why the government want us using low energy bulbs-mercury , page 1

why the government want us using low energy bulbs-mercury , page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 10-1-2008 @ 01:59 PM by prost

www.worldnetdaily.com... shows you what really happens with those compact energy saving fluorescent light bulbs. they contain the most poisonous material on the planet - mercury. mercury is not radioactive but since it's that poisonous, it makes no difference.

someone made this comment at www.greenpeace.org.uk... :
"They have also been shown to cause depression and allergic reaction in some people due to the light they emit, which is very different than that from a regular light bulb. It is cold and lifeless.

What about recycling - the energy saving light bulb CAN not be recycled at this point. If people throw them away in the trash, which most of them will do, we will end up with tonnes of non-organic mercury in our waters and landfills, which is far more dangerous that the organic mercury produced by power plants."

I've used the low energy bulbs for over a decade. 2 of them lasted far less than it's claimed.

manual thermostats(not sure which type) & some LEDs have mercury too.

the government/the most powerful are trying to ban old bulbs in country after country, a violation of our choice. that's called a covert dictatorship. do you think those very high up in power really really care for the environment? if they don't care for humans, I hardly think there's much chance of them caring for the environment. it makes no difference to them whether the bulbs use 80% less energy or 1%. if it was 1% they would come up with some other excuse. they want people using them because it will mean even greater mercury contamination everywhere because the horror is that most people will just throw them in the bin after they no longer work.

www.lightbulbrecycling.com... is a short page everyone should read with revealing facts about mercury contamination.

bulbs sent for toxic disposal by qualified companies should be VERY well wrapped in bubble-wrap.

[US: www.aircycle.com... has more information on safe disposal of those bulbs.
www.gelighting.com... too. UK: B&Q, Ikea take them back. Council rubbish dumps should have a container for bulbs]

www.recyclethis.co.uk... has ideas on re-using normal bulbs.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 02:35 PM by Nohup

This move toward legislating the types of energy and the way we use it is a direct consequence of continued lobbying by the pro-global warming folks, who have used a batch of questionable statistics to convince people of a fiction.

The simple answer to who is behind this is to follow the money. Nothing gets legislated unless somebody gets paid. That's the way democracy works.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 03:10 PM by an0maly33

i was just thinking about this the other day. we bought cfl's for our lamps because we were burning up incandescents left and right. we've had them for more than a year and they're still going strong, so i won't dispute their economic value, at least to the consumer. what i pondered was this...my son likes to grab the tall lamps and shake them. so i now need to be concerned for the long-term health of my child in the event that he actually breaks the bulb. i may end up using cfl's for lamps that he can't get to and maybe use LED bulbs for the ones that pose a concern. they'll be more expensive and maybe not as bright, but they'll last forever and they're far more durable.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 04:24 PM by lifestudent

reply to post by prost

Since phasing out of incandescents represents the biggest source of energy savings in the new bill, Occam's Razor would argue that the government wants us not to use them because they simply use too much energy.

History of major, boneheaded mistakes by politicians combined with effective lobbying by Phillips argues that while their "solution" saves energy, focus on CFLs with toxic mercury is a huge public health and environmental mistake that stands the risk of going horribly wrong.

I only hope that high intensity LED technology advances quickly enough to replace CFLs as the incandescent alternative.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 04:40 PM by 1Angrylightbulb

Originally posted by prost
What about recycling - the energy saving light bulb CAN not be recycled at this point. If people throw them away in the trash, which most of them will do, we will end up with tonnes of non-organic mercury in our waters and landfills, which is far more dangerous that the organic mercury produced by power plants."

To end up with tons of mercury in our water and landfills, assuming you mean metric tons, you are looking at 200 Million bulbs being thrown out to equal 1 metric ton of mercury. So you are saying more than 400 Millions bulbs are going to get thrown away???

Edited for math miscalculation used wrong number

[edit on 10-1-2008 by 1Angrylightbulb]

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 04:42 PM by antar

I recently bought a pack of 6 from wally and 2 did not work. Then within a couple of weeks the other ones also quit. They claim they can work for up to 9 years.
Our local power company has demonstrations set up in their lobby to sell people on the idea.

Here is what I purchased and am dissatisfied with.

Great Value soft white compact fluorescent bulbs 6 pack
They claim Lasts up to 9 years
60 watts equivalent to 60 watts
light output 900/ energy used 13 watts/ bulb life 10,000 hours

They also make a claim SAVE 47$ per bulb!

I have to thank the OP for bringing this to my attention as there was a gut level suspicion about this whole new trend...

Please continue to update us with any new information you discover about this scam.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 04:44 PM by Toadmund

I agree that the light they give off lacks the warmth and naturalness that incandescents give off, and me, like you probably have wondered what this can do to a nations mental health.
Some of these spiral bulbs give off really depressing wavelengths of light, I am considering putting in a halogen 50 watt bulb, but they are like floodlamps and my fixture is horizontal.
But then again the light seems different from brand to brand, and the cold impersonal light they give off seems to warm up over time as the bulb gets broken in.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 04:45 PM by antar

I forgot to add in the last post that shortly after we replaced our bulbs my youngest son, my middle son and my elderly Aunt all broke out in a rash.
As for depression, its anyones guess on any given day we have to many family members and far too busy to know on that one

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 05:29 PM by Nohup

Originally posted by lifestudent
Since phasing out of incandescents represents the biggest source of energy savings in the new bill, Occam's Razor would argue that the government wants us not to use them because they simply use too much energy.

And what makes you think that the government wants us to use less energy? Other than what they say, that is. The government says a lot of stuff.

As far as I can tell, the government wants us to use more energy all the time. More production, more work, more growth in the GNP. If they really wanted us to use less, all they'd have to do is legislate a more efficient power to weight ratio for all automobiles sold here. No more Hummers. There are a million easier ways to "save" energy.

It's not that they want to reduce energy use. They want to exert more control over the kind of energy you use, and how you use it. They want to get people accustomed to being told what kind of appliances they're allowed to use. It's all about controlling the market. And that's ultimately all about money and favors and them and their friends lining their pockets with the profits from the legislation.

Pages: ^^TOP^^