my thermostat, light bulbs and recycling bins. I worked hard for my money; I'll spend it however I choose.” During a recent appearance on Fox News, Marc Marano, the founder of the Web site Climate Depot, described the ban as an assault on consumer choice carried out by global warming alarmists and their allies on Capitol Hill. “The only reason we’re talking about incandescent bulbs is because of fears of global warming. They’re trying . . . to control every aspect of our lives.” As one critic quipped, “We know why GE dropped the ‘We bring good things to life’ slogan.”