porno tŁrk porno rokettube
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 174

Thread: cfl's

  1. #81
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 31-August-2013 1:10 PM, Damian wrote:

    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b8cst3FojfcU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> On 31-August-2013 1:55 AM, Damian wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b88bc6Fov8oU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>>> news:kvmkom$13c$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:b8526dF3sfjU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
    >>>>> I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.
    >>>> It was mandated anyway.
    >>>>
    >>>>> I believe it's a choice, so far.
    >>>> You're wrong, as always.
    >>> I have couple of incandescents in the house installed by(not me), in
    >>> areas
    >>> where I rarely switch them on.

    >> I still have a box full
    >>
    >>> I haven't had the bulb police showing up and kicking my arse over it yet.

    >> now that you've outed yourself on usenet expect a SWAT team anytime soon..

    > Crap! Why don't I think before I talk?!! ;-)
    >
    >>> And the local Chinese shops and major warehouses still have them.

    >> eBay too
    >>

    > Shouldn't it be illegal to sell them,


    I think it is. but ppl who sell on ebay don't care. if there's any
    hassle they just close their account and start a new one.

    > like tobacco and alcohol?! :-)
    > BTW, Rod


    is laying low until we stop talking about this..

    > is a home brewer.
    > I would dob in the bastard, if I know where he live. :-))


    I think it's 260 miles past the black stump, then turn right..

    --
    rgds,

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


  2. #82
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b8aj3eF959cU2@mid.individual.net...
    > On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>
    >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>
    >>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bullshit.

    >>
    >>> Yes. they do,

    >>
    >> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>
    >>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

    >>
    >> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.

    >
    > That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..


    They donít do the UV thru glass, ****wit.


  3. #83
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 31-August-2013 5:12 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

    >
    >
    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b8aj3eF959cU2@mid.individual.net...
    >> On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>
    >>>> Yes. they do,
    >>>
    >>> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>
    >>>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another
    >>>> story. That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.
    >>>
    >>> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.

    >>
    >> That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..

    >
    > They donít do the UV thru glass, ****wit.


    so what are those fluro tubes made of then? stone? (****wit)

    --
    rgds,

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


  4. #84
    Ext User(Phil Allison) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger"

    > eBay too


    ** I figured some people would get their GLS lamps on Ebay.

    Technically that makes YOU the importer and so breaking the law in each
    Australian state.



    ..... Phil



  5. #85
    Ext User(Phil Allison) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Damian"
    >
    > Shouldn't it be illegal to sell them, like tobacco and alcohol?! :-)


    ** Tobacco and alcohol are on restricted sale - but GLS ( non halogen) bulbs
    are banned outright.




    ..... Phil



  6. #86
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b8avkjFbmibU1@mid.individual.net...
    > On 30-August-2013 2:43 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >> On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>> On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>>> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Yes. they do,
    >>>>
    >>>> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>>
    >>>>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>>>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.
    >>>>
    >>>> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>
    >>> That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> **Points:
    >>
    >> * A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
    >> * The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
    >> produce UV radiation.
    >> * The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
    >> forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)
    >>
    >> Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished.


    > UV does pass thru glass


    Not the glass used in cfls it doesnít.

    >> Shut the **** up.
    >>

    >
    > you STFU (egotistical twit!)
    >
    >
    >


  7. #87
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b8b90iFdkj9U1@mid.individual.net...
    > On 30-August-2013 7:52 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    >
    >> "felix_unger"
    >>
    >>> Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.

    >>
    >> FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.
    >>
    >> Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.
    >>
    >> But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it is
    >> not
    >> 100%.
    >>
    >> The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this
    >> attenuation.


    > and window glass passes UV


    Wrong, as always.

    > which is why curtains and carpets fade


    Wrong, as always.

    >> In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV
    >> that
    >> any fluoro tube.
    >>

    >
    > so?
    >
    >>
    >> ... Phil
    >>
    >>

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


  8. #88
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:kvprn6$et1$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >
    > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >>
    >> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>
    >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
    >>>>
    >>>> The govt conned themselves...
    >>>>
    >>>>> must be laughing all the way to the bank.
    >>>>
    >>>> Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
    >>>>> not only are they an environmental hazed,
    >>>>
    >>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>> they are simply not cost effective.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>> they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,
    >>>>
    >>>> The best of them do.
    >>>>> or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps more.
    >>>>
    >>>> Mine have been quite literally free.
    >>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bullshit.

    >>
    >>> Yes. they do,

    >>
    >> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.

    >
    > Whether the majority of cfls emit harmful amount of UVs to us, is
    > something I'm not sure yet.


    Your problem.

    > That need some reading of research papers.


    Nope, just try seeing if you can get anything to fluoresce using one.

    You cant.

    >>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

    >>
    >> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.


    > Come on man. You should know that's incorrect.


    No its not with the glass used with cfls.

    Thatís why the black light UV tubes and bug zappers use quartz glass
    instead.

    > I know you are no big in physics,


    You're just plain wrong there.

    > but you still suppose to have chemistry experties,


    And physical chemistry use spectroscopy and anyone
    who has done any of that knows that UV doesnít get
    thru the glass used with cfls.

    > which should give you enough background knowledge on that.
    > We have sunglasses(not just glasses) for a very good reason.


    It isnt to keep the UV out.


  9. #89
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:kvpte5$jj4$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >
    > "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:b8b8bcFdh4eU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >> "felix_unger"
    >>
    >>> Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.

    >>
    >>
    >> FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.
    >>
    >> Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.
    >>
    >> But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it is
    >> not 100%.
    >>
    >> The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this
    >> attenuation.
    >>
    >> In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV
    >> that any fluoro tube.

    >
    > Yes, but most of you 'black' guys can handle it. ;-)
    > It's mostly in Australia we should be worried about this UV sun thing. I
    > believe most of the habitable other areas of the world is ok.


    You're wrong, as always.

    > I believe the darker your skin, the better protection you might have
    > against UV in under Australian sun.


    You're wrong, as always.

    > I rarely hear aborigenes getting skin cancer, by that I meant the real
    > Aborigenes. Not the 5% Aborigenes.


    Because they all die of flagrant grog abuse and petrol
    sniffing and hanging themselves and killing each
    other LONG before they ever get any skin cancers.


  10. #90
    Ext User(SG1) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b8f9g6F9iuqU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    >
    > "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:kvprn6$et1$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>
    >> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The govt conned themselves...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> must be laughing all the way to the bank.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
    >>>>>> not only are they an environmental hazed,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>>> they are simply not cost effective.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>>> they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The best of them do.
    >>>>>> or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps
    >>>>>> more.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Mine have been quite literally free.
    >>>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>
    >>>> Yes. they do,
    >>>
    >>> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.

    >>
    >> Whether the majority of cfls emit harmful amount of UVs to us, is
    >> something I'm not sure yet.

    >
    > Your problem.
    >
    >> That need some reading of research papers.

    >
    > Nope, just try seeing if you can get anything to fluoresce using one.
    >
    > You cant.
    >
    >>>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.
    >>>
    >>> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.

    >
    >> Come on man. You should know that's incorrect.

    >
    > No its not with the glass used with cfls.
    >
    > Thatís why the black light UV tubes and bug zappers use quartz glass
    > instead.
    >
    >> I know you are no big in physics,

    >
    > You're just plain wrong there.
    >
    >> but you still suppose to have chemistry experties,

    >
    > And physical chemistry use spectroscopy and anyone
    > who has done any of that knows that UV doesnít get
    > thru the glass used with cfls.
    >

    Roddles can you cite research on that?? If so please do...



  11. #91
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b8f9koF9jumU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    >
    > "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:kvpte5$jj4$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>
    >> "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:b8b8bcFdh4eU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>
    >>> "felix_unger"
    >>>
    >>>> Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.
    >>>
    >>> Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.
    >>>
    >>> But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it is
    >>> not 100%.
    >>>
    >>> The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this
    >>> attenuation.
    >>>
    >>> In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV
    >>> that any fluoro tube.

    >>
    >> Yes, but most of you 'black' guys can handle it. ;-)
    >> It's mostly in Australia we should be worried about this UV sun thing. I
    >> believe most of the habitable other areas of the world is ok.

    >
    > You're wrong, as always.
    >
    >> I believe the darker your skin, the better protection you might have
    >> against UV in under Australian sun.

    >
    > You're wrong, as always.
    >
    >> I rarely hear aborigenes getting skin cancer, by that I meant the real
    >> Aborigenes. Not the 5% Aborigenes.

    >
    > Because they all die of flagrant grog abuse and petrol
    > sniffing and hanging themselves and killing each
    > other LONG before they ever get any skin cancers.


    Bullshit.
    Grog & Petrol were introduced to them by colonials.
    They never died of skin cancer, simply 'cos they've adapted to it like
    anybody with darker complexion.
    UV was never a problem for them until colonials started shaggin them.
    STDs and the rest is history.

    >




  12. #92
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
    news:b8dm9gFtacmU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    > "felix_unger"
    >
    >> eBay too

    >
    > ** I figured some people would get their GLS lamps on Ebay.
    >
    > Technically that makes YOU the importer and so breaking the law in each
    > Australian state.


    This doesn't sound right to me. I've seen incandescent light globes in
    super markets just not that long ago.

    >
    >
    >
    > .... Phil
    >




  13. #93
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b87ldjFkpuqU4@mid.individual.net...
    > 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


    Good lawyer can do that.

    >
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> 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/
    >




  14. #94
    Ext User(Phil Allison) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Damian"
    "Phil Allison"
    >>
    >> "felix_unger"
    >>
    >>> eBay too

    >>
    >> ** I figured some people would get their GLS lamps on Ebay.
    >>
    >> Technically that makes YOU the importer and so breaking the law in each
    >> Australian state.

    >
    > This doesn't sound right to me. I've seen incandescent light globes in
    > super markets just not that long ago.



    ** You saw halogen " high efficiency " bulbs for about $3 or 4$ each.

    Be nice if you READ the posts directed to you sometime.

    To Damian at 5.00pm on the 29th:

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ** GLS bulbs ( that do not met MEPS) were taken off sale several years
    ago - it is now a punishable offence to sell them.

    > I believe it's a choice, so far.


    ** Only for those with a stash of such bulbs OR are using the still legal
    halogen kind.

    Which is a hoot since they have little of no efficiency advantage.

    Eg like these:

    http://cdn.ukofficedirect.co.uk/od/i...1/0-Huge-0.jpg
    --------------------------------------------------------------------


    ..... Phil




  15. #95
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:kvqfan$bd0$1@dont-email.me...
    >
    > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:b88bc6Fov8oU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:kvmkom$13c$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>
    >>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b8526dF3sfjU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>
    >>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use

    >>
    >>> I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.

    >>
    >> It was mandated anyway.
    >>
    >>> I believe it's a choice, so far.

    >>
    >> You're wrong, as always.

    >
    > I have couple of incandescents in the house installed by(not me), in areas
    > where I rarely switch them on.
    > I haven't had the bulb police showing up and kicking my arse over it yet.


    The mandate was on what can be sold.

    > And the local Chinese shops and major warehouses still have them.


    Bullshit on that last.

    >>>>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

    >>
    >>> The ones I buy dirt cheap from warehouses do last lot longer than that.

    >>
    >> I get them for free and they last fine. Haven't had to replace any of
    >> them.
    >>
    >>>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>>> they cost heaps more.

    >>
    >>> They cost more,

    >>
    >> Nope, mine didnít. Didnít cost a cent.


    > Are they free in Antarctica??!!


    No idea. Go there and find out, and hang yourself there on Saturday.

    >>> dunno about heaps more. Depends where you buy it and how smart shopper
    >>> you are.

    >>
    >> In spades when you get them for free.

    >
    > Are they free in Antarctica??!!


    No idea. Go there and find out, and hang yourself there on Saturday.

    >>>>they emit UV radiation too.




  16. #96
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
    news:522289f4$0$49436$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraw eb.com...
    >
    > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:b8f9g6F9iuqU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >>
    >> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:kvprn6$et1$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>
    >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>>> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The govt conned themselves...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> must be laughing all the way to the bank.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
    >>>>>>> not only are they an environmental hazed,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>>>> they are simply not cost effective.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>>>> they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The best of them do.
    >>>>>>> or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps
    >>>>>>> more.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Mine have been quite literally free.
    >>>>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Yes. they do,
    >>>>
    >>>> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>
    >>> Whether the majority of cfls emit harmful amount of UVs to us, is
    >>> something I'm not sure yet.

    >>
    >> Your problem.
    >>
    >>> That need some reading of research papers.

    >>
    >> Nope, just try seeing if you can get anything to fluoresce using one.
    >>
    >> You cant.
    >>
    >>>>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>>>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.
    >>>>
    >>>> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.

    >>
    >>> Come on man. You should know that's incorrect.

    >>
    >> No its not with the glass used with cfls.
    >>
    >> Thatís why the black light UV tubes and bug zappers use quartz glass
    >> instead.
    >>
    >>> I know you are no big in physics,

    >>
    >> You're just plain wrong there.
    >>
    >>> but you still suppose to have chemistry experties,

    >>
    >> And physical chemistry use spectroscopy and anyone
    >> who has done any of that knows that UV doesnít get
    >> thru the glass used with cfls.
    >>

    > Roddles can you cite research on that??


    Yep.

    > If so please do...


    Go and get it yourself.


  17. #97
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:kvufoc$3p3$1@dont-email.me...
    >
    > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:b8f9koF9jumU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >>
    >> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:kvpte5$jj4$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>
    >>> "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
    >>> news:b8b8bcFdh4eU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>
    >>>> "felix_unger"
    >>>>
    >>>>> Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.
    >>>>
    >>>> Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.
    >>>>
    >>>> But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it
    >>>> is not 100%.
    >>>>
    >>>> The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this
    >>>> attenuation.
    >>>>
    >>>> In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV
    >>>> that any fluoro tube.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, but most of you 'black' guys can handle it. ;-)
    >>> It's mostly in Australia we should be worried about this UV sun thing. I
    >>> believe most of the habitable other areas of the world is ok.

    >>
    >> You're wrong, as always.
    >>
    >>> I believe the darker your skin, the better protection you might have
    >>> against UV in under Australian sun.

    >>
    >> You're wrong, as always.
    >>
    >>> I rarely hear aborigenes getting skin cancer, by that I meant the real
    >>> Aborigenes. Not the 5% Aborigenes.

    >>
    >> Because they all die of flagrant grog abuse and petrol
    >> sniffing and hanging themselves and killing each
    >> other LONG before they ever get any skin cancers.


    > Bullshit.


    Fact.

    > Grog & Petrol were introduced to them by colonials.


    Wrong with grog.

    > They never died of skin cancer,


    Just another pig ignorant lie.

    > simply 'cos they've adapted to it like anybody with darker complexion.


    Just another pig ignorant lie.

    > UV was never a problem for them until colonials started shaggin them.


    Just another pig ignorant lie.

    > STDs and the rest is history.


    Just another pig ignorant lie.



  18. #98
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:kvuftv$4c9$1@dont-email.me...
    >
    > "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:b8dm9gFtacmU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >> "felix_unger"
    >>
    >>> eBay too

    >>
    >> ** I figured some people would get their GLS lamps on Ebay.
    >>
    >> Technically that makes YOU the importer and so breaking the law in each
    >> Australian state.


    > This doesn't sound right to me.


    It is anyway.

    > I've seen incandescent light globes in super markets just not that long
    > ago.


    Obvious lie. You have clearly wanked yourself completely blind.


  19. #99
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:kvug0q$4kb$1@dont-email.me...
    >
    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b87ldjFkpuqU4@mid.individual.net...
    >> 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


    > Good lawyer can do that.


    More drivel. And there is no such animal anyway.

    >>
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> 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/
    >>

    >
    >


  20. #100
    Ext User(Frank Slootweg) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    Trevor <trevor@home.net> wrote:
    >
    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b8aja0F959cU3@mid.individual.net...
    > >>>> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
    > >>> they still emit radiation
    > >> But not enough to be of any concern. I guess you never watched an old CRT
    > >> TV
    > >> or heaven forbid used a CRT computer monitor as they are far worse for
    > >> radiation emmision.

    > >
    > > everybody used CRT monitors. there was no other choice until LCD's came on
    > > the market

    >
    > Right, and how many died from them? CFL's are far less dangerous.


    Well, one of my CRT terminals had an 'AIDS' key!

Posting Permissions

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