cfl's

[felix_unger]

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.

**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are both
very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Dechucka]

snip

I buy $2, 18 watt fluro's which
> work well

you know those are halal don't you?

 

[Petzl]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:19:20 +1000, "Peter Howard"
<rover110@bigpond.com> wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 12:19 PM, annily wrote:
On 28.08.13 11:35, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing
all the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed,
they are simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times
longer than conventional bulbs, or however many times it was
supposed to be, and they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation
too.

**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of
mercury released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of
mercury in each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction,
using CFLs is substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20
CFLs, a handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens
(presently being replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that
time, I've replaced two CFLs (which had I transferred from my
previous home - these are both very high use lamps), 6
incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year operation), 4 linear
fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20 hours/year
operation. UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.


I suppose CFLs will be relaced by LEDs as the preferred home
lighting in the not-too-distant future, when they drop in price.


**They already are. I'm replacing all my halogens with LEDs. There's a
drop in light output, but there's a huge number of them, so the total
light available is plenty. The power savings are massive. I replaced
300 Watts of halogens with 30 Watts of LEDs (electronic
transformers). As the CFLs fail, they'll be replaced with LEDs as
well.

Keep the receipts for the LED lamps. When they were very new on the market I
bought four BC globe type Osrams as an experiment. One failed within a few
weeks but Bunnings replaced it willingly when I showed them the dated proof
of purchase. The other three plus the replacement are still going strong
after three years. Very satisfactory experiment. No warm up time like a cfl
and nice light quality. Mine at least also have a slight afterglow for a few
minutes after switching off which is handy for finding the bed after
switching off the main bedroom light.
As the LED technology matures I think that the cfl might be the vcr of the
lighting world. Brief moment of glory but consigned to the dustbin of
history when better technology comes along.
PH

Good advice I bought 4 fom Aldi 3 weeks ago strong but even at $10 a
piece not good value, take years to get my $10 back. Aldi would of
replaced it but couldn't be bothered, I buy $2, 18 watt fluro's which
work well
--
Petzl
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/pva/
DON'T VOTE ABOVE THE LINE
PUT POWER BACK IN DEMOCRACY

In a democracy of course you always get a choice
Do you want to be governed by the red or by the blue
it’s entirely up to you
Do you want to be patronized or condescended to, by liars or by crooks
you get to choose.
Would you prefer your fundamental values to be insulted or ignored by
con-men or by charlatans
In short do you want your influence to be zero or nil
and when would you like to be listened to, never or not at all, it’s
your choice
Do you want, some more choices.
take-it-or-leave-it
Now there’s a real choice
we have proportional voting in Australia USE IT
I’d be happy with any kind of representation wouldn't you
I would like to see a new government and part of me doesn't’give a
damn who’s in it
as long as it doesn't’include anybody from the Labor, Liberal or
Green party
organizations that show themselves to be without shame or principle
All spineless and authoritarian both cowardly and war mongering at the
same time

Put Labor, Liberal and Green party last on your Ballot choose your
independant or small parties first then donkey vote down to those last
on your ballot

Personally I'll be voting Christian Democratic Group first, One Nation
Group second, Palmer United group third, Katters Australia Party group
fourth

 

[Jeßus]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:19:20 +1000, "Peter Howard"
<rover110@bigpond.com> wrote:

As the LED technology matures I think that the cfl might be the vcr of the
lighting world. Brief moment of glory but consigned to the dustbin of
history when better technology comes along.

And good riddance to them.

 

[Jeßus]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.

Never been a fan of CFLs, it's a good thing LEDs matured into a much
superior alternative.

 

[Peter Howard]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 12:19 PM, annily wrote:
On 28.08.13 11:35, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing
all the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed,
they are simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times
longer than conventional bulbs, or however many times it was
supposed to be, and they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation
too.

**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of
mercury released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of
mercury in each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction,
using CFLs is substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20
CFLs, a handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens
(presently being replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that
time, I've replaced two CFLs (which had I transferred from my
previous home - these are both very high use lamps), 6
incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year operation), 4 linear
fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20 hours/year
operation. UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.


I suppose CFLs will be relaced by LEDs as the preferred home
lighting in the not-too-distant future, when they drop in price.


**They already are. I'm replacing all my halogens with LEDs. There's a
drop in light output, but there's a huge number of them, so the total
light available is plenty. The power savings are massive. I replaced
300 Watts of halogens with 30 Watts of LEDs (electronic
transformers). As the CFLs fail, they'll be replaced with LEDs as
well.

Keep the receipts for the LED lamps. When they were very new on the market I
bought four BC globe type Osrams as an experiment. One failed within a few
weeks but Bunnings replaced it willingly when I showed them the dated proof
of purchase. The other three plus the replacement are still going strong
after three years. Very satisfactory experiment. No warm up time like a cfl
and nice light quality. Mine at least also have a slight afterglow for a few
minutes after switching off which is handy for finding the bed after
switching off the main bedroom light.
As the LED technology matures I think that the cfl might be the vcr of the
lighting world. Brief moment of glory but consigned to the dustbin of
history when better technology comes along.
PH

 

[Phil Allison]

"felix_unger"

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all the
way to the bank.

** Australia's lighting importers could not believe their luck when
approached by the Govt about phasing out GLS bulbs.

There was obviously big money in it for them, so the REAL issues with two so
very different products were never mentioned.

No CFL maker claims they can replace GLS bulbs in all or even most
situations or ever demonstrated the assumed cost benefit to be real.

The alleged CO2 reduction is non existent in reality.

not only are they an environmental hazed, they are simply not cost
effective. they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,

** All true.

Greenies dreamt up the mad idea for political reasons and we know
technically savvy they are.

Banning transformer based plug paks was their other triumph.

No proper investigation into either ban was ever done and the public were
never asked to comment.

Bad law making, bad policy and bad thinking.



.... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 28/08/2013 12:19 PM, annily wrote:

On 28.08.13 11:35, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are both
very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.


I suppose CFLs will be relaced by LEDs as the preferred home lighting in
the not-too-distant future, when they drop in price.

**They already are. I'm replacing all my halogens with LEDs. There's a
drop in light output, but there's a huge number of them, so the total
light available is plenty. The power savings are massive. I replaced 300
Watts of halogens with 30 Watts of LEDs (electronic transformers). As
the CFLs fail, they'll be replaced with LEDs as well.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[annily]

On 28.08.13 11:35, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are both
very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.

I suppose CFLs will be relaced by LEDs as the preferred home lighting in
the not-too-distant future, when they drop in price.

--
Lifelong resident of Adelaide, South Australia

 

[Rod Speed]

felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote

> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use

The govt conned themselves...

> must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Unlikely given that none of them are made here.

> not only are they an environmental hazed,

Bullshit.

> they are simply not cost effective.

Bullshit.

> they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,

The best of them do.

or however many times it was supposed to be,
and they cost heaps more.

Mine have been quite literally free.

> they emit UV radiation too.

Bullshit.

 

[Brendon]

On 28/08/2013 10:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are both
very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.

I wish my CFL's had the same longevity as yours Trevor.

I've replaced probably 6 or 8 so far. Some went bang & smoked, some went
phut & went black, some just stopped working. They were mainly Ikea
sourced CFLs. I'm now only installing Philips branded units - fingers
crossed.

Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
areas & the lounge etc.

 

[felix_unger]

On 28-August-2013 12:51 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 12:19 PM, annily wrote:
On 28.08.13 11:35, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
both
very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.


I suppose CFLs will be relaced by LEDs as the preferred home lighting in
the not-too-distant future, when they drop in price.


**They already are. I'm replacing all my halogens with LEDs. There's a
drop in light output, but there's a huge number of them, so the total
light available is plenty. The power savings are massive. I replaced
300 Watts of halogens with 30 Watts of LEDs (electronic transformers).
As the CFLs fail, they'll be replaced with LEDs as well.

and according to you that will be in 10 years time..

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[felix_unger]

On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs.

I've had to replace heaps in just a few years

They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.

if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be disposed of?

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
less than 20 hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

they still emit radiation

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[felix_unger]

On 28-August-2013 2:19 PM, Peter Howard wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 12:19 PM, annily wrote:
On 28.08.13 11:35, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing
all the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed,
they are simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times
longer than conventional bulbs, or however many times it was
supposed to be, and they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation
too.
**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of
mercury released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of
mercury in each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction,
using CFLs is substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20
CFLs, a handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens
(presently being replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that
time, I've replaced two CFLs (which had I transferred from my
previous home - these are both very high use lamps), 6
incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year operation), 4 linear
fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20 hours/year
operation. UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.

I suppose CFLs will be relaced by LEDs as the preferred home
lighting in the not-too-distant future, when they drop in price.

**They already are. I'm replacing all my halogens with LEDs. There's a
drop in light output, but there's a huge number of them, so the total
light available is plenty. The power savings are massive. I replaced
300 Watts of halogens with 30 Watts of LEDs (electronic
transformers). As the CFLs fail, they'll be replaced with LEDs as
well.
Keep the receipts for the LED lamps. When they were very new on the market I
bought four BC globe type Osrams as an experiment. One failed within a few
weeks but Bunnings replaced it willingly when I showed them the dated proof
of purchase. The other three plus the replacement are still going strong
after three years. Very satisfactory experiment. No warm up time like a cfl
and nice light quality. Mine at least also have a slight afterglow for a few
minutes after switching off which is handy for finding the bed after
switching off the main bedroom light.
As the LED technology matures I think that the cfl might be the vcr of the
lighting world.

It can't happen soon enough

Brief moment of glory but consigned to the dustbin of
history when better technology comes along.
PH

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[felix_unger]

On 28-August-2013 2:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com
wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
Never been a fan of CFLs, it's a good thing LEDs matured into a much
superior alternative.

it hasn't really become cost effective yet, and I tried some, but the
output is too low. ok for desklamps tho.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[Jeßus]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:05:32 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
wrote:

On 28-August-2013 2:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com
wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
Never been a fan of CFLs, it's a good thing LEDs matured into a much
superior alternative.

it hasn't really become cost effective yet, and I tried some, but the
output is too low. ok for desklamps tho.

It's true that they're still pricey, I personally find the output very
good. I have a few 4.5W LEDs in some downlights scattered around the
house, a few in desk lamps as well. Oh, and a 1.somethingW globe in
the fridge. I have an outdoor globe as well, very bright. All doing a
great job.

One thing that drove me crazy about CFLs is a high-pitched tone that I
frequently encountered. Haven't noticed that with LEDs so far.

 

[Jeßus]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0800, Brendon <Brendon@spam.com> wrote:

Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
areas & the lounge etc.

I can't stand the cool colour temps, especially with CFLs... I always
go for the warm ones.

 

[Petzl]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:05:32 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
wrote:

On 28-August-2013 2:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com
wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
Never been a fan of CFLs, it's a good thing LEDs matured into a much
superior alternative.

it hasn't really become cost effective yet, and I tried some, but the
output is too low. ok for desklamps tho.

The Aldi 8 watt ones ($10) I reckon are equal to a 60 watt
incandescant
out of four one blew after a week so not convinced of reliability

The light is warm the brigther cool bring in to many bugs
--
Petzl
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/pva/
DON'T VOTE ABOVE THE LINE
PUT POWER BACK IN DEMOCRACY

In a democracy of course you always get a choice
Do you want to be governed by the red or by the blue
it’s entirely up to you
Do you want to be patronized or condescended to, by liars or by crooks
you get to choose.
Would you prefer your fundamental values to be insulted or ignored by
con-men or by charlatans
In short do you want your influence to be zero or nil
and when would you like to be listened to, never or not at all, it’s
your choice
Do you want, some more choices.
take-it-or-leave-it
Now there’s a real choice
we have proportional voting in Australia USE IT
I’d be happy with any kind of representation wouldn't you
I would like to see a new government and part of me doesn't’give a
damn who’s in it
as long as it doesn't’include anybody from the Labor, Liberal or
Green party
organizations that show themselves to be without shame or principle
All spineless and authoritarian both cowardly and war mongering at the
same time

Put Labor, Liberal and Green party last on your Ballot choose your
independant or small parties first then donkey vote down to those last
on your ballot

Personally I'll be voting Christian Democratic Group first, One Nation
Group second, Palmer United group third, Katters Australia Party group
fourth

 

[Rod Speed]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b85liaF7h84U1@mid.individual.net...

On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs.

I've had to replace heaps in just a few years

They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal burned
exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very considerable amount.
CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.

if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard why
does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be disposed of?

Because they are even less of an environmental hazard when disposed of
properly.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are both
very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

they still emit radiation

So does everything.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.




--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/