Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[Arfa Daily]

There have been big problems in Cornwall with radioactive Radon. It
comes out of the granite and can build up to dangerous levels in
houses.

And here in Northamptonshire. I live on top of a hill where the stuff
collects. A few years back, we were all offered free tests, and subsidised
anti-radon equipment if it was found to be at a dangerous level. It turned
out to be slightly above the national average, but not hazardous. I wouldn't
have expected it to be anyway, as we have suspended floors, with free
crossflow of air under them. If it was considered hazardous, the equipment
that they were offering was a fan unit of some description which I think
fitted in the roof somewhere, and maintained a slight positive pressure
within the house, and I think that there was also some kind of fan unit
which helped with the crossflow of air under the floors.

Arfa

 

[Arny Krueger]

There have been big problems in Cornwall with radioactive
Radon. It comes out of the granite and can build up to
dangerous levels in houses.

Radioactive Radon gas is a major problem in many parts of the US, including
parts of my state. But, neither common Neon nor Xenon are radioactive
gasses. Xenon has been used as a medical anesthetic.

 

[Barry OGrady]

I would recommend you do some thinking before typing (talking).

You didn't think enough tom avoid top posting.

If you lease the batteries, in the end someone has to pay for them, and it
will not be owner. In any case, the owner has to make his money back, plus a
profit. When the batteries are no longer useful, the owner is going to have
to dispose of the batteries somewhere!!!

--

JANA
_____





The simple and obvious way to deal with this is by leasing the battery, not
owning it.

Graham

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I do not represent atheists or atheism

 

[Barry OGrady]

Before you call someone an idiot, you should do some research. You are
looking like the fool, not me.

Before you call someone a fool you should learn not to top post.

--

JANA
_____





In Europe it's called WEEE but it's fucked up.


You're an idiot.

Graham

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I do not represent atheists or atheism

 

[Barry OGrady]

Without taking sides on any other issues, IMO the old rule not to top post
is out of date! It is much more appropriate in today's environment to top
post.

Please don't top post. It messes up the attributions and makes you
look stupid.


Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I do not represent atheists or atheism

 

[Barry OGrady]

Fair point. But the poster was so incensed about top posting that it did
call for a reply. Amusing about your assessment!

People don't talk that way.
Why is top posting stupid?


Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I do not represent atheists or atheism

 

[a t e c 7 7]

Barry OGrady wrote:
nothing wrong top posting bazil , especially when people don't snip

 

[Mr.T]

People don't talk that way.
Why is top posting stupid?

Why are people who never shut up about top posters even *more* stupid?

You are so lucky that's the only thing in your life you have to worry about.
Why not accept that others have a choice, just as you do, and get on with
life.
All the ranting in the world will not make you Usenet God.

MrT.

 

[Barry OGrady]

True what.

You're comment appears witrhout any context.

What does you are comment mean?

Graham

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I do not represent atheists or atheism

 

[Barry OGrady]

You *like* the foul/fowl language? It must be pleasant at your family
mealtable, John. In my field and level we regard such indulgences as
clutter. The pursuit of an intellectual consideration requires meaningful
expression and entirely precludes it, very word being of value. Strongly
asserted differences of opinion are very helpful in exploring the truth but
foul language invariably obscures it. And by the way, attempts to arrive at
the truth logically involve opinion-holders declaring that they were wrong
from tem to time (both sides usually (but not always) can't be right). How
often do you see the abusive posters here stating genuinely that after
reading the other side they have concluded that they were wrong?

Top posting is abusive.


Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I do not represent atheists or atheism