Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[salty@xxxxxxx]

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:45:18 -0500, "Robert Green"
<robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
>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.

What a friggin' blowhard.