Know What Your Gov't Is Up To
By Keeping The News Going
On The WWW #1 Conservative Site
Free Republic!!
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!
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.
It’s 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 firm’s 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 vehicle’s exhaust system,” the company explained in a statement last year...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
LMBO!!
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.
Huh?
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?
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:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/04/great-news-federally-permitted-lightbulbs-a-cancer-risk/
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.
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.