On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:50:39PM -0700, Jan Steinman wrote:
> Thus, if your electricity comes from coal, the CFB introduces less
> mercury into the environment that the incandescent bulb. Not to
> mention that the avoided mercury is distributed into the air, whereas
> CFBs can be sequestered from the waste stream through education and
> enforcement,...
Typical. Of course they use less power. The natural conlusion is that
the coal will liberate less mercury... Again, I'm not talking about just
the operation or just the disposal, what about the manufacturing
process, refining oil for the plastics, smelting lead & tin for the
extra solder, refining copper, epoxy, who-knows-what inside the
components, all of the waste most likely dumped into the nearest river?
Education and enforcement is all really great in theory, like a lot of
things are. However, the road toll shows "they" can't even educate &
enforce people to obey speed limits & traffic signals- and this is where
peoples' lives are at stake, much less a few grams of carbon, or an
invisible few milligrams of mercury & whatever other nasties in the
tube. How on earth are they going to manage something like that? A
'bottle deposit' or something? the level of effectiveness of THAT is
shown by the number of pensioners raiding the bins at the shops or
walking around picking up the bottles & flavoured milk cartons off the
side of the road...
Education? the school _still_ has 'emu parades' to clean up the oval...
> ...much as batteries and computer monitors are.
...& to make it applicable to the real world, that should read: "much as
batteries and computer monitors should be, but usually aren't"
david-cynical-mood-today-t
PS I'm not being awkward. It just seems to me that somebody reads a
report or an article, & suddenly they're turning it into legislation,
never mind how plainly silly it is.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|