'Green' lightbulbs poison workers

Mottleydude said:
CFL's from an environmental standpoint are an environmental trade off. Each CFL contains about 4 parts per million (4 mg) mercury. Since CFL's use substantially less electricity than incandenscent lamps the net environmental exposure to mercury is decreased as much more mercury is emitted through the burning of fossils fuels then that which leaks from CFL. That is to say, if you use incandescent lamps, the corresponding increase in electricity consumption will produce more environmental contamination of mercury through the increased consumption of fossil fuels used to generate the electricity used to power the incandescent lamps.

Also, most present CFLs the mercury is stablized to limit it's mobility characteristics meaning the most significant threat to exposure is if the lamp breaks while in use. Having said that, 4 ppm of mercury vapors rapidly diluted by the air present very little in the way of a health risk unless the exposure is chronic (long term), the greater risk is for childrem who are chronically exposed to mercury vapors. An incedental breakage of a CFL, in other words, presents a very small risk of exposure related problems.
Click to expand...

and when the bulbs are powered by coal burning power plants, were' really ahead in the game!!
 
I like how the lightbulbs are the actors in this whole affair as in "lightbulbs poison workers" as opposed to say "manufacturers of CFLs poison workers."
 
tinfoil said:
and when the bulbs are powered by coal burning power plants, were' really ahead in the game!!
Click to expand...

Essentially yes but that does not mean that CFL's are not problamatic. They still contain mercury after all. The problem is how to manage their disposal. House Hold Hazardous Waste and Universal Waste regulations don't really do the trick cause most people just throw them out in their trash. That's a problem.
 
Dungheap said:
I like how the lightbulbs are the actors in this whole affair as in "lightbulbs poison workers" as opposed to say "manufacturers of CFLs poison workers."
Click to expand...

Good point. It's a good example of how lop sided our trade agreements with China are as our manufacturers are required by law to protect workers safety. Of course, give those on the far right their way and our workers would be getting mercury poison too.
 
Mottleydude said:
...give those on the far right their way and our workers would be getting mercury poison too.
Click to expand...
The EPA is not The Savior that you harp it to be. My complaint against it and other environmental regulatory agencies is usurpation of private property rights.
 
Southern Man said:
The EPA is not The Savior that you harp it to be. My complaint against it and other environmental regulatory agencies is usurpation of private property rights.
Click to expand...

unfortunately as we get more populus some giving up of individual rights for the good of us all is inevitable.

Like shooting across the pasture behind your house that is now a subdivision?

I have seen the good that the EPA does. In my lifetime streams in KY have become far less polouted. Heck we can even swim in most of them now.

btw a factoid. Of all the states only Alaska has more miles of streams than KY
 
uscitizen said:
unfortunately as we get more populus some giving up of individual rights for the good of us all is inevitable.

Like shooting across the pasture behind your house that is now a subdivision?

I have seen the good that the EPA does. In my lifetime streams in KY have become far less polouted. Heck we can even swim in most of them now.

btw a factoid. Of all the states only Alaska has more miles of streams than KY
Click to expand...
What I'm referring to specifically is these agencies declaring certain types of land off limits to development, thereby making the value of such land close to zero, in effect taking the land from the owner. The Constitution allows the government to take private property for the public good, but only after just compensation.
 
So. To shorten a long story. (Bullet Point Version)

1. The government required people to buy light bulbs that will save energy.
2. In order to make it more cost effective people bought bulbs imported from China.
3. Those bulbs are made in a way that harms the environment more than incandescent bulbs as well as the workers who are forced to work in crappy conditions in order to keep costs down.
4. Many people ignore the unintended consequences to attack the messenger.
 
Southern Man said:
What I'm referring to specifically is these agencies declaring certain types of land off limits to development, thereby making the value of such land close to zero, in effect taking the land from the owner. The Constitution allows the government to take private property for the public good, but only after just compensation.
Click to expand...

There are many situations where the protection of the land is a concern of more than just the land owner.

For example, if I live up stream from you, allowing me to pollute the stream is allowing me to cause direct harm to you.
 
WinterBorn said:
There are many situations where the protection of the land is a concern of more than just the land owner.

For example, if I live up stream from you, allowing me to pollute the stream is allowing me to cause direct harm to you.
Click to expand...
You're completely off base.
 
Southern Man said:
What I'm referring to specifically is these agencies declaring certain types of land off limits to development, thereby making the value of such land close to zero, in effect taking the land from the owner. The Constitution allows the government to take private property for the public good, but only after just compensation.
Click to expand...

Yes a good point and I mostly agree. However we do need clean drinking water.

How about the limiting what you can do on your land? AKA zoning.
If I want to build a strip club next to a church should I be able to do that?

Or a pig farm next to a sub division?

Yes I have problems with land use limitations too. But some is society driven and some is ecologically driven. Which is really more important in the long run?
 
WinterBorn said:
There are many situations where the protection of the land is a concern of more than just the land owner.

For example, if I live up stream from you, allowing me to pollute the stream is allowing me to cause direct harm to you.
Click to expand...

Yeah should I have to put in a septic system just because you live downstream from me?
 
uscitizen said:
Yes a good point and I mostly agree. However we do need clean drinking water.

How about the limiting what you can do on your land? AKA zoning.
If I want to build a strip club next to a church should I be able to do that?

Or a pig farm next to a sub division?

Yes I have problems with land use limitations too. But some is society driven and some is ecologically driven. Which is really more important in the long run?
Click to expand...
My policy on land use is consistent with any other type of human behavior. Do with what's yours whatever the hell you please as long as it doesn't have an adverse effect of your neighbor. That's why I support reasonable environmental legislation as well as reasonable zoning laws. Now if the government makes a law after someone has purchased land or after they have made improvements and it adversely affects its value, then the government owes that landowner just compensation.
 
Southern Man said:
The EPA is not The Savior that you harp it to be. My complaint against it and other environmental regulatory agencies is usurpation of private property rights.
Click to expand...

#1. Who said anything about EPA? I didn't.

#2. You're wrong. EPA does more than any government agency to protect private property cause you don't have the right to dump your trash on my property or on public property. EPA protects our private property rights.
 
uscitizen said:
unfortunately as we get more populus some giving up of individual rights for the good of us all is inevitable.

Like shooting across the pasture behind your house that is now a subdivision?

I have seen the good that the EPA does. In my lifetime streams in KY have become far less polouted. Heck we can even swim in most of them now.

btw a factoid. Of all the states only Alaska has more miles of streams than KY
Click to expand...

If I could point to one Government agency that has been a glowing success it's EPA. Having said that, that success has come at significant cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top