Re: CFL v. Tungsten - what are the REAL costs? (was Re: N:Vision CFL's)

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:21:43 -0400, Marc_F_Hult
<MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<k05i03pcutkp7qstj0tg1gtuoq5v56qgv2@xxxxxxx>:

>On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 06:38:39 -0400, "Robert Green"
><ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
><pLednWVXYL2kaZXbnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:
>


>
>>> >> [Mercury discussion unrelated to subject deleted]
>>> >
>>> >[More that just "mercury" discussion unrelated to subject
restored!!!!]
>>> >
>>> ><<I was referring to what happens in areas that use no coal.  It
>>complicates
>>> >the mercury equation in Norway, at least.  They were putting no
mercury
>>in
>>> >the environment before but the use of CFL bulbs gives them a recycling
>>> >issue.
>>>
>>> First a response to the substance of the discussion in brief:  As I
posted
>>in
>>> part earlier, this is incorrect in part:
>>
>>Yes, I could have written more precisely and said "for every tungsten
bulb
>>replaced by a CFL in Norway they are adding mercury to their environment
>>where they were not because they do not generate much electricity from
>>coal."
>
>Please don't purposely misquote and expect to have a conversation with me.
>
>What I was responding to was this statement:
>
>	"I was referring to what happens in areas that use no coal.
>	It complicates the mercury equation in Norway, at least.
>	They were putting no mercury in the environment before but the
>	use of CFL bulbs gives them a recycling issue."

My mistake. You did quote me correctly. The text was jumbled and I didn't
even recognize my own words ;-)  Even this new thread is an imbroglio.

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org