Fran said:By definition, brain dead uneducated morons aren't capable of making
good decisions in their own interests or even giving informed consent.
Normally, when people are deemed that incapable, one tries to ensure
someone who is willing and able to act in their interests does so.
If that is true, is there any good reason for objecting that other
people may be seeking power over society? Can one reasonably conclude
that the largely brain dead uneducated morons will be worse off?
We don't appear to have a legacy of mercury toxicity in those with only
occasional exposure.
And then goes on to quote :
Which might be true *IF* the politicians and other power mongers, weren't
even more brain dead the rest of society!
Fran said:I didn't claim they all were
and in any event, maybe they meant "plexiglass".
Fran said:Of course if "the rest of society" is also brain dead, then they won't
be able to tell and won't care.
It's also counter-intuitive to think
that those who were brain dead could in general get in charge of
anything if more able people were about, because those more able would
be better at mobilising the brain dead than the inferior specimens
putatively in charge.
Many do care or they wouldn't be constantly complaining.
It's even more stupid to think the most intelligent people actually want to
become politicians, or to control other peoples lives.
Many do object to having morons control their lives however.
Really? How is that different from a celibate liar?
Plexiglass ...
3 to 5 mg. Some manufacturers are going to 1 mg. Unless the
bulb is in operation at the time it breaks, the mercury is not in
gaseous form but attached to the side of the tube, near the base.
It would be extremely poisonous if one were chronically exposed to it,
but of course, exposure will, at worst, be brief. If the lamp
breaks when it is not in operation, (eg bumped out of the
fitting) then the risk is from physical contact with the skin.
If it is operating, then once should open a window, leave the room,
and close the door. Thirty minutes later, it will have dissipated.
You seem fairly relaxed though about the mercury emissions
(and the other emissions) associated with generating the energy
needed to operate incandescents via burning of coal -- which
accounts for about 80% to 90% of Australia's energy load..
Not at all if it has not just been on.
If it has just been on, then see above.
I've been using CFLs (and a long fluoro in the kitchen)
for several years now. Total breakages: zero.
Nope, because it is essentially a polymer.
Of course, even plastics can cut you so one should handle with care.
And the boogie man will get you too ...
Note: Unrefuted claim
No, it isn't. It's a fraction of the mercury that would have been
released into the open air by coal fired power plants producing
the extra energy to run the incandescents and to produce the
much more short lived incandescents in the firts place.
Of course, there should be a system in place to ensure return of CFLs
to HAZMAT disposal -- a deposit and return to retailer system for in
tact bulbs would be a good exercise in environmental stewardship.
You are Barnaby Joyce and I claim my prize.
This is the second post in sequence in which you've endorsed murder.
Whether you mean it or not, you are clearly disturbed. Seek help.
I should note though that the desire to murder dissenters was very much a Nazi thing.
I recall reading it in a general piece on the conversion from incandescents,
and the bulbs themselves don't feel cold and glass like in the way incandescents did.
And really, why would you use glass when you can use a polymer?
More on CFLs
CFLs are lauded by environmentalists because they require far less
electrical power than their incandescent counterparts. A 26-watt CFL
bulb produces the same lumens as a 100-watt incandescent bulb.
Assuming that you keep one of those bulbs aglow for six hours a day,
switching to a CFL will save you 126 kilowatt-hours of electricity per
year, which translates to 170 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions on
average. Now, how many bulbs do you have in your house? Twenty?
Thirty? Replace them all and you could conceivably (assuming six-hour-
a-day use throughout the building) reduce your annual CO2 output by
upward of 2.3 metric tons—about 10 percent of the average American
household's annual carbon footprint.
The irony of CFLs is that they actually reduce overall mercury emissions in the long run.
Despite recent improvements in the industry's technology,
the burning of coal to produce electricity emits roughly
0.023 milligrams of mercury per kilowatt-hour.
Over a year, then, using a 26-watt CFL in the average
American home (where half of the electricity comes from coal)
will result in the emission of 0.66 milligrams of mercury. For 100-watt incandescent
bulbs, which produce the identical amount of light, the figure is 2.52 milligrams.
Ah, but what if your CFL bulb shatters? First off, don't panic:
Unless you plan on picking up the glass with bare hands and
then licking it, you're almost certainly safe from harm.
I didn't claim they all were and in any event, maybe they meant "plexiglass".
kreed said:I can remember in high school, they actually had a container of
mercury in science class,
and the kids would put their hands in it to "feel" what it was like.
Very interesting substance.
That's how "dangerous" it was considered to be back then.
Yes, asbestos and lead were considered safe then too.
And Madam Curie died of radiation poisoning.
Sylvia said:We don't appear to have a legacy of mercury toxicity in those with
only occasional exposure.
Fran wrote
Less fucking involved, stupid.
Wrong, just glass.
Wrong, as always.
Wrong, as always. Dentists who were didnt get any problems from it.
Wrong, as always.
Pig ignorant lie.
Because they are harmless in the levels you see with a broken CFL.
Yep, they're nothing to worry about.
Wrong, as always.
Irrelevant to whether broken one are anything to worry about.
Wrong, as always. Its real glass.
The tube aint plastic.
YOU made the stupid claim.
YOU get to substantiate the stupid claim.
THATS how it works.
Wrong, as always.
Utterly mangled all over again.
Complete waste of time.
You dont qualify.
You're lying now.
He's always been beyond any help.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
Fran said:We don't appear to have a legacy of mercury toxicity in those with
only occasional exposure.
Interestingly, the following source lists emissions by activity source
to the air, land and water of mercury in Australia. The annual 25,000
kg total is spread across 75 categories.
Landfill is No. 74 (with 0.0074kg p.a.)
The top source is paved and unpaved roads (I assume the unpaved was
included for simplicity) with 8800kg
Electricity generation (No5) is 1207.912Kg and when you throw in
number 12 (coal mining) 160kg it does put the matter into some
perspective.
http://www.npi.gov.au/cgi-bin/npireport.pl?proc=substance;substance=53#Details
One might compare the situation with that of coal plants in the US:
Older coal plants: highly polluting
Fine particles: The fleet of existing coal plants produces large
quanitities of fine particles, also known as PM2.5, formed from soot,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and metals. These fine particles are
estimated to result in 24,000 premature deaths in the United States,
averaging 14 lost life-years per person.[4]
Sulfur dioxide: Because most existing coal plants pre-date current air
pollution laws, current plants emit about 13 million tons per year of
sulfur dioxide, approximately a 40% reduction from 1990 levels.[5]
Mercury: Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury in
the United States, accounting for about 41 percent (48 tons in 1999)
of industrial releases.[6][7] According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, eight percent of American women of
childbearing age had unsafe levels of mercury in their blood,
putting approximately 322,000 newborns at risk of neurological deficits.[7]
Mercury exposure also can lead to increase cardiovascular risk in adults.[7]
As we are discussing the relative utility of CFls, bearing in mind
they reduce not only mercury emissions but other emissions associated
with operation of coal plants this source may be germane:
TG'sFM said:Using that logic, we should never have got rid of asbestos in building
materials because we'd been using it for years anyway. Do you EVER
thing BEFORE you post?
Fran said:And that's a good thing or not? How is it relevant here? Were the
Celibate Rifles any good? If they'd been "Slutty Rifles" would that
have been better?
That's not clear.
Look at a diagram, Rod. Check it out in "How Stuff Works", for
example.
Didn't they use gloves?
Most people over the age of fourty have a mouth full of it how come IHorry said:And when was the last time you saw any of those kids?
Over 10 years? There's a reason for that. Most of them are now dead, or
have undergone mutations so horrific they're ashamed to leave their homes.
Rod said:Its illegal to thing before you post.
touching metallic mercury is not the problem. It is the salts and gases
of mercury that are.How many people are walking around with a mouthful
of it.
PS when a dentist drills if there were no water there might be some
fumes but even so how many dentists die from mercury poisoning
