Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:58 +0000, Jeff wrote:

> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:28:45 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>>> I feed my cats Science Diet. The price has gone noticeably up lately.
>>>> Mentioned it to my vet... reason why: they are no longer using any
>>>> ingredients from China, after the pet food - & other - contamination
>>>> probs. The Chinese economy is obviosuly growing by incredible leaps &
>>>> bounds - perhaps too fast for their (& everyone else's) own good -
>>>> other embedded aspects (can't think how else to word it at moment)
>>>> need to catch up. Obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Cathy
>>> When we buy stuff from China and other 3rd world countries, in some
>>> senses, it is like we are exporting our pollution to China. Of course,
>>> with electronic waste, we literally export it.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> Bullcrap! The technology exists to clean the environment in China. All
>> it takes is money, and the government has a $1.3T surplus. What are
>> they spending it on? Military spending and space projects! (SOURCE: The
>> BBC) Instead of spending it on clean technology. Why? THEY DON'T HAVE
>> TO! They are the major benefactor of the Kyoto Agreement. And they are
>> lobbying HARD to be excluded from the next round of agreements scheuled
>> to take place in 2012.
>
> The technology exists. We are also able to require that everything sold
> in the US be made only in factories with proper safety, environmental
> and worker conditions.

But we aren't, as evidenced by the poor goods making their way into the
US, i.e. toys with lead paint.

China has PLENTY of money now to clean up it's act. They're biulding the
military. Not the infrastructure, the Military.
>
> China needs to build a good infrastructure, including roads, airports,
> trains, power plants, houses, internet connections, too. If it is a
> choice
>
> One argument that many 3rd world countries have is that they should be
> allowed to pollute the same amount as the US does (per capita). And the
> the US and Europe have increased the CO2 concentrations in our
> atmosphere up the most.I have to say this is a fair argument.

The world's largest polluter, per capita, is Australia. This is because
of the amount of coal they burn to produce electricity. China and India
are tied for second, and the US is next. They've surpassed us (SOURCE:
BBC)

>
>> OK, I'll cede on the electronic waste. Countries like China and India
>> and Pakistan are taking all the computer circuit boards they can, and
>> extracting the gold from them. But they aren't doing it in any
>> environmentally friendly way.
>
> But, AFAIK, only the US exports its electronic waste.

Not at all. Europe does also.

>
>> I looked into doing this in the 90's. It is extremely difficult to do
>> properly; you can't just set up some tanks and drums in your garage.
>> And you're constantly monitored by the EPA. Back then, it cost $250 to
>> extract $300 worth of gold.
>>
>> China and India don't have these constraints, and in a lot of cases
>> they do the work out in the open, in the 'living room', or wherever.
>
> That's true. I think they just melt the plastic in an open container,
> and the lead, gold and other metals sink to the bottom.
>
>> Talk about an ecological nightmare.
>
> Not to mention a nightmare for the people around the containers,
> including the young family members.

Really. When you melt down a circuit board you're releasing lead, tin,
the epoxies are burning off which is a known carcinogen. And with gold
prices as high as they are, these people are basically getting pennies on
the dollar, with all the risk they are taking.

Another interesting thing heard on the BBC a few months ago. The copper
content in Rupee coins is higher in value than what the coin is worth as
money, and India had to make it illegal to melt down rupia (Er, I believe
that's the plural or Rupee...)

And a lot of the coins are being taken into Pakistan for meltdown.
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:44:42 -0700, witfal wrote:

>> Because farmers now get a
>> subsidy for the corn, used to make ethanol, they are planting more corn
>> and less wheat. The result is they both cost the consumer more for
>> the product made for both.
>
> Ya' think?

NBC reported last week the corn crop to be planted this year will be 8%
less that last year.
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

It is too late to plant the ground is too wet from the flooding to plow the
fields

"hachiroku" <Trueno.TakeThisOut@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
news:loROj.2306$kt1.1547@trndny06...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:44:42 -0700, witfal wrote:
>
>>> Because farmers now get a
>>> subsidy for the corn, used to make ethanol, they are planting more corn
>>> and less wheat. The result is they both cost the consumer more for
>>> the product made for both.
>>
>> Ya' think?
>
> NBC reported last week the corn crop to be planted this year will be 8%
> less that last year.
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:46:53 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:49:58 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno DeleteThis @ae86.GTS> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:57:13 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill Putney" <bptn DeleteThis @kinez.net> wrote in message
>>> news:671asfF2mq40bU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They are made in China. Very few, if any, are made in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Man - can you imagine a worse environmental disaster in the making
>>>> than the Chinese using mercury in *ANY* manufacturing process!?
>>>> Think of the factory workers. Wonder what their groundwater is like?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not to worry. They probably use mercury waste in their toothpaste.
>>
>>I won't buy toothpaste made in China. I won't even buy cat food from
>>China. I *LIKE* my cat!
>>
>>
> A man who likes cats, can't be all bad....

I'm a DOG person!

I was installing new front turn signals into the Mazda back in September,
and something startled me. The cat had jumped up onto the engine and was
walking around. I took her down and put her on the driveway, and then she
jumps up on my back and squats herself on my shoulders.

Guy and his wife and two grandkids walking by says, That cat REALLY likes
you! How long have you had it?

....never saw it before in my life...

They say cats choose the person...
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

Mike hunt wrote:
> You once again miss the point of the post. The price of diesel fuel went up
> a dollar MORE than the additional cost added by crude price that have raised
> gas and fuel costs. Diesel fuel was priced below regular gas, now it is 50c
> higher that premium gas

Yes, I know that. But the demand for diesel has also gone up. Supply and
demand.

> We the people, in a representative republic have the power to elect our
> representatives to make and enforce laws, rules and regulations. Why did we
> allow a pension to our Senators and Congressmen?

Do our Congresswomen get pensions, too?

> Why would we allow that
> which we grant to our elected official, be given to others? We should not
> allow our government federal, sate or local, to give control over points of
> law to the bureaucrats or the courts. It is not for them to give that
> power to bureaucrats and the courts. I believe it was done so our
> representatives do not have to answer to the people for what a government
> agency does. I already have been to by my Congressmen that we didn't do
> that, the EPA did that
>
> Since you seem to want to support federal government control over things not
> granted to it by the Constitution, I suggest you consult a dictionary for
> the definition of Commerce then read the Commerce Clause in the
> Constitution. I understand transportation between the states but how does
> one define the air we breathe as being "transport" by anyone but God between
> the states as defined in the Constitution? If you don't understand the
> differace then I'm wasting my time on you, again

Some believe that in the 18th century, commerce meant more than economic
activity.

> If you look back you will discover the constitution had to be amended to
> stop the sale of alcohol and again to allow it to be sold, how the hell did
> the EPA get enacted by an act of Congress rather than by amendment?

How did the Department of Homeland Security get enacted by an act of
Congress rather than an amendment?

> The
> people were not diligent because they believe it was a "good" idea, but so
> did they think that of probation. That too caused more problem that it
> cured until Congress did its duty and passed laws regulating alcohol rather
> than allowing an agency to sell the rules. If the US is to regular CO2 it
> should be debated in Congress by representatives of all the people under the
> current cost benefit law of the land, not just by the EPA under the thumb of
> the environu

Well, Congress has the power to debate the merits of regulating CO2 and
other pollutants. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must regulate CO2
under the laws of the land.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007...200487.

jeff

> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IlPOj.201$NK1.56@trndny05...
>> Mike hunt wrote:
>>> You are correct, of course we have been exporting our pollution everyday.
>>> We have been for thirty years or more and our jobs along with it, and it
>>> will only continue to get worse if we do not soon wise up.
>>>
>>> Back in day several of us were discussing government. One said the
>>> government FINNALY did something GOOD for the people and the country,
>>> they passed the Environmental Protection Act. Like the Disability Act,
>>> passed later, the act did NOT define what should be regulated. The law
>>> merely set up the EPA giving it the power to regulate pollution. As
>>> with the Disability Act the Congress abdicated it Constitutional
>>> responsibility to the political bureaucrats and its power to make law, to
>>> the courts. IE the right to regulate the gas that "feeds" everything we
>>> eat!!
>>>
>>> One of the guys in the group who went on to become a state Senator in
>>> Delaware prophetically asked, "Perhaps, but who will protect US FROM the
>>> EPA?" When we continue to give more power to the federal government,
>>> over the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution, the federal
>>> government will have absolute power and they will use it absolutely
>> The alternative is to have over 52 different environmental regulations in
>> the US (one for federal governmental operations, one for each of the
>> states and for Wash. D.C.), including hundreds of different formulations.
>> Or to have pollution and greenhouse gases getting worse and worse (even
>> Pres. Bush acknowledges global warming and our need to limit CO2).
>>
>> Personally, I think having one set of rules for things like drug purity
>> (FDA), pollution, defense and health insurance is a good idea rather 52
>> sets.
>>
>> One thing you have to remember is that "they" is really "us." We need to
>> act as if the government is "of the people," including doing things like
>> hiring the best candidates (e.g., looking at the issues, finding out what
>> the candidates are really about, not just 30 second sound bites, and
>> making an informed vote) and writing to the elected representatives (easy
>> and cheap with the internet).
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

Jeff wrote:

> However, if the bulb packaging says: Same energy efficiency as compact
> fluorescent bulbs and NO MERCURY, then they will sell.

Not if they put out pinkish-orange light like the mercury-free sodium
lamps on my street.
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

rantonrave RemoveThis @mail.com wrote:

> Fluorescents have already been providing the majority of the world's
> electric lighting for decades, and the reports I've seen don't
> indicate these compact fluorescents increasing the environmental
> problem by much, especially since they're only a stopgap measure until
> LEDs become dominant.

But you don't think the Al Gore types have plans to make it an issue in
the bold new future?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

hachiroku wrote:

> ...The world's largest polluter, per capita, is Australia. This is because
> of the amount of coal they burn to produce electricity. China and India
> are tied for second, and the US is next. They've surpassed us (SOURCE:
> BBC)...

So, by liberal logic, that means that the U.S. has every right to
increase its pollutant output? That seems to be the claim for everyone
else when the opposite is claimed about who is the worst polluter.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

Really? When one buys Wal-Mart brand bottled water it contain the very same
water that is in the "Avian" bottles, both coming from the same "Nestle"
plant in Allentown Pa. The only difference is the bottle, the label and
the price LOL


"witfal" <nospam.DeleteThis@all4.me> wrote in message
news:fugpui$d90$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-04-20 17:40:48 -0700, "Cathy F."
>
> IF I were a Walmart shopper, I'd expect to buy junk from there. >
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

Once again miss the point of the post. Apparently you did not understand
THAT post either, if that is what you believe. LOL



"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:60SOj.417$wO1.246@trndny04...
> Mike hunt wrote:
>> You once again miss the point of the post. The price of diesel fuel went
>> up a dollar MORE than the additional cost added by crude price that have
>> raised gas and fuel costs. Diesel fuel was priced below regular gas, now
>> it is 50c higher that premium gas
>
> Yes, I know that. But the demand for diesel has also gone up. Supply and
> demand.
>
>> We the people, in a representative republic have the power to elect our
>> representatives to make and enforce laws, rules and regulations. Why did
>> we allow a pension to our Senators and Congressmen?
>
> Do our Congresswomen get pensions, too?
>
>> Why would we allow that which we grant to our elected official, be given
>> to others? We should not allow our government federal, sate or local, to
>> give control over points of law to the bureaucrats or the courts. It is
>> not for them to give that power to bureaucrats and the courts. I
>> believe it was done so our representatives do not have to answer to the
>> people for what a government agency does. I already have been to by my
>> Congressmen that we didn't do that, the EPA did that
>>
>> Since you seem to want to support federal government control over things
>> not granted to it by the Constitution, I suggest you consult a dictionary
>> for the definition of Commerce then read the Commerce Clause in the
>> Constitution. I understand transportation between the states but how
>> does one define the air we breathe as being "transport" by anyone but God
>> between the states as defined in the Constitution? If you don't
>> understand the differace then I'm wasting my time on you, again
>
> Some believe that in the 18th century, commerce meant more than economic
> activity.
>
>> If you look back you will discover the constitution had to be amended to
>> stop the sale of alcohol and again to allow it to be sold, how the hell
>> did the EPA get enacted by an act of Congress rather than by amendment?
>
> How did the Department of Homeland Security get enacted by an act of
> Congress rather than an amendment?
>
>> The people were not diligent because they believe it was a "good" idea,
>> but so did they think that of probation. That too caused more problem
>> that it cured until Congress did its duty and passed laws regulating
>> alcohol rather than allowing an agency to sell the rules. If the US is
>> to regular CO2 it should be debated in Congress by representatives of all
>> the people under the current cost benefit law of the land, not just by
>> the EPA under the thumb of the environu
>
> Well, Congress has the power to debate the merits of regulating CO2 and
> other pollutants. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must regulate CO2
> under the laws of the land.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007...200487.
>
> jeff
>
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:IlPOj.201$NK1.56@trndny05...
>>> Mike hunt wrote:
>>>> You are correct, of course we have been exporting our pollution
>>>> everyday. We have been for thirty years or more and our jobs along with
>>>> it, and it will only continue to get worse if we do not soon wise up.
>>>>
>>>> Back in day several of us were discussing government. One said the
>>>> government FINNALY did something GOOD for the people and the country,
>>>> they passed the Environmental Protection Act. Like the Disability
>>>> Act, passed later, the act did NOT define what should be regulated.
>>>> The law merely set up the EPA giving it the power to regulate
>>>> pollution. As with the Disability Act the Congress abdicated it
>>>> Constitutional responsibility to the political bureaucrats and its
>>>> power to make law, to the courts. IE the right to regulate the gas
>>>> that "feeds" everything we eat!!
>>>>
>>>> One of the guys in the group who went on to become a state Senator in
>>>> Delaware prophetically asked, "Perhaps, but who will protect US FROM
>>>> the EPA?" When we continue to give more power to the federal
>>>> government, over the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution,
>>>> the federal government will have absolute power and they will use it
>>>> absolutely
>>> The alternative is to have over 52 different environmental regulations
>>> in the US (one for federal governmental operations, one for each of the
>>> states and for Wash. D.C.), including hundreds of different
>>> formulations. Or to have pollution and greenhouse gases getting worse
>>> and worse (even Pres. Bush acknowledges global warming and our need to
>>> limit CO2).
>>>
>>> Personally, I think having one set of rules for things like drug purity
>>> (FDA), pollution, defense and health insurance is a good idea rather 52
>>> sets.
>>>
>>> One thing you have to remember is that "they" is really "us." We need to
>>> act as if the government is "of the people," including doing things like
>>> hiring the best candidates (e.g., looking at the issues, finding out
>>> what the candidates are really about, not just 30 second sound bites,
>>> and making an informed vote) and writing to the elected representatives
>>> (easy and cheap with the internet).
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs 

Klark Kent wrote:
> In message news:99cddaed-f92e-4603-8c82-
> 191ee91f6a83.RemoveThis@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com, manny.RemoveThis@london.com burned some
> brain cells writing:
>
>>
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> However, if the bulb packaging says: Same energy efficiency as compact
>>> fluorescent bulbs and NO MERCURY, then they will sell.
>> Not if they put out pinkish-orange light like the mercury-free sodium
>> lamps on my street.
>
> Or the refrigerator-interior-cum-hospital-room of LEDs.

Actually, LEDs are better suited for use indoor, because the color of
the lights can be adjusted for different uses, unlike regular light
bulbs and CFLs which have only one color.

Jeff
 >> Stay informed about: Your government at work, Fluorescent Light Bulbs