Posted by I'll Always Be 09/04/11 on April 10, 2011, 1:23 am
> consider the amount of mercury that is going into landfills.
consider the amount of radioactivity that is going into the oceans
Posted by vaughn on April 10, 2011, 1:38 am
> consider the amount of mercury that is going into landfills.
(Sigh) "That" old chestnut... Disproved years ago, yet still repeated all over
the Internet as if it were gospel. Do the math, and you will discover that
using the incandescent bulb releases more mercury into the environment than the
CFL, even if the CFL is improperly disposed of via landfill. Take the bother to
properly dispose of the CFL, and you have a huge win for the environment.
See
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
Scroll down to the 4th topic.
Vaughn
Posted by rasterspace on April 12, 2011, 3:07 am
commercial buildings are now installed with a special receptacle
for all flourescent bulbs & tubes & wacky-shapes.
Posted by Peter Franks on April 9, 2011, 2:09 am
On 4/8/2011 12:17 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:50:33 +0100, Giga2"<"Giga2 wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:12:45 +0100, Giga2"<"Giga2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2011 1:33 AM, Giga2<Giga2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to
>>>>>>>>>> amount to
>>>>>>>>>> around 5 billion in 2020
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good, could be more though!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$
>>>>>>>> from one group by force and giving to another.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is one way to look at it. Another is that we live in a
>>>>>>> community and we
>>>>>>> all should be happy to contribute something to the whole. Some are
>>>>>>> not willing to voluntarily, they just want to take, so they need
>>>>>>> various other
>>>>>>> incentitives rather than a sense of community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Force.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are advocating forcing people to do what you think is right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. As long as they go quietly to court and to prison,
>>>>> (eventually if they really are that obstinate), then no need for any
>>>>> force.
>>>>
>>>> So you would only use force on those who don't go along with your plan?
>>>> You might want to rethink that, putting yourself in the place of the
>>>> victim.
>>>
>>> If you use force to try to break the law, i.e. not pay your taxes, then
>>> I would say the state is perfectly entitled to use measured force
>>> against you.
>>
>> Of course it is. That's why the Constitution limits the power of Federal
>> government to only those enumerated, leaving all others to the states and
>> people.
>>
>> Government IS force.
> No, force is force, government can and does use force but it is not itself
> force.
>> Remember that when proposing new areas of
>> regulation. You could go to jail for using too much water flow in your
>> shower, even though you bought the water when it passed through the meter.
>>
>> Or for using a 100W incandescent light bulb. Or for using a toilet that
>> uses more than the approved amount of water for a flush... Where does it
>> end?
>>
> That is not true in this country. Also the great thing in the UK is if I
> don't like the laws here I am free to leave.
And if the laws aren't just here, I can get them changed.
I'm not about to leave, but I am about justice and the protection of
rights, /including/ freedom.
Posted by Giga2 on April 9, 2011, 6:58 am
> On 4/8/2011 12:17 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:50:33 +0100, Giga2"<"Giga2 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:12:45 +0100, Giga2"<"Giga2 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2011 1:33 AM, Giga2<Giga2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to
>>>>>>>>>>> amount to
>>>>>>>>>>> around 5 billion in 2020
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good, could be more though!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$
>>>>>>>>> from one group by force and giving to another.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is one way to look at it. Another is that we live in a
>>>>>>>> community and we
>>>>>>>> all should be happy to contribute something to the whole. Some are
>>>>>>>> not willing to voluntarily, they just want to take, so they need
>>>>>>>> various other
>>>>>>>> incentitives rather than a sense of community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Force.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are advocating forcing people to do what you think is right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. As long as they go quietly to court and to prison,
>>>>>> (eventually if they really are that obstinate), then no need for any
>>>>>> force.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you would only use force on those who don't go along with your
>>>>> plan?
>>>>> You might want to rethink that, putting yourself in the place of the
>>>>> victim.
>>>>
>>>> If you use force to try to break the law, i.e. not pay your taxes, then
>>>> I would say the state is perfectly entitled to use measured force
>>>> against you.
>>>
>>> Of course it is. That's why the Constitution limits the power of
>>> Federal
>>> government to only those enumerated, leaving all others to the states
>>> and
>>> people.
>>>
>>> Government IS force.
>>
>> No, force is force, government can and does use force but it is not
>> itself
>> force.
>>
>>> Remember that when proposing new areas of
>>> regulation. You could go to jail for using too much water flow in your
>>> shower, even though you bought the water when it passed through the
>>> meter.
>>>
>>> Or for using a 100W incandescent light bulb. Or for using a toilet that
>>> uses more than the approved amount of water for a flush... Where does
>>> it
>>> end?
>>>
>>
>> That is not true in this country. Also the great thing in the UK is if I
>> don't like the laws here I am free to leave.
> And if the laws aren't just here, I can get them changed.
> I'm not about to leave, but I am about justice and the protection of
> rights, /including/ freedom.
That right is your under the law of the US or UK. You can object, complain,
campaign etc etc but you are still required to comply with the law in the
mean-time.
XML site map