Red Alert on Green Bulbs

[Benway (original non-Zion]

Eeyore wrote:

Fran wrote:

The fact of the matter is that unlike incandescent bulbs, CFL bulbs
are typically made of a polymer, which is feasible because they don't
heat up. That's why they tend not to break if they are knocked or fall
onto carpet, and if they do they don't shatter.

Utter RUBBISH. I though you had more sense.

This only applies to EXPENSIVE CFLs that have a covering 'bulb' over the tube.
This also reduces their efficiency.

Note that the efficiency of CFLs is commonly misrepresented as FIVE times that of
incandescents. It is no such thing. The comparison is being made with Softone
(tm) bulbs instead of good old GLS types that most of us use. Compared to GLS,
CFL is only at best 4 x as efficient. Add the polymer outer and probably only 3 x
as good.

Defects are slow 'warm-up' time especially in cold conditions and short life
under short duration on/off conditions like the light in the loo or dunny if you
prefer.

Yes. I use them but intelligently. No-one should be FORCED to use them and the
general public don't understand they can't be dimmed either. This has already led
to several house fires. Luckily no-one has been killed by a CFL yet AFAIK but it
will only take time.

An Orwellian step too far IMHO.

Graham
********************************

All of that is correct. I use CFLs to
reduce my power bill, but I have no
illusions that they solve anything much.
After they crap-out, I save the PCBs for
the high-voltage transistors and a few
other cheap components. Just hobby value only.

I laugh at yuppies who save a few kilograms of CO2
with CFLs, and then take a jet that produces tonnes
of CO2 to carry them across the world.

Nobody should be forced off incandescents.
**************************************

 

[Clifford Heath]

Someone mentioned Megaman CFL globes, and I wrote to them
asking about dealerships near me. The reply included a PDF
brochure of their current range, and some text describing
tha various features. Some of the text is relevant to the
discussion here, so I thought I'd paste it. I'm not claiming
that any of this is true, but it does contradict some things
that have been claimed here. Anyhow, I won't comment further
here, here's the blurb.

Clifford Heath.

IT'S GREEN


Lead-free Glass Tubes are used to reinforce the eco-friendliness of our creations.
The Silicone Protection contains broken glass and mercury in place before proper
disposal and recycling.
Water-based adhesive is used to replace glue prevent release of toxic substances
during lamp operation.
Recyclable plastic is used on our lamps to conserve scarce resources and reduce
burden on landlls.

MEGAMANÂŽ employs AMALGAM in the creation of our lamps, an eco-friendlier
and safer alternative to liquid mercury.
Prevents the release of toxic mercury during the manufacturing process.
Even if the lamp cracks, mercury is not released in indoor areas making
MEGAMANÂŽ CFLs safer to use. Reduces environment pollution.
Allows creation of more compact lamps with excellent lumen maintenance.

IT'S ADVANCED

INGENIUMÂŽ Technology
Prolongs lamp life up to 15,000 hours, extends switching cycles to 600,000 times
and delivers precise preheating time within 1 second.

DorS DIMMING Technology
MEGAMANÂŽ lamps and electronic ballasts are now dimmable via the use of
common light switches to create various lighting atmospheres.
MEGAMANÂŽ lamps incorporate exceptional SAFETY features making them the
world’s safest energy-saving lamp.

DIMMERABLE Technology
You can now relaxingly choose between full lighting or dimmer atmospheric
lighting with the newest DIMMEABLE CFLs from MEGAMANÂŽ. These lamps work
perfectly on most electronic and digital dimmer systems.

All-round Illumination
MEGAMAN® cares about the aesthetic look of decorative luminaires. That’s why
the Classic and Candle models have been vigilantly sculpted with the Translucent
Housing to deliver all-rounded illumination.

IT'S SAFE

Plastic Lamp Base
Almost all MEGAMANÂŽ lamps are built with the Plastic Lamp Base that is rust-free
and eliminates faulty contact. It allows secure atiachment to the lamp body when
removing the lamp from the lamp holder as it reaches end of life.

Silicone Protection
Most MEGAMANÂŽ lamps come with the Silicone Protection that protects you from
shatiered glass and other components when the bulb smashes

 

[Clifford Heath]

Clifford Heath wrote:

MEGAMANÂŽ employs AMALGAM in the creation of our lamps, an eco-friendlier
and safer alternative to liquid mercury. Prevents the release of toxic
mercury during the manufacturing process. Even if the lamp cracks,
mercury is not released in indoor areas making MEGAMANÂŽ CFLs safer to
use. Reduces environment pollution.

I will comment on this one though. Amalgam (as used in fillings)
is basically "an alloy with a liquid metal". It forms when a
solid metal dissolves into the liquid. Just as all alloys have
physical properties very different from the individual metals,
so too do alloys; and there are as many different mercury amalgams
as there are alloys of, say, aluminium. Some are very stable,
such as the mercury/silver amalgam used in fillings, and prevent
the mercury being leached out. This clearly isn't what CFLs are
using, since the fluorescence relies on mercury vapour. So if
the lamp is catastrophically broken (the extra containment is
breached too), the mercury *will* escape. You'll note they don't
claim otherwise. Carefully written!

What I suspect their amalgam does is to allow the mercury to
condense and form an amalgam with a *very thin* layer of some
other metal *when the lamp is cold*, and evaporate from the
surface on heating (which would further slow the start time).
As long as the safety containment isn't breached while the lamp
is hot, that should dramatically reduce the hazard. There's no
doubt a patent that describes it in detail.

All up, I think that many of the objections raised in this thread
are true of early CFLs, but have largely been addressed by this
manufacturer, at least. I know nothing more about them, and so far,
haven't purchased any of their products, nor do I know whether
other manufacturers have similar features. I do believe I care
enough about the issues to make sure I buy CFLs with these features
however. They're clearly working hard to address real concerns.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Fran]

On Jan 22, 10:11 am, Clifford Heath <n...@spam.please.net> wrote:

Someone mentioned Megaman CFL globes, and I wrote to them
asking about dealerships near me. The reply included a PDF
brochure of their current range, and some text describing
tha various features. Some of the text is relevant to the
discussion here, so I thought I'd paste it. I'm not claiming
that any of this is true, but it does contradict some things
that have been claimed here. Anyhow, I won't comment further
here, here's the blurb.

Clifford Heath.

IT'S GREEN

Lead-free Glass Tubes are used to reinforce the eco-friendliness of our creations.
The Silicone Protection contains broken glass and mercury in place before proper
disposal and recycling.
Water-based adhesive is used to replace glue prevent release of toxic substances
during lamp operation.  
Recyclable plastic is used on our lamps to conserve scarce resources and reduce
burden on landlls.

MEGAMANÂŽ employs AMALGAM in the creation of our lamps, an eco-friendlier
and safer alternative to liquid mercury.
Prevents the release of toxic mercury during the manufacturing process.  
Even if the lamp cracks, mercury is not released in indoor areas making
MEGAMANŽ CFLs safer to use. Reduces environment pollution.  
Allows creation of more compact lamps with excellent lumen maintenance.

IT'S ADVANCED

INGENIUMÂŽ Technology
Prolongs lamp life up to 15,000 hours, extends switching cycles to 600,000 times
and delivers precise preheating time within 1 second.

DorS DIMMING Technology
MEGAMANÂŽ lamps and electronic ballasts are now dimmable via the use of
common light switches to create various lighting atmospheres.    
MEGAMANÂŽ lamps incorporate exceptional SAFETY features making them the
world’s safest energy-saving lamp.

DIMMERABLE Technology
You can now relaxingly choose between full lighting or dimmer atmospheric
lighting with the newest DIMMEABLE CFLs from MEGAMANÂŽ. These lamps work
perfectly on most electronic and digital dimmer systems.

All-round Illumination
MEGAMAN® cares about the aesthetic look of decorative luminaires. That’s why
the Classic and Candle models have been vigilantly sculpted with the Translucent
Housing to deliver all-rounded illumination.

IT'S SAFE

Plastic Lamp Base
Almost all MEGAMANÂŽ lamps are built with the Plastic Lamp Base that is rust-free
and eliminates faulty contact. It allows secure atiachment to the lamp body when
removing the lamp from the lamp holder as it reaches end of life.

Silicone Protection
Most MEGAMANÂŽ lamps come with the Silicone Protection that protects you from
shatiered glass and other components when the bulb smashes

Thanks for that ...

Fran

 

[Fran]

On Jan 21, 12:33 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Fran wrote:
 kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

I imagine if the biosphere could speak it would. Pumping mercury and
radioactive actinides and FPM into the air and the water via the
emissions of coal fired power plants is far worse, especially for
everyone living in the footprint of said plants. If the writer of this
story weren't such an ignorant moron, that tyhought would have
occurred to him. The again, perhaps it did occur to him but he takes
the view  "why let reason interfere with a cheap shot at
environmentalism?"

Most environmentalism of the "man made carbon global warming" AGW
sort, is just bullshit.
Its about power, control and tax revenue raising, typical of the brain
dead, uneducated moronic society that the west has become.
Its the modern version of "flat earth" theory.

But the Earth is COOLING and Sea Level is FALLING !

Not according to those who are in a position to know.

Not exactly AGW to me !

You will find that most who self-identify as "skeptics" (and pretty
much all with scientific credentials) acknowledge that the Earth is
warming and sea levels rising -- they just say it's no big deal.

One non-scientist who is neveretheless often touted by the skeptics is
Bjorn Lomborg, who says in part:

||||
This doesn’t mean that global warming is not true. As we emit more
CO2, over time the temperature will moderately increase, causing the
sea to warm and expand somewhat. Thus, the sea-level rise is expected
to pick up again. This is what the United Nations climate panel is
telling us; the best models indicate a sea-level rise over this
century of 18 to 59 centimeters (7-24 inches), with the typical
estimate at 30 centimeters (one foot). This is not terrifying or even
particularly scary – 30 centimeters is how much the sea rose over the
last 150 years.
|||

Fran

 

[Fran]

On Jan 21, 11:52 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Fran wrote:
The fact of the matter is that unlike incandescent bulbs, CFL bulbs
are typically made of a polymer, which is feasible because they don't
heat up. That's why they tend not to break if they are knocked or fall
onto carpet, and if they do they don't shatter.

Utter RUBBISH. I though you had more sense.

This only applies to EXPENSIVE CFLs that have a covering 'bulb' over the tube.
This also reduces their efficiency.

Not greatly

Note that the efficiency of CFLs is commonly misrepresented as FIVE times that of
incandescents.

4-6 is the usual lumens per watt input calculus.

It is no such thing. The comparison is being made with Softone
(tm) bulbs instead of good old GLS types that most of us use. Compared to GLS,
CFL is only at best 4 x as efficient. Add the polymer outer and probably only 3 x
as good.

Defects are slow 'warm-up' time especially in cold conditions and short life
under short duration on/off conditions like the light in the loo or dunny if you
prefer.

That hasn't been my experience. I've been tracking my use of my
consumables (including light bulbs) since the late 1990s. Even in the
areas you specify (the porch, toilet, garage, bathroom), the average
time for CFLs over the last four years I've been using them has been
157 weeks -- which compares pretty well with the 123 weeks for
incandescents. Moreover, incandescents have a 5-6% initial failure
rate. I used to buy them a dozen at a time, handle them very carefully
and store them for that inconvenient moment, but it was common for at
least one in the batch to not operate at all. That has never happened
with a CFL I've bought, yet.

Yes. I use them but intelligently. No-one should be FORCED to use them and the
general public don't understand they can't be dimmed either. This has already led
to several house fires. Luckily no-one has been killed by a CFL yet AFAIK but it
will only take time.

But you have to look at the total picture. CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions, not just of mercury
but much else that is toxic to humans. Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years. CFLs reduce this and
save money.

It's perfectly sensible policy to restrain people from injuring
others, especially if this can be done in a way that doesn't impose
any serious burden in cost or inconvenience. Admittedly, the move to
CFLs in Australia was effected by a conservartive government, but I
don't see that as a reason to oppose it.

An Orwellian step too far IMHO.

Hmmm ... You're insulting Orwell now


Fran

 

[Fran]

On Jan 21, 11:52 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Fran wrote:
The fact of the matter is that unlike incandescent bulbs, CFL bulbs
are typically made of a polymer, which is feasible because they don't
heat up. That's why they tend not to break if they are knocked or fall
onto carpet, and if they do they don't shatter.

Utter RUBBISH. I though you had more sense.

This only applies to EXPENSIVE CFLs that have a covering 'bulb' over the tube.
This also reduces their efficiency.

Not greatly

Note that the efficiency of CFLs is commonly misrepresented as FIVE times that of
incandescents.

4-6 is the usual lumens per watt input calculus.

It is no such thing. The comparison is being made with Softone
(tm) bulbs instead of good old GLS types that most of us use. Compared to GLS,
CFL is only at best 4 x as efficient. Add the polymer outer and probably only 3 x
as good.

Defects are slow 'warm-up' time especially in cold conditions and short life
under short duration on/off conditions like the light in the loo or dunny if you
prefer.

That hasn't been my experience. I've been tracking my use of my
consumables (including light bulbs) since the late 1990s. Even in the
areas you specify (the porch, toilet, garage, bathroom), the average
time for CFLs over the last four years I've been using them has been
157 weeks -- which compares pretty well with the 123 weeks for
incandescents. Moreover, incandescents have a 5-6% initial failure
rate. I used to buy them a dozen at a time, handle them very carefully
and store them for that inconvenient moment, but it was common for at
least one in the batch to not operate at all. That has never happened
with a CFL I've bought, yet.

Yes. I use them but intelligently. No-one should be FORCED to use them and the
general public don't understand they can't be dimmed either. This has already led
to several house fires. Luckily no-one has been killed by a CFL yet AFAIK but it
will only take time.

But you have to look at the total picture. CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions, not just of mercury
but much else that is toxic to humans. Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years. CFLs reduce this and
save money.

It's perfectly sensible policy to restrain people from injuring
others, especially if this can be done in a way that doesn't impose
any serious burden in cost or inconvenience. Admittedly, the move to
CFLs in Australia was effected by a conservartive government, but I
don't see that as a reason to oppose it.

An Orwellian step too far IMHO.

Hmmm ... You're insulting Orwell now


Fran

 

[Phil Allison]

"Fran"


That hasn't been my experience.


** Your alleged " experience " is not a valid point.

The collective experiences of many others outweigh it totally.


CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions,


** Massive false assumption.

A switch using CFLs in domestic premises will not reduce coal consumption in
Australia one bit.


Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years.


** Totally silly claim.



....... Phil

 

[F Murtz]

Fran wrote:

On Jan 21, 11:52 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Fran wrote:
The fact of the matter is that unlike incandescent bulbs, CFL bulbs
are typically made of a polymer, which is feasible because they don't
heat up. That's why they tend not to break if they are knocked or fall
onto carpet, and if they do they don't shatter.
Utter RUBBISH. I though you had more sense.

This only applies to EXPENSIVE CFLs that have a covering 'bulb' over the tube.
This also reduces their efficiency.


Not greatly

Note that the efficiency of CFLs is commonly misrepresented as FIVE times that of
incandescents.


4-6 is the usual lumens per watt input calculus.

It is no such thing. The comparison is being made with Softone
(tm) bulbs instead of good old GLS types that most of us use. Compared to GLS,
CFL is only at best 4 x as efficient. Add the polymer outer and probably only 3 x
as good.

Defects are slow 'warm-up' time especially in cold conditions and short life
under short duration on/off conditions like the light in the loo or dunny if you
prefer.


That hasn't been my experience. I've been tracking my use of my
consumables (including light bulbs) since the late 1990s. Even in the
areas you specify (the porch, toilet, garage, bathroom), the average
time for CFLs over the last four years I've been using them has been
157 weeks -- which compares pretty well with the 123 weeks for
incandescents. Moreover, incandescents have a 5-6% initial failure
rate. I used to buy them a dozen at a time, handle them very carefully
and store them for that inconvenient moment, but it was common for at
least one in the batch to not operate at all. That has never happened
with a CFL I've bought, yet.

Yes. I use them but intelligently. No-one should be FORCED to use them and the
general public don't understand they can't be dimmed either. This has already led
to several house fires. Luckily no-one has been killed by a CFL yet AFAIK but it
will only take time.


But you have to look at the total picture. CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions, not just of mercury
but much else that is toxic to humans. Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years.

I give in, how?
Somebody been eating them?

CFLs reduce this and

save money.

It's perfectly sensible policy to restrain people from injuring
others, especially if this can be done in a way that doesn't impose
any serious burden in cost or inconvenience. Admittedly, the move to
CFLs in Australia was effected by a conservartive government, but I
don't see that as a reason to oppose it.

An Orwellian step too far IMHO.


Hmmm ... You're insulting Orwell now


Fran

 

[Alan Rutlidge]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:6tku19Fbdjo9U1@mid.individual.net...

" Fran is a FUCKING LIAR "

** Two more BLATANT LIES !!!

** Make it three BLATANT LIES !!!
Fran is nothing short of a CRIMINAL PSYCHOPATH.

Likely posting from the Green Ward of some mental hospital.




.... Phil

Yeah, well the last comment kind of sums up where you should be Philthy.
Your psycho suggestions of stabbing Fran clearly indicate your twisted
outlook and state of extremely poor mental health.
In other words - you are one sick puppy.

 

[Alan Rutlidge]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6toa4tFbslf6U1@mid.individual.net...

Mr.T wrote
Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote

Yes it's a pity you think those with a modicum of intelligence should
have to spend their lives fighting "brain dead" politicians too.

Well unless they are relaxed about being controlled by
brain-dead uneducated morons, what choice do they have?

Put up with it, or risk going to jail starting a revolution perhaps?

Or just ensure that no politician gets any say what so ever on anything
you do.

Of course if people who are not brain dead uneducated
morons are relaxed about being controlled by them,

So if one doesn't wish to become a politcician or start a revolution, it
automatically
means you are "relaxed" about having your life controlled by a stupid
politician.

No politician controls mine.

In fact I think it's the morons who only see things in terms of black &
white!

Corse you dont do anything like that yourself, eh ?

Would you actually prefer a world where all scientists for
example went into politics instead? I'd hate to live in that world!

Well yes, but then I don't believe that most people or
even most politicians are "brain dead uneducated morons".

Not a term I coined, but not too far from the truth either.

Nothing like the truth, actually.

Maybe "corrupt, greedy, illogical egomaniacs" would be MY definition.

Corse thats nothing like black and white, eh ?

If I did believe it I'd see scientists getting involved in politics
as a lesser evil imposed by unfortunate circumstance.

No more computers and internet then, or almost
any technology we currently take for granted.

Mindlessly silly. That stuff happens regardless.

And hardly any of it is done by scientists anyway.

If morons can stack the game to keep non-morons out, then they
aren't morons. Nasty? Yes. Venal? Maybe. Moronic? Nope. QED

As I said, it wasn't my definition. But shit-house rats
don't have to be all that smart either, just cunning.

Corse thats nothing like black and white, eh ?

Maybe that's *your* idea of smart though.

Corse thats nothing like black and white, eh ?


ROFLMAO

Just check out all the pre-programmed RodBot responses.
I wonder how many times the pathetic RodBot has used exactly the same
automatically generated phrases over and over again?
It's like listening to a recording. Like a Pavlov's dog, ring the bell and
he comes a barking with the usual mindless drivel. Sigh........

 

[Fran]

On Jan 22, 2:37 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Fran wrote:
On Jan 21, 11:52 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Fran wrote:
The fact of the matter is that unlike incandescent bulbs, CFL bulbs
are typically made of a polymer, which is feasible because they don't
heat up. That's why they tend not to break if they are knocked or fall
onto carpet, and if they do they don't shatter.
Utter RUBBISH. I though you had more sense.

This only applies to EXPENSIVE CFLs that have a covering 'bulb' over the tube.
This also reduces their efficiency.

Not greatly

Note that the efficiency of CFLs is commonly misrepresented as FIVE times that of
incandescents.

4-6 is the usual lumens per watt input calculus.

It is no such thing. The comparison is being made with Softone
(tm) bulbs instead of good old GLS types that most of us use. Compared to GLS,
CFL is only at best 4 x as efficient. Add the polymer outer and probably only 3 x
as good.

Defects are slow 'warm-up' time especially in cold conditions and short life
under short duration on/off conditions like the light in the loo or dunny if you
prefer.

That hasn't been my experience. I've been tracking my use of my
consumables (including light bulbs) since the late 1990s. Even in the
areas you specify (the porch, toilet, garage, bathroom), the average
time for CFLs over the last four years I've been using them has been
157 weeks -- which compares pretty well with the 123 weeks for
incandescents. Moreover, incandescents have a 5-6% initial failure
rate. I used to buy them a dozen at a time, handle them very carefully
and store them for that inconvenient moment, but it was common for at
least one in the batch to not operate at all. That has never happened
with a CFL I've bought, yet.

Yes. I use them but intelligently. No-one should be FORCED to use them and the
general public don't understand they can't be dimmed either. This has already led
to several house fires. Luckily no-one has been killed by a CFL yet AFAIK but it
will only take time.

But you have to look at the total picture. CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions, not just of mercury
but much else that is toxic to humans. Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years.

I give in, how?
Somebody been eating them?

It was a response in kind to Grahame's comment about CFls not killing
anyone yet ...

If you're going to affect ignorance about what I meant, even though
you read the passage, then I'm not interested.

Fran

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit that got the bums rush from the
biggest sheltered workshop in the entire fucking country,
Alan Rutlidge desperately attempted to bullshit and lie
its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely
no one at all, as always.

 

[Fran]

On Jan 22, 3:18 pm, "Alan Rutlidge"
<don't_spam_me_rutli...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message

news:6tku19Fbdjo9U1@mid.individual.net...







" Fran is a FUCKING LIAR "

**  Two more   BLATANT  LIES  !!!

**  Make it three  BLATANT  LIES  !!!
Fran is nothing short of a  CRIMINAL   PSYCHOPATH.

Likely posting from the Green Ward of some mental hospital.

....   Phil

Yeah, well the last comment kind of sums up where you should be Philthy.
Your psycho suggestions of stabbing Fran clearly indicate your twisted
outlook and state of extremely poor mental health.
In other words - you are one sick puppy

The most fanatical sections of the anti-environmental fringe often
lend uis an insight into the misanthropy that taints the whole
movement for business as usual.

Most of his fellow travellers would be shocked, but in the end, what
they are saying is that they are relaxed about jeopardising the
capacity of the biosphere to sustain human wellbeing, which must, at
best, fatally prejudice the wellbeing of tens of millions of people.
Phil, in suggesting I commit mass murder and then suicide or suffer
murder, is just taking their ethics to a logical conclusion.

Fran

 

[kreed]

On Jan 22, 11:55 am, "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Fran"

That hasn't been my experience.

** Your alleged " experience "  is not a valid point.

The collective experiences of many others outweigh it totally.

CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions,

** Massive false assumption.

A switch using CFLs in domestic premises will not reduce coal consumption in
Australia one bit.

Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years.

**  Totally silly claim.

......   Phil

Unbelievably silly claim.


I would strongly suggest that the incandescent light bulb has SAVED,
prolonged and enriched countless millions of lives since it was first
invented, and brought light to many places that were impossible
before.

Apart from removing the obvious fire hazard of illuminating with
flames, whether it be by candle, gas, oil, kerosine or wood, its
allowed safe lighting (that doesn't consume oxygen or create soot
where its used) in many dangerous areas where flames are a definite no-
no or just not possible to be used. (operating theatres, aircraft,
space ships, laboratories, food manufacturing, areas where there are
explosives or other potentially unstable/dangerous materials being
made or stored - factories where there is fine dust like granaries
(explosion hazard) places where flammable liquids/gases are stored or
refined).

Other applications i can think of where it directly helps save lives -
portable search and rescue gear such as portable high power torches,
searchlights, are hard to imagine being practical without the
incandescent light bulb - even now.

While someone who knows a bit more about it might like to correct me,
The overhead surgical lamps used in operating theatres would surely
be incandescent or quartz halogen (same thing).

----------------------------------------


How are incandescent bulbs killing people ?

Only ways I can think of is via electrocution, such as using a NAKED /
EXPOSED mains powered bulb as illumination to work on a car, on a tin
roof etc, the bulb breaking and the "active" live filament stem coming
into contact with the car body / roof etc. and making it "live".
(anyone doing this is just asking for trouble)

A metal car body would be particularly lethal under this scenario, as
the tyres being rubber would insulate, and the only path to ground
would be through whoever is standing on the ground (terra firma) and
touching the car body.

Alternately someone could step on it, crush it and contact the live
filament stem that way, or try and remove a smashed bulb from a light
socket without the power being off.
(this could be hard to determine in a situation where a bulb is on a 2
way switch arrangement)


These problems can be cured by simply using a safe enclosure (such as
an automotive inspection lamp housing) for the bulb and an ELCB
(safety switch).

I will admit a CFL would be a lot safer in these conditions, as long
as the plastic base isnt broken (as there are high DC voltages inside)


The other scenarios are physical injuries, glass cuts etc, but I don't
see that as relevant as just about any seemingly "innocent" everyday
object in the average home can kill or injure when used in the wrong
way, or in the hands of a dickhead.


About the only way to 100% solve this problem is lock the dickhead in
a padded rubber room. this could also have the pleasant side effect of
making a lot of society's problems vanish.

 

[kreed]

On Jan 20, 1:09 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 20, 1:55 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Fran wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:03 am, "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"Fran is a FUCKING LIAR" "

Really? How is that different from a celibate liar?

The fact of the matter is that unlike incandescent bulbs, CFL bulbs
are typically made of a polymer, which is feasible because they don't
heat up. That's why they tend not to break if they are knocked or fall
onto carpet, and if they do they don't shatter.
** Complete bollocks.
The u-tube or spiral part is made of GLASS -

Plexiglass ...

just like a normal fluoro lamp.

Moreover, the amount of mercury in them is tiny and bonded to the
surface od the polymer.
** BOLLOCKS !!

3 to 5 mg. Some manufacturers are going to 1 mg. Unless the bulb is in
operation at the time it breaks, the mercury is not in gaseous form
but attached to the side of the tube, near the base.

While the lamp is in use, operation depends on extremely poisonous mercury
vapour filling the tube !!

It would be extremely poisonous if one were chronically exposed to it,
but of course, exposure will, at worst, be brief. If the lamp breaks
when it is not in operation, (eg bumped out of the fitting) then the
risk is from physical contact with the skin. If it is operating, then
once should open a window, leave the room, and close the door. Thirty
minutes later, it will have dissipated.

You seem fairly relaxed though about the mercury emissions (and the
other emissions) associated with generating the energy needed to
operate incandescents via burning of coal -- which accounts for about
80% to 90% of Australia's energy load..

The chance of accidently ingesting some after
a breakage is utterly trivial.
** BOLLOCKS.
You WILL breath in the vapour if you break a tube while handling it -
even more so it has just been on.

Not at all if it has not just been on. If it has just been on, then
see above.

I've been using CFLs (and a long fluoro in the kitchen) for several
years now. Total breakages: zero.

Personally, I'd simply put on one of those disposable gloves, pick up
all visible pieces, and put them into a plastic bag.
** The glass shards will cut the gloves and YOU.

Nope, because it is essentially a polymer. Of course, even plastics
can cut you so one should handle with care.

I wonder could you show where you get the idea that the spiral or tube
type cfl is made of plexiglass?

I recall reading it in a general piece on the conversion from
incandescents, and the bulbs themselves don't feel cold and glass like
in the way incandescents did.

And really, why would you use glass when you can use a polymer?

More on CFLs

|||
CFLs are lauded by environmentalists because they require far less
electrical power than their incandescent counterparts. A 26-watt CFL
bulb produces the same lumens as a 100-watt incandescent bulb.
Assuming that you keep one of those bulbs aglow for six hours a day,
switching to a CFL will save you 126 kilowatt-hours of electricity per
year, which translates to 170 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions on
average. Now, how many bulbs do you have in your house? Twenty?
Thirty? Replace them all and you could conceivably (assuming six-hour-
a-day use throughout the building) reduce your annual CO2 output by
upward of 2.3 metric tons—about 10 percent of the average American
household's annual carbon footprint.

...

The irony of CFLs is that they actually reduce overall mercury
emissions in the long run. Despite recent improvements in the
industry's technology, the burning of coal to produce electricity
emits roughly 0.023 milligrams of mercury per kilowatt-hour. Over a
year, then, using a 26-watt CFL in the average American home (where
half of the electricity comes from coal) will result in the emission
of 0.66 milligrams of mercury. For 100-watt incandescent bulbs, which
produce the identical amount of light, the figure is 2.52 milligrams.

Ah, but what if your CFL bulb shatters? First off, don't panic: Unless
you plan on picking up the glass with bare hands and then licking it,
you're almost certainly safe from harm.

Even a broken CFL bulb won't leak too much toxic metal. According to
the EPA, just 6.8 percent of the mercury in a CFL bulb—that's at most
0.34 milligrams—is released if it shatters. OSHA's permissible
exposure limit for mercury vapor in the workplace is 0.1 milligrams
per cubic meter, so you'd have to break that bulb in an extremely
cramped space for there to be an appreciable hazard.

http://www.slate.com/id/2183606/pagenum/all/#page_

|||

Fran

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

here are some facts on CFL vs other forms of lighting.

 

[kreed]

On Jan 22, 1:37 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Fran wrote:
On Jan 21, 11:52 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Fran wrote:
The fact of the matter is that unlike incandescent bulbs, CFL bulbs
are typically made of a polymer, which is feasible because they don't
heat up. That's why they tend not to break if they are knocked or fall
onto carpet, and if they do they don't shatter.
Utter RUBBISH. I though you had more sense.

This only applies to EXPENSIVE CFLs that have a covering 'bulb' over the tube.
This also reduces their efficiency.

Not greatly

Note that the efficiency of CFLs is commonly misrepresented as FIVE times that of
incandescents.

4-6 is the usual lumens per watt input calculus.

It is no such thing. The comparison is being made with Softone
(tm) bulbs instead of good old GLS types that most of us use. Compared to GLS,
CFL is only at best 4 x as efficient. Add the polymer outer and probably only 3 x
as good.

Defects are slow 'warm-up' time especially in cold conditions and short life
under short duration on/off conditions like the light in the loo or dunny if you
prefer.

That hasn't been my experience. I've been tracking my use of my
consumables (including light bulbs) since the late 1990s. Even in the
areas you specify (the porch, t garag2C garage, bathroom), the average
time for CFLs over the last four years I've been using them has been
157 weeks -- which compares pretty well with the 123 weeks for
incandescents. Moreover, incandescents have a 5-6% initial failure
rate. I used to buy them a dozen at a time, handle them very carefully
and store them for that inconvenient moment, but it was common for at
least one in the batch to not operate at all. That has never happened
with a CFL I've bought, yet.

Yes. I use them but intelligently. No-one should be FORCED to use them and the
general public don't understand they can't be dimmed either. This has already led
to several house fires. Luckily no-one has been killed by a CFL yet AFAIK but it
will only take time.

But you have to look at the total picture. CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions, not just of mercury
but much else that is toxic to humans. Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years.

I give in, how?
Somebody been eating them?

Or using as a "marital aid" ??




Being forced to choose between the 2, I would ingest the materials of
an incandescent bulb over the CFL. (leaving out the factor like
physical cuts from glass, sharp metal edges etc.) without a doubt.

Except for the small amount of solder (which if not lead-free solder
could possibly lead to lead poisoning?) used on the base terminals
(which is also used on the CFL, as well as plenty inside), I cant
think of much in a household incandescent light bulb that could harm
your body or digestive system, it would just pass straight through.

some of the chemicals used in the CFL electronic components, Phosphor
(carcinogenic) in the tube etc are definitely not safe to ingest, and
are no doubt poisonous.

 

[Rod Speed]

kreed wrote:

On Jan 20, 1:09 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:55 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Fran wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:03 am, "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"Fran is a FUCKING LIAR" "

Really? How is that different from a celibate liar?

The fact of the matter is that unlike incandescent bulbs, CFL
bulbs
are typically made of a polymer, which is feasible because they
don't heat up. That's why they tend not to break if they are
knocked or fall onto carpet, and if they do they don't shatter.
** Complete bollocks.
The u-tube or spiral part is made of GLASS -

Plexiglass ...

just like a normal fluoro lamp.

Moreover, the amount of mercury in them is tiny and bonded to the
surface od the polymer.
** BOLLOCKS !!

3 to 5 mg. Some manufacturers are going to 1 mg. Unless the bulb
is in operation at the time it breaks, the mercury is not in
gaseous form but attached to the side of the tube, near the base.

While the lamp is in use, operation depends on extremely
poisonous mercury vapour filling the tube !!

It would be extremely poisonous if one were chronically exposed to
it, but of course, exposure will, at worst, be brief. If the lamp
breaks when it is not in operation, (eg bumped out of the fitting)
then the risk is from physical contact with the skin. If it is
operating, then once should open a window, leave the room, and
close the door. Thirty minutes later, it will have dissipated.

You seem fairly relaxed though about the mercury emissions (and the
other emissions) associated with generating the energy needed to
operate incandescents via burning of coal -- which accounts for
about 80% to 90% of Australia's energy load..

The chance of accidently ingesting some after
a breakage is utterly trivial.
** BOLLOCKS.
You WILL breath in the vapour if you break a tube while handling
it - even more so it has just been on.

Not at all if it has not just been on. If it has just been on, then
see above.

I've been using CFLs (and a long fluoro in the kitchen) for several
years now. Total breakages: zero.

Personally, I'd simply put on one of those disposable gloves,
pick up
all visible pieces, and put them into a plastic bag.
** The glass shards will cut the gloves and YOU.

Nope, because it is essentially a polymer. Of course, even plastics
can cut you so one should handle with care.

I wonder could you show where you get the idea that the spiral or
tube type cfl is made of plexiglass?

I recall reading it in a general piece on the conversion from
incandescents, and the bulbs themselves don't feel cold and glass
like in the way incandescents did.

And really, why would you use glass when you can use a polymer?

More on CFLs


CFLs are lauded by environmentalists because they require far less
electrical power than their incandescent counterparts. A 26-watt CFL
bulb produces the same lumens as a 100-watt incandescent bulb.
Assuming that you keep one of those bulbs aglow for six hours a day,
switching to a CFL will save you 126 kilowatt-hours of electricity
per year, which translates to 170 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions
on average. Now, how many bulbs do you have in your house? Twenty?
Thirty? Replace them all and you could conceivably (assuming
six-hour- a-day use throughout the building) reduce your annual CO2
output by upward of 2.3 metric tons—about 10 percent of the average
American household's annual carbon footprint.

...

The irony of CFLs is that they actually reduce overall mercury
emissions in the long run. Despite recent improvements in the
industry's technology, the burning of coal to produce electricity
emits roughly 0.023 milligrams of mercury per kilowatt-hour. Over a
year, then, using a 26-watt CFL in the average American home (where
half of the electricity comes from coal) will result in the emission
of 0.66 milligrams of mercury. For 100-watt incandescent bulbs, which
produce the identical amount of light, the figure is 2.52 milligrams.

Ah, but what if your CFL bulb shatters? First off, don't panic:
Unless you plan on picking up the glass with bare hands and then
licking it, you're almost certainly safe from harm.

Even a broken CFL bulb won't leak too much toxic metal. According to
the EPA, just 6.8 percent of the mercury in a CFL bulb—that's at most
0.34 milligrams—is released if it shatters. OSHA's permissible
exposure limit for mercury vapor in the workplace is 0.1 milligrams
per cubic meter, so you'd have to break that bulb in an extremely
cramped space for there to be an appreciable hazard.

http://www.slate.com/id/2183606/pagenum/all/#page_



Fran

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

here are some facts on CFL vs other forms of lighting.

Nothing like facts, mostly really gross errors instead.

Like

it turns out that dimmers are a far bigger issue that first imagined. What happens in houses where
dimmers are fitted? These must be removed completely, not simply set to maximum and left there.

That is just plain wrong and completely pig ignorant.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Rod Speed"

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

here are some facts on CFL vs other forms of lighting.

Nothing like facts, mostly really gross errors instead.

** There is not one "gross error".

Like

it turns out that dimmers are a far bigger issue that first imagined.
What happens in houses where
dimmers are fitted? These must be removed completely, not simply set to
maximum and left there.

That is just plain wrong...

** It is an absolute fact !!!!

Standard CFLs must NOT be used with a common triac dimmer EVEN when the
dimmer control knob is set to max position - or else they will quickly
burn out, catch fire and /or destroy the dimmer.

Reasons and copious evidence were supplied in the article.

Nothing like facts ever comes from you.

You bull-shitting fuckwit.




....... Phil

 

[John Tserkezis]

Phil Allison wrote:

** It is an absolute fact !!!!

You read about it on the internet, so it must be true?

Standard CFLs must NOT be used with a common triac dimmer EVEN when the
dimmer control knob is set to max position - or else they will quickly
burn out, catch fire and /or destroy the dimmer.

Reasons and copious evidence were supplied in the article.

You have to read between the lines, but it makes the assumption that at full
setting, the dimmer triggers the triacs some time after the start of the
cycle. Enough to cause a problem. The only time I've seen that was on a very
early model dimmer decades ago (quite dimmer than a raw mechanical switch). I
haven't seen anything like that after that.

The article also implies that it's ALWAYS going to be a problem.

And that's not true. Even more so for switched on/off systems that don't
dim. They switch even earlier into the cycle.

At a stretch, for a sloppily designed traditional el-cheapo dimmer, (triac,
diac etc, plenty of examples on the 'net) it could be seen that even on 'full
brightness' there is some lag inherently built into the design that means the
triac would fire some time after the cycle start, more than it could anyway.
This has never been a problem with incandescents, in fact, derating them
like that would increase their life, with a minimal even almost unnoticeable
change in brightness.
However, the question is, would this cause enough of a problem with CFLs,
that they're going to burn out?

On some, perhaps. On others no difference at all. The proportion of one
over the other may be debatable, but that's not the point:

The problem I have with the article, is it paints with a huge brush of
horror and destruction across the board of ANY dimmer.

And that's most certainly not true.

Wouldn't have even thought of purely switched triacs. The lag there is
minimal, all that the low end of the voltage scale, and certainly of no
consequence.
In fact, the only problem that's brought up with triacs, is the turn-on
current of the device in question - and that's "fixable" buy throwing a higher
rated triac at it (if that's an option).
Either way, I don't see CFLs being a problem in this area anyway.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>