Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
You’re Either with Us, or You’re with the CFLs
redgreenandblue.org — So, what ’s the bigger danger to the American public: Al Queda, or compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)?If you follow the conservative punditry, online or off, it’s a tough call. Today’s (April 24) “Mallard Fillmore” comic strip is just the latest example of conservatives taking aim at these energy-saving bulbs...
Mattman9876- 102 diggs
- digg it
- sustainablogger, on 04/25/2008, -3/+10Thanks for the digg, Mattman... I'm really perplexed by this: don't conservatives value efficiency?
- elasticsoul, on 04/25/2008, -3/+10What has happened is that people who are neither conservative nor Christian started calling themselves both, and have worked very hard (pouring billions into 'think tanks,' for example) to redefine both words in their favour.
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2They *are* social conservatives, though, so the self-ascription works out.
- elasticsoul, on 04/25/2008, -3/+10What has happened is that people who are neither conservative nor Christian started calling themselves both, and have worked very hard (pouring billions into 'think tanks,' for example) to redefine both words in their favour.
- granolajoe, on 04/25/2008, -3/+15"There’s probably more danger of mercury poisoning from a tuna sandwich than from a broken CFL."
Too awesome. I'm gonna use that line the next time I encounter any idiot that starts going off about mercury in CFLs. - elasticsoul, on 04/25/2008, -4/+9Really well-written article. It exposed the 'conservative' nonsense for what it is in few short paragraphs.
- bullcutter, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1that 'conservative' nonsense is the yin to your yang. one ideology cannot exist without the other. they serve to keep each other in check. one cannot inherently be "better" than the other.
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2The ones that are badscience are all objectively worse. In this case, it's the conservative garbage.
- bullcutter, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1that 'conservative' nonsense is the yin to your yang. one ideology cannot exist without the other. they serve to keep each other in check. one cannot inherently be "better" than the other.
- umbriago, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4What, Mallard Fillmore, done by the guy who blew an 0.14 on his drunk driving arrest?
(YES)- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2http://faithmouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/mallard-fil ...
- sustainablogger, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5Thanks, elasticsoul... the Mallard Fillmore cartoon yesterday was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back on this one... I thought about going into other types of toxins present in the household, also... where's the concern there? CFL makers are taking the same steps that other manufacturers of products with toxins are taking: working to reduce the amounts, and supporting the means of recovering these materials.
- bcrussett, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Greetings from twitter, sustainablogger. Good read, hope this hits front page.
From Energy Star's website re: CFLs, "If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars." - BigManOnCampus, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4This is such a clearly politically based link, I have to bury it for being in the wrong section. If you want to talk politics, go to the Digg political section. If you want to talk about science, which has nothing to do with CFL's as they are an engineering-level-concept and not a realm of scientific discovery, then don't post crap like this to the digg science section. When you pass politics off as science, you harm science.
- bcrussett, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3The problem here IS that politics are being passed off as science, something that affects environmentalists and scientists alike.
- BigManOnCampus, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Which is still more political than science in itself.
- bcrussett, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3This is primarily an environmental issue. Sustainability advocates can't take a head-in-the-sand approach to political happenings and focus just on R&D. If there were a category like "Environmental Policy", I'd be inclined to agree with you. Even still, I wouldn't bury it when it's at least debatable that it's in the right section (unlike if it were in Sports or Gaming, for example)
- BigManOnCampus, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3It's not even debatable. The entire conversation, the entire point is about what "conservatives" are doing. There's nothing whatsoever in it about some scientific endeavor. The entire tone of the three paragraphs this sadly-lacking-in-content blog article has is about political debate over sustainability. That is the realm of politics. If there were some new research done on CFL's, or some new study that demostrated toxicity, I might say differently.
Sorry, this article is purely political. It is short, it adds nothing of value to any scientific endeavor nor does it report on any such thing. Hence does not belong where it was submitted. Buried. - chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Political involvement is irrelevant to the inherent bad science that Tinsley ***** out. Your kneejerk defense of him and ignorance towards the discussion in the article is clear.
- BigManOnCampus, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Which is still more political than science in itself.
- bcrussett, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3The problem here IS that politics are being passed off as science, something that affects environmentalists and scientists alike.
- BECoole, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3Now if they could eliminate the radio-frequency interference.
- PappyPapillon, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4The characteristic interference caused by CFLs is a liberal plot to destroy conservative talk radio which is generally broadcast via AM radio... the exact frequency to which CFLs are tuned.
And yes, that was a joke.
- PappyPapillon, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4The characteristic interference caused by CFLs is a liberal plot to destroy conservative talk radio which is generally broadcast via AM radio... the exact frequency to which CFLs are tuned.
- PappyPapillon, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3Hey, I am a Conservative and a Christian and I have no problem with CFLs when and where they are suitable for a given application. I try and minimize my electric bill in any way I can and CFLs allegedly help in that endeavor - though I've yet to see any real change in my energy consumption. However, I do object to laws being passed outlawing incandescent lights. Mark my words that in ten years it will be the liberals who will be screaming about mercury contamination (regardless if it exists or not) due to CFLs.
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4"Mark my words that in ten years it will be the liberals who will be screaming about mercury contamination (regardless if it exists or not) due to CFLs."
The mercury released by the destruction of CFLs is still superior to the mercury released due to the extra added power of incandescent bulbs, so *****.
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4"Mark my words that in ten years it will be the liberals who will be screaming about mercury contamination (regardless if it exists or not) due to CFLs."
- mountainsurfer, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp - The comic being discussed.
- allaboutdatiki, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4I replaced the bulk of the bulbs in my place with CFLs years ago. There are some fixtures that burn out the CFLs with alarming regularity. Haven't nailed down the cause, but I'm not worried in the least about the mercury thing.
Bring on the LEDs.- stealthc, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I'm a big fan of LED. As soon as a good omnidirectional LED "bulb" comes out, all my CFLs are getting replaced.
- gavinhudson, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Really valuable comparisons of mercury levels in CFL light bulbs and other things... for instance the amount of mercury needed to power an incandescent light bulb using energy from coal.
- ncurses, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1oh god it's mattman
- stealthc, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"Milloy, Sowell, and Tinsley have a political agenda partly based in a dislike/distrust of environmentalism, and partly based in reaction to legislation banning the use of incandescents. In other words, the treehuggers are trying to take away your freedom as consumers… and undermine the free market… and toss us all into the shackles of godless communism…"
Funny, *I* have a political agenda that is distrustful of environmentalism, and I would react negatively indeed to a ban on incandescents, and wouldn't you know it, but the eco-terrorists who call themselves environmentalists fall exactly in the same policy camp as communists. They resent that anyone should privately own anything, or that anyone should profit from their own hard work or good idea.
Except "conservatives" would hate me because I'm anti-war, anti-corporatism, and more in favor of an open border than a closed one.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by