porno türk porno rokettube
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 174

Thread: cfl's

  1. #21
    Ext User(Brendon) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 28/08/2013 3:38 PM, Jeßus wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0800, Brendon <Brendon@spam.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
    >> white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
    >> areas & the lounge etc.

    >
    > I can't stand the cool colour temps, especially with CFLs... I always
    > go for the warm ones.
    >



    Wow - I hate the warm ones that much I didn't think anyone would like
    them! Different stroke I guess!


  2. #22
    Ext User(Kingpin) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:00:22 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > not only are they an environmental hazed,

    >
    > Bullshit.


    They contain mercury.


  3. #23
    Ext User(Sylvia Else) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 28/08/2013 4:54 PM, Brendon wrote:
    > On 28/08/2013 10:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >> On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>
    >>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
    >>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>

    >>
    >> **Bollocks to all the above.
    >>
    >> I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
    >> years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
    >> released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
    >> each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
    >> substantial.
    >>
    >> I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
    >> handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
    >> replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
    >> two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are both
    >> very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
    >> operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
    >> hours/year operation.
    >>
    >> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
    >>
    >> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >>
    >>
    >> Get your information straight before you post.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I wish my CFL's had the same longevity as yours Trevor.
    >
    > I've replaced probably 6 or 8 so far. Some went bang & smoked, some went
    > phut & went black, some just stopped working. They were mainly Ikea
    > sourced CFLs. I'm now only installing Philips branded units - fingers
    > crossed.
    >
    > Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
    > white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
    > areas & the lounge etc.
    >
    >


    I dislike the "warm white". Some are even yellower than the
    incandescents they're meant to replace.

    However, the cool white (or daylight) ones did take a bit of getting
    used to, after half a century of yellow night-times. But I'd never
    willingly go back - the world looks quite different when you can see the
    blue in things.

    Sylvia.

  4. #24
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:05:07 +0800, Brendon <Brendon@spam.com> wrote:

    >On 28/08/2013 3:38 PM, Jeßus wrote:
    >> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0800, Brendon <Brendon@spam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
    >>> white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
    >>> areas & the lounge etc.

    >>
    >> I can't stand the cool colour temps, especially with CFLs... I always
    >> go for the warm ones.
    >>

    >
    >
    >Wow - I hate the warm ones that much I didn't think anyone would like
    >them! Different stroke I guess!


    Heh... yep, each to their own

  5. #25
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 28/08/2013 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    > On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >
    >> On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>
    >>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
    >>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>

    >>
    >> **Bollocks to all the above.
    >>
    >> I just replaced my first two CFLs.

    >
    > I've had to replace heaps in just a few years
    >
    >> They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
    >> each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
    >> burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
    >> considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.

    >
    > if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
    > why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be disposed of?


    **Points:

    * I did not say they presented NO hazard.
    * Given the long life and lower power consuption of CFLs, the amount of
    mercury entering the environment (if disposed of improperly) from CFLs
    is MUCH, MUCH lower than burning the amount of coal required to keep an
    incandescent of equivalent light output operating.

    >
    >>
    >> I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
    >> handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
    >> replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
    >> two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
    >> both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
    >> hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
    >> less than 20 hours/year operation.
    >>
    >> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

    >
    > they still emit radiation


    **I suggest you read the link I provided. The risk is minimal.

    >
    >>
    >> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >>
    >>
    >> Get your information straight before you post.
    >>

    >
    >
    >



    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  6. #26
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 28/08/2013 4:57 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    > On 28-August-2013 12:51 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >
    >> On 28/08/2013 12:19 PM, annily wrote:
    >>> On 28.08.13 11:35, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>>> On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>>>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
    >>>>> are
    >>>>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>>>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>>>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> **Bollocks to all the above.
    >>>>
    >>>> I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
    >>>> years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
    >>>> released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
    >>>> each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
    >>>> substantial.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
    >>>> handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
    >>>> replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
    >>>> two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
    >>>> both
    >>>> very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
    >>>> operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
    >>>> hours/year operation.
    >>>>
    >>>> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Get your information straight before you post.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I suppose CFLs will be relaced by LEDs as the preferred home lighting in
    >>> the not-too-distant future, when they drop in price.
    >>>

    >>
    >> **They already are. I'm replacing all my halogens with LEDs. There's a
    >> drop in light output, but there's a huge number of them, so the total
    >> light available is plenty. The power savings are massive. I replaced
    >> 300 Watts of halogens with 30 Watts of LEDs (electronic transformers).
    >> As the CFLs fail, they'll be replaced with LEDs as well.
    >>

    >
    > and according to you that will be in 10 years time..
    >


    **Quite likely. Efficiency of LEDs and CFLs is similar.

    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  7. #27
    Ext User(SG1) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
    news:b86e56Fcne1U1@mid.individual.net...
    Snip

    > I dislike the "warm white". Some are even yellower than the incandescents
    > they're meant to replace.
    >
    > However, the cool white (or daylight) ones did take a bit of getting used
    > to, after half a century of yellow night-times. But I'd never willingly go
    > back - the world looks quite different when you can see the blue in
    > things.
    >
    > Sylvia.


    When triphosphours first came out an electrian suggest their long life and
    improved brightness would be a benefit. Well it was to the manufacturer, I
    bought a couple. Bright yes, Warm white YUK.
    Cool white only way to go for these aging eyes. Am have difficulty finding
    Cool white in cfls and LEDs but I will continue my search..


  8. #28
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    Kingpin <kingpin@mailinator.com> wrote \
    > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote


    >>> not only are they an environmental hazed,


    >> Bullshit.


    > They contain mercury.


    The coal burnt to power the incandescents they
    replace puts a hell of a lot more mercury into
    the environment.

  9. #29
    Ext User(annily) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 28.08.13 16:24, Brendon wrote:
    > On 28/08/2013 10:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >> On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>
    >>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
    >>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>

    >>
    >> **Bollocks to all the above.
    >>
    >> I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
    >> years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
    >> released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
    >> each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
    >> substantial.
    >>
    >> I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
    >> handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
    >> replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
    >> two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are both
    >> very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
    >> operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
    >> hours/year operation.
    >>
    >> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
    >>
    >> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >>
    >>
    >> Get your information straight before you post.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I wish my CFL's had the same longevity as yours Trevor.
    >
    > I've replaced probably 6 or 8 so far. Some went bang & smoked, some went
    > phut & went black, some just stopped working. They were mainly Ikea
    > sourced CFLs. I'm now only installing Philips branded units - fingers
    > crossed.
    >
    > Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
    > white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
    > areas & the lounge etc.
    >
    >


    I prefer "warm white" myself. Each to his own, I guess. And I hate those
    headlights in a lot of newer cars (halogen, I think) which are also
    towards the blue end of the spectrum, rather than the warmer colours of
    older cars. I find them very harsh on my eyes.

    --
    Lifelong resident of Adelaide, South Australia

  10. #30
    Ext User(annily) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 28.08.13 16:35, felix_unger wrote:
    > On 28-August-2013 2:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
    >> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
    >>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.

    >> Never been a fan of CFLs, it's a good thing LEDs matured into a much
    >> superior alternative.

    >
    > it hasn't really become cost effective yet, and I tried some, but the
    > output is too low. ok for desklamps tho.
    >


    I find a single 5W LED in the centre of the ceiling fine in my bedroom
    and kitchen (the only places I've tried LED so far). I live in a unit
    though, and the rooms are quite small.

    --
    Lifelong resident of Adelaide, South Australia

  11. #31
    Ext User(annily) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 29.08.13 10:36, annily wrote:
    > On 28.08.13 16:24, Brendon wrote:
    >> On 28/08/2013 10:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>> On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
    >>>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> **Bollocks to all the above.
    >>>
    >>> I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
    >>> years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
    >>> released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
    >>> each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
    >>> substantial.
    >>>
    >>> I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
    >>> handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
    >>> replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
    >>> two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are both
    >>> very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
    >>> operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
    >>> hours/year operation.
    >>>
    >>> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Get your information straight before you post.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> I wish my CFL's had the same longevity as yours Trevor.
    >>
    >> I've replaced probably 6 or 8 so far. Some went bang & smoked, some went
    >> phut & went black, some just stopped working. They were mainly Ikea
    >> sourced CFLs. I'm now only installing Philips branded units - fingers
    >> crossed.
    >>
    >> Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
    >> white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
    >> areas & the lounge etc.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I prefer "warm white" myself. Each to his own, I guess. And I hate those
    > headlights in a lot of newer cars (halogen, I think) which are also
    > towards the blue end of the spectrum, rather than the warmer colours of
    > older cars. I find them very harsh on my eyes.
    >


    Also, the "warm white" of the LEDs I've used is noticeably bluer than
    the "warm white" of the CFLs I've used.

    --
    Lifelong resident of Adelaide, South Australia

  12. #32
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 29-August-2013 12:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

    > On 28/08/2013 4:54 PM, Brendon wrote:
    >> On 28/08/2013 10:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>> On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
    >>>> are
    >>>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> **Bollocks to all the above.
    >>>
    >>> I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
    >>> years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
    >>> released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
    >>> each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
    >>> substantial.
    >>>
    >>> I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
    >>> handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
    >>> replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
    >>> two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
    >>> both
    >>> very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
    >>> operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
    >>> hours/year operation.
    >>>
    >>> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Get your information straight before you post.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> I wish my CFL's had the same longevity as yours Trevor.
    >>
    >> I've replaced probably 6 or 8 so far. Some went bang & smoked, some went
    >> phut & went black, some just stopped working. They were mainly Ikea
    >> sourced CFLs. I'm now only installing Philips branded units - fingers
    >> crossed.
    >>
    >> Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
    >> white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
    >> areas & the lounge etc.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I dislike the "warm white". Some are even yellower than the
    > incandescents they're meant to replace.


    yes, they are

    >
    > However, the cool white (or daylight) ones did take a bit of getting
    > used to, after half a century of yellow night-times. But I'd never
    > willingly go back - the world looks quite different when you can see
    > the blue in things.



    the cool seem too white to me and the warm too yellow. something in
    between would be good

    >
    > Sylvia.



    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/


  13. #33
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 29-August-2013 8:28 AM, SG1 wrote:

    >
    > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
    > news:b86e56Fcne1U1@mid.individual.net...
    > Snip
    >
    >> I dislike the "warm white". Some are even yellower than the
    >> incandescents they're meant to replace.
    >>
    >> However, the cool white (or daylight) ones did take a bit of getting
    >> used to, after half a century of yellow night-times. But I'd never
    >> willingly go back - the world looks quite different when you can see
    >> the blue in things.
    >>
    >> Sylvia.

    >
    > When triphosphours first came out an electrian suggest their long life
    > and improved brightness would be a benefit. Well it was to the
    > manufacturer, I bought a couple. Bright yes, Warm white YUK.
    > Cool white only way to go for these aging eyes. Am have difficulty
    > finding Cool white in cfls and LEDs but I will continue my search..
    >


    eBay

    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/


  14. #34
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b87h7nFk3qpU1@mid.individual.net...
    > On 29-August-2013 6:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >
    >> On 28/08/2013 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>> On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>>>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
    >>>>> are
    >>>>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>>>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>>>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> **Bollocks to all the above.
    >>>>
    >>>> I just replaced my first two CFLs.
    >>>
    >>> I've had to replace heaps in just a few years
    >>>
    >>>> They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
    >>>> each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
    >>>> burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
    >>>> considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.
    >>>
    >>> if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
    >>> why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be disposed
    >>> of?

    >>
    >> **Points:
    >>
    >> * I did not say they presented NO hazard.
    >> * Given the long life and lower power consuption of CFLs, the amount of
    >> mercury entering the environment (if disposed of improperly) from CFLs is
    >> MUCH, MUCH lower than burning the amount of coal required to keep an
    >> incandescent of equivalent light output operating.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
    >>>> handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
    >>>> replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
    >>>> two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
    >>>> both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
    >>>> hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
    >>>> less than 20 hours/year operation.
    >>>>
    >>>> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
    >>>
    >>> they still emit radiation

    >>
    >> **I suggest you read the link I provided. The risk is minimal.

    >
    > I recall hearing of someone who was suing for getting skin cancer on his
    > head allegedly caused by working under fluorescent tubes in an office all
    > day


    Doesn't mean that he has a valid claim just because he claims that tho.

    >>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Get your information straight before you post.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > --
    > rgds,
    >
    > Pete
    > -------
    > http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    > http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/
    >


  15. #35
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 29-August-2013 6:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

    > On 28/08/2013 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >> On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
    >>>> are
    >>>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> **Bollocks to all the above.
    >>>
    >>> I just replaced my first two CFLs.

    >>
    >> I've had to replace heaps in just a few years
    >>
    >>> They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
    >>> each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
    >>> burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
    >>> considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.

    >>
    >> if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
    >> why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be
    >> disposed of?

    >
    > **Points:
    >
    > * I did not say they presented NO hazard.
    > * Given the long life and lower power consuption of CFLs, the amount
    > of mercury entering the environment (if disposed of improperly) from
    > CFLs is MUCH, MUCH lower than burning the amount of coal required to
    > keep an incandescent of equivalent light output operating.
    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
    >>> handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
    >>> replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
    >>> two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
    >>> both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
    >>> hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
    >>> less than 20 hours/year operation.
    >>>
    >>> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

    >>
    >> they still emit radiation

    >
    > **I suggest you read the link I provided. The risk is minimal.


    I recall hearing of someone who was suing for getting skin cancer on his
    head allegedly caused by working under fluorescent tubes in an office
    all day

    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Get your information straight before you post.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >



    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/


  16. #36
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 29-August-2013 10:22 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

    >
    >
    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b87h7nFk3qpU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> On 29-August-2013 6:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 28/08/2013 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>> On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing
    >>>>>> all
    >>>>>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed,
    >>>>>> they are
    >>>>>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>>>>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>>>>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> **Bollocks to all the above.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I just replaced my first two CFLs.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've had to replace heaps in just a few years
    >>>>
    >>>>> They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
    >>>>> each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
    >>>>> burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
    >>>>> considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.
    >>>>
    >>>> if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
    >>>> why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be
    >>>> disposed of?
    >>>
    >>> **Points:
    >>>
    >>> * I did not say they presented NO hazard.
    >>> * Given the long life and lower power consuption of CFLs, the amount
    >>> of mercury entering the environment (if disposed of improperly) from
    >>> CFLs is MUCH, MUCH lower than burning the amount of coal required to
    >>> keep an incandescent of equivalent light output operating.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20
    >>>>> CFLs, a
    >>>>> handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
    >>>>> replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've
    >>>>> replaced
    >>>>> two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
    >>>>> both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
    >>>>> hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
    >>>>> less than 20 hours/year operation.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
    >>>>
    >>>> they still emit radiation
    >>>
    >>> **I suggest you read the link I provided. The risk is minimal.

    >>
    >> I recall hearing of someone who was suing for getting skin cancer on
    >> his head allegedly caused by working under fluorescent tubes in an
    >> office all day

    >
    > Doesn't mean that he has a valid claim just because he claims that tho.


    yeah of course he has to prove it

    >
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Get your information straight before you post.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>



    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/


  17. #37
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 29/08/2013 9:59 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    > On 29-August-2013 6:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >
    >> On 28/08/2013 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>> On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>>>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
    >>>>> are
    >>>>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>>>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>>>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> **Bollocks to all the above.
    >>>>
    >>>> I just replaced my first two CFLs.
    >>>
    >>> I've had to replace heaps in just a few years
    >>>
    >>>> They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
    >>>> each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
    >>>> burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
    >>>> considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.
    >>>
    >>> if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
    >>> why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be
    >>> disposed of?

    >>
    >> **Points:
    >>
    >> * I did not say they presented NO hazard.
    >> * Given the long life and lower power consuption of CFLs, the amount
    >> of mercury entering the environment (if disposed of improperly) from
    >> CFLs is MUCH, MUCH lower than burning the amount of coal required to
    >> keep an incandescent of equivalent light output operating.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
    >>>> handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
    >>>> replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
    >>>> two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
    >>>> both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
    >>>> hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
    >>>> less than 20 hours/year operation.
    >>>>
    >>>> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
    >>>
    >>> they still emit radiation

    >>
    >> **I suggest you read the link I provided. The risk is minimal.

    >
    > I recall hearing of someone who was suing for getting skin cancer on his
    > head allegedly caused by working under fluorescent tubes in an office
    > all day


    **People claim all sorts of idiotic things every day. That does not make
    those claims factual.

    Read the ****ing link.


    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  18. #38
    Ext User(Sylvia Else) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 29/08/2013 8:28 AM, SG1 wrote:
    >
    > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
    > news:b86e56Fcne1U1@mid.individual.net...
    > Snip
    >
    >> I dislike the "warm white". Some are even yellower than the
    >> incandescents they're meant to replace.
    >>
    >> However, the cool white (or daylight) ones did take a bit of getting
    >> used to, after half a century of yellow night-times. But I'd never
    >> willingly go back - the world looks quite different when you can see
    >> the blue in things.
    >>
    >> Sylvia.

    >
    > When triphosphours first came out an electrian suggest their long life
    > and improved brightness would be a benefit. Well it was to the
    > manufacturer, I bought a couple. Bright yes, Warm white YUK.
    > Cool white only way to go for these aging eyes. Am have difficulty
    > finding Cool white in cfls and LEDs but I will continue my search..
    >


    I buy my cool white CFLs in Woolworths. Most recently, a few months ago.

    Sylvia.

  19. #39
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Brendon" <Brendon@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:9MOdnYNv3ZEOA4DPnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@westnet.com. au...
    > I've replaced probably 6 or 8 so far. Some went bang & smoked, some went
    > phut & went black, some just stopped working.


    Yep, just replaced a two year old one with very little use yesterday.

    >I'm now only installing Philips branded units - fingers crossed.


    You'll need it! I bought two Phillips cfl's a couple of years ago. One
    lasted a year, and when I went to replace it with the other it was dead from
    new! And of course I no longer had the reciept :-(
    Mirrabella I have found to be just as bad too, the electronics inside die
    before the tube.

    Trevor.









  20. #40
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b85lavF7dvqU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>> I suppose CFLs will be relaced by LEDs as the preferred home lighting in
    >>> the not-too-distant future, when they drop in price.
    >>>

    >>
    >> **They already are. I'm replacing all my halogens with LEDs. There's a
    >> drop in light output, but there's a huge number of them, so the total
    >> light available is plenty. The power savings are massive. I replaced 300
    >> Watts of halogens with 30 Watts of LEDs (electronic transformers). As the
    >> CFLs fail, they'll be replaced with LEDs as well.
    >>

    >
    > and according to you that will be in 10 years time..


    Right, the price should be competitive by then. Hopefully a little less.

    Trevor.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •