Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

["Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms>]

> That's why it makes so much more sense to
> catch carbon and mercury at the stack, not
> introduce a new standard using bulbs that
> contain one of the very substances we're
> trying to control!

You misunderstand the concept, Bobby.
The idea isn't to require a specific bulb type
but to move away from using wasteful ones.
Also, although some bulbs contain a small
amount of mercury, the power to light the
others introduces far more mercury into the
environment and does so in a far worse manner
than that in the high efficiency bulbs.

> But business has become very adept at
> blaming John Q. Public for any problems
> that arise.  Just listen to Big Oil whine
> about how those pesky environmental rules
> *forced* these price rises as they bank
> their largest profits in history.

While I agree that bug oil and the Bush
administration have done dastardly things
to the economy, the environment and all
us humans, that does not mean that we as
individuals should not do all we can to reduce
our use of polluting energy sources.  In  fact,
it means just the opposite.

> <<And the people get to squint to see anything.
> Yes, eliminating incandescent bulbs cuts down
> on X amount of electrical use and Y amount of
> power-plant fuel and Z amount of greenhouse-gas
> emissions>>

It's not necessary to squint.  The message is misleading.

> Looks like he's as wary as I am about calculations
> that "prove" the excess...

He says so but he offers no proof that data with which
the scientific community overwhelmingly concurs is
not accurate.

> electricity saved won't simply be squandered
> elsewhere...

One doesn't save up electricity to squander it elsewhere.
It's not a bag of coins in the dresser drawer.  The more
you use to light your home the more you contribute to
the destruction of the atmosphere and the more oil
Big Oil gets to sell.  When you turn off an unneeded
light or turn down the heat an extra degree you reduce
the total demand -- plain and simple.

> or exactly how many milligrams of mercury are going
> to be added per cubic inch of soil by switching to CFLs.

Documentation currently available shows that using more
CFLs and lkess incandescents will result in a significant
reduction in mercury in the food chain.  This we already
know.  Othewrs have pointed out repeatedly that the
amount and form of mercury introduced to landfills from
used CFLs is less than atmospreric pollution from
lighting conventional bulbs.  It is also in a form which is
far less likely to enter the food chain because it is largely
contained, whereas airborne mercury goes directly into
the food chain.  These are not chimerical ideas but hard
facts which the author you cite chooses to ignore.

> Too many unknowables to form concrete conclusions...

That is not true.

> particularly since personal behavior like willingness
> to recycle is such a large element in the equations...

It is not even a small element in the comparison of CFLs
vs. incandescents.  They all end up in the landfill and they
all use electricity which in turn burns coal which in turn
spews mercury and lots of other noxious crap into the air.
We already know for a fact that using high efficiency
bulbs will reduce atmospheric mercury.  The only unknowable
is whether people will bother in the next 10-20 years.  It
is without question that they will use more efficient everything
20 years from now as coastlines begin to move inland,
crops fail and storms become worse and more frequent than
anything we've seen so far.

I saw an excellent ad about global warming the other night.
It showed a middle aged man standing on a railroad track
with a freight train approaching from behind.  He said that
global warming isn't supposed to make a catastrophic impact
for at least 30 more years.  He doesn't expect to be here 30
years from now so he's not worried about it.  Before the freight
train gets near he steps off the track and out of harm's way,
never noticing the 5-year old girl still standing on the tracks
behind him.

The point, in case anyone misses it, is that we *might* not
feel the impact of what we do now in our lifetimes but our
children most assuredly will.  The question is what kind of
world do you want to leave for your children and grand children.

> Worse, still, no one seems to agree on simple things

Actually, there is considerable agreement among the
scientific community.  There are also a number of outlier
"scientists," mostly hired by big business interests, who
spread disinformation in hopes of staving off regulatory
restrictions on their activities.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>