Re: Dissecting CFLs

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

<stuff snipped>

> The FDA has a web page that says fluorescents cause problems for those who
> suffer from migraines but they don't provide supporting evidence (or, if
so,
> I missed it).
>
>      http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_pain.html
>
> The earlier cited wiki page would seem to support my contention that the
> numbers promulgated by CFL proponents are wildly exagerated. It notes, as
I
> did in similar fashion based on having run a business and having visited
> thousands of commercial and industrial sites, that "businesses find the
cost
> savings of fluorescents to be significant and only rarely use incandescent
> lights".

There are so many dubious points in the CFL "model" that it's hard to figure
out where to start to debunk it.  The most obvious is the "lifetime" bulb
concept.  It's being whittled away, but CFLs are still being touted as
having enormous paybacks based on a lifetime that even a non-high school
graduate can determine has been marketing hype.

When you force CFL's on people by fiat, you're removing a lot of incentive
to recycle the bulbs properly.  Instead of trapping mercury at the
relatively few smokestacks, we'll be chasing it at every landfill in the
country.

I suppose when people live on two continents and jet between them as
conspicuous consumers at the apex of the carbon use pyramid, they have no
choice but to try to induce average people to conserve like crazy to offset
those yearly carbon load blowouts.  Sounds a little like Amway.  Gotta get a
lot of suffering people under you before you can lead la dolce vita.

> That means most of the savings from switching to CFLs must come
> from residences and since residential lighting in the US only uses 3% of
> total electricity, there's not a lot to be gained from replacing all
> (remaining) residential incandescents with CFLs. The CFL proponents'
> arguments appear to consist predominantly of inflated claims, chest
thumping
> self promotion, name calling, and character assassination of those who
dare
> disagree.

Wal-Mart thinks there's a lot to be gained!  (-:  That should raise enough
questions about who really stands to profit from the forced marched to CFLs.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination
>
> Perhaps they've been breathing mercury fumes from broken fluorescents. ;)

I'm not sure what it is but it's clear someone's trying to start a war and
turn CHA into a mess just like ASA.  I suppose it's time to stand up and be
counted.  Things were quite collegial until a single poster returned to the
group, accusing others of "stirring the pot" when it's pretty obvious who's
got the big spoon in his hand.

--
Bobby G.