[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?



In article <hhm21a$dse$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Green wrote:
><salty@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
><stuff snipped>
>
>> Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use?
>
>YES, I do have SOME idea HOW long.  And I even know how to spell the word
>correctly, too.  It starts, ironically, like the disease "Flu" - that's the
>mnemonic I use.  Flu -ores -cent.  Three separate words in one.  Aren't you
>glad you asked so nicely?  (-:  You got smarter.  You wouldn't want to
>present yourself as knowledgeable in a subject you can't spell.  People
>might not find you credible.
>
>http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Fluorescent  (checking to make sure it's not
>Brit variant)
>
>Obviously you missed my post where I described in deadly dull detail when
>FLUorescents were discovered and came into wide use.  The basic principle
>was revealed over 150 years ago when Stokes at Cambridge discovered
>electrical fluorescence in 1852.  Fluorescents came into commercial use at
>the NY World's Fair, 1939 when GE introduced the Lumiline bulb after decades
>of patent battles and research.
>
>Does being in "wide use" make the mercury in them any less poisonous?  Of
>course not. Consider this:  In 1939, along with the miracle of fluorescent
>lighting, we were using the miracle substance asbestos everywhere: in car
>brakes, in houses, in schools, even in cigarettes.  Did the fact that it was
>in "wide use" for a long time everywhere mean it was not a deadly
>carcinogen?  Of course not.  "Wide use" is proof of nothing except "wide
>use."
>
>Asbestos causes one of the nastiest cancers known to man, mesothelioma.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma
>
>We were stupid about asbestos for the longest time but we got smart,
>eventually, only after enough people died.  People in very different walks
>of life, from toll booth attendants who breathed brake dust filled with
>airborne asbestos to roofers that worked with asbestos shingles, have died
>horribly because we dragged our heels.   It's cost billions of dollars to
>clean it up and it's still not done.  Can we do better with another poison,
>mercury, now that we know it's a fast growing health problem?  Maybe.  I
>hope so.  But I suspect, once again, a lot of people will sicken and die
>before we buy a clue.
>
>It would seem just based on experience with asbestos alone that people might
>consider we've been wrong before and we may well be headed down the wrong
>path again with fluorescent lighting. But people are contrary cusses.  They
>know smoking causes lung cancer (especially if they smoked Kent with the
>asbestos-filled Micronite filter) but they smoke anyway.  People have
>difficulty evaluating distant threats.

<SNIP from here>

  At this point, it apears to me that most people who died horrible deaths
from asbestos inhaled visible clouds of the stuff, such as by being
shipyard workers, insulation deplyment workers, etc. or housewives thereof
doing laundry of clothes outright dusty with asbestos.

  I hear the word "mesothelioma" mostly in radio ads by lawyers.

  Need I say more here?

 - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)


comp.home.automation Main Index | comp.home.automation Thread Index | comp.home.automation Home | Archives Home