I stumbled across this while looking for data on CFL Power Factors and Total
Harmonic Distortion. Some of you may find it helpful.

http://director.lrc.rpi.edu/FMPro?-db=CFLscrewbase%20NLPIP.fp3&-lay=Full_Form&-format=/cfl/NLPIP_search.htm&-view

While this source is tooting its own horn, this does give a brief
explanation of why PF & THD are important to the utility companies.

http://www.ecobulb.com/nz/Reasons.htm

This also touches on the same points.

http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/literature_library/white_papers/download/123657_normal_power_factor_ballast_operation.pdf

AFAIK, there are no mandatory limits for either PF or THD in the USA. The GE
whitepaper indicates this was the case as late as 2007 when the paper was
written.

Note that the GE paper says, "Lighting has historically consumed 17% of all
electricity sold in the United States.", citing an EPA source. While this is
higher than the DOE figures I've cited, it's still difficult to see how a
switch to CFLs will save 22% or more as claimed by the proponents. I'll
stick with my figures.

http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Nice info Dave!

Wait until all the utilities get togther, wakeup, and start billing 
premiums for 3rd harmonic power. I suspect we we see a sharp decline 
in the mercury containing bulb sales.

All we need now is some politcians to get the information and really 
fuck up the system for us.

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message 
news:477bdd73.546255718@nntp.fuse.net...
>I stumbled across this while looking for data on CFL Power Factors 
>and Total
> Harmonic Distortion. Some of you may find it helpful.
>
> http://director.lrc.rpi.edu/FMPro?-db=CFLscrewbase%20NLPIP.fp3&-lay=Full_Form&-format=/cfl/NLPIP_search.htm&-view
>
> While this source is tooting its own horn, this does give a brief
> explanation of why PF & THD are important to the utility companies.
>
> http://www.ecobulb.com/nz/Reasons.htm
>
> This also touches on the same points.
>
> http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/literature_library/white_papers/download/123657_normal_power_factor_ballast_operation.pdf
>
> AFAIK, there are no mandatory limits for either PF or THD in the 
> USA. The GE
> whitepaper indicates this was the case as late as 2007 when the 
> paper was
> written.
>
> Note that the GE paper says, "Lighting has historically consumed 17% 
> of all
> electricity sold in the United States.", citing an EPA source. While 
> this is
> higher than the DOE figures I've cited, it's still difficult to see 
> how a
> switch to CFLs will save 22% or more as claimed by the proponents. 
> I'll
> stick with my figures.
>
> http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
> roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 

"Dave Houston" wrote:
>
> Note that the GE paper says, "Lighting has historically consumed 
> 17% of all electricity sold in the United States.", citing an EPA 
> source. While this is higher than the DOE figures I've cited, it's 
> still difficult to see how a switch to CFLs will save 22% or more 
> as claimed by the proponents. I'll stick with my figures.

Your figures?  The truth is it's unlikely anyone knows precisely what 
percentage of electric energy in the US is consumed by lighting. 
I've seen various sites that quote anywhere from 17% to 22% and more. 
The issue isn't what percent is being consumed by lighting.  The 
concern here (at least among those of us who care at all) is to find 
ways to reduce demand.  Using CFLs is one means of reducing demand 
since they generate more light per Watt.  Some of us think that 
reducing electrical use is a good thing.  Some of us apparently don't 
think... so.

-- 

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota � Florida � 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-232-0791
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================> 

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:H%Uej.2283$Ug5.1995@trnddc06...
> "Dave Houston" wrote:
>>
>> Note that the GE paper says, "Lighting has historically consumed 17% of 
>> all electricity sold in the United States.", citing an EPA source. While 
>> this is higher than the DOE figures I've cited, it's still difficult to 
>> see how a switch to CFLs will save 22% or more as claimed by the 
>> proponents. I'll stick with my figures.
>
> Your figures?  The truth is it's unlikely anyone knows precisely what 
> percentage of electric energy in the US is consumed by lighting. I've seen 
> various sites that quote anywhere from 17% to 22% and more. The issue 
> isn't what percent is being consumed by lighting.  The concern here (at 
> least among those of us who care at all) is to find ways to reduce demand. 
> Using CFLs is one means of reducing demand since they generate more light 
> per Watt.  Some of us think that reducing electrical use is a good thing. 
> Some of us apparently don't think... so.

Dave is pointing out the obvious errors in claims being made, which are 
indeed bogus.

Yes CFLs generate more light per watt, but have mercury issues.

LEDs may yet save the day, but they are not quite there yet in terms of cost 
per watt 



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

....Or efficiency.

Reports from initial testing indicate LEDs are not as efficient as 
CFLs.

This comes with an explanation. White for white. LEDs colours have to 
be combined to create white light and the lumens are not accumulative, 
whereas CFLs produce white light natively and require no filtering, 
reducing output.

Colour vs colour. LEDs produce coloured light singly and are extremely 
efficient, compared to other light sources, having 60-95% of their 
natural lumen density filtered out to produce the colour.

"Lon" <Lonnie@noway.calm> wrote in message 
news:477c2797$0$26013$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> Yes CFLs generate more light per watt, but have mercury issues.
>
> LEDs may yet save the day, but they are not quite there yet in terms 
> of cost per watt
> 

Lon wrote:

> 
> Yes CFLs generate more light per watt, but have mercury issues.
> 

Why are only CFLs connected with mercury in this discussion?  The good 
old 4' tubes have the same "issues" with mercury, and have been around 
for decades!

Back, 20+ years ago, we had a guy (knowledgeable) at work that used to 
yell at people for turning off the overhead flor lights  at midday, and 
then turning them back on at the end of the day (we got dark at 4pm in 
the winter).  "it takes more power to turn these lights on than it takes 
to keep them on all day!"

Just never get cut from a piece of broken glass from a 4' tube if you 
don't want to have a medical issue - yet how many times over the decades 
have you heard about this happening to anyone?

AZ Woody <reply@here> wrote:

>Lon wrote:
>
>> 
>> Yes CFLs generate more light per watt, but have mercury issues.
>> 
>
>Why are only CFLs connected with mercury in this discussion?  The good 
>old 4' tubes have the same "issues" with mercury, and have been around 
>for decades!

But the bulk of straight tube fluorescents are used in commercial or
industrial facilities where hazardous waste disposal or recycling is not
quite the same issue that it is for households. And they've been used there
for many decades so there's no new mercury aside from normal growth.
Switching from incandescents to CFLs means a net increase in mercury.

I've taken a cue from the "environmentalists" who claim they buy nebulous
carbon offsets to counterbalance all of their trips by plane. I insist that
my electric utility only supply me electrons generated from non-coal burning
plants so I'm not causing any increase in mercury. ;^)

>Back, 20+ years ago, we had a guy (knowledgeable) at work that used to 
>yell at people for turning off the overhead flor lights  at midday, and 
>then turning them back on at the end of the day (we got dark at 4pm in 
>the winter).  "it takes more power to turn these lights on than it takes 
>to keep them on all day!"

I was taught that, too, in Air Force electronics school in the late '50s. I
think it was more myth than fact as the inrush current isn't that high and
doesn't last very long. There is a significant effect on bulb life but even
there the actual time was on the order of don't turn it off if it will be
off less than 20 minutes. And things have changed significantly since then.
The latest high efficiency electronic ballasts can even be used with
occupancy sensors.

>Just never get cut from a piece of broken glass from a 4' tube if you 
>don't want to have a medical issue - yet how many times over the decades 
>have you heard about this happening to anyone?


http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

"Dave Houston" wrote:
>
> Switching from incandescents to CFLs means a net increase in 
> mercury.

That is patently untrue and I believe Dave knows it by now.

>> Just never get cut from a piece of broken glass from a 4' tube if 
>> you don't want to have a medical issue - yet how many times over 
>> the decades have you heard about this happening to anyone?

I do know of one horrific injury suffered as a result of a 
fluorescent tube.  Many years ago a worker at Bristol-Meyers was 
standing next to an open 55-gallon drum containing a flammable 
solvent when an overhead tube came loose.  The falling tube struck 
the edge of the drum and a spark set the vapors off, causing 
extensive burns.  The victim's injuries were compounded by multiple 
cuts from the shattered glass.

-- 

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota � Florida � 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-232-0791
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================> 

Oh, come on..  you're back peddling!

I have 4' flor fixtures in my house, and have had them for 20 years! 
Lights over my workbench for example!

Same "hazard" exists in my house, even without CFLs.

"workshop lights" at HD or Lowes..  How many times have these been 
involved with HASMAT type stuff that you've heard of?  Why are they more 
or less dangerous than CFLs in the home?  Provide proof and not just 
spout your own opinion!

I'll content that's there's MUCH more mercury in a 4' tube than a 15 
watt CFL.  Do you not like CFLs as you resell incandescent bulbs? 
That's the only sense I can see in your argument!

Dave Houston wrote:
> AZ Woody <reply@here> wrote:
> 
>> Lon wrote:
>>
>>> Yes CFLs generate more light per watt, but have mercury issues.
>>>
>> Why are only CFLs connected with mercury in this discussion?  The good 
>> old 4' tubes have the same "issues" with mercury, and have been around 
>> for decades!
> 
> But the bulk of straight tube fluorescents are used in commercial or
> industrial facilities where hazardous waste disposal or recycling is not
> quite the same issue that it is for households. And they've been used there
> for many decades so there's no new mercury aside from normal growth.
> Switching from incandescents to CFLs means a net increase in mercury.
> 
> I've taken a cue from the "environmentalists" who claim they buy nebulous
> carbon offsets to counterbalance all of their trips by plane. I insist that
> my electric utility only supply me electrons generated from non-coal burning
> plants so I'm not causing any increase in mercury. ;^)
> 
>> Back, 20+ years ago, we had a guy (knowledgeable) at work that used to 
>> yell at people for turning off the overhead flor lights  at midday, and 
>> then turning them back on at the end of the day (we got dark at 4pm in 
>> the winter).  "it takes more power to turn these lights on than it takes 
>> to keep them on all day!"
> 
> I was taught that, too, in Air Force electronics school in the late '50s. I
> think it was more myth than fact as the inrush current isn't that high and
> doesn't last very long. There is a significant effect on bulb life but even
> there the actual time was on the order of don't turn it off if it will be
> off less than 20 minutes. And things have changed significantly since then.
> The latest high efficiency electronic ballasts can even be used with
> occupancy sensors.
> 
>> Just never get cut from a piece of broken glass from a 4' tube if you 
>> don't want to have a medical issue - yet how many times over the decades 
>> have you heard about this happening to anyone?
> 
> 
> http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
> roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

"AZ Woody" wrote:
>
> Do you not like CFLs as you resell incandescent bulbs? That's the 
> only sense I can see in your argument!

It's much simpler and, unfortunately, much worse than that.  Dave 
rants against CFLs for the same reason he rants against Z-Wave. 
People he perceives as "the enemy" have spoken in favor of them.

-- 

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota � Florida � 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-232-0791
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================> 

I've supplied tons of facts backed up by URLs. You have responded with
nothing but ill-informed opinion.

AFAIK, there are no mandated limits on the amount of mercury in
fluorescents. It varies a great deal but, at bottom, the amount is directly
related to bulb brightness, size and life. From the first paper cited below,
it would appear that you can buy 4' straight tube fluorescents with about
the same amount of mercury as CFLs are widely reported to contain. Those
with green end-caps are low mercury. The second citation gives estimates of
the mercury contained in various types of lamps.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/mercury-bulbs.pdf
http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/FactSheets/lighting.cfm

That you have 4' fluorescent tubes in your garage while I have 18"
fluorescents in one bath and circline fluorescents in the kitchen (and
they've been there for 60+ years) does not affect the facts that there are
billions more in use in commercial and industrial sites than in residential
sites nor that if you or I or anyone else replaces an incandescent with a
fluorescent, there's a net increase of mercury in our residences. If you
continue to make the idiotic argument that that's not a fact, I won't waste
my time with you.

The federal government classifies fluorescents as hazardous waste and
businesses are required to dispose of them accordingly. Many states and
localities also require special handling to dispose of them even for
residences.

http://epa.gov/region09/toxic/mercury/lighting.html 


AZ Woody <reply@here> wrote:

>Oh, come on..  you're back peddling!
>
>I have 4' flor fixtures in my house, and have had them for 20 years! 
>Lights over my workbench for example!
>
>Same "hazard" exists in my house, even without CFLs.
>
>"workshop lights" at HD or Lowes..  How many times have these been 
>involved with HASMAT type stuff that you've heard of?  Why are they more 
>or less dangerous than CFLs in the home?  Provide proof and not just 
>spout your own opinion!
>
>I'll content that's there's MUCH more mercury in a 4' tube than a 15 
>watt CFL.  Do you not like CFLs as you resell incandescent bulbs? 
>That's the only sense I can see in your argument!
>
>Dave Houston wrote:
>> AZ Woody <reply@here> wrote:
>> 
>>> Lon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes CFLs generate more light per watt, but have mercury issues.
>>>>
>>> Why are only CFLs connected with mercury in this discussion?  The good 
>>> old 4' tubes have the same "issues" with mercury, and have been around 
>>> for decades!
>> 
>> But the bulk of straight tube fluorescents are used in commercial or
>> industrial facilities where hazardous waste disposal or recycling is not
>> quite the same issue that it is for households. And they've been used there
>> for many decades so there's no new mercury aside from normal growth.
>> Switching from incandescents to CFLs means a net increase in mercury.
>> 
>> I've taken a cue from the "environmentalists" who claim they buy nebulous
>> carbon offsets to counterbalance all of their trips by plane. I insist that
>> my electric utility only supply me electrons generated from non-coal burning
>> plants so I'm not causing any increase in mercury. ;^)
>> 
>>> Back, 20+ years ago, we had a guy (knowledgeable) at work that used to 
>>> yell at people for turning off the overhead flor lights  at midday, and 
>>> then turning them back on at the end of the day (we got dark at 4pm in 
>>> the winter).  "it takes more power to turn these lights on than it takes 
>>> to keep them on all day!"
>> 
>> I was taught that, too, in Air Force electronics school in the late '50s. I
>> think it was more myth than fact as the inrush current isn't that high and
>> doesn't last very long. There is a significant effect on bulb life but even
>> there the actual time was on the order of don't turn it off if it will be
>> off less than 20 minutes. And things have changed significantly since then.
>> The latest high efficiency electronic ballasts can even be used with
>> occupancy sensors.
>> 
>>> Just never get cut from a piece of broken glass from a 4' tube if you 
>>> don't want to have a medical issue - yet how many times over the decades 
>>> have you heard about this happening to anyone?
>> 
>> 
>> http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
>> roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

On Jan 2, 1:18=A0pm, nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:
> I stumbled across this while looking for data on CFL Power Factors and Tot=
al
> Harmonic Distortion. Some of you may find it helpful.
>
> http://director.lrc.rpi.edu/FMPro?-db=3DCFLscrewbase%20NLPIP.fp3&-lay=3DF.=
...
>
> While this source is tooting its own horn, this does give a brief
> explanation of why PF & THD are important to the utility companies.
>
> http://www.ecobulb.com/nz/Reasons.htm
>
> This also touches on the same points.
>
> http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/li...
>
> AFAIK, there are no mandatory limits for either PF or THD in the USA. The =
GE
> whitepaper indicates this was the case as late as 2007 when the paper was
> written.
>
> Note that the GE paper says, "Lighting has historically consumed 17% of al=
l
> electricity sold in the United States.", citing an EPA source. While this =
is
> higher than the DOE figures I've cited, it's still difficult to see how a
> switch to CFLs will save 22% or more as claimed by the proponents. I'll
> stick with my figures.
>
> http://davehouston.net=A0http://davehouston.orghttp://tech.groups.yahoo.co=
m/group/roZetta/
> roZetta-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

I use old light bulbs for target practice, they pop real nice and sit
up in some holes I drilled through a board.  I guess it's not a good
idea to start shooting these mercury ones then.

Another factor in this discussion is that most of these bulbs are not 
approved for usage in certain fixtures at certain locations without 
covers. Without further research I am not familiar with thee lighting 
rules. It is only hearsay from electricians I deal with.


"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message 
news:477cd84f.610476156@nntp.fuse.net...
> I've supplied tons of facts backed up by URLs. You have responded 
> with
> nothing but ill-informed opinion.
>
> AFAIK, there are no mandated limits on the amount of mercury in
> fluorescents. It varies a great deal but, at bottom, the amount is 
> directly
> related to bulb brightness, size and life. From the first paper 
> cited below,
> it would appear that you can buy 4' straight tube fluorescents with 
> about
> the same amount of mercury as CFLs are widely reported to contain. 
> Those
> with green end-caps are low mercury. The second citation gives 
> estimates of
> the mercury contained in various types of lamps.
>
> http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/mercury-bulbs.pdf
> http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/FactSheets/lighting.cfm
>
> That you have 4' fluorescent tubes in your garage while I have 18"
> fluorescents in one bath and circline fluorescents in the kitchen 
> (and
> they've been there for 60+ years) does not affect the facts that 
> there are
> billions more in use in commercial and industrial sites than in 
> residential
> sites nor that if you or I or anyone else replaces an incandescent 
> with a
> fluorescent, there's a net increase of mercury in our residences. If 
> you
> continue to make the idiotic argument that that's not a fact, I 
> won't waste
> my time with you.
>
> The federal government classifies fluorescents as hazardous waste 
> and
> businesses are required to dispose of them accordingly. Many states 
> and
> localities also require special handling to dispose of them even for
> residences.
>
> http://epa.gov/region09/toxic/mercury/lighting.html
>
>
> AZ Woody <reply@here> wrote:
>
>>Oh, come on..  you're back peddling!
>>
>>I have 4' flor fixtures in my house, and have had them for 20 years!
>>Lights over my workbench for example!
>>
>>Same "hazard" exists in my house, even without CFLs.
>>
>>"workshop lights" at HD or Lowes..  How many times have these been
>>involved with HASMAT type stuff that you've heard of?  Why are they 
>>more
>>or less dangerous than CFLs in the home?  Provide proof and not just
>>spout your own opinion!
>>
>>I'll content that's there's MUCH more mercury in a 4' tube than a 15
>>watt CFL.  Do you not like CFLs as you resell incandescent bulbs?
>>That's the only sense I can see in your argument!
>>
>>Dave Houston wrote:
>>> AZ Woody <reply@here> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes CFLs generate more light per watt, but have mercury issues.
>>>>>
>>>> Why are only CFLs connected with mercury in this discussion?  The 
>>>> good
>>>> old 4' tubes have the same "issues" with mercury, and have been 
>>>> around
>>>> for decades!
>>>
>>> But the bulk of straight tube fluorescents are used in commercial 
>>> or
>>> industrial facilities where hazardous waste disposal or recycling 
>>> is not
>>> quite the same issue that it is for households. And they've been 
>>> used there
>>> for many decades so there's no new mercury aside from normal 
>>> growth.
>>> Switching from incandescents to CFLs means a net increase in 
>>> mercury.
>>>
>>> I've taken a cue from the "environmentalists" who claim they buy 
>>> nebulous
>>> carbon offsets to counterbalance all of their trips by plane. I 
>>> insist that
>>> my electric utility only supply me electrons generated from 
>>> non-coal burning
>>> plants so I'm not causing any increase in mercury. ;^)
>>>
>>>> Back, 20+ years ago, we had a guy (knowledgeable) at work that 
>>>> used to
>>>> yell at people for turning off the overhead flor lights  at 
>>>> midday, and
>>>> then turning them back on at the end of the day (we got dark at 
>>>> 4pm in
>>>> the winter).  "it takes more power to turn these lights on than 
>>>> it takes
>>>> to keep them on all day!"
>>>
>>> I was taught that, too, in Air Force electronics school in the 
>>> late '50s. I
>>> think it was more myth than fact as the inrush current isn't that 
>>> high and
>>> doesn't last very long. There is a significant effect on bulb life 
>>> but even
>>> there the actual time was on the order of don't turn it off if it 
>>> will be
>>> off less than 20 minutes. And things have changed significantly 
>>> since then.
>>> The latest high efficiency electronic ballasts can even be used 
>>> with
>>> occupancy sensors.
>>>
>>>> Just never get cut from a piece of broken glass from a 4' tube if 
>>>> you
>>>> don't want to have a medical issue - yet how many times over the 
>>>> decades
>>>> have you heard about this happening to anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
>>> roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
> roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 

"AZ Woody" <reply@here> wrote in message 
news:477c4f28$0$10305$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> Lon wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes CFLs generate more light per watt, but have mercury issues.
>>
>
> Why are only CFLs connected with mercury in this discussion?  The good old 
> 4' tubes have the same "issues" with mercury, and have been around for 
> decades!

By that I meant that incandecents do not contain mercury and CFLs do.  The 
4ft tubes also have mercury in them, in varying amounts IIRC.  The green 
guys worry that with a huge influx of dead CFLs over current quantities, 
that there could be mercury concerns.  I am not sure if that is valid or not 
and I don't have any really hard feelings in the matter.  I went to CFLs 
because it saved money in the long run.  I fully expect to see drop off bins 
for CFLs like they have for NiCad batteries, in the near future




-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:i8_ej.16169$DG4.259@trnddc04...
> "Dave Houston" wrote:
>>
>> Switching from incandescents to CFLs means a net increase in mercury.
>
> That is patently untrue and I believe Dave knows it by now.

Odd, that is not what the Gore groupies are saying around here.

California effectively mandated CFLs and FLs in 2005 for new homes, 
mandating that screw type fixtures not be installed.  (Title 24).   That 
will mean a net increase in mercury in landfills until there are provisions 
for separate disposal of dead FL and CFL bulbs.

Good overview here:  http://www.ccidc.org/pdf/2005%20Res%20Lighting2.pdf 



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jan 3, 4:22=A0pm, "Lon" <Lon...@noway.calm> wrote:
> "Robert L Bass" <RobertLB...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:i8_ej.16169=
$DG4.259@trnddc04...
>
> > "Dave Houston" wrote:
>
> >> Switching from incandescents to CFLs means a net increase in mercury.
>
> > That is patently untrue and I believe Dave knows it by now.
>
> Odd, that is not what the Gore groupies are saying around here.
>
> California effectively mandated CFLs and FLs in 2005 for new homes,
> mandating that screw type fixtures not be installed. =A0(Title 24). =A0 Th=
at
> will mean a net increase in mercury in landfills until there are provision=
s
> for separate disposal of dead FL and CFL bulbs.
>
> Good overview here: =A0http://www.ccidc.org/pdf/2005%20Res%20Lighting2.pdf=

>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

I guess we cant ask how many Polacks it takes to screw in a light bulb
anymore then either :)  (I'm Polish BTW).  This is the first I have
ever heard of someone mandating that the actual screw sockets be
eliminated to prevent usage of incandescent.  I guess they realize
that you cant make it "illegal" to make a light bulb, so they will
simply mandate different sockets from the home builders.  Can you
still buy a lamp in california?  This is simply getting ridiculous.
Funny how they are not mandating eliminating "wall warts" which run
365/24 drawing their 5 to 10 watts of continuously wasted energy
simply because manufacturers want easy UL approval by not putting the
power suppies in devices anymore with on/off switches.  Instead using
wall warts, how many actually bother to move a dresser to unplug their
chargers, toys, radios, etc wall warts, not many.

Lon wrote:
....
> because it saved money in the long run.  I fully expect to see drop off bins 
> for CFLs like they have for NiCad batteries, in the near future

If you've got an Ikea store nearby, you already have such a thing.  I 
noticed it around 6 months ago, and that's where I drop off my dead CFLs.

A little off topic but....

It only takes one Pollack to screw in a light bulb. They stand on a 
ladder and hold the lamp still in the socket 'cause....


They think the whole world revolves around them.

BTW: In Ontario they had a big sale on Energy Wise ceiling fans. 
Looking for one at the time I got excited until I found them using 
some two pins twist lock base I have never seen. Well the next thing 
you know WalMart has a few of these new bases.

Why would somebody introduce a new base? Total marketting scam to sell 
more expensive lightbulbs.
What are people going to do when there last CFL bulb burns out or the 
room isn't btight enough? Get the wire cutters and put in an industry 
standard medium base, hangin on the wires until they can get rid of 
the junk.


"RickH" <passport@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote in message 
news:a41578de-ba16-4da2-bf9b-003e044108d5@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 3, 4:22 pm, "Lon" <Lon...@noway.calm> wrote:
I guess we cant ask how many Polacks it takes to screw in a light bulb
anymore then either :)  (I'm Polish BTW). 

We are worried about mercury in the environment but not the extra gas, 
CO & CO2 to go 100 miles and back to dispose of every CFL...LOL

"rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPerson@bigfoot.com> wrote 
in message news:477d8e7f$0$22646$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Lon wrote:
> ...
>> because it saved money in the long run.  I fully expect to see drop 
>> off bins for CFLs like they have for NiCad batteries, in the near 
>> future
>
> If you've got an Ikea store nearby, you already have such a thing. 
> I noticed it around 6 months ago, and that's where I drop off my 
> dead CFLs. 

They have mandated efficiency standards that can only be met by switch mode
power supplies, effectively outlawing the old linear power supplies. If you
do a search of the forum, you'll find where Andrew Ward asked whether he
should replace the linear wallwart for his alarm system and I gave some
comparisons of the efficiency of a linear PS wallwart vs a SMPS wallwart.   

BTW, it would require a very large linear wallwart to waste 5-10 watts -
most waste a very small fraction of that.

RickH <passport@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote:

>Funny how they are not mandating eliminating "wall warts" which run
>365/24 drawing their 5 to 10 watts of continuously wasted energy
>simply because manufacturers want easy UL approval by not putting the
>power suppies in devices anymore with on/off switches.

http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Since I keep him in my killfile, I only see a sampling of the fishy
Floridian's daily litany of lies when someone quotes him. One thing I know
for sure is that bass are completely incapable of telling the truth.

While this company may be biased, they say that fluorescents are the biggest
source of mercury contamination of any consumer product. 

     http://www.bethlehemlamprecycling.com/page01.htm

"Lon" <Lonnie@noway.calm> wrote:

>
>"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@verizon.net> wrote in message 
>news:i8_ej.16169$DG4.259@trnddc04...
>> "Dave Houston" wrote:
>>>
>>> Switching from incandescents to CFLs means a net increase in mercury.
>>
>> That is patently untrue and I believe Dave knows it by now.
>
>Odd, that is not what the Gore groupies are saying around here.
>
>California effectively mandated CFLs and FLs in 2005 for new homes, 
>mandating that screw type fixtures not be installed.  (Title 24).   That 
>will mean a net increase in mercury in landfills until there are provisions 
>for separate disposal of dead FL and CFL bulbs.
>
>Good overview here:  http://www.ccidc.org/pdf/2005%20Res%20Lighting2.pdf 


http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Some of us have an Ikea only 10 miles away, and some of us manage to 
combine drop-off trips with other shopping that happens to be nearby...

Anybody who drives 100 miles (or 10 miles, for that matter) just to 
recycle a light bulb is, well, a pretty dim bulb!

And some of us have pretty high mpg, low emissions vehicles.  I burn 
less than two quarts of gas to make a 20 mile trip...

John J. Bengii wrote:
> We are worried about mercury in the environment but not the extra gas, 
> CO & CO2 to go 100 miles and back to dispose of every CFL...LOL
> 
> "rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPerson@bigfoot.com> wrote 
> in message news:477d8e7f$0$22646$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Lon wrote:
>> ...
>>> because it saved money in the long run.  I fully expect to see drop 
>>> off bins for CFLs like they have for NiCad batteries, in the near 
>>> future
>> If you've got an Ikea store nearby, you already have such a thing. 
>> I noticed it around 6 months ago, and that's where I drop off my 
>> dead CFLs. 
> 
> 

rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org wrote:
> Some of us have an Ikea only 10 miles away, and some of us manage to 
> combine drop-off trips with other shopping that happens to be nearby...
> 
> Anybody who drives 100 miles (or 10 miles, for that matter) just to 
> recycle a light bulb is, well, a pretty dim bulb!
> 
> And some of us have pretty high mpg, low emissions vehicles.  I burn 
> less than two quarts of gas to make a 20 mile trip...


Ikea's on a real "green" marketing campaign.  They've got some really 
sharp "knives" at their head office.  I figure they've positioned 
themselves perfectly.  Kudos!

RickH <passport@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote:

>Funny how they are not mandating eliminating "wall warts" which run
>365/24 drawing their 5 to 10 watts of continuously wasted energy
>simply because manufacturers want easy UL approval by not putting the
>power suppies in devices anymore with on/off switches.

Here's a link to the thread I mentioned...

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.home.automation/browse_frm/thread/2f6a96e12b6d687b/d3ba11d3f333d0da?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=andrew+ward+power+supply#d3ba11d3f333d0da

A very quick measurement with my Kill A Watt of 3 different wallwarts...

5V 2A SMPS (ETA-USA WCS10-05SX-Y-2) NO LOAD 2VA 1W 0.4PF

5V 200mA LINEAR (CUI DV-530R) NO LOAD 0VA 0W 1.0PF (TOO LOW TO MEASURE IN
WATT OR VA MODE)

12V 500mA UNREGULATED (JAMECO ACU 120050) 6VA 1W 0.24PF

It would take a rather large and inefficient unregulated PS to waste 5-10W
when not loaded. However, the 6VA reading would be a problem for the utility
as they have to supply that much current (and have sufficient
infrastructure) even though it's doing no work and (in most residential
settings) they do not charge for it.

In Watt & VA mode, Kill A Watt accuracy is only �1 unit so anybody wanting
more accuracy would have to use the kWh mode and measure over a lengthy time
period. 

Much of Asia, most of Europe and California have mandated efficiency
standards that can only be met by using SMPS.

SIDEBAR 1: Control4 has proposed a TV channel to show the total power used
in a residence in real time. My utility (Duke) recently changed all the
meters in my neighborhood to ones that can be read remotely, so the basic
technology is mostly in place.

SIDEBAR 2: To me, it makes more sense to require the utilities to put
scrubbers on their stacks to capture mercury than to pretend that CFLs will
result in significant reductions in mercury. If they also capture the waste
heat and use it to generate electricity, it might pay for itself. But it's
probably cheaper to buy a politician.

http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Ridiculous argument. One person's situation doesn't make a global 
economy.

Most of these CFLs will go into your landfill sites. Since many of us 
in Canada ship our daily garbage to the USA, it will become the 
USanian's problem.


"rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPerson@bigfoot.com> wrote 
in message news:477DB5C5.8010801@bigfoot.com...
> Some of us have an Ikea only 10 miles away, and some of us manage to 
> combine drop-off trips with other shopping that happens to be 
> nearby...
>
> Anybody who drives 100 miles (or 10 miles, for that matter) just to 
> recycle a light bulb is, well, a pretty dim bulb!
>
> And some of us have pretty high mpg, low emissions vehicles.  I burn 
> less than two quarts of gas to make a 20 mile trip...
>
> John J. Bengii wrote:
>> We are worried about mercury in the environment but not the extra 
>> gas, CO & CO2 to go 100 miles and back to dispose of every 
>> CFL...LOL
>>
>> "rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPerson@bigfoot.com> 
>> wrote in message news:477d8e7f$0$22646$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> Lon wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> because it saved money in the long run.  I fully expect to see 
>>>> drop off bins for CFLs like they have for NiCad batteries, in the 
>>>> near future
>>> If you've got an Ikea store nearby, you already have such a thing. 
>>> I noticed it around 6 months ago, and that's where I drop off my 
>>> dead CFLs.
>> 

On Jan 4, 8:20=A0am, "John J. Bengii" <nob...@yahoo.calm.dwn> wrote:
> Ridiculous argument. One person's situation doesn't make a global
> economy.
>
> Most of these CFLs will go into your landfill sites. Since many of us
> in Canada ship our daily garbage to the USA, it will become the
> USanian's problem.
>
> "rlsuse...@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPer...@bigfoot.com> wrote
> in messagenews:477DB5C5.8010801@bigfoot.com...
>
>
>
> > Some of us have an Ikea only 10 miles away, and some of us manage to
> > combine drop-off trips with other shopping that happens to be
> > nearby...
>
> > Anybody who drives 100 miles (or 10 miles, for that matter) just to
> > recycle a light bulb is, well, a pretty dim bulb!
>
> > And some of us have pretty high mpg, low emissions vehicles. =A0I burn
> > less than two quarts of gas to make a 20 mile trip...
>
> > John J. Bengii wrote:
> >> We are worried about mercury in the environment but not the extra
> >> gas, CO & CO2 to go 100 miles and back to dispose of every
> >> CFL...LOL
>
> >> "rlsuse...@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPer...@bigfoot.com>
> >> wrote in messagenews:477d8e7f$0$22646$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >>> Lon wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> because it saved money in the long run. =A0I fully expect to see
> >>>> drop off bins for CFLs like they have for NiCad batteries, in the
> >>>> near future
> >>> If you've got an Ikea store nearby, you already have such a thing.
> >>> I noticed it around 6 months ago, and that's where I drop off my
> >>> dead CFLs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We only want your "huddled masses yearning to be free", not the
garbage.  But then again I heard many US coal power plants are located
along the Canaian border where prevailing winds blow the mercury
north.

LOL... Very true. I am moving further north to get away from all the 
poluution the Ohio coal burners produce. Of course, only until we can 
forcibly take over that state and put scrubbers on our newly aquired 
units. We will distract your forces by creating a diversion in the 
middle east, first. Gawd damned Reagen and his cutbacks. This was 
supposed to be all cleaned up until Bonzo the clown arrived.

"RickH" <passport@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote in message 
news:caecaafe-3d3f-460d-871e-a2379e3fe19f@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 4, 8:20 am, "John J. Bengii" <nob...@yahoo.calm.dwn> wrote:
> Ridiculous argument. One person's situation doesn't make a global
> economy.
>
> Most of these CFLs will go into your landfill sites. Since many of 
> us
> in Canada ship our daily garbage to the USA, it will become the
> USanian's problem.
>
> "rlsuse...@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPer...@bigfoot.com> 
> wrote
> in messagenews:477DB5C5.8010801@bigfoot.com...
>
>
>
> > Some of us have an Ikea only 10 miles away, and some of us manage 
> > to
> > combine drop-off trips with other shopping that happens to be
> > nearby...
>
> > Anybody who drives 100 miles (or 10 miles, for that matter) just 
> > to
> > recycle a light bulb is, well, a pretty dim bulb!
>
> > And some of us have pretty high mpg, low emissions vehicles. I 
> > burn
> > less than two quarts of gas to make a 20 mile trip...
>
> > John J. Bengii wrote:
> >> We are worried about mercury in the environment but not the extra
> >> gas, CO & CO2 to go 100 miles and back to dispose of every
> >> CFL...LOL
>
> >> "rlsuse...@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPer...@bigfoot.com>
> >> wrote in messagenews:477d8e7f$0$22646$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >>> Lon wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> because it saved money in the long run. I fully expect to see
> >>>> drop off bins for CFLs like they have for NiCad batteries, in 
> >>>> the
> >>>> near future
> >>> If you've got an Ikea store nearby, you already have such a 
> >>> thing.
> >>> I noticed it around 6 months ago, and that's where I drop off my
> >>> dead CFLs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We only want your "huddled masses yearning to be free", not the
garbage.  But then again I heard many US coal power plants are located
along the Canaian border where prevailing winds blow the mercury
north.

"John J. Bengii" <nobody@yahoo.calm.dwn> wrote in message 
news:gYOdnWyBG_AT3ePanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@golden.net...
> Ridiculous argument. One person's situation doesn't make a global economy.
>
> Most of these CFLs will go into your landfill sites. Since many of us in 
> Canada ship our daily garbage to the USA, it will become the USanian's 
> problem.

More FL related issues: 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=506082&in_page_id=1774

It would appear that there are medical issues for some people 



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Interesting link. The high frequencies used by the SMPS are in the range
that cause some epileptics problems. I wonder how the demise of
incandescents will affect treatment for SAD.

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

"Lon" <Lonnie@noway.calm> wrote:

>More FL related issues: 
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=506082&in_page_id=1774
>
>It would appear that there are medical issues for some people 


http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

They way I understand it this report in another ignorant media 
grandstand based on ancient information.

Colour spectrum of light can be an affecting part for SADS and other 
mood disorders. Fluorescents are usually the lights that people sit in 
front of to alleviate these symptoms. The daylight and high K ratings 
are much better than incandescents, typically.
Hell, I and many other lay in front of huge wattage fluorescents to 
get tanned and rid ourselves of skin eruption due to excema and 
psoriasis. This is a recognized medical practice that has now erupted 
as a cancer preventative, also.

The 60 Hz flicker was another problem with fluorescents that has been 
alleviated over the last few decades by longer persistence phosphors 
and with the high frequency electronic ballasts the flicker 
disappears.

My understanding is that epileptics have problems with strobing lamps 
interfering with their alpha rhythms, putting them into a beta wave 
state. Beta states are from (guessing from memory) 10-12 Hz and up. 
Electronic inverters certainly are not in this range. Possible 25 Hz 
incandescents and entertainment strobe lights are for sure, as well as 
some film sequences.


"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message 
news:477e5ec0.710429015@nntp.fuse.net...
> Interesting link. The high frequencies used by the SMPS are in the 
> range
> that cause some epileptics problems. I wonder how the demise of
> incandescents will affect treatment for SAD.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder
>
> "Lon" <Lonnie@noway.calm> wrote:
>
>>More FL related issues:
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=506082&in_page_id=1774
>>
>>It would appear that there are medical issues for some people
>
>
> http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
> roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 

"Dave Houston" wrote:
>
> Interesting link. The high frequencies used by the SMPS are in the 
> range that cause some epileptics problems...

Oh, bullshit!!  Photosensitive epileptics are mostly sensitive to 
strobes in the 5-70 Hz range.  Most photosensitive epileptics tend to 
be affected in the 15 to 20 Hz range.  It varies a bit from person to 
person but there is no problem with high frequencies nor is there a 
known problem at frequencies below about 5 Hz.

> I wonder how the demise of incandescents will affect treatment for 
> SAD.

The "demise of incandescents" is all in Dave's head.  Incandescent 
lights are going to have to become more efficient.  They will because 
the technology is close to current and there's a huge market for 
them.  As to S.A.D., light therapy treatment isn't even FDA approved. 
There is anecdotal evidence that it helps but no definitive studies 
have been done as yet.  SAD is a type of depression and if sever 
enough to affect your QOL, it can be treated with medication.  Jeff 
Morgan may be able to advise you best on that subject.

-- 

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota � Florida � 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-232-0791
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================> 

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:H%Uej.2283$Ug5.1995@trnddc06...
> "Dave Houston" wrote:
>>
>> Note that the GE paper says, "Lighting has historically consumed 17% of 
>> all electricity sold in the United States.", citing an EPA source. While 
>> this is higher than the DOE figures I've cited, it's still difficult to 
>> see how a switch to CFLs will save 22% or more as claimed by the 
>> proponents. I'll stick with my figures.
>
> Your figures?  The truth is it's unlikely anyone knows precisely what 
> percentage of electric energy in the US is consumed by lighting. I've seen 
> various sites that quote anywhere from 17% to 22% and more. The issue 
> isn't what percent is being consumed by lighting.  The concern here (at 
> least among those of us who care at all) is to find ways to reduce demand. 
> Using CFLs is one means of reducing demand since they generate more light 
> per Watt.  Some of us think that reducing electrical use is a good thing. 
> Some of us apparently don't think... so.
>
> -- 

And some of you, the liberal village idiots just don't think at all.
Tell the group Bass, what are we to do with all of the mercury contained in 
CFL's?
I know, Owl gWhore can SELL Mercurey Offsets to the little people beneath 
him while he tools around the world in his private jet.
Morons...et al...nobody ever accused a liberal of smart. 

Uzytkownik "Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci 
news:A1zfj.97$hS.73@trnddc08...
> "Dave Houston" wrote:
>>
>> Interesting link. The high frequencies used by the SMPS are in the range 
>> that cause some epileptics problems...
>
> Oh, bullshit!!  Photosensitive epileptics are mostly sensitive to strobes 
> in the 5-70 Hz range.  Most photosensitive epileptics tend to be affected 
> in the 15 to 20 Hz range.  It varies a bit from person to person but there 
> is no problem with high frequencies nor is there a known problem at 
> frequencies below about 5 Hz.

I think they maybe talks about something like beat in acoustic. Every waves 
could interfere, so if frequencies are close - it may produce new "signal" 
with frequency as substraction of interfencing frequencies. But I never 
heard about proof that any epileptics problems shows when one uses TV and 
fluorescent tube. Just TV is most suspected.

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:11:47 -0800 (PST), RickH wrote:

> I use old light bulbs for target practice, they pop real nice and sit
> up in some holes I drilled through a board.  I guess it's not a good
> idea to start shooting these mercury ones then.

<spit> yeah i heres ya, <spit>

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:A1zfj.97$hS.73@trnddc08...
> "Dave Houston" wrote:
>>
>> Interesting link. The high frequencies used by the SMPS are in the range 
>> that cause some epileptics problems...
>
> Oh, bullshit!!  Photosensitive epileptics are mostly sensitive to strobes 
> in the 5-70 Hz range.  Most photosensitive epileptics tend to be affected 
> in the 15 to 20 Hz range.  It varies a bit from person to person but there 
> is no problem with high frequencies nor is there a known problem at 
> frequencies below about 5 Hz.

While some may argue over the numbers there clearly will be some issues with 
small group(s) with a mandatory FL/CLF world.  It will be interesting to see 
if high efficeincy incandesents prove out and are available as a subsitute. 
Current rules do not support thier use.

There is a parallel here to asmatics.  New inhalers are all CFC free, and 
are clearly not working as well as prior versions.  There is no exception to 
the CFC ban, even for demonstrable medical purposes.

>> I wonder how the demise of incandescents will affect treatment for SAD.
>
> The "demise of incandescents" is all in Dave's head.  Incandescent lights 
> are going to have to become more efficient.  They will because the 
> technology is close to current and there's a huge market for them.  As to 
> S.A.D., light therapy treatment isn't even FDA approved.

FDA approval is not requried for it, but is generally considered effective 
by most professionals working in the field.  See the links to the Mayo 
Clinic and Columbia Univ. below.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mt12/blt.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/seasonal-affective-disorder/MH00023
http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/1400/1484.asp?index=6412




-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Ghost" wrote:
>
> ... I never heard about proof that any epileptics problems shows 
> when one uses TV and fluorescent tube. Just TV is most suspected.

It's not the TV tube that was at fault.  Sometimes program material 
can have the same affect as a strobe.  Photosensitive epileptics have 
occasionally suffered seizures from such things as looking out the 
window of a moving train.  Some are even sensitive to geometric 
patterns.

I've seen the effects firsthand, by the way.  Many years ago my then 
girlfriend and I were looking at some stuff in the window of a head 
shop in Greenwich Village.  It was night and the place was closed but 
there was a strobe in the display window.  All of a sudden she went 
stiff as a board and fell backward, striking her head on the sidewalk 
before I could even react.  She had a grand mal seizure.

After that I tried to learn all I could about epilepsy.  I didn't 
know at the time that my little sister would also suffer from it. 
One thing I have learned is that there are a lot of people who think 
they know all about it and make all kinds of stupid claims based on 
supposition and superstition, then use those claims as reason for 
illogical behavior.  Dave Houston's comments were among the mildest 
I've heard (though still completely wrong, of course).

-- 

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota � Florida � 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-232-0791
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================> 

Uzytkownik "Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci 
news:RPTfj.298$sH.87@trnddc04...
> "Ghost" wrote:
>>
>> ... I never heard about proof that any epileptics problems shows when one 
>> uses TV and fluorescent tube. Just TV is most suspected.
>
> It's not the TV tube that was at fault.  Sometimes program material can 
> have the same affect as a strobe.

Yes, I know.

PSE is certainly real.  But most reports are simply beautiful examples
of mass hysteria.

See:

http://csicop.org/si/2001-05/pokemon.html

and:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410728_6

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:05:52 -0800 (PST), rickmcneely@gmail.com wrote:

> PSE is certainly real.

Focken got that rite

yip nyip yiyap nyop