d-day

He knows all about issuing cancels, he was busted doing it to posts that were not his in an aviation newsgroup.

He does. Rhonda cleaned him out in the divorce settlement.

Sure did.

Yes he is, see reason #1.

Graham posted your SSN in usenet. Care to prove that? Didn't think so.

It just keeps getting better and better. Tech groups seem to be the worst...LOL

So who has the database >

Bottom posting fixed,

Graham never posted your SSN in Usenet.

Your keep refining "your story" about Graham and now try to "hide" your pathetic attempts by stating you'd meant to send this by email. You seem to think that employers would want to "share" their thoughts about an employee with you like you're some Oprah clone. You keep compounding one lie with another and another until even you can't discern the truth from the fiction you've concocted. You're pathetic, Bass. Twisted, mean-spirited, and cruel beyond belief.

He can't prove it- because it never happened. There is also the fictional credit check he has yet to prove. Oh, and of course the name(s) of the persons whom he claims to have spoken to that know me. There was only one person at the office that spoke to him, and only because he posed as an irate customer to get through to my supervisor.

What a tangled web we weave eh' bassy?

Not at all.

The idea is to contain an much mercury as possible. CFLs help do this by reducing electrical consumption. Most electricity in the US is generated using coal and the burning of coal is the largest source of mercury released into the environment. Estimates vary between 50%-75% reductions. My guess is that the real figure is lower but I can't think of any reason that CFLs will increase the total amount of mercury released into the environment.

Look it up...

While you are at it you might want to look up the correct spelling and definition of "Molitov Cocktails". CFLs don't burn very well.

What sort of question is this?

Troll bait?

"Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources

-- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent."

(an inconvenient URL)

About 50% of US electricity is generated by coal-fired plants (although many more coal-fired plants are planned) so your "guess" is a million miles or so wide of the mark. Eliminating all coal-fired generating plants in the US would reduce mercury by 1/2 of 1% while driving electricity rates sky-high - but who's counting (other than utility company stockholders)?

Mercury emissi>John J. Bengii wrote:

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

Perhaps this is true in the US where envoronmental issues take a back burner but not in Canada or many other nations.

"In places like Canada where 81% of power generation is from sources other than coal fired plants, the use of these bulbs effectively increases the net amount of mercury potentially available to the environment, especially if they are not disposed of in an environmentally conscious manner."

I guess I should take it as a complement to be on such a list.

Go ahead and kill filter away!

Be sure to correct the spelling on Bill Fuhrmann's name.

If you go ahead and add Mr. Houston to your kill file you will effectively remove a high percentage of the knowledge available on this group.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

Both you and I live in coal country. Mercury spewing from the numerous power plants in our area continues to pollute our soil and water.

CFLs reduce the amount of mercury in the environment. ANY reduction is good, one that saves money is better.

It may be "inconvenient" or it may be "Bushed". Either way it makes no difference to the core of the issue. Mercury is poison and vaporized mercury from burning coal is especially problematic.

These same sort of arguments were made during the lead up to the Clean Water Act and they hold no more value now than they did then.

What "guess"?

Most studies put the environmental mercury reduction per CFL at 50%-75%. I think that figure is high but not by a "million miles". I still can't figure how a unit of distance and percent reductions correlate but I guess that when arguing the illogical it all makes sense to you.

HUH?

Now you are talking about eliminating all coal fired plants?

Aside from that, how are CFLs going to drive "electricity rates sky-high"?

If the load is less the power plant consumes less fuel and generation costs go down. Best case, fewer power plants have to be built. Worst case, peaking plants (fuel=$$$$) don't have to run as much.

You have made a big part of your argument that the change from incandescent to CFLs won't make a big difference in power consumption. If so how will a switch to CFLs effect the price of electricity?

You can't have it both ways...

So what Dave!

China will be China and we have little control over what they do. We need to put our own house in order.

For you to continue on this bizarre quest to argue the superior qualities of incandescent lighting is BEYOND my comprehension. I am sure you have something better on which to spend your time.

Conservation is good and CFLs conserve energy PERIOD.

You like to argue with straw men. I never said nor implied that switching to CFLs would cause generating plants to close. I merely said that you could close all of the coal-fired plants without a significant reduction in mercury. But you chose to distort that into something entirely different.

And I never said that conservation is bad or that CFLs do not conserve energy. I've merely said (and provided mountains of supporting evidence) that the figures promulgated by the proponents of CFLs are total BS.

You might want to look into lumens per watt for the long familiar linear fluorescent tubes. With high-efficiency electronic ballasts (not allowed for residential use due to EMI), they can achieve more than 100 lumens per watt while CFLs only get 50-60. They last 30,000 hours, can be turned on/off frequently, and work with 90-280VAC. These improvements have been ongoing for about 20 years. They are mandated for new construction in many states and there are tax incentives for relamping in others. Most of the other types of lights used in the commercial and industrial sectors have LPW figures that compare favorably with CFLs so why should a business owner or manager spend enormous sums on new fixtures to adopt CFLs? If CFLs can't make big gains in the commercial and industrial sector, it's difficult (at least for me) to see how the claimed 22% and higher overall savings can come from the residential sector where lighting only accounts for 9% of the 33% residential share of total US electricity use. Turning off all residential lights forever will only save 3% of the US total. The industrial uses 1/3 ot total electricity and 6% of that is for lighting. The commercial sector uses the remaining 1/3 of electricity and about 18% of that is for lighting. Turning off all the lights in all sectors saves 11% of total electricity.

BTW, most of the coal-fired generat>You have made a big part of your argument that the change from

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com