On Jan 20, 8:33*pm, Mike <M...[at]xyz.xxx> wrote:
- quote -

Why?

Fluorescent lighting is not and has never been cost effective when ALL
the costs of flourescent lighting are figured into the cost benefit
analysis, costs which include the debilitation of 2% of the
population as a result of the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy flourescent
lighting is known to cause.

"RF" <RF[at]NoDen.con> wrote in message
news:6tnldjFbptmiU1[at]mid.individual.net...

- quote -

The best that can be said for LED lighting (also called SSL; Solid State
Lighting) today is that it LEDs (aka SSLs=Solid State Lighting) have
gradually been improving in efficiency over the years. Today, some of the
best LED lamps may be better than some of the worst CFL (CFL=Compact
Fluorescent) lamps, but cost is still much higher than CFL and efficiency
over the lamp's lifetime remains a question. Your best "bang for the buck"
is still resoundingly CFL lamps except perhaps in a few specialty
applications.

A very recent Department of Energy study finds very uneven results,
with many tested LED products not even eligible for the Energy Star
designation they claim. One problem is that many of them take significant
energy even when turned off.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/CAL...mary_final.pdf
It concludes in part: "CALiPER testing continues to reveal that many SSL
products do not meet manufacturer performance claims, although a few
high-performing products are emerging on the market and definite progress
can be seen in some product categories. Of greatest concern at this time is
the appearance of underperforming products on shelves in major retail
stores, which carries the potential of disappointing early adopters and
endangering the future market potential of SSL technologies for years to
come (as witnessed through the CFL legacy). "

Here is a DOE fact sheet on some household lighting products:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/RecessedDownlight.pdf Google for others.



Vaughn

Mike wrote:

- quote -

Whereas the service life of a fluorescent lamp is a few years,
they're used in large quantities per capita, and at the end of that
service almost all of the mercury is released into residential air.
The service life of an amalgam filling is decades and at the end of
that service most of it is recycled.

The comparison is nowhere near as simple as you would have it.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs[at]lumbercartel.com> -+

RF wrote:

- quote -

Yup -- at a cost of around 20x the same fluorescent
fixture and with only somewhat longer service life.

As for the chemicals in LEDs -- ask Jan. She has
major objections to the semiconductor industry.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs[at]lumbercartel.com> -+

Mike <Mike[at]xyz.xxx> wrote:

- quote -

So the statement "it will no longer be permitted to place products
containing mercury on the Swedish market" is not true?

Whoda thunk it?

- quote -

You do know what is the major source of mercury put into the
atmosphere in the US, don't you?

Here's a hint. Think smoke. Think water bombing.

- quote -

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

RF <RF[at]NoDen.con> wrote:

- quote -

As mercury is not used in almost all vaccines (and there are
mercury-free varieties available of the rest) banning mercury will
have no effect on vaccines.

That won't stop the anti-vaccination liars lying, of course, because
that is what they do.

- quote -

Got a house full of them, have you?

By the way - do you know what chemicals are used in the manufacture of
LEDs?

- quote -

Except by those people who use the things that it is an essential part
of.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch wrote:
- quote -

Not likely. Quote: "The Swedish Chemicals Agency will be authorised to
issue regulations on exceptions or grant exemptions in individual
cases." A fluorescent bulb contains on average 4 milligrams of mercury.
A dental amalgam filling weighs on average 850 mg and contains slightly
less than 50% mercury - that is, 100 times more than a fluorescent bulb.
Looks like a prime candidate for such an exception.

- quote -

What??? Timber contains mercury?

The only Google links on "mercury in timber" were about car insurance
for a new Mercury in Timber, Oregon or about price for a Mercury in
Timber Lake, South Dakota. Thanks for making my day.

Bravo, Sweden.

- quote -

Peter Bowditch wrote:
- quote -

3 Big Cheers for Sweden :-)

Are you worrying that the mercury will NOT be
available for vaccinations?

- quote -

Wake up. Becoming available right now are lights
that have no mercury and are much more efficient
than fluorescent - called LEDs.

Mercury is a toxin that will NOT be missed.

On Jan 20, 3:29*pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...[at]sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- quote -

Wow!

Great victory for health lovers!

Peter Bowditch wrote:

- quote -

Not a problem -- most Swedish electricity comes from mercury-emitting
power plants.

So they can turn off the juice and go back to body heat.

Also, the alties will appreciate that germicidal lamps are now
illegal there.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs[at]lumbercartel.com> -+

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374[at]sbcglobal.net> wrote:

- quote -

There go the fluorescent lights. Up goes the electricity consumption.

There goes non-hydroponic timber. Up goes the price of houses, paper
and other timber-based products.

Is there any limit to the stupidity of knee-jerking politicians?

<snip remaining knee-jerk>

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Sweden bans amalgam effective June 1 2009

Subject: Sweden bans amalgam effective June 1 2009 A press release from the
Swedish Ministry of Environment follows.

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/11459/a/118550




Press release 15 January 2009 Ministry of the Environment



Government bans all use of mercury in Sweden The Government today decided to
introduce a blanket ban on mercury. The ban means that the use of dental
amalgam in fillings will cease and that it will no longer be permitted to
place products containing mercury on the Swedish market.

"Sweden is now leading the way in removing and protecting the environment
from mercury, which is non-degradable. The ban is a strong signal to other
countries and a Swedish contribution to EU and UN aims to reduce mercury use
and emissions," says Minister for the Environment Andreas Carlgren.

The Government's decision means that products containing mercury may not be
placed on the Swedish market. In practice this means that alternative
techniques will have to be used in dental care, chemical analysis and the
chloralkali industry. The Swedish Chemicals Agency will be authorised to
issue regulations on exceptions or grant exemptions in individual cases.

In connection with the Government's decision, waste containing mercury will
be disposed of in deep geological repositories in other EU countries. The
Swedish market for hazardous waste is small. Last spring, a government
inquiry established that there are existing repositories for waste
containing mercury in, for example, Germany that more than adequately meet
the safety requirements on which Swedish legislation is based. Creating a
new Swedish repository would be around 15 times more expensive than
depositing waste in existing facilities in the EU. The bodies consulted on
this matter shared the inquirys conclusions.

"By using common solutions and almost forty years of experience of storing
mercury in the EU, we are not lowering safety standards. The waste will be
transported to a deep geological repository with high safety standards. In
accordance with the polluter pays principle, the owners of the waste will be
responsible for ensuring that disposal in a repository is arranged and
paying for it," says Mr Carlgren.

The disposal possibilities in other EU countries provide better incentives
for the desired development of safe, large-scale technologies to stabilise
waste containing mercury.

Since the beginning of the 1990s there has been a ban in Sweden on the
manufacture and sale of certain products containing mercury, including
thermometers and other measuring devices and electronic components.

The new regulations enter into force on 1 June 2009.