/sci/ - Science & Math

The thing you have to remember about environmentalists and animal rights people, that makes all their actions make sense, is that they're not pro-environment or pro-animal, they're just anti-people.

>>2492572
1st argument is true.
2nd one is bullshit. Most of what you buy comes from overseas.
3rd :give source or false. If you are talking about UV it is bullshit.
4th :same as 3rd.

finally stop whining and buy LEDs

Fluroscents only save money if you leave them on all the time.

>-They contain toxic mercury that requires special disposal
Funnily enough, they actually release less mercury into the environment, since they save energy, which is mainly produced from coal, which contains a ton of mercury

Also, the rest is complete bullshit, too

>>2492572
>Turing on a CFL bulb consumes 15 minutes of power ever single time its turned on, so going into the bathroom for 2 minutes and then turning off the light actually wastes 17 minutes worth of power.
lol are you retarded?

>>2492579

The idea of environmentalism is sound in principle, both in terms of it's ultimate goal of saving the planet, and in terms of long term financial gain, but in practice they too focus on short term goals. The only problem is that like any short term goals, the short term goals of environmentalism can be counter to their long term goals.

People like to think they are making a difference, but they don't like to actually lower their own quality of life.

>>2492572
>>2492579
It's all a big conspiracy to get you to use these bulbs because the conspirators have figured out the best way to be anti-people is to make them use different lightbulbs.

You're on to something here OP, don't give up now!

>>2492607
http://energystar.supportportal.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=23018&task=knowledge&ques
tionID=14672

>To take full advantage of the energy savings and long life of ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs, it is best to use them in light fixtures you use the most and are on for at least 15 minutes at a time. Good locations include outdoor light fixtures, indoor fixtures in the living room, family room, kitchen, bedroom, recreation room, etc. This is not to say you should leave your lights on all day if you use ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs. It is still a good habit to turn the lights off when you leave the room for an extended period of time


Some incancescents are still made in the USA, the reason expensive LEDs and CFLs are made in China are because of their lax environmental laws, especially considering the toxic heavy metals used in their production. The tried and true incandescent can still be made domestically in a cost efficient manner since its so simple.

White LED's produce harmful UV light and change most, but not all of it into visible light.

>>2492637
The earth has been here 4 billion years, polluting just a little more wont change anything.

there is no such thing as 'harmful' light you dope. What the hell does that even mean?

Also, the 'activation' energy needed to turn on a flourescant bulb is only worth about 1.7 seconds of incandescant bult energy. Not the '15 minutes' bullshit you quote.

Anyway, the only valid point you make is the pollution factor. Therefore, just buy LED bulbs and STFU.

>>2492646
> use the most and are on for at least 15 minutes at a time.
that's just because they need some minutes to warm up to full brightness
A CFL does not need any more energy while being switched on, what you claimed is utter bullshit

When is science gonna prove that switching to these so called Energy Efficient lightbulbs produces more waste then they actually solve?

>>2492654

I'm being a bit poetic when it comes to saving the planet. What I really mean is, keeping the planet in a state where we can easily survive on it.

I have no doubt that the earth will still be here no matter what, or that people will survive no matter what; but it could be cheap to live here, or it could be expensive. And making sure we don't squander what we have now will ensure a simpler future.

>>2492654
4 billion years without men : everything went fine. Life appeared and prospered.
less than 10 000 years of human sedentary civilization : endangered species, nuclear catastrophes, toxic waste, wars, deforestation, more frequent and powerful hurricanes, etc.

FACTS speak on their own.

I'm not even a environmentalist, I am just opening my eyes and looking around me.

>>2492572
In what shitty country do you live?
Seriously, even britain won't ban incandescent lightbulbs, that's just totally retarded

>>2492646
This doesn't mean that
>Turing on a CFL bulb consumes 15 minutes of power ever single time its turned on
AT ALL.

It just means that CFL bulbs are less efficient during the 15 first minutes of their activity.

>>2492709
But why is the government forcibly phasing out standard incandescents for this far more dangerous option? They just should let consumers be aware of the outcome, and let us buy bulbs based on overall savings. By subsidizing these CFL's, aren't they actually turning all of our landfills into one giant superfund site with toxic mercury everywhere? People will end up buying these bulbs because hardware stores are practically giving these things away for free, and leaving LED bulbs to rot on the shelves at full price.

>>2492686

Common myth. People say that shit about everything; Electric cars pollute more when manufactured...efficient bulbs pullute more...blah blah blah.


FUCK YOUR SHIT and stop saying retarded shit without substantiating it.

>far more dangerous option?
Every single of your arguments has been demolished, and it doesn't even phase you
You fail to provide citations and you fail to form coherent arguments
Be gone, troll

>>2492733

That IS stupid. To forcibly do this stuff. It's force that, to a large degree, gets us into these messes. You can use a profit motive to keep companies doing the right thing, OR, you can use a legislative motive to keep them doing the right thing. When the two are combined, more often than not, the companies can end up with a profit motive to focus on incredibly short term goals, and use laws to force other people to clean up after them.

It is impossible to argue against environmentalism at it's most basic level, though. Which is basically, don't overwork the land or you won't get any crops next year.

>>2492749
>Implying everybody use power from polluting power plants
In my case, the emissions from power plants are 0mg so incandescent pollute less than CFL, so why would I be forced to use CFL? (also I use LED bulbs)

>>2492765
>In my case, the emissions from power plants are 0mg
name country

>>2492771
France but I don't use my country's power plants, I use my own infrastructure for power and water

>>2492722

>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00006:@@@L&summ2=m&

There are already federal laws banning the use of regular lightbulbs, and theres already a law in place allowing them to totally ban incandescents in the near future.

>ubtitle C: Energy Efficiency in Federal Agencies
>(Sec. 522) Prohibits, as of January 1, 2009, purchases or installment of general service incandescent lamps in a Coast Guard facility, except in specified circumstances.
>Subtitle B: Lighting Energy Efficiency - (Sec. 321) Amends EPCA to prescribe energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps.

>Directs the Secretary of Energy to: (1) conduct and report to the FTC on an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescent lamps; and (2) carry out a proactive national program of consumer awareness, information, and education about lamp labels and energy-efficient lighting choices. Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2012.
>Prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler from distributing in commerce specified adapters for incandescent lamps.

Washington now has the power to totally ban all regular incandescent lightbulbs on a whim.

>also I use LED bulbs
Then what is your fucking problem anyway?

Lets just use LED's already.

>>2492775
Ethics, I refuse to be unallowed to buy a fucking lightbulb and I think it's intolerable

>>2492753
Of course those CFL manufacturers probably lobbied for those CFL specific subsidies by claiming to be developing green technology. Its HFCS all over again. There are no alternatives when the government backs only one technology. LED bulbs will never become mainstream at this rate, and I hate the color temperature of shitty CFLs.

>so why would I be forced to use CFL? (also I use LED bulbs)
IF you use LED nobody will force you to use CFL
It doesn't even make sense

>>2492741

The only respectable study about this came from Clemson University where they proposed that the greenhouse emissions from recycling does more harm than good. I haven't seen anything else though where they claim the magnitude of pollution is worsened by some "green" technique.

>>2492708
>endangered species
So a species has never ever died out before man came around?

>nuclear catastrophes
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are the only two I can think of.

>toxic waste
derp most of it can be reused or broken down into harmless chemicals

>wars
Most social animals have some sort of war-tendency. Almost all monkey species, barring some like the Bonobo, will readily fight with other bands of the same species.

>deforestation
Same as one, things die out. We might be speeding it up, but shit happens.

>more frequent and powerful hurricanes
derp climate shifts happen naturally all the time

>etc
Please provide some valid reasons

>>2492787
And what if I decide to use incandescent lightbulbs instead? Why can't I do this?

>>2492800
The idea is that they are horribly wasteful, assuming you only want the lighting and not the heating. I don't see why it merits a ban, though.

>>2492795
>Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are the only two I can think of.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki...

>>2492805
Those were very minor incidents. People already live in those cities again with the background radiation almost back to normal.

Again, please provide some valid reasons.

I...like CFLs. When LEDs are more widespread, I'll probably switch to those because it's advanced technology, something i have a boner for, and for lower energy costs, which I also have a boner for. I like the brighter white of CFLs, and I hate how damn hot and yellow incandescents are, as well as how flimsy.

I don't care that the government tries to ban things. If I liked incandescents more, I'd find a way to use them as long as I wanted. Don't give a damn what the govenment says, and I rather enjoy going against the law.

>>2492572
How does consuming 11 watts instead of 60 watts and having a much longer lifespan produce more pollution?

>>2492822
Psst
>OP is an idiot

>Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are the only two I can think of.
Mayak, the Windscale fire, the Chalk river incident
Don't forget all the shit the Russian literally dumbed into the sea, or how most of the sites of early nuclear processing are unlivable, like the Hanford site

>>2492802
Wasteful or not, in my configuration incandescent lightbulbs are clearly better than any other one for the planet (even better than candles)
So why are they forbidden if it's not for ecology?

>>2492795
Species have been disappearing since the beginning. Obviously if a species becomes extinct its not fit to survive

>>2492831
Better for the planet? Just what metric are you using that makes incandescent bulbs better than LEDs?

>>2492831
>Wasteful or not, in my configuration incandescent lightbulbs are clearly better than any other one for the planet

>they use almost 6 times as much power but are clearly better

>They burn out faster requiring you to buy more but are clearly better

>implying your configuration is any better than any other person's

Incandescents are wasteful. Get a better bulb and stop thinking everything the government does for you is bad.

>in my configuration
Because your configuration is so rare that it doesn't matter
Fact is (if you have read the thread) in normal configuration, banning incandescent is better for the environment, and that's why it's done

>>2492842
My power doesn't make any pollution
The making of LED bulbs make more pollution than the making of incandescent bulbs

>>2492852
... even when you account for how many more bulbs you go through, and how much more power you use?

I think you may have been simplistic about this. Could you be more specific, just in case I'm mistaken?

the other guy is right

in northern latitudes, where lighting is run at the same time as heating, incandescent are not wasteful

>>2492835
That was the point of the post, showing how OP was an idiot for thinking extinction was directly related to humans.

I bought several CFL bulbs five or so years ago and they still work as good as the day I installed them. Not a single one has burnt out.
None of the mercury in them has been thrown away, and thus hasn't polluted anything. When they eventually do burn out, I'm sure it'll be simple and cheap to recycle them so the mercury doesn't go into a landfill.

Imagine all the dozens or hundreds of incandescent bulbs I would have bought in that time. Much more expensive to me, and much resources to produce.

>>2492852

Even if this was true, the extra pollution caused by the manufacturing process is MORE than offset by the energy usage reduction over their lifetimes.

>>2492831
If you really get your energy from a non-polluting, renewable source where cost does not increase with usage, then energy conservation really isn't an issue for you. But for most people, that isn't the case.

>>2492857
This, but incandescents are AWFUL is you use any kind of air cooling whatsoever.

>>2492868
... unless you already have an exclusively clean energy source. That wouldn't make it more efficient, of course - just less polluting. I think this guy is claiming to be in an unusual situation.

>>2492852
>my power doesn't make any pollution

Bullshit. All power has some form of pollution. Solar panels and wind turbines have to be made somewhere, toxic chemicals are the byproducts. You aren't a special case, get over yourself.

Please don't ever try to procreate, you'll only make the world a worse place.

>inb4 OP posts a troll face and claims to be trolling everyone

>>2492875
What's the pollution when you pedal to run a dynamo?

>>2492875
my house is powered by lightning

u jelly?

>>2492888
i guess the extraction of raw materials then the manufacture and transportation of said dynamo.

>>2492888
How was the dynamo produced? Did you forge it out of wood yourself using only rocks and other things in the cave in your back yard?

If you are not Tony Stark, you did not. Therefor your dynamo was made in some factory somewhere. Toxic chemicals were byproducts of producing your "clean" energy.

and do you really sit there on a bike every time you want to turn a light on?

>>2492888
and also all the stuff that goes into your food. Fertilizer, pesticides, fuel for transport, water used in agriculture...

Humans are a *terrible* source of energy. That's why we stopped using people to haul stuff around.

>>2492897
Nop, I have batteries, I pedal 1 hour a day and I get more power than I use each day

So, OP has gone from a reasonable, intelligent human being, considerate about the environment and our security, to some insane caveman, pedaling for his energy and using it to post on the internet
well done, /sci/

>>2492904
>and also all the stuff that goes into your food.
I make my own food
>Fertilizer
I use home made compost
>pesticides
I don't use any
>fuel for transport
I don't use any fuel when I move my food from my garden to my basement
>water used in agriculture...
I use my own water and I clean it with my own power

>>2492908
Do you grow your own food?
Do you enjoy ignoring most parts of a post and picking only the last statement to comment on?

Unless you grow and hunt all your own food, guess what? Wasted energy! Humans are horribly inefficient. You waste tons of energy every time you hop on that bike.

Stop thinking your some elite broseph and have "clean" energy. Your in the same boat as all of us.

>>2492919
I lul'd.

Captcha: Stalinan Pollocks

>>2492919
I'm not OP
>>2492921
I'm not an elite I-don't-know-what, I'm just pointing out that incandescent lightbulbs can be less polluting for some cases

>>2492888

FOOD (carbon/oxy/hydrogen) + O2 -> energy + CO2 + CO + H20

It's the same as running an engine or a generator, except that humans are terrible at generating power by comparison

>>2492921
no

his energy is not fossil fuel so the stuff he grows pulls the same amount of CO2 out the air as he puts in

ffs, you're smart you know this

>-CFLs produce harmful light that makes people sick

Any citation for this total bullshit?

I love that anti-environmentalists feel so free to cherry pick perceived downsides of things they don't like, as though it invalidates the whole thing.

Sometimes birds fly into wind turbines, see how much worse they are than coal?

>>2492929
Your one in a billion case is not valid in the grand scheme of things. Your bulb will blow out sooner than a CFL and will have to be replaced more often. Wasteful regardless of the situation. A CFL would be even more efficient than an incandescent in this situation.
Grow up plox.

>>2492934

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Assuming that no farm equipment is used, and his diet is entirely vegan, you're still wrong.

>>2492930
see
>>2492934

>>2492934
Didn't read the post about him growing his own food til after I posted mine. Shit happens.

Well we're running quite low on Tungsten, so it'd be nice to put it to good use as opposed to making light filaments.
Also OP is a fag etc.

>>2492944
god you're dumb

you're confusing efficiency with the goal of that efficiency in this context, which is to reduce pollution.

he's carbon neutral, so whether he's wasting energy is then irrelevant

>>2492607
>>2492628
UV-C light would like to have a word with you

>>2492961

And how many people are estimated to get sunburn or skin cancer attributable to exposure to ordinary fluorescent lighting?

>>2492993
Apart from sun beds, that would be a zero.

Because someone is going to profit from this and nobody cares enough to do anything about it

>>2492849
Incandescent waste is far less toxic to the environment than CFLs.
Even if 6 incandescents equate the lifetime of a single CFL, the incandescent still comes out ahead since most of its byproducts are inert and easily recyclable, while the breaking of a single CFl creates its own hazmat situation. The environment can always absorb more CO2 by growing more trees. It has a harder time dealing with mercury and toxic soluble phosphors.

Incandescents are far more sustainable pollution wise than CFLs. All they produce are emissions, not toxins.

Incandescents were invented by the great Thomas Edison, a founder of GE. Its a tried and tested technology and there is no reason to switch to something unknown and poisonous when what we have right now is known to work.

>>2493019
I made no claim stating that cfl bulbs are dangerous, i was merely correcting the gentlemen that stated there is no such thing as harmful electromagnetic radiation

>>2493038
What.

Thomas Edison was a prick.

>>2493030
>The environment can always absorb more CO2 by growing more trees.
Oh, I laughed.

Tungsten is fantastically useful faggots, and in short supply. Let's not waste it on fucking lightbulbs.

>>2493049
So why can't we come up with a tungsten recycling program? We already do it with steel and glass. Why can't we just toss the things in the blue recycling bins?

>>2493030
>the breaking of a single CFl creates its own hazmat situation.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

>>2493058
So after the bulb has burnt out you want to recover the minute quantity of metal from it's oxide?
It'd be easier to just not make it into lightbulbs in the first place.

>>2493058
Because the tungsten in light bulbs are actually contained in the bulbs filament. The filament finally breaks because the majority of the tungsten has sublimed away.

>>2493106
I thought lightbulb used carbon filaments

>>2493038
i detect an american "education"

many people invented and improved incandescent light.
edison is down the list.

obamanation put the man who outlawed the light bulb into his cabinet as the energy secretary...

>>2493126
some may, but most use tungsten.

Iirc, the only carbon allotrope that conducts electricity is graphite