Low-energy light bulbs can cause rashes and swelling to sensitive skin, warn experts

[Frederik S]

Originally Posted by digibucc

so we have clean coal now? no mercury at all? no lead? yeah right. the energy used to power an incandescent bulb(from coal) emits more chemicals than that cfl breaking.
so it's ok to put MORE chemicals in the atmosphere, as long as there isn't a minuscule amount in your home?

First of all the emissions from the power plants are regulated, and in the US they put out under 1% of the total mercury emissions: http://www.mercuryanswers.org/plants.htm

It depends a bit on coal source and exhaust scrubbing techniques used, but generally coal power is regarded clean in terms of emissions of toxins dangerous to humans.

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by Frederik S

First of all the emissions from the power plants are regulated, and in the US they put out under 1% of the total mercury emissions: http://www.mercuryanswers.org/plants.htm

It depends a bit on coal source and exhaust scrubbing techniques used, but generally coal power is regarded clean in terms of emissions of toxins dangerous to humans.

first of all, that data is more than a decade old, we have increased production and done nothing to cut emissions, so the numbers would be MUCH higher now.

and, the numbers to be more specific are:
40% of man-made mercury emissions in us, 10% of total north american emissions, and 1% of world emissions. American coal emits 1% of the world's mercury. in 1999, that was 48 tons of mercury. again, that's 40% of our mercury emissions from one source. find a source of mercury higher, i dare you! you can't. it is the single largest producer of man-made mercury!

were you trying to say that's insignificant? I think you may be reading it wrong.

edit:
now that reply was entirely my own, but after replying a quick search for "clean coal" gives some good results. obvious bias is an issue, but if you have a brain in your skull you can tell the difference between lies facts and obfuscation, and simple bias. and since mercury answers is very obviously biased, here is another good one:
http://quitcoal.org/clean-coal

[magibeg]

Originally Posted by Frederik S

First of all the emissions from the power plants are regulated, and in the US they put out under 1% of the total mercury emissions: http://www.mercuryanswers.org/plants.htm

It depends a bit on coal source and exhaust scrubbing techniques used, but generally coal power is regarded clean in terms of emissions of toxins dangerous to humans.

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/conten...3/669.abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...87390590936166

It's estimated that roughly 56K Americans die each year from air pollution, a large part of which comes from coal power plants. Arsenic is apparently one of the big killers.

Coal kills. That's all there is to it. Find me a scientific paper on clean coal being clean and we can go from there.

[OneMoar]

Originally Posted by magibeg

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/conten...3/669.abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...87390590936166

It's estimated that roughly 56K Americans die each year from air pollution, a large part of which comes from coal power plants. Arsenic is apparently one of the big killers.

Coal kills. That's all there is to it. Find me a scientific paper on clean coal being clean and we can go from there.

and one person dies in a car accident every 10 minutes
I heat with coal..... do I sound dead ?
go shutdown all the coal power planets in the usa ... RIGHT NOW and watch what happens .....

[magibeg]

Originally Posted by OneMoar

you sir
ARE A FLIPPING MORON
I heat with coal..... do I sound dead ?

So basically what you're implying is that i'm a moron because i can qoute numerous scientific studies done on the mortality caused by air pollution?

Are you implying the studies are bad or that i'm not understanding something?

Or are you implying that coal causes some form of quick death when burned so the fact you're alive means that it doesn't kill you?


Let me simplify it for you. Long term exposure to air pollution increases your risk of death, and roughly 56,000 people die from those increased risks each year in the US.

[OneMoar]

Originally Posted by magibeg

So basically what you're implying is that i'm a moron because i can qoute numerous scientific studies done on the mortality caused by air pollution?

Are you implying the studies are bad or that i'm not understanding something?

Or are you implying that coal causes some form of quick death when burned so the fact you're alive means that it doesn't kill you?


Let me simplify it for you. Long term exposure to air pollution increases your risk of death, and roughly 56,000 people die from those increased risks each year in the US.

long term exposure to clue less people lilke you increases my risk of committing murder
quick death ? lolno maby if you live in a chimney
coal burns very clean and very hot (when burned properly)
compared to something like wood or oil that burn (cold and dirty)
so basicly what you are saying is because a meer 56k people POSSIBLY died from some form of air pollution we should outlaw coal .... yea good luck with that let us know when you complete your anti-matter/matter reactor then we can stop possibly killing people with asma .. while you are at it invent a transporter so we can outlaw cars to ......
and back on topic here
CF bulbs are nice but LED bulbs are better ....

[magibeg]

Originally Posted by OneMoar

long term exposure to clue less people lilke you increases my risk of committing murder
quick death ? lolno maby if you live in a chimney
coal burns very clean and very hot (when burned properly)
compared to something like wood or oil that burn (cold and dirty)
so basicly what you are saying is because a meer 56k people POSSIBLY died from some form of air pollution we should outlaw coal .... yea good luck with that let us know when you complete your anti-matter/matter reactor then we can stop possibly killing people with asma .. while you are at it invent a transporter so we can outlaw cars to ......

I didn't say any of that. It's almost like you're making shit up as you go along while putting words in my mouth.

Basically coal compared to any other current power sources, kills vastly more people per watt. No other form of energy comes close to the death rate that coal generates because of its pollution.

I'm not saying to stop all coal power plants, i'm not saying we should switch over to 'x' power source, i'm simply stating the fact that coal pollutes and kills.

I will take what you say seriously when you have facts and evidence to back it up. I can provide links for my information. Where are yours?

[TheLaughingMan]

Originally Posted by Frederik S

Usually the mercury found in coal is scrubbed so no emission there, besides that is not the point. The human toxicity index for a CFL light bulbs is 6-9 times greater than that of a traditional bulb. Also for the production of each CFL bulb approximately 6-12 times as much energy is used, I saw an example of the cheapest CFLs are over 25 times that of traditional and contain a lot more mercury and other toxic chemicals.

Osram's own estimation is somewhat biased but highlights a lot of problems.
http://www.osram.de/_global/pdf/Cons...lluminants.pdf

Some of the independent reviews of illumination sources can be found on Google, some are better than others, Osram for example use their own estimates on bulb life-span and the life-span of CFLs is grossly overestimated due to the use scenario used to gather the numbers.

I do not think that anyone can claim to have the definitive answer when it comes to these types of bulbs.

Well scrubbing doesn't bring emissions down to nil. It just makes it less than a raw burn.

As far as the life expectancy thing, the same test were done with incandescent bulbs so those are over estimated as well.

[OneMoar]

Originally Posted by magibeg

I didn't say any of that. It's almost like you're making shit up as you go along while putting words in my mouth.

Basically coal compared to any other current power sources, kills vastly more people per watt. No other form of energy comes close to the death rate that coal generates because of its pollution.

I'm not saying to stop all coal power plants, i'm not saying we should switch over to 'x' power source, i'm simply stating the fact that coal pollutes and kills.

I will take what you say seriously when you have facts and evidence to back it up. I can provide links for my information. Where are yours?

undefined reference to ( 'x' power source) at line 7 ignoring
#define 'x' power source == fission
error missing class fission aborting with code 3
}
}
show me your links and all show you mine ....

[Easy Rhino]

it won't take long for this thread to devolve into an anthroprogenic climate change thread. ive had that argument one too many times. you guys have fun...

[magibeg]

Originally Posted by OneMoar

undefined reference to ( 'x' power source) at line 7 ignoring
#define 'x' power source == fission
error missing class fission aborting with code 3
}
}
show me your links and all show you mine ....

I'd like to define a few things for you here because you don't seem to follow me.

When I posted my first comment (with links... you even quoted the links when you replied to me) I was simply pointing out the fact that coal pollution does in fact exist and has a substantial impact on people. I never commented on anything else.

That was it, my whole post.

Everything else you inferred from your own mind. You basically make things up that you imagined i'd say then proceeded to launch personal attacks on me for something I never said.

The point of me saying 'x' power source was because I didn't imply any sort of solution to the power source issue, nor did i want to imply any solution.

By this point you either have terrible reading comprehension or you are a troll.

[Frederik S]

Originally Posted by digibucc

first of all, that data is more than a decade old, we have increased production and done nothing to cut emissions, so the numbers would be MUCH higher now.
and, the numbers to be more specific are:
40% of man-made mercury emissions in us, 10% of total north american emissions, and 1% of world emissions. American coal emits 1% of the world's mercury. in 1999, that was 48 tons of mercury. again, that's 40% of our mercury emissions from one source. find a source of mercury higher, i dare you! you can't. it is the single largest producer of man-made mercury!
were you trying to say that's insignificant? I think you may be reading it wrong.
edit:
now that reply was entirely my own, but after replying a quick search for "clean coal" gives some good results. obvious bias is an issue, but if you have a brain in your skull you can tell the difference between lies facts and obfuscation, and simple bias. and since mercury answers is very obviously biased, here is another good one:
http://quitcoal.org/clean-coal

I am not talking about coal company green-washing under the marketing term "clean coal". Coal in a controlled burn is a quite efficient fuel, and that the amounts of Hg released into the atmosphere per unit of produced energy is very very small.

Besides that there is a huge difference in outputting something into the atmosphere compared to a living room. The most likely scenario of a broken bulb is when you are in contact with it, which puts you in the near vicinity of the release.

And of course the world should quit using coal, it is a no-brainer.

[erocker]

I have more than enough incandescent bulbs to last me until LED's are the norm.

[unsmart]

I think people are overlooking the most important question. Can a CFL power supply be used to power a tube preamp, after adding a bridge rectifier?

[AphexDreamer]

There are plenty of Low-Energy Light bulbs with double envelopes that block most if not all UV light...

So this argument is weak imo.

http://www.gelighting.com/na/busines...s/health.htm#3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluores...radiation_risk
" The report states that most bare spiral lamps tested gave off more UV than the 60 watt incandescent lamp tested, but that the double-envelope CFLs emitted less UV."

There is no reason to keep the Incandescent light Bulb around anymore, unless you need the heat I guess... keep some food warm or something...

[BlackOmega]

Originally Posted by unsmart

wow,your homes electric most be F'ed up bad! I can unscrew mine by hand after running all day, I use mostly 26w bulbs. My brother had a problem with them burning out too due to poor wiring.

Nah, it's not. I have monitored the electricity output with a kill-a-watt meter. The voltages are pretty stable, I get very little fluctuation.
I think it's just cheapo bulbs.

[RejZoR]

Originally Posted by Lionheart

They also emit mercury vapor

Nonsense, mercury is enclosed in a sealed glass tube. Mercury vapor comes in contact with you only if you break the bulb. You get more mercury and other heavy metals by eating large (carnivore) fish than from (broken) light bulbs.

Have you had your tuna meal today?

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by digibucc

this is just another thing for people that like to complain to complain about. like having a problem with those that care about global "temperature change" or pollution, there is always someone who thinks it costs too much money to be responsible, and so will complain about it every step of the way. the real problem for them is they are being told what is the better option. that's what they don't like. well neither do i - but i can separate that fact from reality, and still make the proper choice on my own accord.

Maybe we just hate being told what we can and cannot do by someone 1000 miles away. USA is supposed to be a country of freedoms, not authoritiarian ideals. The EPA exemplifies what this country is not.

There are many, many situations where incandescent is preferred to CFL (e.g. outdoors in the cold, locations where both heat and light are required, bulbs in bathrooms and fancy overhead lights, etc.) and they are unlawfully denying that choice.

What if Congress (or any governing body) came along and decided that only ARM architecture would be allowed because they're theoretically more "efficient?" Say good bye to your choice of AMD and Intel. They'd have to adapt (switch to ARM) or die, just like all those light bulb manufacutrers formerly in the USA failed to do. This is the exact same oppressive decisions that goes against the very fabric of being human (the ability to choose for one self). I don't care what excuses are used to justify it, it is wrong. The market can decide for itself.


And you know what, incandescent bulbs, just like flourescent, are designed to fail. All it takes to make an incandescent bulb last pretty much forever is a thicker filiment. A prime example is the bulb at Livermore that has been burning for over a century now: http://www.centennialbulb.org/

[RejZoR]

The problem is that ppl won't use incandescent just where they are still really good and economical. For example for toilette. You usually don't use it for too long but you need the light to start working instantly, not after 30 sec or 1 minute. Same for basement or sensor powered lights. They don't light for long but they need to start emitting light instantly. If ppl would actually use them only for that they'd still be available for sale. But since ppl are known not to obey anything, they just stopped making them by law.

Honestly, CFL is just a bridge between incandescent and LED. We are already using CFL in all rooms for years and last few years we replaced many bulbs with LED. Especially where lights are ON for long periods. Only incandescents are used for the sensor light at the main door and the sensor light in the garage where they both work for very short periods of time.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by RejZoR

The problem is that ppl won't use incandescent just where they are still really good and economical. For example for toilette. You usually don't use it for too long but you need the light to start working instantly, not after 30 sec or 1 minute. Same for basement or sensor powered lights. They don't light for long but they need to start emitting light instantly. If ppl would actually use them only for that they'd still be available for sale. But since ppl are known not to obey anything, they just stopped making them by law.

That's exactly what I do. CFLs replaced all the bulbs here that have a nasty habit of blowing weekly. All the ones that last for months if not years on incandescent have remained incandescent.

Originally Posted by RejZoR

Honestly, CFL is just a bridge between incandescent and LED. We are already using CFL in all rooms for years and last few years we replaced many bulbs with LED. Especially where lights are ON for long periods. Only incandescents are used for the sensor light at the main door and the sensor light in the garage where they both work for very short periods of time.

The EPA would have denied access (technically already did) to those outdoor incandescecnt lamps had Congress not intervened.

[RejZoR]

If you mean the street lighting, we aren't using them for ages, well at least here in Slovenia. All the public lighting is using either CFL or metal-halide class bulbs. When it gets dark, you see them go on slowly. Especially when it's cold and you see them start as a very weak light and then turn slowly into extremely powerful light. Not sure how it is with this stuff in USA.

[FordGT90Concept]

I was not talking about street lighting. You were talking about sensor lights as was I. The EPA put minimum power requirements on all bulbs allowed to be sold in the USA and virtually all incandescent bulbs were below that requirement. In other words, if you lived in the USA and the EPA regs stayed in place, you would either have to stock up on incandescent (and hope you never run out), buy CFL, or buy LED.

That's my whole point: they didn't care if the incandescent bulb usage was sensible, almost ALL were banned.


As far as city/intersection streetlamps go, I'm pretty sure they're mostly metal-halide. The newer ones are probably something else but that's what the older ones were.

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

The EPA put minimum power requirements on all bulbs allowed to be sold in the USA and virtually all incandescent bulbs were below that requirement.

that's the point imo. it's not like they arbitrarily said no more incandescent bulbs. So what about maximum emissions from a vehicle? a power plant? are those ok to regulate, just not light bulbs?
i recognize what you are saying, and i get the issue. but quite honestly, if you've got a problem being told what to do you are on the wrong planet, let alone in the wrong country.

did you read about the NDAA being signed New Year's? This is not a free country, there are bad things happening, and when you complain about light bulbs you just seem silly.

EDIT: for those that haven't heard, NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). Long story short, it will allow US citizens suspected of "terrorism" (wonderfully vague word, ain't it?) to be held without trial, by the military inside of the united states. that's a radical departure from the founding of this country, and in my mind can not turn out good.

[CJCerny]

I think it's important to remember that flourescent lights have been used for decades now in office building and stores and just about any large building where it was not economically feasbile to use incandescent lights. If there were any real health dangers involved in using them, we would likely already have known about it years ago. CFL "bulbs" use exactly the same technology, just on a smaller scale. It's just standard human fear of change and nothing more.

[Raw]

I stocked up on incandescent bulbs early last year.
I bought enough 75 and 100 watters to last till I croak and my great, great grandkids will be enjoying them and passing them on to their kids.
I spent over $500.00 at my local Lowes store and bought them out.
I got every last bulb on their shelves and out of their back room stock.
WHY?
Because I could.
Because I don't like big brother forcing me to do it his way.
Because I happen to LIKE incandescent lighting.
Because I believe in freedom of choice.
Because this is a good example of the extremist environment movement influencing government to force citizens to follow their agenda. I can't believe our elected officials are so willing to go to extremes that they would force citizens to buy something that a minority decides is good for everyone. The newer bulbs are costing much more, not lasting as long as promised, and more dangerous. Most folks are trying to do right by the environment but thats not good enough for the fear mongers. Listen people, you better wake up and let your voice be heard because a big part of our government thinks that they need to tell us what to do because they are smarter than us and know what is best for us. That's why our country is broke, we're paying higher prices for gasoline, and our jobs are going out of the country. Tell me again how smart they are.