[Let's not get violent -- JN]

Report this

00

Report this

00

Like you I’m not an expert on mercury. But perhaps a little general physics can be applied here. I agree that liquid mercury would not evaporate significantly under ambient conditions. That’s why my grandfather suffered no ill effects. It can only exist as vapor under much lower pressure or much higher temperature. So I would argue that if a fluorescent lamp is broken the mercury vapor would quickly condense into liquid. Along with that, the amount of mercury involved is miniscule. So I can’t see any terrible danger if I break one of the supposedly so harmful little light bulb replacements.

I’ve preferred to use fluorescent lighting wherever I could for a long time because they last so much longer and I’m not changing light bulbs somewhere every other month. Not to mention the fact that they do use less power to deliver the same amount of light.

And the hypocrisy, if I may use that word, is indeed strange. Also, it’s not a good idea to let mercury get into the environment. So no matter what you do, one hand seems to be double-crossing the other.

Report this

10

But I have picked up that mercury gas is dangerous. You inhale it, and it gets easier into your bloodstream.

When pouring liquid mercury from one cup to another, I dont think there is much gas evapourating.

And, as you say, much of the scare for this and that substance is often blown out of proportions.

It does seem odd, though, that one department enforces to forbid the edison-style lamps, while another
department warns us against the replacement.You can’t win, it seems.

The LED lamps might be a good replacement, but they still has a very high cost per unit, and the the light is a bit cold. But there are advancements within LED lamps, and the advancements are almost on a monthly basis now. My guess is, that within a year or so we can replace many of our lamps with LED units.

That will be nice.

Report this

20

Report this

20

My grandfather was a dentist for 40 years. In those days the only type of filling he had available was mercury amalgam. He handled the stuff all day long 5 days a week, pouring the mercury out of a bottle into his bare hand. I’ve seen him do it many times. After all those years you would think it would do him some kind of harm. But no problem could ever be attributed to it. So much for the great toxic mercury scare.

You wouldn’t want to swallow any of it and it’s a good idea to keep it out of our environment. But the danger to humans is greatly exaggerated in my view. Kind of like CO2 being a danger to humans.

Report this

10

“overpriced and toxic ‘energy saving’ lamps…”

Yes, the Health Authorities in my country recommends to flee the room IMMEDIATELY
if such a lamp is broken. Open all doors and wait for…15 minutes I think it was.

Because of the toxic mercury gas inside.

Carbon footprint indeed.

Report this

20

“We be many, but you be few”. No, Greenpeace. As an MEP, I represent 4.2 million constituents, and most of them don’t believe the Great Carbon Myth. They won’t vote for it, and they won’t pay for it. We be many, Greenpeace, while you are a few nutters.

Unfortunately the lunatics are taking over the asylum. Greenpeace claim that we are “cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission”, yet who is it that helped block Kingsnorth, supported attacks on UK critical national infrastructure and are now preventing South Africa from increasing it’s energy security? Not to mention giving us overpriced and toxic ‘energy saving’ lamps, creating a massive subsidisation system for wind energy and causing great harm to EU economies and the public.

For some reason, the EU seems to be listening to these people, so we get 20/20/2020 and now potentially a 30% CO2 reduction target by 2020. Why? So Greenpeace’s ‘charitable trust’ donors can profit.

Someone needs to reign in the NGO’s. Greenpeace already has it’s people representing governments on intergovernmental groups, which may be good lobbying, but isn’t good for democracy.

I think for the rest of Greenpeace’s rant, it’s the usual story. Follow the money. Greenpeace has, like other NGO’s been earning very nicely from donors to promote AGW. Individual donations typically have been falling, but at least Greenpeace hasn’t become as reliant on government funding as the WWF. If AGW simply becomes natural variability, they stand to lose money from their corporate donors who’ll move onto the next bubble, and individual donors after they realise they’ve been conned.

Added to this is no doubt the loss they’ll make from their ‘ethical’ investments in green technology. People have invested an awful lot of money in anticipation of legislated subsidies, and they really do not want that bubble to burst.

Report this

20

“Statement from Ananth, International Programme Director:
We got this one wrong, no doubt about it. I’m holding up my hands on behalf of the organisation and saying sorry for that. Peaceful action is at the very core of what we do, so any language that even comes close to suggesting that’s not the case is something we cannot support.”

I hope Gene takes a very long holiday to consider his position but unfortunately there are plenty of angrys out there who back his militant slant.
I think this is a good outcome as it has forced the hand of G-P, at least in words.

Report this

10

Report this

20