On Sep 2, 11:04*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"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...

Non-sequitur again. As opposed to mercury that the device in question
doesn't contain. Derived mercury. Drive-by mercury. Collateral
mercury. In the end, the CFB contains mercury directly, and the old
tech bulb does not.

But can you address the issue at hand? The fact that it takes more
energy to manufacture the CFB, so that process 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?

It's obvious you don't have the engineering chops to grasp all of
this. It's apparent in your initial incorrect presentation of the
mercury issue, and your dancing around it since you were called on
your mistake. That's OK, some are not cut out for the mental heavy
lifting. You shouldn't be too ashamed. That's why the pundits put
this bumper-sticker stuff out there... for the sheeple to have
something to hang on to. It worked for you. And it got BO elected.
It's highly successful stuff.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 2, 11:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"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...

Non-sequitur again. As opposed to mercury that the device in question
doesn't contain. Derived mercury. Drive-by mercury. Collateral
mercury. In the end, the CFB contains mercury directly, and the old
tech bulb does not.

Hate to break it to you, but mercury is an element. So, it seems you're the
one who's doing a little bitty jig.

It's obvious you don't have the engineering chops to grasp all of
this. It's apparent in your initial incorrect presentation of the
mercury issue, and your dancing around it since you were called on
your mistake. That's OK, some are not cut out for the mental heavy
lifting. You shouldn't be too ashamed. That's why the pundits put
this bumper-sticker stuff out there... for the sheeple to have
something to hang on to. It worked for you. And it got BO elected.
It's highly successful stuff.

So personal attacks are all you're left with.. not a convincing argument.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sep 3, 2:08*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 2, 11:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"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...
Non-sequitur again. *As opposed to mercury that the device in question
doesn't contain. *Derived mercury. *Drive-by mercury. *Collateral
mercury. *In the end, the CFB contains mercury directly, and the old
tech bulb does not.

Hate to break it to you, but mercury is an element. So, it seems you're the
one who's doing a little bitty jig.

So is Plutonium and Europium, but it's highly unlikely that either
type of bulb contain anything but trace amounts of them, and why does
it matter? You still won't, or can't, come to grips with the real
issue here.


It's obvious you don't have the engineering chops to grasp all of
this. *It's apparent in your initial incorrect presentation of the
mercury issue, and your dancing around it since you were called on
your mistake. *That's OK, some are not cut out for the mental heavy
lifting. *You shouldn't be too ashamed. *That's why the pundits put
this bumper-sticker stuff out there... for the sheeple to have
something to hang on to. *It worked for you. *And it got BO elected.
It's highly successful stuff.

So personal attacks are all you're left with.. not a convincing argument.


Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then
totally got the gist of it wrong. I've presented clearly stated
arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around.
Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing
not to address that which proves your statements wrong. In either
case you get what you deserve.

see ya

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:



Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then
totally got the gist of it wrong. I've presented clearly stated
arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around.
Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing
not to address that which proves your statements wrong. In either
case you get what you deserve.

This is a pretty good overview, though I won't vouch for it.
Good picture of all the crap in a CFL.
http://thewatt.com/node/175
I read elsewhere that even if you broke all the CFL bulbs they'd put
less mercury in the environment than burning coal for incandescents.
Won't vouch for that either.
l don't think I have any incandescents left in the house or garage.
The biggest failure with this crap is having enough recycling
dropoffs. Around here it's at least a 10 mile drive to get rid of
hazardous waste, and they're open only certain days/months.

--Vic

"Jack" wrote in message
...
Hate to break it to you, but mercury is an element. So, it seems you're
the
one who's doing a little bitty jig.

So is Plutonium and Europium, but it's highly unlikely that either
type of bulb contain anything but trace amounts of them, and why does
it matter? You still won't, or can't, come to grips with the real
issue here.

Nice strawman argument.

So personal attacks are all you're left with.. not a convincing argument.


Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then
totally got the gist of it wrong. I've presented clearly stated
arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around.
Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing
not to address that which proves your statements wrong. In either
case you get what you deserve.

Like I said. You certainly don't know and shouldn't presume to know what I
"deserve."

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:



Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then
totally got the gist of it wrong. I've presented clearly stated
arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around.
Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing
not to address that which proves your statements wrong. In either
case you get what you deserve.

This is a pretty good overview, though I won't vouch for it.
Good picture of all the crap in a CFL.
http://thewatt.com/node/175
I read elsewhere that even if you broke all the CFL bulbs they'd put
less mercury in the environment than burning coal for incandescents.
Won't vouch for that either.
l don't think I have any incandescents left in the house or garage.
The biggest failure with this crap is having enough recycling
dropoffs. Around here it's at least a 10 mile drive to get rid of
hazardous waste, and they're open only certain days/months.

--Vic



Here's the manufacturing canard...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:17:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Here's the manufacturing canard...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

From this I found that Home Depot takes them for recycling.
Good to know.
I bet most people just toss them in the garbage though.

--Vic

On Sep 3, 4:14*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

Hate to break it to you, but mercury is an element. So, it seems you're
the
one who's doing a little bitty jig.
So is Plutonium and Europium, but it's highly unlikely that either
type of bulb contain anything but trace amounts of them, and why does
it matter? *You still won't, or can't, come to grips with the real
issue here.

Nice strawman argument.

So personal attacks are all you're left with.. not a convincing argument.

On Sep 3, 2:57*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:



Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then
totally got the gist of it wrong. *I've presented clearly stated
arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around.
Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing
not to address that which proves your statements wrong. *In either
case you get what you deserve.

This is a pretty good overview, though I won't vouch for it.
Good picture of all the crap in a CFL.http://thewatt.com/node/175
I read elsewhere that even if you broke all the CFL bulbs they'd put
less mercury in the environment than burning coal for incandescents.
Won't vouch for that either.
l don't think I have any incandescents left in the house or garage.
The biggest failure with this crap is having enough recycling
dropoffs. *Around here it's at least a 10 mile drive to get rid of
hazardous waste, and they're open only certain days/months.


Yup. The big problem with that energy/mercury breakdown is that for
it to be true, you have to get *all* your electricity from coal. The
big breaktrough will likely be LED lighting technology. CFB is too
dirty.