[sy2]

Not sure if there was a thread dedicated to this topic alone but:

Mercury in energy-saving bulbs worries scientists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss_technology

There's an old joke about the number of people it takes to change a light bulb. But because the newer energy-efficient kinds contain tiny amounts of mercury, the hard part is getting rid of them when they burn out.

Mercury is poisonous, but it's also a necessary part of most compact fluorescent bulbs, the kind that environmentalists and some governments are pushing as a way to cut energy use.

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by sy2

Not sure if there was a thread dedicated to this topic alone but:

Mercury in energy-saving bulbs worries scientists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss_technology

There's an old joke about the number of people it takes to change a light bulb. But because the newer energy-efficient kinds contain tiny amounts of mercury, the hard part is getting rid of them when they burn out.

Mercury is poisonous, but it's also a necessary part of most compact fluorescent bulbs, the kind that environmentalists and some governments are pushing as a way to cut energy use.

Maybe you should have researched that a little deeper This simple chart (below) compares Mercury emissions from a coal fired plant vs emissions from old CFL bulbs ... and that's only if the bulbs are not recycled. The Mercury from the bulbs is recoverable, plus even your article shows that the amount used per bulb is decreasing as the technology is improving.
One may argue that there's no Mercury produced by Hydro or Nuclear generation but there are other drawbacks involved ... too 'intricate' for the scope of this post. So, suffice to say for now that CFL's advantages outweigh their disadvantages.

For your sake, I hope you don't live near a coal plant ... or near a dump where unscrupulous non-environmentalist types discard CFL bulbs, or even old thermometers

[sy2]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Maybe you should have researched that a little deeper

I didn't even get to finish reading the article myself when I posted it - I found it at work and thought it was relevant so I posted it. If I was trying to make an argument out of it I would have added my opinion, as opposed to posting the article all by itself.

[Gabriel]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17853364/

Antarctic changes

[jonasdatum]

Originally Posted by yankees26an

Apparantly someone here needs a lesson on science. It's all related man, just think!!

1. There are many plants that are much more nutirent efficient than meat itself. For example, soybean will provide all the meat content you will ever need. Wheat and a salad will do the rest, and it wieghts less than a barbeque! Now think of the foold chain. You're leaving out a big part of science in this. Coincidence? Species on the bottom of the food chain have the greatest potential energy. As we go up the food chain, less energy is transferd. That means if we started out with a 95% relative energy plant, then only 5% would be available once we get the meat! That explains why rodents dont like eating alot now does it?

Also take into consideration the energy WASTED to produce all the meat the we have. I'm not even going to go through this. Now I'm not saying go vegan here, in fact it would be heretical for me to do so, Im just getting the facts right.

Methane has great potential to be a greenhouse gas, why dont we focus on both!

You cannot be serious if you say man made c02 is not affecting the environment. Don't spin the facts like Bush. CFC's are dangerous ozone depleting chemicals which can last in the atmosphere; carbon is an organic substance in solid state. Now any carbon that was produced in the 1800's is bad, in fact quite horrible, but I'm sure emissions today surpass the Industrial revolution's. Now that China and India are turning on, we have 2 instances of 1800, not one.


Apparently you are not in touch with innovation. There is goethermal, hydropower, solar, wind, etc power that can easily replace natural gas consumption in the US easily. If you insisnt I will post the facts, however as a scientific hobbyist i assure you I provide authentic results ;p

Meat is buisness, smoking is buisness, drugs are buisness, get my point! Can't argue with science, because humans will often do what they want to do not what they need to do! I need to buy some stock in cigarettes, guns, and porn.

Anybody Water World - It's comming, better get to practicin' my fishin!

[brite750]

Man Made Co2 = 5% Of Total, Usa Is 25% Of That, You Either Believe That, That Is Enough To Upset The Balance Or You Dont. Also China Has Surpassed The Us With India In Close Pursuit.

[brite750]

Originally Posted by jonasdatum

Meat is buisness, smoking is buisness, drugs are buisness, get my point! Can't argue with science, because humans will often do what they want to do not what they need to do! I need to buy some stock in cigarettes, guns, and porn.

Anybody Water World - It's comming, better get to practicin' my fishin!

MEAT IS GOOD IN MODERATION AND HAS MANY TRACE NUTRIENTS THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN VEG ALONE.
SMOKING IS UNHEALTHY, BUT IS STILL LEGAL BECAUSE OF THE INCREDIBLE TAX PROFIT MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT
DRUGS ALONG WITH MODERN MEDICINE HAS DOUBLED THE LIFE SPAN OF HUMANS IN LESS THAN A CENTURY OF TIME

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by brite750

I wish i had all the answers, right now i have a bunch of questions. The most compelling thing in favor of man made global warming is the fact that green house gases have apparently risen coinciding exactly with the industrial revolution, late 1800's, through the 20th century to present. If there was a balance that even by that 5% we have somehow messed up some natural cycle then it may be true that our burning of fossil fuels together with clear cutting, agriculture, population explosion, etc., we may have caused a tipping point. To stop it we would essentially have to starve our population back to the 1700's or earlier, that would mean no massive agriculture, no cars, no electricity, no TV, no meat eating, no making babies, etc. or we can just wait and let the global warming sort it out. As we all know nature always has the last word anyway.

We never throw hands up and surrender!. We use science and knowlege to shape the future the best we can. The biggest problem so far has been those who reject science. These folks are either motivated by $$$ --Industry --or the ever present naysayers. >f
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.N. Report: Climate Change Poses Bleak Future
Morning Edition, April 6, 2007 · A United Nations panel of scientists reports it is highly confident that humans are warming the Earth's climate.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change builds on an earlier report in February, which declared that most scientists see a clear contribution to climate change from greenhouse gases. Most of those gases come from cars, factories and power producers around the world, as well as cutting down or burning forests.

The new study, released Friday, predicts widespread droughts in some places, but flooding in others.

Scientists and diplomats from more 120 countries debated all-night on the final wording in the climate report.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9398924

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

We never throw hands up and surrender!. We use science and knowlege to shape the future the best we can. The biggest problem so far has been those who reject science. These folks are either motivated by $$$ --Industry --or the ever present naysayers. >f
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.N. Report: Climate Change Poses Bleak Future
Morning Edition, April 6, 2007 · A United Nations panel of scientists reports it is highly confident that humans are warming the Earth's climate.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change builds on an earlier report in February, which declared that most scientists see a clear contribution to climate change from greenhouse gases. Most of those gases come from cars, factories and power producers around the world, as well as cutting down or burning forests.

The new study, released Friday, predicts widespread droughts in some places, but flooding in others.

Scientists and diplomats from more 120 countries debated all-night on the final wording in the climate report.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9398924

Contrary to what some still choose to ignore, or reject as you point out (not my intent to single anyone here out, today), and despite many politicians' efforts to keep stalling (if not outright denying), there's a large movement out there already to combat this huge problem. Not only is the public in many countries involved, but many businesses and corporations are also doing their share now. The same holds true for many lower levels of government.

All one has to do is get away from the most visible/vocal detractors and their stale rhetoric, and the evidence of people pulling together to not only help in finding solutions, but in implementing some basic and even more high-tech 'fixes' is there.

By the time the chronic obfuscators like Bush and Harper get off their butts and decide to do something productive, to combat the global warming problem, we (the people) will be well on the way already, IMO.


One has to laugh though, when even after being shamed into finally admitting publicly that CO2 imbalance is caused by humans:
".... it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing greenhouse gases."
Bush goes on pointing fingers at China, in an apparent effort to excuse doing nothing




Bush agrees with greenhouse gas ruling, sort of
New limits should not slow U.S. economic growth, he says.
Boxer responds: 'The president still doesn't get it.'

credit to Ekim68 for posting this article in another thread -- end rant

[jonasdatum]

Originally Posted by brite750

MEAT IS GOOD IN MODERATION AND HAS MANY TRACE NUTRIENTS THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN VEG ALONE.
SMOKING IS UNHEALTHY, BUT IS STILL LEGAL BECAUSE OF THE INCREDIBLE TAX PROFIT MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT
DRUGS ALONG WITH MODERN MEDICINE HAS DOUBLED THE LIFE SPAN OF HUMANS IN LESS THAN A CENTURY OF TIME

I am not sure if you realized it, but I was agreeing with you. LOL, if there are going to be a bunch of foolish people buying cigarettes and beer then why shouldn't I profit? I am not breaking the law, and we have medical infrastructure to support those who die because of smoking and excessive smoking.

Q: There is this type of food that many people eat in India, I was thinking of trying it. It's not meat, but provides a load of protein; what is the name of it? Don’t eat meat everyday, and try to diversify.

Global Warming will destroy many and as always, it's those with the fewest resources that will suffer the most. That is the history of life on this planet.

[brite750]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

We never throw hands up and surrender!. We use science and knowlege to shape the future the best we can. The biggest problem so far has been those who reject science. These folks are either motivated by $$$ --Industry --or the ever present naysayers. >f
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.N. Report: Climate Change Poses Bleak Future
Morning Edition, April 6, 2007 · A United Nations panel of scientists reports it is highly confident that humans are warming the Earth's climate.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change builds on an earlier report in February, which declared that most scientists see a clear contribution to climate change from greenhouse gases. Most of those gases come from cars, factories and power producers around the world, as well as cutting down or burning forests.

The new study, released Friday, predicts widespread droughts in some places, but flooding in others.

Scientists and diplomats from more 120 countries debated all-night on the final wording in the climate report.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9398924

what do you mean surrender? to nature? you bet your butt, we have little or no control over nature otherwise we'd be stopping, hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, valcanos, blizzards, ice storms, tornados, etc., science has helped us predict some things, to save some lives, but to stop nature? or change nature, good luck, with our record for messing with nature no doubt we'd just make things worse. Case in point, we'll spend the next 10 years switching to these new light bulbs only to spend the following 25 cleaning up the mercury poisoning caused by them. Most of this "save the environment" crap is for someone to separate a fool from his money.

[brite750]

Originally Posted by jonasdatum

I am not sure if you realized it, but I was agreeing with you. LOL, if there are going to be a bunch of foolish people buying cigarettes and beer then why shouldn't I profit? I am not breaking the law, and we have medical infrastructure to support those who die because of smoking and excessive smoking.

Q: There is this type of food that many people eat in India, I was thinking of trying it. It's not meat, but provides a load of protein; what is the name of it? Don’t eat meat everyday, and try to diversify.

Global Warming will destroy many and as always, it's those with the fewest resources that will suffer the most. That is the history of life on this planet.

I love Indian food, and vegetarian food in general, not a big meat eater. Many cultures are vegetarian because its too expensive to eat meat in the amounts that we do in the US, we were blessed with a huge amount of grazing land that allowed us to do that. You will notice that in countries similar to ours that meat eating is more common. Indian food uses a lot of rice, chick peas, lentils, all kinds of vegetables, curry and safron sauces, etc. good stuff. Chinese cooking also uses very little meat, they use small amounts of meat to flavor foods and not huge slabs of it as is common in the US.

[brite750]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Contrary to what some still choose to ignore, or reject as you point out (not my intent to single anyone here out, today), and despite many politicians' efforts to keep stalling (if not outright denying), there's a large movement out there already to combat this huge problem. Not only is the public in many countries involved, but many businesses and corporations are also doing their share now. The same holds true for many lower levels of government.

All one has to do is get away from the most visible/vocal detractors and their stale rhetoric, and the evidence of people pulling together to not only help in finding solutions, but in implementing some basic and even more high-tech 'fixes' is there.

By the time the chronic obfuscators like Bush and Harper get off their butts and decide to do something productive, to combat the global warming problem, we (the people) will be well on the way already, IMO.


One has to laugh though, when even after being shamed into finally admitting publicly that CO2 imbalance is caused by humans:
".... it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing greenhouse gases."
Bush goes on pointing fingers at China, in an apparent effort to excuse doing nothing




Bush agrees with greenhouse gas ruling, sort of
New limits should not slow U.S. economic growth, he says.
Boxer responds: 'The president still doesn't get it.'

credit to Ekim68 for posting this article in another thread -- end rant

which illustrates a very conservative principle, keep the government out of anything you want to happen, change peoples hearts and the rest will take care of itself.

[LANMaster]

MIT Scientist: 'Alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate'...

April 16, 2007 Newsweek issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

More


BTW We got SNOW here on Thursday. I have never seen snow here in April.

Otters are dying prematurely in Alaska due to EXTREME COLD there.

Cold Snap Postpones Spring Festivities...

Charlotte, NC breaks 1923 record, sees coldest April day in history...

Chill Map...



Ash-can the man-made global warming BS.

[lotuseclat79]

Hi LAN,

You should'a been here in the Boston area on May 11, 1974. That's how late it has snowed here, thre record is a little later than that. Also, I remember in August of 1984? it snowed up at Killington, VT and they had a picture of a skier skiing down one of the trails.

-- Tom