Re: CFL's and X-10

["Robert Green" <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Tom Stiller" <tomstiller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:tomstiller-
>  "Robert L Bass" <Sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > "Tom Stiller" wrote:
> > >
> > > did he say something that was factually incorrect?
> >
> > Did he ever say anything that was factual?
>
> From <http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm>

 (Lengthy - and quite factual - details about cleaning up broken CFL bulbs
snipped)

> And more.
>
> Sometimes even people you don't like are right.

Indeed.  The problem we're facing in America is that we've devolved into a
truly polarized nation of people with very little tolerance of anyone else's
point of view.   As for CFL's and mercury, it seems that at least some
people have picked up on a "disconnect."  If CFL's are so damn eco-friendly
then why does the EPA publish the lengthy, detailed toxic waste cleanup
rules that you posted, Tom?

Not everyone is convinced of the value of the mercury tradeoff anymore since
even *one* low mercury bulb contains enough mercury to poison 1000 gallons
of drinking water.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23694819/

By Alex Johnson - Reporter - MSNBC
updated 3:12 p.m. ET April 7, 2008

    | Compact fluorescent light bulbs . . . are running into resistance from
waste
    | industry officials and some environmental scientists, who warn that
the bulbs'
    | poisonous innards pose a bigger threat to health and the environment
than
    | previously thought. . . .  Even the latest lamps promoted as
"low-mercury"
    | can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels .
. .
    | "It's kind of ironic that on the one hand, the [EPA] is saying, 'Don't
worry,
    | it's a very small amount of mercury.' Then they have a whole page of
    | [instructions] how to handle the situation if you break one," she
said.

The correct answer to the mercury problem is to "catch mercury at the stack"
and don't expect gimmicks, offsets or good wishes to do the job.  The longer
we patch together solutions that don't address the root causes, the more
tons of mercury will go into the environment.

If the nation does settle on CFL's we need to look very hard for enforced
recycling (as in $5 deposits on each bulb).  We already know that recycling
of CFL's is very problematic in the US and that worries me.  Ideally, we
need another, more efficient light source that doesn't involve single bulbs
that can each poison from 1,000 to 6,000 gallons of water.   I use CFL's,
reluctantly, because one of the few dedicated CFL recyling centers is less
than two miles away.  Living close to a CFL recycler is the exception,
though, and not the rule.

Hopefully the LED will reign supreme.  That's another promising technology
that doesn't involve spreading out tiny bits of neurotoxins to every zip
code in America and is even MORE efficient than CFL technology.  People are
beginning to use LEDs more and more as the prices come down and the
reliability and the number of available form factors increases.

Sadly, I suspect that LED bulbs are going to give X-10 users the same sorts
of fits that CFL's cause because they consume so little current and contain
electronics that might interact badly with X-10 gear.  But I also think
they'll be far better for the ecology in the long run since they achieve
power plant emission reductions without introducing another vector of
mercury poisioning into the mix.

--
Bobby G.