porno tŁrk porno rokettube
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 174

Thread: cfl's

  1. #101
    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!

  2. #102
    Ext User(SG1) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b8gigfFheguU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    >
    > "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.


    I will take that as an "I have NO IDEA" as usual...

    >



  3. #103
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
    news:5223b447$0$50660$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraw eb.com...
    >
    > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:b8gigfFheguU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >>
    >> "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.

    >
    > I will take that as an "I have NO IDEA" as usual...


    More fool you. Its such a well known problem that
    there hasnít been any research on it for more than
    a century now. Try any textbook on spectroscopy.


  4. #104
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
    news:b8hn00FpgdrU2@mid.individual.net...
    > 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!


    And obviously you haven't died from AIDS yet.

    Trevor.



  5. #105
    Ext User(SG1) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Trevor" <trevor@home.net> wrote in message
    news:l01eh1$ds9$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >
    > "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:b8hn00FpgdrU2@mid.individual.net...
    >> 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!

    >
    > And obviously you haven't died from AIDS yet.
    >
    > Trevor.
    >

    Rod has AIDS
    Aquired Itelligence Deficency Syndrome.


  6. #106
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 2/09/2013 7:43 PM, Trevor wrote:
    > "SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
    > news:52244a3c$0$7133$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astrawe b.com...
    >> Rod has AIDS
    >> Aquired Itelligence Deficency Syndrome.

    >
    > Are you sure he aquired it and was not just born that way?
    >
    > Trevor.
    >
    >


    **I'd reserve that for the person who cannot manage to spell acquired
    correctly.

    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  7. #107
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
    news:52244a3c$0$7133$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astrawe b.com...
    > Rod has AIDS
    > Aquired Itelligence Deficency Syndrome.


    Are you sure he aquired it and was not just born that way?

    Trevor.



  8. #108
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 2/09/2013 7:43 PM, Trevor wrote:
    > "SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
    > news:52244a3c$0$7133$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astrawe b.com...
    >> Rod has AIDS
    >> Aquired Itelligence Deficency Syndrome.

    >
    > Are you sure he aquired it and was not just born that way?
    >
    > Trevor.
    >
    >


    **Oh and intelligence.

    Sheesh. Talk about living in glass houses.

    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  9. #109
    Ext User(yaputya) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:b8j59cF3t9uU3@mid.individual.net...
    > On 2/09/2013 7:43 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >> "SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
    >> news:52244a3c$0$7133$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astrawe b.com...
    >>> Rod has AIDS
    >>> Aquired Itelligence Deficency Syndrome.

    >>
    >> Are you sure he aquired it and was not just born that way?
    >>
    >> Trevor.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > **Oh and intelligence.
    >
    > Sheesh. Talk about living in glass houses.
    >
    > --
    > Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au


    You missed deficiency.
    1 out of 4 ain't bad, I guess.



  10. #110
    Ext User(SG1) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b8j63lF45fgU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:b8j59cF3t9uU3@mid.individual.net...
    >> On 2/09/2013 7:43 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >>> "SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:52244a3c$0$7133$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astrawe b.com...
    >>>> Rod has AIDS
    >>>> Aquired Itelligence Deficency Syndrome.
    >>>
    >>> Are you sure he aquired it and was not just born that way?
    >>>
    >>> Trevor.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> **Oh and intelligence.
    >>
    >> Sheesh. Talk about living in glass houses.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

    >
    > You missed deficiency.
    > 1 out of 4 ain't bad, I guess.


    Sorry Maths & Science were my strong points in school which I left 50 years
    ago
    >
    >



  11. #111
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 2/09/2013 8:03 PM, yaputya wrote:
    > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:b8j59cF3t9uU3@mid.individual.net...
    >> On 2/09/2013 7:43 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >>> "SG1" <Lost.it@theraces.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:52244a3c$0$7133$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astrawe b.com...
    >>>> Rod has AIDS
    >>>> Aquired Itelligence Deficency Syndrome.
    >>>
    >>> Are you sure he aquired it and was not just born that way?
    >>>
    >>> Trevor.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> **Oh and intelligence.
    >>
    >> Sheesh. Talk about living in glass houses.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

    >
    > You missed deficiency.
    > 1 out of 4 ain't bad, I guess.
    >
    >


    ****** me. So many spelling mistakes. I was overwhelmed.

    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  12. #112
    Ext User(Damian) 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.


    I quote again, your comment says, "UV doesn't get through glass".
    Dead incorrect.
    Not specifically about 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.




  13. #113
    Ext User(SG1) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:l03ujh$7fo$1@dont-email.me...
    >
    > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:b8f9g6F9iuqU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >>
    >> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:kvprn6$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 don't. UV doesn't 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 doesn't get thru glass.

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

    >>
    >> No its not with the glass used with cfls.

    >
    > I quote again, your comment says, "UV doesn't get through glass".
    > Dead incorrect.
    > Not specifically about cfls.
    >
    >>
    >> That's 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 doesn't 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.


    My everyday spectacles have a coating to deter UV. So optical glass alows UV
    to pass.

    >
    >



  14. #114
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b8gje6Fhlb5U1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    >
    > "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.


    There is no such thing as LNP either.
    But, they do insist they exist.


    >
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> 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. #115
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b8gjadFhkh5U1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    >
    > "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.
    >

    Just another pig ignorant lie.

    >> Grog & Petrol were introduced to them by colonials.

    >
    > Wrong with grog.


    Just another pig ignorant lie.

    >
    >> They never died of skin cancer,

    >
    > Just another pig ignorant lie.


    Just another pig ignorant lie.

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

    >
    > Just another pig ignorant lie.


    Just another pig ignorant lie.

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

    >
    > Just another pig ignorant lie.


    Just another pig ignorant lie.

    >
    >> STDs and the rest is history.

    >
    > Just another pig ignorant lie.


    Just another pig ignorant lie.

    >
    >




  16. #116
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    " >>>>>
    >>>>> 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.


    Your problem too, 'cos of your silly claim about cfls not emitting UV.

    >
    >> 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.
    >


    Read and learn.

    According to the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and
    Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) in 2008, CFLs may pose an added
    health risk due to the ultraviolet and blue light emitted. This radiation
    could aggravate symptoms in people who already suffer skin conditions that
    make them exceptionally sensitive to light. The light produced by some
    single-envelope CFLs at distances of less than 20 cm could lead to
    ultraviolet exposures approaching the current workplace limit set to protect
    workers from skin and retinal damage. Industry sources claim the UV
    radiation received from CFLs is too small to contribute to skin cancer and
    the use of double-envelope CFLs "largely or entirely" mitigates any other
    risks.[63]

    A 2012 study comparing cellular health effects of CFL light and incandescent
    light found statistically significant cell damage in cultures exposed to CFL
    light. Spectroscopic analysis confirmed the presence of significant UVA and
    UVC radiation, which the study's authors conjectured was attributable to
    damage in the bulbs' internal phosphor coatings. No cellular damage was
    observed following exposure to incandescent light of equivalent intensity.
    The study's authors suggest that the ultraviolet exposure could be limited
    by the use of "double-walled" bulbs manufactured with an additional glass
    covering surrounding the phosphor-coated layer.[6


    > 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.


    I'm 100% right about that.
    Physics isn't your domain, neither is biology.
    But Wikipedia is free, as you may already know.

    >
    >> 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.




  17. #117
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b8gjccFhktcU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    >
    > "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.

    I checked the other day. They are still around man.
    You need to get extra strength lenses on your specs.
    You've been rubbing the glasses on something or something. :-)



  18. #118
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
    news:b8hn00FpgdrU1@mid.individual.net...
    > Damian <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
    > [...]
    >> Shouldn't it be illegal to sell them, like tobacco and alcohol?! :-)
    >> BTW, Rod is a home brewer.
    >> I would dob in the bastard, if I know where he live. :-))

    >
    > Never mind where, better worry about *whether*!


    Yeah, that makes sense. Roddles gota be around 200 years old according to
    history reports. ;-)



  19. #119
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b8gi38FhbljU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    >
    > "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.


    I order you to prepare the doll under the bed by patching up any holes, for
    your trip to south pole next week.
    No companion cats or dogs for you, as you may end up eating them. :-))

    >
    >>>> 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.


    Keep dreamin my man....you may hit with a shocker...just wait.

    >
    >>>>>they emit UV radiation too.

    >
    >




  20. #120
    Ext User(SG1) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:l03v56$9lq$1@dont-email.me...

    >
    > There is no such thing as LNP either.
    > But, they do insist they exist.


    LNP exists as a political party in Qld.



Posting Permissions

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