Poker1 news discussion
This news entry is repeated as it appeared on the Poker1 News page (in the main menu).
Your comments are invited below
 |
Wednesday →January 1 2014 |
Thomas Edison gets screwed by government as incandescent
|
Mike Caro says:Everything is everywhere
Any Poker1 page takes you anyplace you want to go!
↓ Search Poker1 ↓
♠ Poker1 Megadex tools ♠
— main navigation departments —
Collections
Related groups of Poker1 content
↓ Major collections ↓
↓ Tip collections ↓
↓ Contributor collections ↓
↓ More collections ↓
* Any collection followed by an asterisk ( * ) has no entries yet.
Poker1 everything
Browse alphabetically
[a-z-listing display=”posts” post-type=”post”]
Poker1 library
Content in categories
- ALL (newest first)
- Exclude ads
- Private
- SPECIAL INFO
- SPOTLIGHT
≡ Content above: Poker1 Phase2a specification ≡
The new bulbs cause me significant eye strain. Incandescent light bulbs are still available for “Rough Service” applications. I just ordered my bulbs online. They’re expensive. I’ll find out if they are worth it.
I’m in favor of saving the environment. However, I don’t see the advantage of using bulbs that represent a serious hazard when broken. The Scientific American website says that estimates are as low as 2% of the bulbs being recycled. What will be the long term effect of heavy metal pollution to our water supply?
The web article quotes the EPA director as saying, “”Our first preference is not to see them go into landfills,” Berlow says. “Recycling really closes the loop on this as best we can right now. But on the other hand, we also don’t see huge risks from them going into landfills, either.””
Summary – Take extreme care when bulbs break, but not a problem in our land fills. The government experts might be correct even though it seems ridiculous. I’d feel better, if the government experts didn’t have a history of bending science to support policy like they have on global warming.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-dangerous