My point was your "choice" to be able to purchase leaded gas was removed... You can dance around the issues about why it was taken away all day long if you like... But the government removed your choice... (And I'm sure you bellyached about it then too...) But they removed it; they built cars to take advantage of the unleaded variety, and you got on with your life...
Deal with it. (Damn that Bush, anyway, for signing that into law... Hrrrumph...)
And before we jump to the LED's, they have toxins and cancer causing substances as well...
A recent study published by University of California researchers found that LED light bulbs considered environmentally preferable to traditional light bulbs contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially hazardous substances, according to newly published research.
“LEDs are touted as the next generation of lighting. But as we try to find better products that do not deplete energy resources or contribute to global warming, we have to be vigilant about the toxicity hazards of those marketed as replacements,” said Oladele Ogunseitan, chair of UC Irvine’s Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention, who led the study.
By crunching, leaching and measuring the tiny multicolored lightbulbs sold on Christmas strands, traffic lights, and car headlights and break lights, Ogunseitan and fellow scientists from UCI and UC Davis found that low-intensity red lights contained up to eight times the amount of lead allowed under California law. In general, high-intensity, brighter bulbs had more contaminants than lower ones — white bulbs contained the least lead, but had high levels of nickel, the university released in a statement.
“We find the low-intensity red LEDs exhibit significant cancer and noncancer potentials due to the high content of arsenic and lead,” the team reported in the January 2011 issue of Environmental Science & Technology in regard to the holiday lights.
A study of larger LED systems such as household overhead room lighting or bedside lamps is currently undergoing peer-review and will be published later, but Ogunseitan said the patterns are more of the same.
The university states that lead, arsenic and many additional metals discovered in the bulbs or their related parts have been linked in hundreds of studies to different cancers, neurological damage, kidney disease, hypertension, skin rashes and other illnesses. The copper used in some LEDs also poses an ecological threat to fish, rivers and lakes.
My point was your "choice" to be able to purchase leaded gas was removed... You can dance around the issues about why it was taken away all day long if you like... But the government removed your choice... (And I'm sure you bellyached about it then too...) But they removed it; they built cars to take advantage of the unleaded variety, and you got on with your life...
Deal with it. (Damn that Bush, anyway, for signing that into law... Hrrrumph...)
I don't think we needed government to switch us to unleaded gas- this could have been accomplished any number of other ways besides by government force. This switch would have happened anyway, maybe a few years later- but manufacturer's have taken steps like this on their own, or because consumers wanted it that way. Thousands of products have been improved or made more efficient without any force by government.
Liberals have got to get over turning to government for solutions to all of our problems, that's one reason why our governement spends 3 times what it takes in these days.
Most coal fired power plants no longer produce mecrcury as keeps being claimed my many environmental groups. There are "mercury scrubbers" that have been added into a good majority of the older plants, and this technology is being added into ALL the new plants.
These scrubbers remove more than 94% of all the mercury.
Again for all the liberals out there- These scrubbers remove more than 94% of all the mercury- making a big majority of coal plants nearly mercury free.
There are still a few plants that have not added this technology- but within 4-5 more years they will all be mercury free.
PS- all those power plants have made the switch on their own, or to get into compliance with state regulations. We do not have a federal mercury law yet and many power companies are acting on their own. Some are holding out for a federal law because it will cost consumers more money- the cost of the scrubbers get passed down in the form of higher electricity costs.
I have no doubt with or without a federal law, in 10 years just about all coal plants will be mercuty free.
RenegadeCJ wrote: Science Chic-have you replaced 60 watt bulbs from recessed lighting yet? Did you do the conversion, or just buy the bulbs. I've heard you have to replace the trim as well?
The point again....is freedom of choice. If I want to spend $200 powering my old bulbs, whose business is that? Now, if you want to regulate overall power usage...that is different (one I completely disagree with...but that is another story). Why regulate my usage of power for that, but not for other things? I'm not into the govt engineering how we live, as long as we aren't hurting others.
Yes, I have, but with the 40W equivalents (my kitchen has 8 recessed cans on 2 switches, the 40W are more than enough and save me more money than if I had 60W in there). No conversions necessary, just screwed 'em right in! The first one I bought sucked b/c it was directional. I've since found these that look nice in the cans, and provide soft diffuse light (but they don't make this brand in 60W recessed yet).
http://homedepot.digby.com/homedepot/pr ... yId=&path=
I put these in my outdoor lights, but they aren't very bright (doesn't matter for me down in the city where it's perpetual daylight and I've got a street light at the corner of the front yard); I wouldn't recommend them if you're in the mountains where it's dark and you want to light up the outside.
http://homedepot.digby.com/homedepot/pr ... yId=&path=
At my last trip to Home Depot, I noticed these 60W equivalent floods, but I don't know how they'd look - directional or diffuse. They will accept returns if you don't like them (I've bought more than one package that's been taped back together!).
http://homedepot.digby.com/homedepot/pr ... yId=&path=
Energy efficiencies have been mandated for all sorts of products as I stated before: cars, washers, dryers, dishwashers, fridges, etc: the choice of product is NOT being taken away from you, it's just being made better. And since we the taxpayer subsidize energy production, and there's a finite source of it, our government absolutely has the right to make these decisions. By all means, keep buying the more efficient incandescents, you are free to do so.
And BearMtn: who do you think pushed for those mercury scrubbers that you are so proud to tout now? Job-killing liberals or free-market-loving conservatives?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
BearMtnHIB wrote: I don't think we needed government to switch us to unleaded gas- this could have been accomplished any number of other ways besides by government force. This switch would have happened anyway, maybe a few years later- but manufacturer's have taken steps like this on their own, or because consumers wanted it that way. Thousands of products have been improved or made more efficient without any force by government.
Dang... Too bad you weren't around to tell them in 1973 how wrong they were... SUX 2 B U , doesn't it?
Yea it was mostly the tree huggers who keep pushing for conversion of coal plants to nat gas- and those same people keep telling lies about coal fired power long after the plants no longer emit mercury. The coal industry has been very receptive to them and cleaned up their mercury emissions.
Right after they did that they started complaining about CO2.
jf1acai wrote: I disagree. Laws like this are designed to force you to buy what the all knowing government thinks you should buy. The government is NOT interested in saving you money!
Follow the money.
"The use of efficiency mandates to snuff out the standard light bulb was an exercise of unadulterated crony capitalism. It came about after big bulb manufacturers, frustrated by their customers' refusal to switch from cheap throwaway incandescents to the far more profitable compact fluorescents touted by greens, decided to play hardball.
"So some years ago,'' The New York Times Magazine noted last month, "Philips [Electronics] formed a coalition with environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, to push for higher standards. 'We felt that we needed to . . . show that the best-known lighting technology, the incandescent light bulb, is at the end of its lifetime,' says Harry Verhaar, the company's head of strategic sustainability initiatives.''
Other corporations joined the plot, lobbying Congress to croak a product Americans overwhelmingly like and compel them to buy the more expensive substitute the industry was eager to sell them. The entire scheme, a lobbyist for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association testified candidly in 2007, was "at the industry's initiative.'' Unable to convince consumers to voluntarily abandon Edison's light bulb, Big Business got the government to force the issue. "Of such deals,'' remarks Bloomberg columnist Virginia Postrel, "are Tea Parties born.''
BearMtnHIB wrote: Most coal fired power plants no longer produce mecrcury as keeps being claimed my many environmental groups. There are "mercury scrubbers" that have been added into a good majority of the older plants, and this technology is being added into ALL the new plants.
These scrubbers remove more than 94% of all the mercury.
Again for all the liberals out there- These scrubbers remove more than 94% of all the mercury- making a big majority of coal plants nearly mercury free.
There are still a few plants that have not added this technology- but within 4-5 more years they will all be mercury free.
PS- all those power plants have made the switch on their own, or to get into compliance with state regulations. We do not have a federal mercury law yet and many power companies are acting on their own. Some are holding out for a federal law because it will cost consumers more money- the cost of the scrubbers get passed down in the form of higher electricity costs.
I have no doubt with or without a federal law, in 10 years just about all coal plants will be mercuty free.
Do you have a link about that 94% reduction, because I'm not seeing it?
What I see is it depends on how much chlorine there is in the coal. With high chlorine you can scrub 80-90% of the mercury. With low chlorine, only about 25%.
Scrubbers used to reduce NOx and SOx emissions also reduce mercury emissions. On average, they capture about 40 percent of mercury emissions, but this varies with the type of coal burned and how the scrubbers are used.
Anyway, the graph I showed is dated 2003. I know scrubbers had already reduced mercury released well before that (we had big improvements by 1999), so I think it's still safe to assume that CFL's release less mercury than incandescents at this point. Yes though, more plants will be improving over time.
And so far as overhead LED's go (canned ceiling lights), I think Costco has a 65 watt one for abut $35, and a 75 watt for $40. I'm hoping Xcel might have rebates on them one of these days.
