Skip to comments.EDITORIAL: Global warming catches fire
Posted on 01/08/2013 5:51:44 PM PST by jazusamo
Crusade against carbon dioxide threatens the environment
Technologies advanced as the solution to the purported global warming problem are catching fire just not in the way intended. Bureaucrats are quickly learning that their regulatory offerings designed to entreat Mother Nature into bestowing cooler temperatures upon the planet have created environmental hazards of their own.
Its well-known that the fluorescent light bulbs being foisted on a reluctant public spread deadly mercury when dropped. In March, the administration will be free to enforce a federally imposed ban on the manufacturing of warm, pleasing and affordable 100-watt light bulbs. This will force more highly toxic substances into millions of American homes.
Another hazard is being created for automobiles sold in Europe and eventually in the United States.
Several German automakers, including BMW, Daimler and Volkswagen, have expressed skepticism toward a European Union mandate telling the firms that their in-car air-conditioning systems must be more environmentally friendly. In particular, they are being pushed into deploying a more politically correct refrigerant known as R-1234yf, which regulators insist is perfectly safe.
Daimler, maker of Mercedes-Benz sedans, raised the alarm when the firms own testing revealed the substance increases the risk of vehicle fires. In the new real-life test scenario, the refrigerant is dynamically dispersed at high pressure near to hot components of the test vehicles exhaust system, the company explained in a statement last year...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Probably just as safe as MtBE.
CF bulbs emit UV radiation that causes skin cancer.
Ahem! Please provide a credible/peer reviewed reference for this statement.
After all the controversy over the mercury content of the CF bulbs it's awful strange how that fact was never addressed until the time the law starts limiting incandescents.
UV light comes in three varieties: UVA, UVB and UVC. The researchers tested the bulbs for UVA and UVC emissions. In skin cells, UVA creates reactive oxygen, which can damage their inner workings, and penetrates further into skin. Outdoors, people are typically exposed to UVA and UVB.
UVC, on the other hand, is usually scattered away by air, so we aren't usually exposed to it in sunlight. However, close to its source, like a CFL, UVC damages DNA.
"We saw significant amounts of UVC [from CFLs], which is not what you see in the atmosphere," said Rafailovich.
Under CFLs, the experiments showed cells stopped growing and changed shape. Dermal fibroblasts suffered worse than keratinocytes, since they are usually not exposed to light. This indicates these bulbs can damage skin in several layers....
~ SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Doh. This is the first time I’ve made the connection, but the last 3 cars I’ve had, I get severe asthma every time I drive. The Nissan (which DH drives now) has an interior filter that is supposed to be changed periodically, which we wondered about). My current vehicle, a Jeep, & his Rams weren’t nearly as bad (something about Chrysler that makes them better?) Wow, that’s disturbing.
No CFs here & they will have to pry our 40 yr old air conditioning system (Rheem or Ruud, I forget) out of our sweaty, breathless hands. It’s cheap & freeeezin’ cold.
These wackos are going to keep playing God until something really, really bad happens.
But now you can buy at Home Depot or Lowes, 38 watt bulbs to replace the 40 watt and 98 watt light bulbs instead of 100 watts. All designed to skirt the new LAW, which is Very Specific with regards to wattage. Yes I have already bought some and they work as advertised.
Thanks, was unaware of that. We bought quite a few of the 60W & 100W sometime back but that’s good to know.
I imagine they are using these in the Halls Of Congress.
Thanks for the information. I just bought some Softwhite 100W bulbs for my small home office because 60 & 75 W don’t light it up enough to read.
I have one of those mercury-filled curlycue bulbs which didn’t provide enough light to brighten up a flea’s butt. Now it sits useless (burned out) on a shelf until I can find a place where I can recycle it.
I work in environmental affairs and can testify that some of the EPA, but esp. its leadership, is out of their marxist minds. Their destructive programs and plans are deliberate efforts to cripple, if not destroy, America’s electrical systems now in existence and to inflict Obama supporter, “green” failure technology on us.
There is nothing wrong with good, technology-based environmental policies but they are never going to come from Obama and his marxist minions and environmental wackos.
It is the time to reclaim more of Congress, but in the meantime, take the fight to the Left through the House of Representatives (the Senate is useless).
And save those 100 Watt bulbs, for wattever is coming down the pike.
The only hope is to defund a significant part of the EPA and reduce their financial ability to destroy America.
These idiots are really going to screw things up - all because of the fiction of global warming.
Wonder why Scientific American confined their discussion to Compact Fluorescents. According to Wikipedia, regular straight-tube fluorescents are equivalent to the CFLs in emissions and mercury issues. They’re both fluorescents, just differently shaped glass.
The straight-tube fluorescents are used for virtually all commercial indoor lighting. They’ve been around since the 1940s. Why the fuss over compact fluorents while ignoring the straight-line ones?
But they mean well.
Rush. First hour. Tuesday.
it’s amazing- the govertnment BANNED Asbestos, lawyers sued the manufacturers because ‘asbestos is deadly’ yet the govetrnment is now promoting some deadly neurological poison called murcury? Adn the governmetn has relentlessly attacked tobacco companies for promoting ‘harmful substances’?
Thanks for waiting until after I bought that tractor-trailer load of 100 watt bulbs to tell me this.
Proximity, maybe? That's just a guess. I wonder if there's a difference between a Fluorescent that's hanging from the ceiling 5-10 feet over your head (as in an office environment) and one sitting within arm's reach as a desk lamp?
I stocked up on incandescents. Will switch to LED's as soon as they hit a practical pricepoint. I already used an LED in a socket that was exceptionally hard to get at....primarily because I don't want to teeter and stretch on top of a ladder to change it, ever again. It was worth every penny of the 49.99 I paid for it, a few years ago. :-)
With all due respect, Scientific American took a wackjob turn a number of years ago promoting among other things, the now scientifically well discredited CO2 global warming agenda. I haven’t made up my mind on this issue except to say that Scientific American has degenerated to a very unreliable politically driven fish wrapper.
Are you aware that regular glass absorbs a significant % of UV light going through it? In fact quartz has to be used in casings to permit UV in significant % to get through.
Again let’s use some peer reviewed citations to back this assertion.
If "climate scientists" don't have to legitimately prove anything, why should anybody else?
I’ve been loading up on my incandescents, especially the 75w kind.
Rush. First hour. Tuesday.
I hear ya, Lancey. We’re just not happy with the curly cues.
Last week I replaced a burned-out government light bulb and my wife says, “I don’t think you’re supposed to throw those in with the regular trash.” I laughed and threw it in with the regular trash. “Let Ubama worry about the trash,” I explained.
That is awesome. Stupid envirowhackers.
I don’t know one way or the other but the article in Scientific American was quoting the research done at Stony Brook University and that explains it better.
The link you cite has many stories which appear to be irrelevant to the topic at hand. Could you be so kind as to explicitly cite the specific peer reviewed article that supports excessive UV emissions by compact fluorescent bulbs?
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
The article states:” Measurements of UV emissions from these bulbs found significant levels of UVC and UVA (mercury [Hg] emission lines), which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all bulbs studied. “
To cite some article in this context based on a potential failure of the design is irresponsible on your part. Before you make another posting, please answer what percentage of CFL bulbs fail in exactly this mode?
Lighten up Francis. I’m a freeper not a PhD Professor of Materials Science and Engineering.
Do your own research. What’s the matter? Huge investments in squiggly florescent bulb manufacturing?
I was just attempting to reference the study to see if that would make you happy. Stop being such a ... never mind.
I say you are a person that takes life and yourself so seriously that you are impaired.
Posting the link to that published paper by the original author after you questioned the original source is undermining Free Republic?
I think you need to get over yourself.
You need to subscribe to Rush and then pull up either the transcript or the audio for the first hour of Tuesday’s show. Rush doesn’t lie. If Rush says the bulbs will give you skin cancer and kill you, then that’s what they’ll do. Rush has no peer.
Of course, Rush is also not a scientist and so I’m pretty sure he was quoting from a news piece.
I bet it was this one:
I am awe struck at your most compelling response!
Best of all!
I am quite sure if there was a real issue, the trial lawyers would have been over this like a wet T shirt. Got any other evidence?
You seem to be the overbearing know it all, and what evidence do you have that lawyers would be all over this like a wet T shirt. Have you been in one of those contests? :-)
Have you got any evidence to the contrary of the Stony Brook University study? If so link it.
If there is a wrongdoing that has a chance of standing up in court, highly educated lawyers will form a class action suite to benefit them and their collaborators. No action so far may indicate a weak case!
The scumbag "jackpot justice" trial lawyers would never get the go-ahead on this from the African communist Ubama and his party. The African communist Ubama and his party are the ones who have been pushing the "green" scam that led to mandated government light bulbs in the first place. Therefore, the African communist Ubama and his party do not want to see any embarrassing lawsuits that target the mandated "going green" government light bulbs, especially since, if the politicians stay true to form, they have invested their own money in the companies they knew in advance would be the companies producing the mandated government light bulbs for the masses.
For example, did you know that the GE CEO and the African communist Ubama are butt-hole buddies? Ubama would let the trial lawyers sue GE?
I don't think so.
It’s impossible to argue with such impeccable logic!
Thanks. Some folks demand to be spoon fed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.