Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

["Robert Green" <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

<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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7757969 (search for crocidolite)

> Where do you see them? How about ALL large buildings being almost
> completely lit with full sized florescent's which contain FAR more
> mercury than CFL's?  When you flip the typical light switch in a home,
> maybe 1-4 lights are powered up. When you flip a switch in a
> supermarket, there may be hundreds of lights lit up. All Florescent.

That's sort of the same as saying "eat horse dung, a billion flies can't be
wrong!"  (-:  Shoe stores everywhere use to have neat X-ray machines to
allow you to see your foot bones.  They were in wide use everywhere.  But
they're not anymore.   Here yesterday, gone today.  Why do you suppose
that's true?

But you actually bring up a very good point, Salty.  It's precisely
*because* there's too much mercury in the environment already that it's
foolish to add it to 3 billion more household light bulbs.  That's
especially true when a much safer alternative, LED lighting, has arrived.
CFL adoption will seriously hamper LED acceptance and result in even more
mercury getting loose.  It's nasty stuff and it's getting into the cord
blood of pregnant women.  But don't take my word for it:

"E.P.A. Raises Estimate of Babies Affected by Mercury Exposure - More than
one child in six born in the United States could be at risk for
developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb . .
. recent research has shown that mercury tends to concentrate in the blood
in the umbilical cord of pregnant women." Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/science/epa-raises-estimate-of-babies-affected-by-mercury-exposure.html

> Any idea why they use florescent's ?

Well, duh, lemme think's.  Because they tried bratwurst but it didn't glow
brightly enough?

Of course I know why businesses love fluorescent lights.   It's the same
reason McDonald's puts "pink slime" ammonia-treated, centrifuged, formerly
used for pet food "beef product" scraps and floor trimmings in their
hamburgers these days:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?pagewanted=print

They do it because it is cheap.  But it doesn't mean it's right.

I'll bet they stop after the above NYT article get traction, though.  Why?
Because up until now, people didn't *know* MickyD's was "extending" their
ground beef with "pink slime" that tests show to have much higher
contamination rates than real, nature-made beef. -  It's the same with
mercury.  Similarly, now that the "greenies" have learned their newest
earth-saving "silver bullet" has an Achilles' heel, they've stopped falling
over themselves to light the world with CFLs.  Well, some of them have.
Many still believe the tradeoff fairytale. <sigh>

Like the generations before us with asbestos, we latched onto a technology
without realizing it was a health hazard.  We didn't comprehend the all the
ways it would effect the world.  Unless fluorescents are recycled very
carefully (and study after study shows they're not, at least in the US), we
could easily have an epidemic of birth defects on our hands.  Treating such
a health disaster could cost two or ten or maybe one hundred times the money
that we allegedly saved by using a cheaper light source.   Do you know
someone caring for a developmentally challenged child?  It's a rough, rough
life.  I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Every argument, Mr. Dog, you've made for fluorescents was made for years and
years about asbestos.  People who rang the alarm about it were ridiculed,
driven from their jobs and bankrupted.  Because of that denial, lots of
people who should have lived healthy lives died horrible deaths because
people in charge couldn't or worse, wouldn't understand the danger.
Eventually, we got smart.  Now, in addition to ignorance, we have to cope
with an astounding level of corporate brainwashing.  Big Power and Wal*Mart
have actually been able to convince people we can somehow *subtract* mercury
by *adding* it to billions of light bulbs when the clear solution is to
scrub coal plant smokestacks. Orwell was right.

If you really want to help the environment, get smart and consider
supporting LED research by buying LED bulbs, even if they are, for now, a
little off-color or a bit pricey or a little too harsh or too dim.  On the
other hand, if you want to just save a little money and condemn future
unborn Americans to possible mercury-related neurological diseases, screw in
that CFL and screw those damn babies.  Your choice.

--
Bobby G.