100 watt bulbs banned

Home Model Engine Machinist Forum

Help Support Home Model Engine Machinist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Trouble is Foozer, that that buy price is an artificial one, subsidised by what is laughingly called the Government - in other words all the taxpayers are throwing in to pay it AND it is also contributing to the never ending round of price hikes. The other thing, of course, is that the buy price can be changed, or withdrawn, at the will of these clowns.

No offense Bob - but I'm paying for your saving - I'll be round to see you!
 
Non taken tel :-*

The buy subsidy is a state government thing and varies from state to state so when did Bathurst district move to South Oz ;)

Best Regards
Bob

Edit - After paying a tax rate of 49c in the dollar for more than half my working life.................anything I can claw back goes some way to redeeming my share of the welfare pot.
 
The buy subsidy is a state government thing and varies from state to state so when did Bathurst district move to South Oz Wink

;D Well it's certainly not in NSW, according to the NSW (Newcastle, Sydney & Wollongong) Govt!
 
Maryak said:
After paying a tax rate of 49c in the dollar for more than half my working life.................anything I can claw back goes some way to redeeming my share of the welfare pot.

Can't fault that logic.

The Y2k debacle has been mentioned a few times in this thread.
The clamour from my customers for "certification" grew along with the hysteria and despite my best assurances they simply asked for more and more.

Eventually I offered to charge them a truckload of money to come and do an audit and provide "certification". I pitched the price so high - I figured they would forget it - but no - most of my customers went for it and I made an obscene amount of money for very little work. What's more this made them very satisfied customers.

I'm not proud of that - I would rather not have done this - I went out of my way to try not to - but would they listen - no!

I see much of the same hype, hysteria and profit taking in the current GW debacle.

Ken
 
kd7fhg said:
It has already started in California and next year they are going to ban T12 florescent bulbs, you will have to convert over to the T8s,which requires a different ballast.

Rex

Being bored with all this Great Northwest lack of sunshine (its RAINING AGAIN) decided to change a fixture over to the T8 bulbs and ballast.

As the original tombstones were in good shape I didn't change them. Appears to be some verbiage banted around about the sockets, ah, I just checked that each wire went straight to a socket pin and wired per the diagram on the ballast. Used the 5000 series bulbs.

Brighter, pop right on, and no hum. Now to start on the remaining 7 still to do. If I get real bored perhaps a hookup to measure what the actual wattage differential is may occur.

Robert
 
Here is the prescribed procedure for dealing with cleaning up after you break one of these modern marvels..... Thanks but no thanks

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?

Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room
• Have people and pets leave the room, and don’t let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
• Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
• Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces
• Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.
• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
• Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:
• Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
• If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:
• If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
• You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
• If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the
towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials
• Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
• Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken
and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
• The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
• Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.

For more information about compact fluorescent bulbs, visit http://www.energystar.gov/cfls

For more information about compact fluorescent bulbs and mercury, visit http://www.energystar.gov/mercury

EPA is continually reviewing its clean-up and disposal recommendations for CFLs to ensure that the Agency presents the most up-to-date information for consumers and businesses.
 
5mg of Mercury is not a huge hazzard and it will "boil off" over several hours - this however does represent the worst risk - breathing in Mercury vapour.

Vacuum cleaning is not recomended because it will more likely than not simply vapourise and exhaust the Mercury back into the room thus raising the airborn levels in the short term.

However if you have a vacuum cleaner with an exhaust pipe - lead the exhaust out through the nearest window and gas your neighbour.

After clean up, leave it running for an hour or so with the suction nozzle over the spill whilst exhausting to outdoors.

You could also place a fan in the window and force a draught through the room to the outside for several hours.

Ken
 
hang on a sec though... not so long ago as far as the environmental idiot brigade were concerned mercury was then very spawn of satan and its very existance should be banned, let alone its use even when nothing else would do...... now it is green to take it home....who do I not believe a single thing the hypoctites sprout?

could it be the same reason I dont listen to other religious fanatics?

AGW the newest religion....... and the most incorrect.

on the subject of PV.... if i was to borrow the £££ to do an install and get the standard payback then I would not earn enough to pay the interest on the loan.... without the government grant & "guarenteed payback"...
 
If it saves us from building one more God Da :redface2:ed nuclear power plant, the better!
Don't believe me? Ask the Japanese and Germans!
Giovanni
 
Save energy by all means - the Germans and the Japanese will fail if they try to abandon nuclear.

Nuclear is the safest form of power generation - even allowing for projected deaths and reduced lifespans from Chernobyl and Fukashima.

Or do we conveniently ignore the 175 000 Chinese killed in a single Hydro dam failure.

Chernobyl killed 50, 90 more died from 9000 treated for thyroid cancer, a further 150000 persons were exposed - even a 10% reduction in lifespan / mortality doesn't bring us up close to the next safest - hydro.

We need to be careful not paranoid.

We need more CO2 not less - current CO2 is paleologically speaking very low and aproaching trouble - photosyntyhesis is compromised below 200ppm and stops at 100ppm - the current 390ppm is well lower than historic values (without catastrophic heating effects). Much of Earth's plant life evolved at 1000-1200ppm and is struggling in our CO2 poor atmosphere.

California's orange grove prodution has increaced by 30% since 1930 due (according to some experts) to the increace from 340 to 390ppm.

Yet a large number of people are proposing we roll back industrial society and spend trillions of dollars of our taxation to remove a trace gas from the atmosphere that is absolutely essential to life.

We apear to have lost our (scientific) minds !

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
Charles Mackay "The Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

A group of eco-psychologists held a conference at the University of West England in Bristol in August 2009 and proclaimed that "climate change denialism" is a new mental disorder.

Apparently I'm nuts.

If I've gone mad - at least I'm in good company - Regards,
Ken
 
We need more CO2 not less - current CO2 is paleologically speaking very low and aproaching trouble - photosyntyhesis is compromised below 200ppm and stops at 100ppm - the current 390ppm is well lower than historic values (without catastrophic heating effects). Much of Earth's plant life evolved at 1000-1200ppm and is struggling in our CO2 poor atmosphere.

Sorry, but this is simply not true.

Try this quote from Wikipedia:

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 391 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. 40 years earlier, the rise was only 0.9 ppm/yr, showing not only increasing, but also a rapid acceleration of concentrations.[1][2] Carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas. Despite its relatively small overall concentration in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.[3] The present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years,[4] and likely higher than in the past 20 million years.[5]

To read the full page, and all the footnotes and references see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

There are now few scientists that deny global warming, other than those on the payrolls of companies with vested interest in not changing.
 
Evidently the Japanese and American engineers did not consult mother nature! LOL!
Giovanni
 
It's called climate change and it is very eratic and a ture scientific fact.
Giovanni
 
Gentlemen,

Some of us support the proposition that global warming is as a result of burning fossil fuels which release unwanted amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Whilst the majority of scientific opinion currently supports this, there are some eminent scientists and some of us who do not accept this proposition.

So called facts can be quoted from many sources and to use such in isolation on either side of the debate is IMHO less than helpful, (it is a very complex and divisive set of propositions).

So far these differences have been aired in a civilised manner.

I realise this is the break room but if we cannot keep this discussion civilised then there will be no alternative but to close the thread.

Thank you for your understanding.

Best Regards
Bob
 
Giovanni, climate change is erratic and poorly understood.

I am not a climate change "denier" - it is changing alright - my position is that man has little or nothing to do with it via his CO2 emmissions.

Deforrestation and a host of other evils wrough by man - no argument.

The CO2 hypothesis is simply terrible scientific hysteria.

My advice to anyone is research the subject from both sides, if you read only pro AGW articles, you will be convinced (as I was) that it was true.

A large number of eminent scientists have flipped positions after actually examining the position and the most recent data - as opposed to simply accepting the "peer reviewed" "concensus".

Many scientific organisations are advising their members not to get involved in public debates (they lose every time) and not to engage with skeptics as they seem to become contaminated.

Take the case of Dr. Judith Curry - once the "high priestess of global warming" has become a "climate heretic" and the "wicked witch of climate change" - Google those monikers and you'll see what I mean.

Wikipedia as a source of GW info has been demonstrated to be biased and there have been extensive "editorial wars" on the issue.

There are extensive pro and con arguments that go on forever - I make no claim to being right - I merely suggest you keep an open mind on the issue and consider both sides.

Regards,
Ken
 
wikipedia is, unfortunately about as accurate as .... a very inaccurate thing that sometimes gets it almost right. ;D usefull but don't take it as gospel

that 2ppm since 200-2009 unfortunately has not resulted in any measurable temp increases.... and if even conforming to the most basic scientific principals would say it is theoretically responsible for.... but as ever theory is mistaken/misused and abused for fact.

as to CO2 historic levels.... have a look for research done on (IIRC Icelandic, or greenland) ice cores about 6-8 years ago IIRC ( I really cant be bothered looking)... levels and dates....a single piece of peer reviewed research that should cause anyone who can think and read to question the current hysteria. Well except for teh temperatures of north america where NOAA has recently recorded inner city temperatures of several hundred deg C :D

also have a look out for a couple of Canadian statisticians & mathematicians that clearly show how Mann manipulated data to produce ipcc1989 "hockey stick" by leaving out recent historic data... again I could give references but if you are interested enough it's easy to find.

In the works of Professor Emeritus P Stott... "Climate change is a tautology"
 


IMHO conservation is part of any long term energy plan as well as developing new sources. but I do not think any one wants to be forced to abandon old technology and what one is used to . I have quite a few CF bulbs in my house and still use a few incandescent. I will probably buy some leds when the price is right.
As far as global warming my yard is dry and the weeds are droopy.

There are extensive pro and con arguments that go on forever - I make no claim to being right - I merely suggest you keep an open mind on the issue and consider both sides.
This is probably the key to discussing any issue.
Every Issue is like a coin two sides to the story and around the edge is a fine line . The truth.

Thanks to all for keeping this conversation friendly and addressing one another respectfully.
Tin
 
Ronginger, Truth is somehow subjective.

Climate alarmists are fond of stating "CO2 is higher now than in recorded history" this statement is true.

It is also true that it hasn't been this high for 600-800 000 years.

But for most of paleological history it has been much higher - 10 times higher - not just a percentage and the world didn't melt.

800 000 years ? a tick of the clock.

Wikipedia has been subject to the revisionist Mr William Connolly - a Wiki moderator who simply deleted all contrary entries who has stooped so low as to paint skeptics in an unfavourable light by removing credible qualifications and positions from their CV's.
He was eventually removed from anything to do with gobal warming after a number of damning newspaper articles.
That said the revisionism continues and skeptical points are deleted almost as soon as they are posted.

There is something very wrong with the way this debate is being conducted.

Most websites and blogs are either pro or con and the response to contrary positions is bombast and flaming - very little science or objectivity.

Like Tin I commend the members of HMEM for their civil responses.

Ken
 
Back
Top