Best bet for Lighting?

Obi-Wan zenabI said:
Hmmm. Money? Exactly. And you, who stands to benefit financially for relaxed environmental regulation, are here arguing against these environmental concerns. Your motives are just too obvious to allow anyone to listen to what you are saying without keeping this in mind.
Click to expand...

What a shame you had to make this personal - and be wrong in the process as well......

for example - I just spent the last 5 years working on Adreian's Landing - a 3/4 billion dollar project and we didn't cut down one single tree - in fact we planted them - plus did the environmental clean-up of the site along with the removal of old abandonded buried coal oil tanks in the process (one of which was 30,000 gallons and still filled with coal oil)

Prior to all of that it was a 35 million dollar Hotel Spa which didn't cost a treee - and before that The addition to the Nautilus Museum (which didn't cost a tree) the 15,000 sf movie studio in Waterford and The Bonjovi Recording Studio - which we didn't deforest the land for - BUT - we did clean up and restore a wetlands that feeds one of the last pristine class "A" brooks in the State of CT - and for that one I did the wetlands plantings myself - one plant at a time.........

You don't know me from Adam - so I don't see how you get off making a statement like you just did.

The project I am currently working on is the replacement of a structure destroyed in a fire.

How exactly an I profiting by all of this that you refer to?

I take it you didn't bother to read that nice article - the one that speaks to the indian burning of the lands......... the one written by a green foundation - perhaps you should have - I am certain some of the people here did - and you would probably look better if you were at least acknowledging what it proved instead of attacking me.

I expect you to take a step above the position you were in in that last post.

Respectfully,

Rod
 
Rod, there should be no reason for you to take offense-- I suggested that readers of this thread will take your financial interests into account as they read what you write. Their judgements are their own. But methinks you protest too much. :p

You are surrounded by people who also make their living through the use of land and resources. This is likely to color your worldview-- one's peers have influence.

I'm only trying to rile you- not offend. :)

I do have the impression that wood, at least softwood, is used and replaced responsibly in this country for the most part. But all is not as rosy as you present it.... think of the woods available for furniture now -- walnut, cherry... they are certainly no longer the same as were available eighty years ago. "Hunted" to near endangerment.

Sorry I didn't get to read the article-- I'm in the city with my family and we were on our way out to the Central Park Zoo. We've just returned and I'll give it a look.
 
Rod Gervais said:
How exactly an I profiting by all of this that you refer to?

I take it you didn't bother to read that nice article - the one that speaks to the indian burning of the lands.........
Click to expand...

I really only read the first part of the abstract. Primarily, I noticed two things. The first is that it disproves what you suggested in this statement:

Rod Geravis said:
For example - we now have 4 times as much forest land in CT as we did when we first set foot on it's shores - and 10 times as much nation wide - so what's everyone crying about when we cut down a tree?
Click to expand...

The next is that it was selected for archiving in a Business Database. :eek: A possible clue that it might be selected because it happens to fit the needs of the business community, which by and large works against regulation-- environmental or otherwise.

I don't know what kind of publication Northeastern Naturalist is, but it could well be funded by any interest.... I clicked on a few articles, and many seem to put the environmental news in rosy terms... here's a quote from an abstract on Mussel die-off-- "Species richness appears to have declined only slightly over the last 100 years in this reach of river." In other words... "Hey, it's okay, look, 'species richness' has been cool for 100 years. [but that could actually mean that maybe one mussel of every species is still alive... we won't mention how depopulated this stretch of river really is until later]"

I'm not really going to research the rag much further, but a few signs point me towards doubting that it is a "green publication" as you claim.

Cheerfully,

O-Wz
 
Rod Gervais said:
Unfortunately = the problem with incandescent lighting is that it has been given it's death shot - They will no longer be allowed to manufacture it after somewhere between 2012 and 2014

So if you like them - you had better begin stockpiling them......

read it for yourself: http://www.metaefficient.com/news/us-to-phase-out-incandescent-light-bulbs.html

Sincerely

Rod
Click to expand...

Man:mad: What a crock! I will be stockpiling them:mad: I like using halogen my self, because I hate changing bulbs and I can usually pull a couple years out of them.


I guess I'm going to whale oil lamps:o Fluorescent bulbs are better than they used to be but still suck all of the mood out of a room & bug my eyes, plus all of the mercury. LED lighting gives me an instant headache.

This will end up being a cluster F like all the other shit that's going on:rolleyes: The price of mercury will sky rocket and you won't be able to get your blood pressure or tempeture taken at the doctors office:eek: Mercury will poison us all.

gREEn My ass:mad:

Oh and no more dimmers folks. How will we dim the lights? This could slow the birth rate and kill blues and jazz as we know it!
You'll look pretty stupid when your date comes over and you have to get out the ladder and switch your bulbs to a lower wattage to set the mood.

Lava lamps won't be near as cool when the shit just sits there in the bottom.

Fight the power!


F.S.
 
Last edited:
Obi-Wan zenabI said:
I really only read the first part of the abstract. Primarily, I noticed two things. The first is that it disproves what you suggested in this statement:
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that you reach to one part of this article to support your position - and another to suggest it can't be trusted.........

Your reference above (of course) is regarding the amount of additional forest land I noted - however you lost the crux of the message in that article I was refering to - which was the amount of land the indians burned on order to clear it.

The eastern indians were both hunters and farmers - when they farmed do you suppose that they just left the rocks lying where they were and planted around them? They had been planting corn for thousands of years before the setlers ever arrived in the Americas - I bet all those rocks were a pain just lying where they were all that time. The pro-european indians must have been a calm tolerant sort od people.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/268599/corn_history_in_american_cuisine.html

This from the Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, excerpt taken from an excellent article by William M. Denevan entitled: "The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492"

By 1492 Indian activity throughout the Americas had modified forest extent and composition, created and expanded grasslands, and rearranged microrelief via countless artificial earthworks. Agricultural fields were common, as were houses and towns and roads and trails. All of these had local impacts on soil, microclimate, hydrology, and wildlife. This is a large topic, for which this essay offers but an introduction to the issues, misconceptions, and residual problems. The evidence, pieced together from vague ethnohistorical accounts, field surveys, and archaeology, supports the hypothesis that the Indian landscape of 1492 had largely vanished by the mid-eighteenth century, not through a European superimposition, but because of the demise of the native population. The landscape of 1750 was more "pristine" (less humanized) than that of 1492.
Click to expand...


For those who might want to read it - (I found it quite well balanced (he did quote those who might disagree with him)) here is a link:

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~alcoze/for398/class/pristinemyth.html

I don't know what kind of publication Northeastern Naturalist is, but it could well be funded by any interest.... I clicked on a few articles, and many seem to put the environmental news in rosy terms... here's a quote from an abstract on Mussel die-off-- "Species richness appears to have declined only slightly over the last 100 years in this reach of river." In other words... "Hey, it's okay, look, 'species richness' has been cool for 100 years. [but that could actually mean that maybe one mussel of every species is still alive... we won't mention how depopulated this stretch of river really is until later]"

I'm not really going to research the rag much further, but a few signs point me towards doubting that it is a "green publication" as you claim.
Click to expand...

As I noted - interesting that you use it hither and bash it tither........

Again - I am not a sheep - my beliefs are not controlled or even highly influenced by my peers - in fact - many of my beliefs and actions fly in the face of their beliefs..... although we do listen to each other with respect - and acknowledge each others right to intelligent well thought opinions that might just happen to differ.

I just don't happen to like CFL's - with valid reasons - and find it a shame that the chicken little cry of the "sky is falling, the sky is falling" becomes a reason in the eyes of politicians to outlaw a completely wonderful invention that lights my house up so wonderfully. The added heat I get from it in the winters here in CT should be viewed as a plus.

Respectfully,

Rod
 
Rod Gervais said:
I just don't happen to like CFL's - with valid reasons - and find it a shame that the chicken little cry of the "sky is falling, the sky is falling" becomes a reason in the eyes of politicians to outlaw a completely wonderful invention that lights my house up so wonderfully. The added heat I get from it in the winters here in CT should be viewed as a plus.

Respectfully,

Rod
Click to expand...
I had a 5 bulb chandalier in my old house with 40w bulbs in it. It pretty much heated the whole upstairs.

CFL's done magicly make more light with less power either. They may use less energy in your home but, you can bet that the energy & material costs on the commercial manufacturing side is vastly greater than a normal bulb and we all know about the polution issues involved.

Green is a good word for a movement fueled by commerce and advertising;)

F.S.
 
Freudian Slip said:
... you can bet that the energy & material costs on the commercial manufacturing side is vastly greater than a normal bulb

F.S.
Click to expand...
Per bulb? Sure. But let's say you divide this number by the number of incandescents that would burn out during the CFL's lifetime....

We're pretty good at recycling things like car batteries and motor oil. I think we could do well keeping CFL mercury out of the regular waste stream.

And Rod, I've been aware of pre-colonial agriculture for some time. Your logical jump is from "hey, indians cleared land, too" to "well, that must mean that what we do is OK." That's a big jump, and that is what you were suggesting when you brought it up.

I just really take issue with your smug celebration of your wasteful and greedy stockpiling of incandescents before they are phased out.

I will have to do replace all the dimmers in my house eventually. I guess I consider it more honorably patriotic to make sacrifices and do without than you do in this case. I'm sure you have much company in this behavior. :(
 
Obi-Wan zenabI said:
I just really take issue with your smug celebration of your wasteful and greedy stockpiling of incandescents before they are phased out.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't I stockpile? Some morons in our Governtment decided to outlaw something that affects my quality of living....... why shouldn't I take advantage of storing enough to serve my needs? Believe me when I tell you that there are plenty of people like you out there who are doing the "honorable and patriotic" thing and already making their switch to cfl's - which leaves me a world full of my incandescents just waiting for a home.........

In fact I feel sort of like an adoptive parent to all those little bulbs that no one loves anymore.

And it wasn't smug at all......... I wasn't self satisfied - I wasn't patting myself on the back - I was simply statng a fact.

Rod
 
Obi-Wan zenabI said:
Per bulb? Sure. But let's say you divide this number by the number of incandescents that would burn out during the CFL's lifetime....

We're pretty good at recycling things like car batteries and motor oil. I think we could do well keeping CFL mercury out of the regular waste stream.
Click to expand...

We will see how good we really are and how many people will recycle them in the right place. Currently in our Portland suburb town, there is one place to take florecent bulbs and it is open 1/2 a day per month.

The full energy consumption of cfl's has yet to be realized.

PS: I use halogen bulbs that last a long time and require no special recycling.


F.S.
 
Rod Gervais said:
Why shouldn't I stockpile?
Rod
Click to expand...
It just seems a bit like filling up your spare containers with leaded gas before they phase it out.

Thanks for the compliment, but I still don't quite know what you meant. Do I have to read the entire article to make a few points about it? When there's an abstract?

F.S. is right, it remains to be seen how folks recycle their CFL's. It will take a lot more education and a lot more convenience for it to really come off. And many conversations like this one. People do need clear reminders of the drawbacks of new technologies as they are touted-- but not to the degree of paralyzing progress towards mitigating our unsustainable habits.


Apologies to the OP for the derail.
 
Thank you home recorders! I'd half skim read this thread a few days ago and not really paid much attention. Then last night in the studio the electric guitar player pulled out the chord from his guitar and threw it on the floor so he could walk across the room and turn on a lamp. He flicks the switch and with a crackle and a buzz everything clicked together in my mind... the fluorescent lamp, this thread and the annoying buzzing running through much of my demo guitar recordings. I'd thought it was a problem with the cable or even the guitar itself. If it wasn't for this thread i would have went down the wrong road trying to fix it. Hip hip hurray... for it's a jolly good website... for it's a jolly good website.... for it's a jolly good website and so says Neeps!! :):):):):):)
 
Yeah, but can you get that warm, vintage tube light feeling from a solid state bulb with any of the modeling amps available these days? :eek:

And by the way, the only "green thing" I do is take my used oil to the recycle joint after changing it. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top