Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling

Keitht wrote:
Matt B wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:43:54 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

What other post industrial "mod cons" would you "curtail" the use of?

100 watt light bulbs. Oh...!

And we all know what the likely environmental consequences of that
ill-conceived Euro initiative are going to be!

No? illuminate

Switch on.
Wait for full brightness...
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....Ping.

In case you missed it in the other branch...

Fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) have a high individual environmental cost
compared with the traditional incandescent bulbs.[1]

Each CFL contains about 5 mg of mercury, phosphors, a PCB full of
semiconductors, several metres of copper wire in its coil, several
plastic mouldings, complex glass work and numerous metal parts, and the
manufacturing process has many times the CO2 footprint of that for
conventional bulbs.

Real-world CFL life expectancy is nowhere near as long as the
projections based on unrepresentative test cycles.

At the end of their life CFLs need to be carefully disposed of via
specialist facilities.

About half of the CFL projected energy savings (to do with less heat
generation) don't apply in temperate climates such as ours.

Old people are being advised to leave CFLs on all night where they used
to turn off the old ones - because of the lack of light during the
warm-up delay.

Many people are finding that where one bulb sufficed before, they now
need two or more CFLs.

The CFLs have been linked to various health problems related to
"electro-smog".

For more see:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Lighting_%28CFL%29_D ownsides

[1] Light bulbs don't emit CO2, power generation /may/ depending on how
it is generated - and it will be increasingly from sustainable sources
in the future anyway.

--
Matt B

In message
Matt B wrote:

Mike Clark wrote:
Matt B wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
Matt B wrote:
What other post industrial "mod cons" would you "curtail" the use of?

100 watt light bulbs. Oh...!

And we all know what the likely environmental consequences of that
ill-conceived Euro initiative are going to be!

And what is wrong with using lighting that has a higher efficiency of
converting electricity into lumens of useable light, rather than
wasting it as heat?

The theory and the principle are fine, but the reality will inevitably
be different.

[snip]

For more see:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Lighting_%28CFL%29_D ownsides


Whilst accepting that there are considerations that moderate the
magnitude of the difference I don't see anything in that list that
offers a compelling argument in favour of retaining less efficient
incandescent lighting. Certainly many of the so called health issues are
either ones that are poorly documented and somewhat controversial or are
in themselves of a limited impact. Indeed many of the issues seem
themselves to be of a largely "theoretical" or even I would suggest
"hypothetical" nature. For example the UV hazard from a flourescent bult
is only a very very small fraction of the UV hazard from exposure to
sunlight. Spend one extra minute a day out doors for every few hours of
exposure in doors to get the same UV exposure.

Also with regard to the chemical hazards such as are involved in the
PCBs and wiring. In the average home there are numerous electronic
devices such as phones, chargers, televisions, computers, games
consoles, cameras, toasters, food processors etc etc. So what proportion
of that is contributed by low energy lights.


As mentioned before I've already made the transition myself from
incandescent to a mixture of flourescent and LED lighting solutions and
I don't have personal experience of the problems that are listed.

Indeed the LED lights I now have for my bicycle are many times better
than the incandescent lights I used to use. Similarly for camping,
walking and caving.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

On 2009-09-03, Mike Clark wrote:
[...]
Whilst accepting that there are considerations that moderate the
magnitude of the difference I don't see anything in that list that
offers a compelling argument in favour of retaining less efficient
incandescent lighting. Certainly many of the so called health issues are
either ones that are poorly documented and somewhat controversial or are
in themselves of a limited impact. Indeed many of the issues seem
themselves to be of a largely "theoretical" or even I would suggest
"hypothetical" nature. For example the UV hazard from a flourescent bult
is only a very very small fraction of the UV hazard from exposure to
sunlight. Spend one extra minute a day out doors for every few hours of
exposure in doors to get the same UV exposure.

Also with regard to the chemical hazards such as are involved in the
PCBs and wiring. In the average home there are numerous electronic
devices such as phones, chargers, televisions, computers, games
consoles, cameras, toasters, food processors etc etc. So what proportion
of that is contributed by low energy lights.


As mentioned before I've already made the transition myself from
incandescent to a mixture of flourescent and LED lighting solutions and
I don't have personal experience of the problems that are listed.

Indeed the LED lights I now have for my bicycle are many times better
than the incandescent lights I used to use. Similarly for camping,
walking and caving.

LED is hugely better obviously for portable lights, but I can't see any
compelling reasons not to use incandescent lights at home where electric
power is cheap and plentiful-- besides lights are mostly on in the
winter and you've got to heat your house anyway.

If there were compelling reasons they wouldn't have banned them-- people
would have just all switched to CFLs anyway.

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:41:32 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

I can't see any
compelling reasons not to use incandescent lights at home where electric
power is cheap and plentiful--

Both assertions are debatable.

besides lights are mostly on in the
winter and you've got to heat your house anyway.

Electricity is a very expensive way of heating a house. Anyway the
heat is largely emitted as hot air at high level, which is not much
use.

Quite how much heating a 60W light bulb provides compared to a 2500W
radiator is left an exercise for the reader.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:40:28 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

In ,
JNugent tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
Matt B wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009, Matt B wrote:
This is self evident because in places where the rules and
regulations have effectively been removed or suspended, serious
accidents have stopped happening.


Yeah. There are NO SPEED CAMERAS on the moon, and also, there are
no pedestrian fatalities. That proves it. Stands to reason.

You'll need to do better than that.

Well... yes... but there was someone posting bhere just last week
along the lines: "You can't prove that x is not the case, therefore x
must be the case".

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

What I ACTUALLY said is:

There is evidence of X
There is no evidwence of not X

not quite:

we were discussing risk compensation and cycle helmets - I said there
was no evidence that such relationship existed.

I asked you for evidence "that there is a risk compensation effect
when wearing a cycle helmet?"

You insisted I provide evidence that "users of cycle helmets are/not/
affected by risk compensation"

It was pointed out - I believe by Mr Nugent - how stupid this request
was.

You get quite cross because Mr Nugent made you look quite silly.
--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:52:11 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

For more see:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Lighting_%28CFL%29_D ownsides

Ah yes, PESwiki, home of the free energy suppression conspiracy kooks.
Very authoritative.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Sep 2, 8:53*am, Tom Crispin
wrote:
I seem to recall that motoring is the biggest single cause of
unnatural death in the UK.

Is that why you want everyone (except maybe yourself) to be forced to
stop driving?

On Sep 2, 7:09*am, Tom Crispin
wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...r/5920312/Jere...

Universal sympathy from the URC regulars of course, since he was
cycling. Whereas if he'd been stopped for doing something which he
didn't believe was wrong while he'd been driving, they'd be tearing
him apart like the pack of savage, primitive car-hating hyenas they
are.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:52:11 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

For more see:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Lighting_%28CFL%29_D ownsides

Ah yes, PESwiki, home of the free energy suppression conspiracy kooks.

Had you heard of them before (I hadn't)? Please tell us more.

Very authoritative.

You seem very sure of yourself.

--
Matt B

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:40:16 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

On Sep 2, 8:53*am, Tom Crispin
wrote:
I seem to recall that motoring is the biggest single cause of
unnatural death in the UK.

Is that why you want everyone (except maybe yourself) to be forced to
stop driving?

I have never said that. However, I do think that people in the
Western world are addicted to the use of the private motor vehicle.