Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for

[daestrom]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Someone once said the reason God could create the universe in six days
was because it didn't have to be backward compatible!

I like that!

There is a lot of truth there too. The desire for backward compatibility
(or at least compatibility with the majority of commercial software already
out there) has *got* to be holding a lot of innovation back. Sure, some
high priced applications can be recompiled for a different architecture, but
at what cost?

daestrom

 

[daestrom]

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge


What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in
my home
for the same reason?

Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL)
breaks?

I've found tubes that are especially low mercury. So low, they are approved
for common trash disposal.

daestrom

 

[Paul M. Eldridge]

I've found tubes that are especially low mercury. So low, they are approved
for common trash disposal.

daestrom

Hi daestrom,

That's correct. In virtually all jurisdictions, lamps that pass
federal TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) regulations
can be disposed in the regular household trash just like any other
light bulb.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Stephen B.]

From: [email protected]
ago
and I saw several companies had | a | maintenance program that
included
removing fluorescent tubes, they | had a | rig with a drum & a device
on
top with a hole, you'd stick the | tubes in | & shredder the bulbs,
then
you can conveniently take out and | disposed | the scrads in a bag...
| |
| | This is probably good for Factories or Large Building
operations.I |
don't | know the name and costs but if someone is interested I can
look
| it up in | my files....
| And the mercury went where?
| -- snippp
| -------------------------------
| I remember I spoke to the reps back then & they have a number of
sites
| where they take their hazardous stuff, & I believe they had a list
of
| places through-out the US where to deliver the refuse if one was to
|
purchase the system [drum & vac]....for ones company - It all sounded
|
real fantastic to me too, but just in case, {me the green guy that I
am)
| I took the specs and keep them for reference & business consulting,
all | for nothing., ] the locals have no use for it... and I don't
get
| enough contracts involving Fl tubes to get one myself, though it's
part | of a plan};-)

The drum crushers I have seen had full filtration to capture the
mercury vapors.
At least in NYS, and probabubly more places, the moment the bulb is
crushed it becomes a Hazordus Waste, meaning forms, procedures and
regulations; but if kept hole they can be shiped out to be recycled as
"universal waste" avoiding all the red tape and expence.

 

[krw]

Won't happen.

If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally
deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home
beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain
off-limits to other classes of citizens.

That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs"
and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add
in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like
the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite
low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative
territory. When you start getting defaults...

The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality
of outcome.

True, but not really this issue.

Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are
implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail.

That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.

 

[[email protected]]

| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] says...
|> daestrom wrote:
|> >
|> > Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage
|> > broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'.
|> >
|> > After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying
|> > on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a
|> > similar thing will happen now with mortgages.
|> >
|>
|> Won't happen.
|>
|> If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally
|> deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home
|> beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain
|> off-limits to other classes of citizens.
|
| That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs"
| and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add
| in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like
| the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite
| low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative
| territory. When you start getting defaults...

Then the banks start cutting back on loans and the demand side of the
supply/demand ratio drops, leading to even lower prices, more upside-
down mortgages, more defaults, etc.


|> The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality
|> of outcome.
|
| True, but not really this issue.

it will affect the direction of the solution. The solution used in the
stock market can't be the same as used in the housing market because of
this.


|> Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are
|> implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail.
|
| That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.

Unfortunately, this is true way too often.

 

[[email protected]]

| On 25 Jun 2008 15:08:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
|
|>
|>| As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is
|>| based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide
|>| standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of:
|>|
|>| http://www.sylvania.com/content/display.scfx?id=003694068
|>
|>Then something's out of whack somewhere. I see far more than 50% of bulbs
|>last beyond 750 hours of usage. That didn't catch my attention before as I
|>did not assume something like the 50% basis.
|
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| A couple possible explanations. One is that although a standard
| 100-watt incandescent has a nominal service life of 750 hours, the 25,
| 40 and 60-watt versions are typically rated at 1,000 hours. Secondly,
| manufacturers have been introducing products that are shifting the
| balance between higher lumen output and longer life further towards
| the latter, so you may have noticed the elogic lamps in the above link
| have a rated life of anywhere from 1,125 hours (95-watt) to 2,250 in
| the case of the 40-watt equivalent. Line voltage and the use of
| dimmers can also dramatically affect lamp life.

I looked at my spare lightbulb supply today. Most did not have boxes. But
one set still did. These are 25-watt and show 2500 hours.

http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aee/2008-06-26/s6301196.jpg

So I guess I should raise the issue not specifically about 5000 hours, but
about the 50% basis.


| If you're extremely fussy about spectral distribution, I don't see any
| clear winners. Philip's new MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide
| lamps are arguably the very best the industry has to offer; you can
| see its distribution graph on page 2 of the following spec sheet and
| draw your own conclusions.
|
| See:
| http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/hid/pdf/p-5899.pdf
|
| The spectral performance of their TL930 and TL950 lamps can be found
| here:
|
| http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/P-5037-D.pdf

I have not seen good light from MH lamps, either.

A better fluorescent formulation could fix FL lamps. But it would require so
many different compounds to make an even spectrum that it would most likely
be prohibitively expensive. I have found that LEDs come in enough discrete
wavelengths that this might work. But they degrade at different rates over
time, and keeping it in color balance would be hard.

 

[[email protected]]

| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] says...
|>
|> David Nebenzahl wrote:
|> >
|> > On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus:
|> >
|> > > In article <[email protected]>,
|> > > [email protected] says...
|> > >
|> > > I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the
|> > > issue.
|> > >
|> > >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/business/24recycling.html?ref=environment
|> > >>>
|> > >>>Would rather read the National Enquirer.
|> >
|> > Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the
|> > NYT *is* a certified fool.
|>
|>
|> Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you
|> aren't always sure with the NYT.
|
| You're quite sure with the NYT too, but it's a lot less
| entertaining.

Actually, the NYT has been known to "dilute" their publication with some
truthful articles from time to time.

 

[krw]

| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] says...
|> daestrom wrote:
|> >
|> > Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage
|> > broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'.
|> >
|> > After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying
|> > on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a
|> > similar thing will happen now with mortgages.
|> >
|>
|> Won't happen.
|>
|> If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally
|> deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home
|> beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain
|> off-limits to other classes of citizens.
|
| That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs"
| and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add
| in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like
| the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite
| low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative
| territory. When you start getting defaults...

Then the banks start cutting back on loans and the demand side of the
supply/demand ratio drops, leading to even lower prices, more upside-
down mortgages, more defaults, etc.

Exactly, but it needn't go that far to leave banks, and such,
bankrupt. All it takes is a 3% real estate decline and the value of
the instrument is negative. Real estate declining to 97% of its
value from the peak of a bubble isn't much of a "downturn".

|> The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality
|> of outcome.
|
| True, but not really this issue.

it will affect the direction of the solution. The solution used in the
stock market can't be the same as used in the housing market because of
this.

The real problem is that the toxic CDOs have invaded the stock
market, as well. Banks are required (after the '29 crash) to keep
much higher margins. The stock (bond) market isn't under such
restrictions with CDOs. That's why you have money that was borrowed
30 times. Banks can't do that.

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

Did the machine have a means to capture the mercury vapors?

If a modern tube has done a full lifetime, most of the mercury has
already been captured by the phosphor, glass, and the tube electrodes.
Indeed, one of the failure reasons for modern tubes low mercury
content tubes is they've run out of mercury vapor in the gas. This is
a consequence of much more accurately dosing the mercury content, to
limit the environmental impact.

But in the UK, the companies which come and collect used fluorescent
tubes break them up on the back of the truck and draw any gas released
through filters. I presume one of these is a zinc powder filter
(mercury is absorbed into zinc, with which it forms an amalgam
which does not readily release the mercury again).

 

[[email protected]]

| But in the UK, the companies which come and collect used fluorescent
| tubes break them up on the back of the truck and draw any gas released
| through filters. I presume one of these is a zinc powder filter
| (mercury is absorbed into zinc, with which it forms an amalgam
| which does not readily release the mercury again).

Is there a process in which this mercury can be economically recovered for
re-use?

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

| But in the UK, the companies which come and collect used fluorescent
| tubes break them up on the back of the truck and draw any gas released
| through filters. I presume one of these is a zinc powder filter
| (mercury is absorbed into zinc, with which it forms an amalgam
| which does not readily release the mercury again).

Is there a process in which this mercury can be economically recovered for
re-use?

I've no idea, but I would guess there's far too little mercury
there for recovery to be economic. The amount of mercury in a
CFL is about 1/1000th of the amount of mercury in the average
person. It might be recovered only from the point of view of
token cleaning up the waste, rather than producing any viable
mercury for reuse. Mercury used in lamps has to be very pure
(it's triple distilled), and it could well be that getting any
mercury you did recover back clean enough isn't possible.
Like I said, this is just guesswork though.