Bill to make incandescent light bulbs illegal
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 16, 2024, 05:26:12 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Bill to make incandescent light bulbs illegal
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Bill to make incandescent light bulbs illegal  (Read 5553 times)
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2007, 01:10:40 PM »

True, but even short-term contact is unhealthy

Not terribly.  A brief exposure to a small amount of mercury isn't going to hurt much.  If you ensure that no further exposure occurs, your body is perfectly capable of purging itself of the mercury it absorbed.

When I was  a kid a friend of mine had a small bottle filled with mercury. We used to play with the stuff. We would pour it out of the bottle and push it around with out fingers. It hasn't hurt me any... well aside from that third eye. (Just kidding.)   I don't think it has caused any harm.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2007, 01:33:27 PM »

True, but even short-term contact is unhealthy

Not terribly.  A brief exposure to a small amount of mercury isn't going to hurt much.  If you ensure that no further exposure occurs, your body is perfectly capable of purging itself of the mercury it absorbed.

When I was  a kid a friend of mine had a small bottle filled with mercury. We used to play with the stuff. We would pour it out of the bottle and push it around with out fingers. It hasn't hurt me any... well aside from that third eye. (Just kidding.)   I don't think it has caused any harm.

Yes it has harmed you.  How else do you explain being a libertarian? Grin
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,251
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2007, 01:53:33 PM »

Regular bulbs are easier on the eyes, which is why I use them indoors (another reason to keep them).
They aren't.

Sorry Lewis, but MODU is correct.

While flourescent lighting is generally more "energy efficent" than incandescent, it does have a problem with the "flicker," which has been demostrated to cause eye problems and migraines.
Except CFL's don't "flicker".  From hereSadQuote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2007, 02:04:50 PM »

Regular bulbs are easier on the eyes, which is why I use them indoors (another reason to keep them).
They aren't.

Sorry Lewis, but MODU is correct.

While flourescent lighting is generally more "energy efficent" than incandescent, it does have a problem with the "flicker," which has been demostrated to cause eye problems and migraines.
Except CFL's don't "flicker".  From hereSadQuote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not the flicker, but the intensity of the light.  CFL's are more of a white light than your classic incandescent bulbs, which have a bit of a soft yellow hue to the light.  Additionally, the intensity is less, providing a more enjoyable level of light.  Plus, I don't think I've seen a three-way CFL come on the market yet.  It's either "all" or "nothing," which really is a negative.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2007, 02:17:49 PM »

Plus, I don't think I've seen a three-way CFL come on the market yet.  It's either "all" or "nothing," which really is a negative.

I have a three-way CFL right in the room I'm working in.  What you won't see is a CFL that works with a dimmer switch for the same reason as ordinary fluorescents.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2007, 02:46:13 PM »

Plus, I don't think I've seen a three-way CFL come on the market yet.  It's either "all" or "nothing," which really is a negative.

I have a three-way CFL right in the room I'm working in.  What you won't see is a CFL that works with a dimmer switch for the same reason as ordinary fluorescents.

Thanks Ernest.  I'll have to keep an eye out for one and see how it looks.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2007, 04:32:50 PM »

Thanks Ernest.  I'll have to keep an eye out for one and see how it looks.

The one I have has a single coil like a regular CFL, but a much fatter base than a regular CFL.  It also was more expensive, but then so are incandescent 3-ways.  I'm guessing they have two or three ballasts instead of the usual one.  (Depending on whether it is feasible to use two ballasts in the same tube at the same time.)
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2007, 09:10:00 PM »

Regular bulbs are easier on the eyes, which is why I use them indoors (another reason to keep them).
They aren't.

Sorry Lewis, but MODU is correct.

While flourescent lighting is generally more "energy efficent" than incandescent, it does have a problem with the "flicker," which has been demostrated to cause eye problems and migraines.
Except CFL's don't "flicker".  From hereSadQuote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, let me note that several years ago I headed a project which received an award from the Department of Energy for energy efficent lighting, which used the electronic ballasts.

Second, when reflectors are properly installed, the lighting can reduce the harshness of lighting on working surfaces (tables, desks, etc.) which means less glare and fewer shadows.

Third, due to reduced heat produced, there is a resulting savings on air conditioning costs.

Fourth, due to longer life span of the electronic ballasts, the cost of labor to replace thousand of tubes
constitutes a significant savings.

However, the flicker still remains and does cause a problem for some people with migraines. 
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 24, 2007, 04:55:29 PM »

Oh - come on - my parents played with mercury when thermometers broke all the time.  As long as you don't eat it - you'll be fine.  It's just another ploy by the trial lawyers - 1 out of  a few thousand people has a bad effect because of it, and people go all panicky.

Actually, if it's liquid mercury, eating it isn't liable to do anything.  It's such a heavy element that it'll just go right through your digestive system.

The problem comes from mercury fumes.  Mercury located out in the open air is liable to vaporize, and gaseous mercury is quite toxic.  An exposure to a large amount of it or a prolonged exposure to a small amount of it can cause serious neurological damage.

And that's why I only passed the chemistry CLEP test by 1 point (although I did good in advanced chem).

I don't think this stuff would be on a chemistry test in school. Tongue

Gabu, I got a 51 - there were a lot of things I didn't think would be on that test (but it's out of like 85, not 100).
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 11 queries.