Fascism

Jym Dyer said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

=v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
idiotic FUD about them.

So people who suffer from migraines and eye problems who
are reporting serious issues are just...liars?

=v= These issues are well-known and longstanding complaints
about old-technology fluorescents. CFLs represent a number
of technological advances over those, but some people just
lump them together and spread FUD.
<_Jym_>

I'd want to see some good studies but from personal experience the old
florescent lights in the 1970's univerity library used to give me eye-
strain. Now I use the nep CFLs for my reading light with no problem at
all.

Migraines are so strange that who knows what might set them off.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Jym Dyer said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

=v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
idiotic FUD about them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So people who suffer from migraines and eye problems who
are reporting serious issues are just...liars?

Quoted message said:

=v= These issues are well-known and longstanding complaints
about old-technology fluorescents. CFLs represent a number
of technological advances over those, but some people just
lump them together and spread FUD.
<_Jym_>

You may well be correct, but I just yesterday heard a news story about the
CFLs causing problems for sensitive people -- including epileptics (forgot
to mention them previously).

My point is why pass a LAW about it? Let the free market decide, so that
people who need or (gasp) merely prefer standard bulbs can still buy them.
(And I use CFLs, by the way, mainly for economy.)

Bill "pro choice" S.

Bill Sornson said:

Let the free market decide, so that
people who need or (gasp) merely prefer standard bulbs can still buy them.
(And I use CFLs, by the way, mainly for economy.)

Bill "pro choice" S.

"Pro choice" and "let the market decide" are both overly simplistic.
Taken to extremes, those principles would allow things like no
mufflers at all on kids' performance cars. 24-hour-operation
foundries inserted into residential neighborhoods. Total lack of
pollution controls on cars. Car stereos loud enough to be heard two
miles away.

Some things need to be regulated. Whether that includes light bulb
technology remains to be settled, but the rationale is not
outrageous.

Look at it this way: If we reduce our energy requirements enough, we
may be able to spend less to defend Arabian dictatorships, and your
taxes will be reduced.

- Frank Krygowski

Bill Sornson said:

Jym Dyer wrote:
{I wrote, in part and in missing context:}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... they'll be telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use ...

Quoted message said:

=v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
idiotic FUD about them.

So people who suffer from migraines and eye problems who are reporting
serious issues are just...liars?

My frequency of migraine headaches decreased significantly when my CRT
monitor at work was replaced with a LCD monitor.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

aka Jobst Brandt said:

...There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
spoke-count wheels...

Steel frame recumbents with 36-spoke wheels! (Only have five myself).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

Ron Wallenfang said:

...
There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be...

This is where that sentence should have stopped. 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

Quoted message said:

You may well be correct, but I just yesterday heard a news story about the
CFLs causing problems for sensitive people -- including epileptics (forgot
to mention them previously).

=v= UPI story. Made no distinction between old fluorescents and new
CFLs.
<_Jym_>

Jym Dyer wrote (nice quoting style!):
{Someone else -- hey, t'was I -- wrote:}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You may well be correct, but I just yesterday heard a news story
about the CFLs causing problems for sensitive people -- including
epileptics (forgot to mention them previously).

=v= UPI story. Made no distinction between old fluorescents and new
CFLs.

Maybe because there isn't any.

Bill "no fits...yet" S.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Made no distinction between old fluorescents and new CFLs.

Maybe because there isn't any.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/
compact-fluorescent-lightbulb-migraines-47010709

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/
green-light-bulbs-give-you-cancer-and-other-tall-stories-20080108

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/January/07010803.asp

Jym Dyer said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Made no distinction between old fluorescents and new CFLs. Maybe
because there isn't any.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/
compact-fluorescent-lightbulb-migraines-47010709

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/
green-light-bulbs-give-you-cancer-and-other-tall-stories-20080108

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/January/07010803.asp

Jym, your insipid (non) quoting style aside, you really don't seem to grasp
points very well. Apparently SOME people with migraine headaches, eye
problems, epilepsy and other conditions are reporting issues with compact
fluorescent light bulbs. Yes, these people probably had similar or even
worse problems with "regular" fluorescent lights, but that does not mean
that they're lying about or imagining issues with CFLs. (By the way, I did
not HEAR a UPI article. It was a radio news report; also have noted related
recent articles.)

I'll say it one last time (you keep deleting it): why not let the FREE
MARKET decide, so that people who need or merely prefer incandescent bulbs
can still get them as long as the demand justifies their continued
availability.

Done. Last one out turn off the...well, you know.

Bill Sornson said:

I'll say it one last time (you keep deleting it): why not let the FREE
MARKET decide, so that people who need or merely prefer incandescent bulbs
can still get them as long as the demand justifies their continued
availability.

What about those poor people who are sensitive to electromagnetic
fields and want to light their homes with gas? The bad old city
inspectors in most places won't let them do that!

I don't see what's the big deal. The government sets a limit on how
little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting? Or to turn it around,
do you also think that minimum insulation standards are wrong and that
builders should be able to construct houses with no insulation?

Chalo

Chalo said:

Bill Sornson said:

I'll say it one last time (you keep deleting it): why not let the
FREE MARKET decide, so that people who need or merely prefer
incandescent bulbs can still get them as long as the demand
justifies their continued availability.

What about those poor people who are sensitive to electromagnetic
fields and want to light their homes with gas? The bad old city
inspectors in most places won't let them do that!

Quoted message said:

I don't see what's the big deal. The government sets a limit on how
little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting?

So screw those poor saps with epileptic seizures or migraine headaches! Got
it.

Quoted message said:

Or to turn it around,
do you also think that minimum insulation standards are wrong and that
builders should be able to construct houses with no insulation?

Not much danger of too lax building standards or regulations any time soon,
but also of course no one would buy those crappy houses.

Latest I heard was the government and/or utility company some day being able
to control how much juice comes in your home. Want it 65 in the summer?
Forget it; governor will limit you to, say, 75. Want it 75 in winter?
Sorry, bub, 65 is as warm as you're allowed.

Far-fetched you say? Wouldn't surprise me if it's here (in CA) within 5-7
years. (Even though they'll soon "discover" that the earth is COOLING
again, and has been since 1998.)

Bill "WTB ASAP: shack in the hills" S.

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

The government sets a limit on how
little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting?

So screw those poor saps with epileptic seizures or migraine headaches! Got
it.

CFLs don't flicker like TVs and old-style fluorescents do.

I know people who swear they get sick from entering a store that
contains wheat products. Others who can only wear and sleep on
organically grown unbleached natural fibers. Still others who believe
they can become sick from someone _else_ on the same airplane eating
peanuts.

I think they all need to find some real problems to devote their
attention to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or to turn it around,
do you also think that minimum insulation standards are wrong and that
builders should be able to construct houses with no insulation?

Not much danger of too lax building standards or regulations any time soon,
but also of course no one would buy those crappy houses.

The hell! Lots of folks will spend $100 in the long run to save a
dollar today. (Including the overwhelming majority of people who
still use incandescent bulbs.)

Quoted message said:

Latest I heard was the government and/or utility company some day being able
to control how much juice comes in your home. Want it 65 in the summer?
Forget it; governor will limit you to, say, 75. Want it 75 in winter?
Sorry, bub, 65 is as warm as you're allowed.

If it means getting along without resource wars like our currently
unfolding disaster, then it's a deal.

Chalo

Quoted message said:

... you really don't seem to grasp points very well.

=v= Well, so much for reading for comprehension.
The points in question were, in fact, addressed.
<_Jym_>

Chalo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

The government sets a limit on how
little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting?

So screw those poor saps with epileptic seizures or migraine
headaches! Got it.

CFLs don't flicker like TVs and old-style fluorescents do.

So the people who are reporting issues with them are just liars? (Been here
before in this thread.)

Quoted message said:

I know people who swear they get sick from entering a store that
contains wheat products. Others who can only wear and sleep on
organically grown unbleached natural fibers. Still others who believe
they can become sick from someone _else_ on the same airplane eating
peanuts.

I think they all need to find some real problems to devote their
attention to.

Like saying they suffer from a neighbor down the street smoking in his or
her house. Got it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or to turn it around,
do you also think that minimum insulation standards are wrong and
that builders should be able to construct houses with no insulation?

Not much danger of too lax building standards or regulations any
time soon, but also of course no one would buy those crappy houses.

The hell! Lots of folks will spend $100 in the long run to save a
dollar today. (Including the overwhelming majority of people who
still use incandescent bulbs.)

Quoted message said:

Latest I heard was the government and/or utility company some day
being able to control how much juice comes in your home. Want it 65
in the summer? Forget it; governor will limit you to, say, 75. Want
it 75 in winter? Sorry, bub, 65 is as warm as you're allowed.

If it means getting along without resource wars like our currently
unfolding disaster, then it's a deal.

Chalo

Jym Dyer said:

Quoted message said:

... you really don't seem to grasp points very well.

=v= Well, so much for reading for comprehension.
The points in question were, in fact, addressed.
<_Jym_>

Thread ender!

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo wrote:
>
> The government sets a limit on how
> little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
> construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
> minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting?

So screw those poor saps with epileptic seizures or migraine
headaches! Got it.

CFLs don't flicker like TVs and old-style fluorescents do.

So the people who are reporting issues with them are just liars? (Been here
before in this thread.)

You don't have to take my word for it; check for yourself. You can
silhouette your hand against a TV screen or an old-style fluorescent
light (or a light colored wall illuminated by one of those things),
and when you wave it around you'll see a choppy tracer from the
rapidly pulsing light. Try it with a CFL. Unless the thing is in the
process of burning out its electronic ballast, there will be no
variation at all in the light's intensity.

If folks are going to attribute their afflictions to CFLs, they need
to identify something about CFLs that is contributing to their
problems. It ain't flicker.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know people who swear they get sick from entering a store that
contains wheat products. Others who can only wear and sleep on
organically grown unbleached natural fibers. Still others who believe
they can become sick from someone _else_ on the same airplane eating
peanuts.

Quoted message said:

I think they all need to find some real problems to devote their
attention to.

Like saying they suffer from a neighbor down the street smoking in his or
her house. Got it.

Right, just like that. Anyone who'll get their knickers in a twist
about somebody else smoking on other premises-- when everyone they
know drives a stinking smogger everywhere they go-- must have a
terrible backache from the contortion.

Chalo

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Let the free market decide, so that
people who need or (gasp) merely prefer standard bulbs can still buy them.
(And I use CFLs, by the way, mainly for economy.)

Quoted message said:

Bill "pro choice" S.

"Pro choice" and "let the market decide" are both overly simplistic.
Taken to extremes, those principles would allow things like no
mufflers at all on kids' performance cars. 24-hour-operation
foundries inserted into residential neighborhoods. Total lack of
pollution controls on cars. Car stereos loud enough to be heard two
miles away.

Some things need to be regulated. Whether that includes light bulb
technology remains to be settled, but the rationale is not
outrageous.

Look at it this way: If we reduce our energy requirements enough, we
may be able to spend less to defend Arabian dictatorships, and your
taxes will be reduced.

- Frank Krygowski

The Free Market: it's like letting your children raise themselves.

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll say it one last time (you keep deleting it): why not let the
FREE MARKET decide, so that people who need or merely prefer
incandescent bulbs can still get them as long as the demand
justifies their continued availability.

Quoted message said:

What about those poor people who are sensitive to electromagnetic
fields and want to light their homes with gas? The bad old city
inspectors in most places won't let them do that!
I don't see what's the big deal. The government sets a limit on how
little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting?

So screw those poor saps with epileptic seizures or migraine headaches! Got
it.

Smart people don't manage to the exception. They find solutions for
those exceptions once the right decision for the majority is
implemented.

As in: lampshades and dimmers.

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chalo wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The government sets a limit on how
> little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
> construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
> minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So screw those poor saps with epileptic seizures or migraine
headaches! Got it.

Smart people don't manage to the exception. They do what's right for
the principle/business/situation, and then find solutions that resolve
the issue for the exception.

Like: lampshades and dimmers.