Sierra Club finds mercury in hair of Minnesotans

Judged:

2

IrishMN wrote:

Does this mean the Sierra Club will now support the banning of CFL bulbs?

Judged:

3

3

1

Idiots wrote:

Mercury occurs naturally. What could possibly be wrong with having trace amounts in many hair tests.
IF the mercury was emmitted from power plants wouldn't ALL Minnestotans have trace amounts?
This Sierra club needs to be confronted with logic and the media doesn't do that, all they do is publish and endorse their garbage.
How many flourecent bulbs have contaminated hair. I was working at a local government agency and a guy was installing new flourecent bulbs and an entire huge box fell to the floor and broke in a million pieces and all they did was vacume it up. Same day they had toddlers playing on the floor. All these warnings are ignored in practice. That is why having everyone in the country forced to use flourecent bulbs is a HUGE MISTAKE.

Judged:

4

3

1

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
Myth #1: everyone in the country is going to be forced to use CFLs
Myth #2: Possible mercury pollution from CFLs is higher than the extra mercury pollution from power plants if we DON'T use energy efficient bulbs.

Judged:

1

1

1

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
Myth #1: everyone in the country is going to be forced to use CFLs
Myth #2: Possible mercury pollution from CFLs is higher than the extra mercury pollution from power plants if we DON'T use energy efficient bulbs.

Judged:

4

3

2

Idiots wrote:

<quoted text>
#1 you havn't been keeping up to date on legislation. Incandecant bulbs will be BANNED in the USA soon.
#2 you obviously don't know LED bulbs are available containing NO MECURY. Why the rush to force everyone to switch to very expensive, HAZAROUS mecury bulbs when the LEDs are here now. Is the reason to milk the consumers for all the mercury bulbs and then a year later milk them for LED bulbs?
I thought so.

Judged:

5

4

2

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
#1) You apparently do not know what the legislation actually says. You're just parroting Republican talking points. Incandescent bulbs ARE NOT being banned. Energy efficiency requirements are being raised. Any manufacturer is free to develop an incandescent bulb that meets the new standards.
#2) You didn't understand my point. CFLs are LESS hazardous because, when properly recycled, LESS mercury is being released into the environment because less energy is needed. The production of which releases mercury into the environment. In fact, over the life of the bulb, a CFL keeps more mercury from being released into the environment than is in the bulb itself, so even if it all ends up in the environment, it's a net negative. Yes...LEDs will be even better, energy-wise, but claiming it's a conspiracy theory...well...that's just dumb. Is it a conspiracy when TV manufacturers continue to make their TVs better and use new and better technology? In short...NO.

IrishMN wrote:

Does this mean the Sierra Club will now support the banning of CFL bulbs?

Mark Trail wrote:

No worse than ethanol which creates more pollution than fossil fuels and uses more energy to create than is produced.

Judged:

2

1

1

I Wonder wrote:

<quoted text>
In testimony at the legislature an energy expert stated it takes 28,000 BTUs of natural gas to produce ONE gallon of ethanol.
It would be interesting to know the total energy consumption used to produce ethanol meanwhile burning up corn, a food stuff.

Judged:

2

2

1

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
What's even scarier is the amount of energy it takes to create a pound of beef, which also consumes food stuff.

Judged:

3

3

2

IrishMN wrote:

<quoted text>
Am I reading your post correctly with assuming you are saying it is better to put corn into ethanol than to feed cattle?

Judged:

1

1

1

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
What's even scarier is the amount of energy it takes to create a pound of beef, which also consumes food stuff.