Basically concerns a woman who accidentally broke one of these bulbs in her home and made the mistake of asking local officials what she should do about it...
One wonders how many men, women and children will have to die or become seriously ill before this travesty is finally repealed.
Of course, the best way to make sure this law never takes effect is to support the only Presidential candidate who realizes what a moronic law this is:
You may want to check out this thread on the article.
Be aware that plug posts by new members are generally considered spam. I didn't whistle you by virtue of the fact that your plug was for a person rather than for a pornography. Hopefully you're legit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sounds like spam to me.
Not sure if it's Ron Paul spam or...incandescent proponents spam.
Posted by tekenen (Member # 8945) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: You may want to check out this thread on the article.
Unfortunately, that post and thread contains a lot of misinformation concerning this issue. I would recommend checking out the article at JunkScience.com concerning what can _actually_ happen to you should you break one of these in your home.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
tekenen is not exactly a new member, he/she registered back in 2005. If anything tekenen is somebody's alt, or else a long time lurker.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by tekenen:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: You may want to check out this thread on the article.
Unfortunately, that post and thread contains a lot of misinformation concerning this issue. I would recommend checking out the article at JunkScience.com concerning what can _actually_ happen to you should you break one of these in your home.
Couple things:
Lyrhawn's post presents some pretty serious mitigating factors that stand against your Junk Science article. Saying that they're false doesn't make it so.
Your junk science article takes one (mishandled?) event, and projects its consequences nationwide. Anecdote != evidence.
I'd like to see more data on this subject; I'm not willing to take either side. I see the hypocrisy of the environmental groups crowing about CFLs while debasing mercury; but saving energy is saving energy, and the US needs to make a commitment to it. I don't know that CFLs are the right way to go about it, but they may be.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Unfortunately, Steven Milloy is a known shill for oil and tobacco corporations. I'm not sure who paid for this advocacy against CFLs, but I assume he's biased.
Also, mercury thermometers contain 100-200 times the mercury than do CFLs. I've broken a couple of thermometers in my lifetime, and didn't pay $2000 for an environmental cleanup. That's just scare-mongering.
As is this:
quote: As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine “safety” standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to “safely” contain all the mercury in a single CFL.
Without digging through Maine's webpages, I'll bet that standard applies to vaporous mercury. So the 16,000 Cu. Meters is a joke, and Milloy knows it, or should with his education.
Milloy is pro-tobacco, pro-DDT, pro-asbestos, pro-Big Oil. I'm sure if anyone wrote him a check he'd be pro-mercury.