JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490


Next up - candle power as in real candles. :)
To get the same output you will have to increase the number of bulbs or
leave them on all of the time in both cases using more electricity. We
tried to use the florescent bulbs but abandon them. You would come into
the kitchen for a glass of milk and cookies. By the time you had drunk
the milk and finished the cookies the florescent bulbs would be at their
peak brightness, just in time to turn them off and go back to bed.

Florescent bulbs are like the double flush toilets, that were legislated
several years ago. They take less water but you have to flush them
twice every time you use them to get them clean.
Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last
forever!

Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the
area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things?


Well, if their government gave a **** that wouldn't be a problem.
There's been mercury in landfills from many sources for many years.

On Sep 2, 1:44*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message

...

In article ,
Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last
forever!

Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the
area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things?

Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones. If
you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for everything.

--
Nom=de=Plume

As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. Mercury is not
used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs.

There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough
energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that
depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by
coal-burning power plants. Burning coal releases mercury, so the
power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to
offset the mercury content of the CFB. If some of your power comes
from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. As
the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that
away.

As usual, I'm not confused. Fossil fuels have mercury as a by-product. It is
produced in the manufacture not used, my bad. Then, I see you went on to
confirm, exactly my argument. Thanks!

"Jack" wrote in message
...

Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones.
If
you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for
everything.

--
Nom=de=Plume

As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. Mercury is not
used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs.

There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough
energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that
depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by
coal-burning power plants. Burning coal releases mercury, so the
power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to
offset the mercury content of the CFB. If some of your power comes
from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. As
the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that
away.






--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sep 2, 4:41*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
As usual, I'm not confused. Fossil fuels have mercury as a by-product. It is
produced in the manufacture not used, my bad. Then, I see you went on to
confirm, exactly my argument. Thanks!

Then you went on to prove my point... your "bad" indeed. You wrote
"It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new
ones." Nothing ambiguous there... you were dead wrong.

However, if you're now trying to spin it to say that mercury is
produced in the manufacturing process while making incandescents, that
won't fly either. Mercury is likewise produced during the
manufacturing of CFBs. No savings there.

The mercury savings, as I pointed out, is in the *use* of the two
types of bulbs. As I already noted, the savings is due to less energy
being used by the CFB, but that only is when the energy is produced by
coal. Take that away, and the CFB, because it *contains* mercury, is
the worst polluter.

Hope that helps!




"Jack" wrote in message

...



Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones.
If
you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for
everything.

--
Nom=de=Plume

As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. *Mercury is not
used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs.

There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough
energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that
depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by
coal-burning power plants. *Burning coal releases mercury, so the
power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to
offset the mercury content of the CFB. *If some of your power comes
from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. *As
the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that
away.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Jack" wrote in message
...
Then you went on to prove my point... your "bad" indeed. You wrote
"It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new
ones." Nothing ambiguous there... you were dead wrong.


It does take more mercury, since it's a byproduct of the process. Sorry if
that destroys an argument that original bulbs are better. Since we're
replacing old bulbs with new, we should also move toward renewable energy,
since that's clearly a problem.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sep 2, 8:08*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

Then you went on to prove my point... your "bad" indeed. *You wrote
"It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new
ones." *Nothing ambiguous there... you were dead wrong.

It does take more mercury, since it's a byproduct of the process. Sorry if
that destroys an argument that original bulbs are better. Since we're
replacing old bulbs with new, we should also move toward renewable energy,
since that's clearly a problem.

My, you have a short little attention span. It does *not* take more
mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass,
metal, and plastic content. In fact, it's a near certainty that the
CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it
is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech
bulb. Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY!

Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were
"better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false,
and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it
up.

Renewable energy? Another thread.

Now you can go back to sleep, bumper sticker slogan boy.

In article 1f2312f5-99cd-44b3-a261-3b1a07d523c9
@o9g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 2, 1:44*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message

...

In article ,
Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last
forever!

Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the
area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things?

Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones. If
you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for everything.


??? WHAT??? Uh, no... That's all, just no...


--
Nom=de=Plume

As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. Mercury is not
used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs.

There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough
energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that
depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by
coal-burning power plants. Burning coal releases mercury, so the
power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to
offset the mercury content of the CFB. If some of your power comes
from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. As
the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that
away.



--
Wafa free since 2009

"Jack" wrote in message
...
My, you have a short little attention span. It does *not* take more
mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass,
metal, and plastic content. In fact, it's a near certainty that the
CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it
is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech
bulb. Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY!

What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the
atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury??

Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were
"better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false,
and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it
up.

No. You just are supporting the argument.

Renewable energy? Another thread.

Assuming you don't relate the two items, which are closely interrelated.

Now you can go back to sleep, bumper sticker slogan boy.

Only when I'm tired, and don't call me a boy. Clearly, you know nothing
about me.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sep 2, 9:04*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

My, you have a short little attention span. *It does *not* take more
mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass,
metal, and plastic content. *In fact, it's a near certainty that the
CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it
is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech
bulb. *Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY!

What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the
atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury??

Non-sequitur. Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB,
so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with
the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB
contains mercury, and you're just wrong.


Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were
"better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false,
and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it
up.

No. You just are supporting the argument.

No. Your grey matter is failing you. Horse, water, drink. Giddyup.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the
atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury??

Non-sequitur. Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB,
so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with
the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB
contains mercury, and you're just wrong.

You said "RAW" mercury. As opposed to...


Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were
"better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false,
and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it
up.

No. You just are supporting the argument.

No. Your grey matter is failing you. Horse, water, drink. Giddyup.

Rein yourself in... The water might not be potable.

--
Nom=de=Plume