CFL's aren't bad in a situation where they stay on all the time but turning them on and off kills em.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Printable View
CFL's aren't bad in a situation where they stay on all the time but turning them on and off kills em.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I am reminded...Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Using it in conversation taking about it rather than around it is the correct way in my view. As long as I'm not using it in a derogatory way, what's wrong with using the actual word when the topic is about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell
Yep, they get weak over time. They are said to last longer, but what good is 50% to 75% intensity?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
What I do like about them is I can put 100 watt equivalents in sockets that say 60 watt max.
December 19 News: U.S. Lightbulb Industry Slams GOP, Saying Repeal of Efficiency Law Will “Undermine Investments”
Big Business usually loves it when the GOP goes to war over federal rules.
But not when it comes to light bulbs.
This year, House Republicans made it a top priority to roll back regulations they say are too costly for business. Last week, the GOP won a long-fought battle to kill new energy efficiency rules for bulbs when House and Senate negotiators included a rider to block enforcement of the regulations in the $1 trillion-plus, year-end spending bill.
The rider may have advanced GOP talking points about light bulb “freedom of choice,” but it didn’t win them many friends in the industry, who are more interested in their bottom line than political rhetoric.
Big companies like General Electric, Philips and Osram Sylvania spent big bucks preparing for the standards, and the industry is fuming over the GOP bid to undercut them.
After spending four years and millions of dollars prepping for the new rules, businesses say pulling the plug now could cost them. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association has waged a lobbying campaign for more than a year to persuade the GOP to abandon the effort.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...w-investments/
Mercury threat from CFLs is trivial compared with ACTUAL damage from coal plants spewing 1000s of tons of methyl mercury ever year, which "free market" environmental destruction doesn't bother Yoni and ilk one iddy biddy bit.
Now, for some goog REGULATORY NEWS (until the Repugs destroy it and the EPA).
AP IMPACT: EPA rules threaten older power plants
More than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations, according to an Associated Press survey.
Together, those plants — some of the oldest and dirtiest in the country — produce enough electricity for more than 22 million households, the AP survey found. But their demise probably won't cause homes to go dark.
The fallout will be most acute for the towns where power plant smokestacks long have cast a shadow. Tax revenues and jobs will be lost, and investments in new power plants and pollution controls probably will raise electric bills.
The survey, based on interviews with 55 power plant operators and on the Environmental Protection Agency's own prediction of power plant retirements, rebuts claims by critics of the regulations and some electric power producers.
They have predicted the EPA rules will kill coal as a power source and force blackouts, basing their argument on estimates from energy analysts, congressional offices, government regulators, unions and interest groups. Many of those studies inflate the number of plants retiring by counting those shutting down for reasons other than the two EPA rules.
The AP surveyed electricity-generating companies about what they plan to do and the effects on power supply and jobs. It was the first survey of its kind.
The estimate also was based in part on EPA computer models that predict which fossil-fuel generating units are likely to be retired early to comply with the rules, and which were likely to be retired anyway.
The agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts, enough power for more than 11 million households, will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the two new rules take effect.
The first rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. The second, expected to be announced Monday, would set the first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plant smokestacks.
Combined, the rules could do away with more than 8 percent of the coal-fired generation nationwide, the AP found. The average age of the plants that could be sacrificed is 51 years.
These plants have been allowed to run for decades without modern pollution controls because it was thought that they were on the verge of being shuttered by the utilities that own them. But that didn't happen.
The first rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. The second, expected to be announced Monday, would set the first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plant smokestacks.
http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_...l=true#display
===
Of course, the Repugs are squealing like little pigs anxious for BigCoal contributions.
http://i.imgur.com/CFB8x.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You set 'em up and I'll knock 'em back, Lloyd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
Why anyone wants to use the "N" word is beyond me. Grow up already.
I disagree. Proximity is one factor to consider. Those in the hot gasses rise and mix with the atmosphere and get very diluted before coming in contact with anyone. A broken CFL in the home is not good, especially for small children and infants.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
In the context of adults discussing current events, euphemisms are sometimes inadequate.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
Saying "N-word" is no different than saying "n-i-g-g-e-r" if you're, in fact, you're using "N-word" as a replacement for "n-i-g-g-e-r."
I think if you want to condemn someone for using the term in a derogatory sense, saying the actual word has more of an impact that some juvenile euphemism. Adults should have the capability of discussing big and difficult ideas without reverting to practices we use to protect our children from being exposed to words that are difficult to explain to them.
My sentiment as well. So why is niggеr banned here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
it's not
If I enter it from my keyboard, I get this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_
I guess technically it's not banned, it's just auto-edited.
well, you just said it
and everyone who sees
knows exactly what you meant, so what's the diff?Quote:
Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
It depends on how I say it now, doesn't it?
there was a study that analyzed fish from 400 US rivers, every single fish had methyl mercury contamination, which doesn't exist in nature, only from coal burning. That shit adds up, and not only in fish, but in all the produce fields. Your "proximity" is everywhere for methyl mercury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I thought it was used for spelling Eliott a certain way also?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_
It doesn't occur from mining extraction? They used river quite a bit. Unless you can eliminate all other possible sources, you cannot blame it on coal burning. Dumping their waste in the rivers would be illegal too. This may have been what happened, or it may have happened before they knew the waste ash was harmful.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
it's ee el el eye oh tee
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
See what I mean?
Now how do I know what you said if it's used for more than one thing?
that's two. are there others you know of?
niggеr