Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[JANA]

Before you make a comment, you should research things out!


These are independent and proven reports about the environmental problems
with ethanol. The companies that are making the ethanol are like cigarette
companies. They are saying the opposite! But, it has been proven in the
past, that breathing the fumes from burning alcohol can induce asthma, and
other health complications. It is also believed by many health researchers
that the fumes from ethanol can cause cancer.

http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1713

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/april18/ethanol-041807.html

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2007/41/i11/abs/es062085v.html



It takes more energy and causes more pollution to make ethanol, than what it
can deliver back as energy! Not only does the conversion process use more
energy, but there is a lot of energy used to grow, produce, harvest,
process, and transport, the corn to make the ethanol in the first place.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNG1VDF6EM1.DTL

http://www.igreens.org.uk/ethanol_from_corn_.htm



The ethanol producers, and the corn growers are all for this industry for
obvious reasons. In the mean time, the public, will pay in the end.

Between petrol and diesel, the diesel is actually cleaner burning even
though it may have an odour to it. The odour is caused because the diesel is
more pure oil and produces more carbon. Carbon will settle back to the
ground, and over time it will recycle itself. The fumes from petrol are more
dangerous than diesel. But, ethanol fumes are the most dangerous.

--

JANA
_____

The pollution caused from burning ethanol is worse
than from petrol.

Do you have a reference for this?

The chemicals released from the burned ethanol are
dangerous for people with respiratory problems.

So is petrol, diesel is worse still.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Before you make a comment, you should research things out!

And maybe you should read that I simply asked for a reference and stated
that diesel and petrol also cause health problems.
So as usual everything is a health risk, debate can only seriously be made
on the relative levels of the risk/problems. That first requires more
accurate research to be done which is not funded by vested interests. A
major problem in most cases.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

I think everyone is saying the same thing, yet there seems to be
disagreement. I'd only add to this that when people predominantly
"choose to" behave in a particular way, rather than in some other way,
there's probably a good reason why.

Sure, what that reason is, and even how rational it is, may be open to
debate.
Mostly people choose what is readily available at an affordable price. The
manufacturers/marketing people have as much to do with this as any absolute
superiority.
And market timing plays a big part in whether something becomes widely
established, and how superior something else must be to supercede it.

For example, if people "choose to" dislike food that smells like decay,
there is probably a good reason why. Yes, even though there may be some
individuals who actually like decaying food.

Yes, blue vein cheese is quite popular. Even well aged meats.

There are other examples. Movies use deep bass sounds to put the
audience on edge. It conveys a sense of foreboding and alarm in people.
Again, one might suspect that if the reaction is close to universal,

Or not, discotecques use deep pounding bass to give their customers a dance
beat. Doesn't seem to drive them away

there's probably a good reason why. Not merely, "They choose to react
this way. They could just as easily react a different way."
Exactly.

Others and I have speculated the "why" people might prefer "warmer"
lighting. There's nothing wrong with speculation. That's what leads to
stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove it, and possibly ending up
with a physical law.

Or more likely just ending up with another example of the irrational
behaviour patterns of humans.

MrT.

 

[Jules]

JANA wrote:




You're full of crap aren't you ?

Sorry eeyore,
Shocking but true.
Well not so shocking.
But what is, is the amount of water needed to do this.
Massive, beyond some states capacity, yet they are building ethanol plants.

 

[default]

Before you make a comment, you should research things out!


These are independent and proven reports about the environmental problems
with ethanol. The companies that are making the ethanol are like cigarette
companies. They are saying the opposite! But, it has been proven in the
past, that breathing the fumes from burning alcohol can induce asthma, and
other health complications. It is also believed by many health researchers
that the fumes from ethanol can cause cancer.

http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1713

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/april18/ethanol-041807.html

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2007/41/i11/abs/es062085v.html



It takes more energy and causes more pollution to make ethanol, than what it
can deliver back as energy! Not only does the conversion process use more
energy, but there is a lot of energy used to grow, produce, harvest,
process, and transport, the corn to make the ethanol in the first place.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNG1VDF6EM1.DTL

http://www.igreens.org.uk/ethanol_from_corn_.htm



The ethanol producers, and the corn growers are all for this industry for
obvious reasons. In the mean time, the public, will pay in the end.

Between petrol and diesel, the diesel is actually cleaner burning even
though it may have an odour to it. The odour is caused because the diesel is
more pure oil and produces more carbon. Carbon will settle back to the
ground, and over time it will recycle itself. The fumes from petrol are more
dangerous than diesel. But, ethanol fumes are the most dangerous.

Thanks

"Any government sponsored program to reduce greenhouse gases will
result in higher taxes, higher costs, and higher greenhouse gases."

We should be researching ways to convert politicians to fuel.

 

[Eeyore]

Before you call someone an idiot, you should do some research. You are
looking like the fool, not me.

You're a TOP POSTING idiot now.

You clearly know nothing about the subject in question.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I would recommend you do some thinking before typing (talking).

I recommend you stop top-posting.

If you lease the batteries, in the end someone has to pay for them, and it
will not be owner.

If it's a lease who do you mean by the 'owner' ?

Don't you even know what leasing is ?

In any case, the owner has to make his money back, plus a
profit. When the batteries are no longer useful, the owner is going to have
to dispose of the batteries somewhere!!!

You idiot.

You recycle such batteries not dispose of them.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

There have been publications about the energy usage to make ethanol. You
should research this out before making comments!

You should shut the **** up.

I've read extensively about that subject, something you clearly haven't. I'm
getting the impression you get your 'facts' from low-brow newspapers.

Stop advertsing your phenomenal ignorance.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Before you make a comment, you should research things out!

These are independent and proven reports about the environmental problems
with ethanol. The companies that are making the ethanol are like cigarette
companies.

You talk an amazing amount of CRAP.


Graham

 

[Bob Urz]

OK, it's resent to the same address that you used to post this, but from a
different one of my addresses. Attachment is a 434k PDF, which shouldn't be
a problem. Let me know that you get it ok. If any issues, just contact me
direct on the arfa daily address that I use to post here.

Arfa

Got this one. thanks.

Bob

 

[Sally]

Without taking sides on any other issues, IMO the old rule not to top post
is out of date! It is much more appropriate in today's environment to top
post.

 

[Sally]

But the old rule to avoid unpleasant language is as valid as ever. How can
you rabbit on about top posters and still resort to foul language?

 

[Eeyore]

Without taking sides on any other issues, IMO the old rule not to top post
is out of date! It is much more appropriate in today's environment to top
post.

Not my experience.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

Without taking sides on any other issues, IMO the old rule not to top post
is out of date! It is much more appropriate in today's environment to top
post.

 

[John Fields]

But the old rule to avoid unpleasant language is as valid as ever. How can
you rabbit on about top posters and still resort to foul language?

 

[FrediFizzx]

Quite frankly, anyone that can't handle a top post must have
malfunctioning brain connections of some sort. I really don't have any
problems with top or bottom posts; it's those sideways ones that get me.
;-)

FD

 

[Arfa Daily]

Without taking sides on any other issues, IMO the old rule not to top post
is out of date! It is much more appropriate in today's environment to top
post.

Not on Usenet ...

Arfa

 

[John Fields]

Quite frankly, anyone that can't handle a top post must have
malfunctioning brain connections of some sort.

---
Quite frankly, your "Quite frankly" seems designed to cast you in
the role of an authority on top posting, while your bottom post
shows that you accede to the wisdom of the masses. Good move.

Secondly, it's not a question of not being able to "handle" it, it's
more a question about why a top poster considers his response to an
earlier question important enough to try to juggle time so that his
response will seem to be placed before the question.
---

I really don't have any
problems with top or bottom posts; it's those sideways ones that get me.
;-)

L
i
k
e

t
h
i
s
?

 

[Albert Manfredi]

Mostly people choose what is readily available at an affordable price.

Universal dislike for something counts as more than just "what is
readily available at an affordable price." Sorry.

Or not, discotecques use deep pounding bass to give their customers a dance
beat. Doesn't seem to drive them away

Yes, but there's a big difference between *prolonged* bass and
periodic bass, perhaps at approximately 1 Hz or so. Which is
reminiscent of a heartbeat, therefore natural and presumably pleasing.

Or more likely just ending up with another example of the irrational
behaviour patterns of humans.

I don't think it's irrational to expect humans to be put off by
sources of articial light whose color temp is not what they evolved
with. Defense mechanisms typically work that way, matter of fact.

Anyway, this has to be one of the longest threads in usenet history
(probably not, actually).

Bert

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Universal dislike for something counts as more than just "what is
readily available at an affordable price." Sorry.

Damnit, will you quit that, you're annoying! I let it pass when you
dismissed my argument, because it wasn't that important, you were 'only'
claiming to speak for a huge populace on matters of preference, as if you
had such a mighty insight into so many. Now, you claim 'universal dislike'!
You're not content to settle for mere hubris, you need omniscience.

Just stick to some science and let the preferences take care of themselves.