Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Congress Bans Incandescent Light Bulbs

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Congress bans incandescent bulbs
Massive energy bill phases out Edison's invention by 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 19, 2007
7:18 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Incandescent light bulb

In addition to raising auto fuel efficiency standards 40 percent, an energy bill passed by Congress yesterday bans the incandescent light bulb by 2014.

President Bush signed the 822-page measure into law today after it was sent up Pennsylvania Avenue in a Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle. The House passed the bill by a 314-100 vote after approval by the Senate last week.

Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the legislation will boost the energy efficiency of "almost every significant product and tool and appliance that we use, from light bulbs to light trucks."

The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt.

All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.

Australia was the first country to announce an outright ban by 2010.

Critics of Thomas Edison's invention argue it uses more energy to produce light than the compact fluorescent, or CFL, bulb.

While standard light bulbs cost about 50 cents, the spiral CFL sells for about $3. Advocates argue, however, the CFL lasts five years longer and uses about 75 percent less energy.

But as WND reported, the presence of small amounts of highly toxic mercury in CFLs poses problems for consumers when breakage occurs and for disposal when bulbs eventually burn out. The potential environmental hazard created by the mass introduction of billions of CFLs with few disposal sites and a public unfamiliar with the risks is great.

Consumers generally are unaware of the risks of CFLs, and recycling experts say the solutions are at least five years away.

The Department of Energy, nevertheless, is encouraging citizens to take a pledge to replace at least one incandescent bulb with a CFL.

***

Or, you could do like me, and stock up on 100-watt ILBs over the next 6 years.

Who are these people in Washington telling us what we can and cannot purchase for ourselves? The disconnect is complete. The loss of our freedom is underway, it's only a matter of time. Death by a thousand cuts.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Who are these people in Washington telling us what we can and cannot purchase for ourselves? The disconnect is complete. The loss of our freedom is underway, it's only a matter of time. Death by a thousand cuts.

The same people who say I cant smoke a cigarette in a bar anymore if Im in Illinois.

That said -- I use the flourescent bulbs and couldnt be happier with them. They dont burn out anywhere near as frequently and use a whole lot less energy. I replaced every bulb in the house some time ago.

Posted by: Calabrio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wPv-QPn5uQ

A Nation of Dim Bulbs
The nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill.
by Andrew Ferguson
12/31/2007, Volume 013, Issue 16

On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't.

Ordinary consumers may be surprised, once they understand what's happened. They probably haven't known that the traditional incandescent light bulb, that happy little globe shining so innocently from the lamp in the corner, has been a scourge of environmentalists for many years. With their stern and unrelenting moralism, the warriors of Greenpeace have even branded lightbulb manufacturers "climate criminals" for making incandescents, which are, they say, a "silent killer." In Europe and in a few individual states in the U.S., professional environmentalists have managed to persuade their colleagues in government to ban the bulbs altogether, on the grounds that incandescents use energy inefficiently.

Ninety percent of the energy a traditional light bulb uses, for example, is thrown off as heat rather than light. This waste contributes to the overproduction of energy from coal-fired power plants, which contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. Professional environmentalists prefer a different kind of bulb, the compact fluorescent light (CFL), which is much more expensive to make and to buy but also much more efficient in its use of energy.

American environmental groups have long called for an outright national ban on the old-fashioned bulbs. But then they came to the realization, as a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council told the New York Times this spring, that such a ban might "anger consumers." "We've given up a sound bite, 'ban the incandescent,'" the spokesman said.

Instead the groups joined with the Bush administration this year in advocating a steady increase in federally mandated efficiency standards for light bulbs. The effect of the tightened standards is to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient incandescent bulb by 2014. So it's not a ban, see. It's just higher standards. Which have the same effect as a ban--a slow-motion ban that's not really a ban. Not surprisingly, in long, self-congratulatory remarks at the bill signing last week, Bush neglected to mention that he and Congress have just done away with the incandescent light bulb. Maybe most of us won't notice until he's back in Crawford.

Some people really like the new bulbs, of course. Not all of them are professional environmentalists, though all of them are cheapskates. CFLs produce the same amount of light (lumens) as an incandescent bulb while using only about a quarter of the watts. With proper care and moderate use, they can last as much as six times longer than a typical incandescent. Even if you consider their higher purchase price--six or seven times the price of a traditional bulb--CFLs can lower your monthly lighting bill by as much as 20 percent. And because they're deemed environmentally sensitive, switching them on can give you the same hard-to-define feeling of exaltation you get shopping for organic vegetables at Whole Foods. Then you can donate the money you've saved on your electric bill to the Natural Resources Defense Council or the George W. Bush Presidential Library.

Other people, however, perhaps a very large number, will prefer the old, pre-Bush bulbs. Their reasons have less to do with the wonderfulness of the incandescent and their disdain for environmentalists than with the inconveniences of the CFL. The new bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of temperature, for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter. CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average incandescent. This makes them unsuitable for all kinds of lighting fixtures--particularly chandeliers and other ceiling lights--which will have to be either discarded or reconfigured, at considerable expense, after the Bush ban goes into effect. You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers. Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers.

The quality of the light given off by CFLs is quite different from what we're used to from incandescents. The old bulb concentrates its light through a small surface area. CFLs don't shine in beams; they glow all the way around, diffusing their illumination. They're terrible reading lights. Many people find fluorescent light itself to be harsh and unpleasant. Moreover--in a variation of the old joke about the restaurant that serves awful food and, even worse, serves it in such small portions--a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow, according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article last week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: "Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life."

Odd, isn't it--an energy-saving device that you're not supposed to turn off? Such complications undermine the extravagant claims made for the CFLs' energy savings. Let's say you're a CFL aficionado and you want to fetch your car keys from your darkened bedroom: You switch on the light, wait a couple minutes, finally find the wallet as the room slowly brightens, and then leave the light on, because you don't want to shorten the life of your expensive CFL. Will you remember to go back and turn it off 15 minutes later? Or will you get in your Prius, drive to Whole Foods, and leave the light burning for several more hours while you absent-mindedly fondle the organics? If you're not a CFL aficionado, by contrast, you turn on the incandescent light, get your car keys, and then switch it off. Who's wasting more energy? I'm sure some green-eye-shade in the depths of the Department of Energy could calculate an answer, and maybe already has. But we're unlikely to hear about it.

Sam Kazman, of the antiregulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs--and electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens.

There are other complications that might give environmentalists pause, if they were the kind of people who paused. When a CFL bulb finally dies--after years and years and years!--it cannot be dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by specially equipped recycling facilities. CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Kazman says, EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And for God's sakes don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison into the air. Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, "the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb."

The mind reels at the joke-like possibilities: How many Bush administration officials does it take to screw in a CFL? As many as it takes to screw American consumers! But the Bushies aren't the half of it. In creating the ban, Bush and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting, which is--you should probably sit down--the world's foremost manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to crowd from the market any troublesome competitors. It's a perfect confluence of interests: the Big Environmental Lobby, Big Business, and Big Government Conservatives.

But back to the screwees--those American consumers, also known, not so long ago, as the citizens of the United States, a free people, rulers of the world's proudest self-governing nation. Will there be protests of some kind, expressions of disgust at least? And what if there aren't? What if, as the ban slowly tightens, we hear nothing, not a howl, not a peep, just a long mellow moo? Then maybe it really will be time to turn out the lights.

Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Posted by: shagdrum

Thank you Mr. Bush!

Posted by: bufordtpisser

Here is a link to a list of products that contain or can contain Mercury. CFL's are definitely no more dangerous than many of these items. I don't want safety legislated, but we are definitely not reducing our dependence in foreign by ourselves.

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste...y/con-prod.htm

I use CFL lights because they produce better light in my opinion. The fact that they save energy is a bonus. I honestly don't mind paying more upfront for a product if it will save me in the long run. I understand your point, and agree with it, but where can we help on our own so that the government does not shove it down out throats.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Congress bans incandescent bulbs

Or, you could do like me, and stock up on 100-watt ILBs over the next 6 years.

Who are these people in Washington telling us what we can and cannot purchase for ourselves? The disconnect is complete. The loss of our freedom is underway, it's only a matter of time. Death by a thousand cuts.

Did you also stock up on leaded fuel, DDT, R12 and other CFC's when those were being phased out?

Edit: I just remembered, by 2010 all diesel fuel will have to be Ultra Low Sulfur... better stock up on the old stuff!

90% of the bulbs in my house aren't incandescents; I turn them on/off each time I enter/leave the room, yet they still last years beyond the Edison types. That more than makes up for the somewhat higher cost, never mind the energy saving due to it's higher efficiency.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

90% of the bulbs in my house aren't incandescents; I turn them on/off each time I enter/leave the room, yet they still last years beyond the Edison types. That more than makes up for the somewhat higher cost, never mind the energy saving due to it's higher efficiency.

And your point is...? I don't give a rat's a$$ how more efficient they are, their light SUCKS. And they present a health hazard. And it's not the government's right to ban them.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And your point is...? I don't give a rat's a$$ how more efficient they are, their light SUCKS. And they present a health hazard. And it's not the government's right to ban them.

The light "sucking" is subjective, some like them, some dont.

The health hazard is highly debatable, as Buford's post table illustrates.

What's your beef with conserving energy? Which is the issue at hand.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Fosten's point is a good one. The government has no business or right to do what they are doing.

Posted by: hrmwrm

sure they do shag. what else would push people into a less wasteful technology. you think car manufacturers would create less wasteful and polluting cars if they weren't pushed into it? this also will push newer/better lighting technologies to be developed. as for the statement of them being too large, while shopping at christmas i saw smaller designs of the same wattage now out. i don't think on a national scale it's realized by some what the energy savings are. fossten must have stock in an electric company.

Posted by: shagdrum

Sure they do because, hey who else is gonna do it? That is an extremely weak argument. This country is founded on a constitution. Show me where they have the power to do what they did in that.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

sure they do shag. what else would push people into a less wasteful technology.

Uh, it's called the free market. You sound like a good communist: Let the government tell everybody what to do. And please show me how introducing the health hazard of mercury spills in private homes, necessitating decon crews having to come out, and people going to the hospital, is a technological improvement.

Quote:

you think car manufacturers would create less wasteful and polluting cars if they weren't pushed into it?

Look at your words. PUSHED INTO IT. The government has no right to PUSH industrialists to do anything.

How long do you think they will continue producing hybrid cars that nobody (generally) wants to buy?

Quote:

this also will push newer/better lighting technologies to be developed. as for the statement of them being too large, while shopping at christmas i saw smaller designs of the same wattage now out. i don't think on a national scale it's realized by some what the energy savings are.

This isn't about energy savings as much as it's about politicizing global warming and telling people what they can or cannot buy. Pushing new technologies by way of offering tax incentives to businesses is one thing, but completely banning probably the greatest invention since the wheel is stupid and unnecessary.

Quote:

fossten must have stock in an electric company.

Really? And here all I really wanted was to be able to buy the product I prefer, instead of the government PUSHING me to buy something else.

Well, your lame personal attack notwithstanding, you know NOTHING about free markets and how they are destroyed by government intervention. If these lightbulbs are supposed to be so good, then the people should be falling all over themselves with eagerness to buy them, and it shouldn't be NECESSARY for the government to ban Edison's invention.

Oh, please show me any and all evidence that Thomas Edison's invention has been harmful to the United States, considering he invented the incandescent light bulb in 1879. According to envirowackos logic, global warming should have happened in the late 1800s.

Posted by: Marcus

Just passing by and saw this.

You guys really need to check things out before you go off the deep end.

Go here and type "H.R.6.ENR" in the search box. This is a law as passed. In the list of headings, click the one that says "Subtitle B--Lighting Energy Efficiency".

You can find the original law it modifies here.

Nowhere does it say that incandescent bulbs are being "banned", only that the efficiency must be much higher than today's bulbs.

Furthermore, the standards ONLY apply to your standard 40 - 100 watt bulbs that are the most widely used. ALL other incandescent bulbs are unaffected. So you don't have worry about replacing your chandelier.

Finally, GE is already working on incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Fosten's point is a good one. The government has no business or right to do what they are doing.

Like I said - itws the same breed that make it so I can no longer have a smoke in a bar or a restaurant here in Illinois.

As far as the light sucking - Fossten - Might I suggest you go buy one today and try it? THe light they put out is better today then it was in the past. IM quite happy with mine.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Finally, GE is already working on incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards.

Hopefully they get that working at a decent price

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Like I said - itws the same breed that make it so I can no longer have a smoke in a bar or a restaurant here in Illinois.

Yeah, but they are stepping beyond the limits of their power in enacting this law (not that anyone is gonna challenge it).

Posted by: hrmwrm

"This isn't about energy savings as much as it's about politicizing global warming and telling people what they can or cannot buy. "

it has less to do with global warming and more to do with slowing the dependance on foriegn energy. and as already stated, they're not banning it, just forcing higher effeciencies. in 125 years of the incandescent, it has never been tried to push it's effeciency due to lack of practical alternatives. so it's not government saying what to buy, it's industry never gave a choice. the law just makes sure the old wasteful technology isn't left as an alternative.
and fossten, my 11 year old daughter likes calling names too.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

...as already stated, they're not banning it, just forcing higher effeciencies... the law just makes sure the old wasteful technology isn't left as an alternative.

You just contradicted yourself.

Weather you want to admit it or not, this law does effectively ban incandesents, the evidence is in your statement that it is removed as an alternative. Also, the whole "blame the private sector" thing is weak, there isn't an economically viable alternative to incadescents or the free market would have brought it to promenance. When the government tries to force a new technology on America there are always bad consequences.

Look at the forced change from leaded fuel and gas mileage standards and how long it took the auto industry to recover (150 HP V8 engine was consider high power in the 1980's), in addition to the fact that creating lighter cars means less safe cars on the road and unnecessary fatalities, all due to the government overreaction and stupidity in regards to the 1970's gas crisis. More example: EPA regulations that lead to the space shuttle tragedy in 2003; Banning of DDT allowing millions of unnessecary deaths due to malaria.

How do a change in light bulbs result in reducing dependancy on foreign energy? That isn't the goal here, as there are much less intrusive and more effective methods to do that. This bill is just an attempt to cater to the enviro-wacko lobby, nothing more.

Stop trying to find clever ways to ignore thr truth.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

That's just wonderfantabulous, Joey! I'm SOOOOOOOOOOO glad for you! But your comment is irrelevant, because if I want to buy incandescent bulbs the government should not be permitted to prevent me.

Anybody care to explain WHY we NEED to have more energy efficient light bulbs?

And by the way, Joey, the light DOES SUCK. Been there, done that. We have one set sitting on a shelf, never to be used again. You try talking my wife into buying another one and I'll give you the shirt off my back.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Nowhere does it say that incandescent bulbs are being "banned", only that the efficiency must be much higher than today's bulbs.

That's usually an indirect way of banning something. You impose regulation or standards that are impossible to attain, or provide for a reasonable price. Int his case, you don't ban the bulbs, but you apply standards as I just mentioned. This happens frequently with government.

Quote:

Finally, GE is already working on incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards.

Have a nice day.

They are working on it... now, do you think they'll be able to get the incandescent bulbs to be 70% more efficient within that time frame, or by 2010 as the article states, and for a competitive price?

Posted by: hrmwrm

i didn't contradict myself. if they can make a more effecient incandescent bulb, then the question would be why wasn't it done sooner? ge claims they will be able to do it. and what do you mean not economically viable? they cost less in the long run to use. i fail to see an arguement there. and shag, the biggest drop in horsepower came when they changed ratings from gross to net in 1972. it had nothing to do with unleaded fuels. and car manufacturers still wouldn't of had a clean engine to this day if it wasn't for some kind of minimum standards imposed upon them. and catering to wacko-enviros sounds like a conpiracy theory to me. governments have rolled over for buisness always, and i suppose you would like another love canal happen.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Fosten's point is a good one. The government has no business or right to do what they are doing.

They have the right to do whatever we allow them to do. I switched to them long before they were mandated. And as far as the light sucks thing, that is just one opinion. I also use LED's and low voltage halogen bulbs to light my house. So my light sources are mixed. I am a cheapskate. If I can save a buck from going to big energy I will. But then on the other hand, I drive a gas guzzling truck. I guess that it is a trade off. I save a couple hundred dollars a year in heating and cooling and lighting costs and then burn it in gas money. Dam I am a hypocrite.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by bufordtpisser

I respect your opinion, Buford...and I agree with you that the quality of the light is a subjective thing. If you want to buy twisty bulbs, I believe that is your right as an American. But the government has now seen fit to tell me that by 2014 I won't be able to buy incandescent bulbs anymore. That is outrageous.

This is more about the principle and less about the product. What happens when they start banning books? Oh, but the bill won't actually BAN books, it will just regulate them in a way that makes it more difficult for certain books to be published. I predict hate speech will play a part in this.

As for the rest of you socialists...eventually the government will get around to banning something you DO care about. Just wait. By then there will be nobody to speak up on your behalf. Thanks for speaking up on mine. /sarc

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

...if they can make a more effecient incandescent bulb, then the question would be why wasn't it done sooner?

Because efficiancy isn't the only consideration to the consumer (though it obviously is to washington). Cost as well as quality and ease of use are concerns being ignored here. It isn't economically viable.

Quote:

and what do you mean not economically viable? they cost less in the long run to use.

...according to some estimates. Again cost is one of many concerns by consumers. Did you even read Calabrio's post?! Power consumption has gone up when these are used, as well as being limited in their usage (temp issues as well as slow warm up).

Remember, hybrid cars cost less overall according to some estimate, but not in the real world.

Quote:

the biggest drop in horsepower came when they changed ratings from gross to net in 1972. it had nothing to do with unleaded fuels.

That was merely a drop in advertised power. The engines still made the same power, it was just calculated differently. You saw real drops in power due to the switch in fuels as well as gas mileage standards. This is why my first car (1985 Grand Marquis) had a 5.0 that made an astounding 150 hp.

Quote:

and car manufacturers still wouldn't of had a clean engine to this day if it wasn't for some kind of minimum standards imposed upon them

.

and did those standards have any positive effect (besides smell)? No. Car emissions are still used as a scare tactic for global warming, so the enviro-wackos tell us.

Quote:

and catering to wacko-enviros sounds like a conpiracy theory to me

You give the enviro-wackos to much credit; they aren't that smart. Just obsessed with their own concerns and imposing their world view. They also make up a large part of the democratic part base, so they have influence.

Quote:

governments have rolled over for buisness always, and i suppose you would like another love canal happen.

Can't speak to the "love canal" thing; not very informed on it and it was before my time. However you statement shows a huge bias against the private sector (Big Business in particular). While the private sector is far from perfect, they are no where near as bad as the government. When businesses screw up, you get Enron; when governments screw up, you get Vietnam, Waco (Texas), WW2, Ruby Ridge and many more examples too numerous to name. There is a large difference in ability and scale. There is also a difference in accountability and justice. Look at what happened to the Enron corporation and it's accounting firm as well as the individuals who played the system. Contrast that with no accountability and/or punishment when the government screws up.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Best paragraph I've ever seen you post. Seriously, Shag. MAJOR props. *applauds loudly*

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And by the way, Joey, the light DOES SUCK. Been there, done that. We have one set sitting on a shelf, never to be used again. You try talking my wife into buying another one and I'll give you the shirt off my back.

I dunno - I like them myself.

My kitchen alone I have 12 light bulbs. 720 watts using incadescent vs 156 watts using flouros --- My family room is the same with 24 lights.

I use flouros everywhere. I dont notice any problem with the light quality.

Posted by: hrmwrm

i like them as well joeychgo, and have them installed everywhere in my house. they more than pay for themselves. i also have a brand new deep freeze that uses less power to operate than my old one but is larger. it'll more than pay for itself over it's lifetime in energy savings.

and shag, how do you figure power consumption goes up when cf's are used? calabrio's post has some nagging whiner complaining about them. i have some in places where they occasionally get short use and haven't had a problem with them. but yes, they do have a cold environment problem common to all flourescents. but they are alot better now than they were when they first came out. they are practically instant on and don't have to warm up as long for a decent amount of light.

love canal is a place where hooker chemical closed down a factory and then a subdivision was built on the land. the american government finally had to buy it up and close it off because of cancers and illnesses from the pollution left behind from dumping on the ground. the whole neighbourhood was a toxic waste dump. that's just a small reason why i don't trust companies being left to their own devices. enron is a good example also. some standards have to be in place.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Best paragraph I've ever seen you post. Seriously, Shag. MAJOR props. *applauds loudly*

Very good post.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

how do you figure power consumption goes up when cf's are used?

From the article Calabrio posted:

FACT:once it's fully aglow, according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on for at least 15 minutes

FACT:Sam Kazman, of the antiregulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs--and electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens.

That is what always happens. when the cost (per unit) of a resource drops, demand always increases. We saw it with gas mileage standards and increased gas consumption, as well as when more effecient refridgerators came on the market and the increase in sales of bigger capacity refridgerators, to name a few examples. Overall cost doesn't decrease, in most cases it increases. Either Washington doesn't know this (doubtful) or chose to ignore it to appease the enviro-wackos (very likely). Either way, this bill does nothing (in regards to bulbs) to reduce dependance on foreign resources.

Quote:

love canal is a place where hooker chemical closed down a factory and then a subdivision was built on the land. the american government finally had to buy it up and close it off because of cancers and illnesses from the pollution left behind from dumping on the ground. the whole neighbourhood was a toxic waste dump.

Here is what I found while looking up this issue:

The site was original turned into a landfill in the 1920's by the City of Niagara Falls because the ground was largely impermeable clay, and the surrounding area was (at the time) sparsely populated

Hooker Chemical (later a subsidary of Occidental Petroleum) acquired the site in 1947 and, In the subsequent five year period, the company buried about 22,000 tons of toxic waste in the area

Once the site had been filled to capacity in 1952, Hooker closed the site, back-filled the canal, and covered it with four feet of clay.

At the time of the closure, Niagara Falls' population had begun to expand

The Niagara Falls Board of Education was desperate for land, and attempted to purchase the canal from Hooker Chemical The corporation refused to sell on the grounds of safety, and took members of the school board to the canal and drilled several bore holes through the clay, showing that there were toxic chemicals below the surface. However, the board refused to capitulate.

Eventually, faced with the property being condemned and/or expropriated, Hooker Chemical agreed to sell on the condition that the board buy the entire property for one dollar. In the agreement, Hooker included a seventeen line caveat that explained the dangers of building on the site:

Prior to the delivery of this instrument of conveyance, the grantee herein has been advised by the grantor that the premises above described have been filled, in whole or in part, to the present grade level thereof with waste products resulting from the manufacturing of chemicals by the grantor at its plant in the City of Niagara Falls, New York, and the grantee assumes all risk and liability incident to the use thereof. It is therefore understood and agreed that, as a part of the consideration for this conveyance and as a condition thereof, no claim, suit, action or demand of any nature whatsoever shall ever be made by the grantee, its successors or assigns, against the grantor, its successors or assigns, for injury to a person or persons, including death resulting therefrom, or loss of or damage to property caused by, in connection with or by reason of the presence of said industrial wastes. It is further agreed as a condition hereof that each subsequent conveyance of the aforesaid lands shall be made subject to the foregoing provisions and conditions

The school board began construction on the 99th Street School directly on top of the former landfill, and during construction, contractors broke through the clay seal that Hooker had installed to contain the chemical waste.

In 1957, the City of Niagara Falls constructed sewers for a mixture of low-income and single family residences to be built on lands adjacent to the landfill site. During construction of the gravel sewer beds, the clay seal was broken again, the walls of the canal were breached, and chemicals seeped from the canal. The construction of the LaSalle Expressway restricted groundwater from flowing to the Niagara River. Following the wet winter and spring of 1977, the elevated expressway turned the breached canal into an overflowing pool.

The landfill was started by the government. Hooker Chemical continued using it in that fashion when they acquired it. Hooker Chemical tried not to sell the land, but was forced to , and made sure the buyers (the school board) knew of the chemicals in the canal.

The City of Niagra Falls were the ones responsible for the health hazard exposure, not Occidental.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29319.html

This is in fact an issue of government trying to transfer responsibility. It strengthens my point, doesn't work against it.

Quote:

that's just a small reason why i don't trust companies being left to their own devices. enron is a good example also. some standards have to be in place.

But you will trust the government. I have shown how that is irrational, considering the amount of power each has( the government has much more power) and accountability (in the private sector) or lack thereof (on the part of the government).

Posted by: hrmwrm

"At the time of the closure, Niagara Falls' population had begun to expand. The local school board was desperate for land, and attempted to purchase an area of expensive property from Hooker Chemical that had not yet been used to bury toxic waste."

"Shortly thereafter, the board began construction on the 99th Street School in its originally intended location. However, the building site was forced to relocate when contractors unearthed two pits filled with chemicals. "

sounds a little worse when you don't abridge the story. the land originally intended for the school was not supposed to have waste on it. funny they dug some up when construction started. not wanting to sell the land sounds like someone covering their ass. but then you trust big buisness.

Posted by: hrmwrm

"After growing evidence and two years' effort by Lois Gibbs and other residents, President Carter declared a state of emergency at Love Canal on May 21, 1980, and the EPA agreed to evacuate 700 families temporarily. Eventually, the government relocated more than 800 families and reimbursed them for their homes, and the United States Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or the Superfund Act, that holds polluters accountable for their damages. In 1994, Federal District Judge John Curtin ruled that Hooker/Occidental had been negligent, but not reckless, in its handling of the waste and sale of the land to the Niagara Falls School Board. Curtin's decision also contains a detailed history of events leading up to the Love Canal disaster. Occidental Petroleum was sued by the EPA and in 1995 agreed to pay $129 million in restitution."

you don't pay out 129 million for being in the right. and now who is stuck for cleaning up the mess. that's why laws are necessary. you pollute it, you clean it.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

"At the time of the closure, Niagara Falls' population had begun to expand. The local school board was desperate for land, and attempted to purchase an area of expensive property from Hooker Chemical that had not yet been used to bury toxic waste."

Back that info up. You can't. Find the source, and show me specifically where it says that.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the school board (a government entity) chose to buy this land and use as a cite for the school, not Hooker. It is obvious who is resposible, and it isn't Hooker.

another interesting fact:

It’s also worth noting here that other wastes besides these 21,800 tons from Hooker have apparently been dumped into the Canal. According to New York State officials, federal agencies, especially the Army, disposed of toxic chemical wastes there during and after World War II. The city of Niagara Falls also regularly unloaded its municipal refuse into this Hooker-owned pit.

If you choose to blame Hooker, you must logically blame the government too. Though there is no logic in blaming Hooker...

Quote:

"Shortly thereafter, the board began construction on the 99th Street School in its originally intended location. However, the building site was forced to relocate when contractors unearthed two pits filled with chemicals. "

and where was the "originally intended location"? It had to be the pit, as that is what they bought, and that is where the chemicals were dumped and later exposed by the contractors. There is no evidence that Hooker dumped anywhere besides the pit. Find a source that shows otherwise.

Quote:

sounds a little worse when you don't abridge the story. the land originally intended for the school was not supposed to have waste on it. funny they dug some up when construction started.

The additions aren't supported by any source.

You are making assumptions on what the "original land" was that aren't supported; you are spinning

Quote:

not wanting to sell the land sounds like someone covering their ass. but then you trust big buisness

I trust Big Business over the government. Doesn't mean I have absolute, unquestioning faith in it. But I am objective enough and honest enough to realize it is by far the lesser evil. In fact I will go so far to say that Big Business does more to help society then the government. One example, Katrina. Wal-mart (as well as many other businesses) was in there helping people long before the government.

Your "covering their ass" view assumes guilt on their part, which obviously isn't the case here. Hooker didn't want to sell the land because of what was going to be done with the land. That is why, when forced to give up the land they did it the way they did, with the section shown in the closing paragraph of the deed and the token $1 payment. They knew that developing the land was dangerous and didn't want to allow that, but the government forced them to, so they did what they could to transfer responsibility away after because they couldn't prevent the developement. They were being responsible, the government wasn't.

It is rather obvious that you are trying to spin this, because the facts don't back up your assertions.

Read the article I posted, you might find it enlightening.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

you don't pay out 129 million for being in the right. and now who is stuck for cleaning up the mess. that's why laws are necessary. you pollute it, you clean it.

Actually, in this case, Occidental did pay out 129 million despite the fact that they weren't in the wrong here. They disposed of the chemicals in line with the methods of the day. They did everything they could to prevent developement on the land. The government forced them to give the land up, so they could develop the land. So, according to you, Occidental (through Hooker) is responsible for the government's unchecked power and stupidity. That's logical.

You really think that, because they were found liable in a lawsuit with the EPA that means they are guilty? So the justice system never screws up. OJ didn't murder his wife, and no one has every been wrongly convicted of a crime. Judges are never wrong or corruptable. Have some intellectual honesty here!

It is much more plausible, given the facts, that the government was covering their own ass. They needed to find a scapegoat, and Occidental was the easiest target. God forbid the government actually accept responsibility on this (or any other mistakes for that matter).

I see no way that you could logically say the Hooker was guilty, or that the government wasn't guilty. Please make the argument, it has yet to be made here.

Posted by: hrmwrm

you think i just puuled that out of the air?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal
seems very similar to your wording. same source? it seems the original location would have been where the dumping wasn't. that is the land they were originally intending to build on. hooker should have let the land go to expropriation or be condemned. then they could have made their case and been free. unlike you say, they weren't forced by the government. they gave it up after the threat. what was their motivation for avoiding this? why did they cave so easily to the school board? i don't know what having the property condemned at the time would have meant. hooker didn't want to face that option for some reason. it may have meant restoring the land. i don't know.

there are a lot of other things that happened after the fact. some negligent, or gross errors of judgement. but when you are owner of a toxic landfill and know the dangers of developing it, i think you'd fight against it's sale. would that not be the logical appropriate thing to do? yet after creating a list of warnings that went with the property, they handed the whole thing over. they're not completely to blame. but it's still a time bomb that should have been restored before sale of the land occurred. we know that now, but they didn't know it then.

hooker expanded the site in 1942, which was during the war. so it may have been part of a military contract to dispose of wastes there. haven't looked into it. and by 1947 they took it over privately. so anything after then was allowed by hooker.

and i read through the reason one of yours. it does have some validity. but it still doesn't answer my questions above. why didn't hooker let it be condemned, which is what they were being threatened with. they were not forced to hand over the land.

Posted by: daves2000ls

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Like I said - itws the same breed that make it so I can no longer have a smoke in a bar or a restaurant here in Illinois.
.

I can thank Mike Huckabee for that here in Arkansas.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

you think i just puuled that out of the air?

Nope.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal
seems very similar to your wording. same source?

Yep. That is where I started. Wikipedia is a good place to start research, gives you a general overview. However, wikipedia is not overly accurate on the details (as I have proved in a different thread about a "fact" you cited wikipedia, when the source they cited was 180 degrees from what wikipedia and you were claiming). Every fact I posted from them , I double checked. The "facts" you are taking from there don't even have a source cited. I couldn't verify those "facts" so they were left out. Wikipedia is the only place that I found that mentioned the "facts" you are hanging your hat on. Since wikipedia is consensus based, it is not a reliable source.

Quote:

it seems the original location would have been where the dumping wasn't.

Again, an assumption on your part not supported by any facts, and in fact contradicted by the article I posted.

Quote:

that is the land they were originally intending to build on.

They bought the canal, where else would they be constructing the school? I have yet to find any accusations (let alone evidence) that Hooker was dumping anywhere else, or that the school board bought land from Hooker besides the canal.

Quote:

hooker should have let the land go to expropriation or be condemned. then they could have made their case and been free.

They wanted to have their concerns in writing as a warning. That isn't responsible?

Quote:

unlike you say, they weren't forced by the government. they gave it up after the threat.

You are splitting hairs here. You admit they were effectively threatened by the government but weren't forced? You know better then that.

Quote:

what was their motivation for avoiding this? why did they cave so easily to the school board?

They knew the land shouldn't be developed but the government was dead set on doing so, even if they had to take the property. Hooker was caught between a rock and a hard place. They made the best of the situation.

Quote:

there are a lot of other things that happened after the fact. some negligent, or gross errors of judgement. but when you are owner of a toxic landfill and know the dangers of developing it, i think you'd fight against it's sale. would that not be the logical appropriate thing to do?

Yep. And they did fight against it, until they realized the government was going to take it regardless. Once they realized the battle was lost, they turned to damage control, as would anyone in that situation.

Quote:

yet after creating a list of warnings that went with the property, they handed the whole thing over. they're not completely to blame. but it's still a time bomb that should have been restored before sale of the land occurred.

restored? How?

Quote:

we know that now, but they didn't know it then.

I see. They are guilty of not being able to see into the future and know the hindsight of future generations.

Quote:

hooker expanded the site in 1942, which was during the war. so it may have been part of a military contract to dispose of wastes there. haven't looked into it. and by 1947they took it over privately. so anything after then was allowed by hooker.

It was still in the canal (no indication that it wasn't). And even when they did buy it from the government, who knows the details of that contract? Would need to check that before you assign "blame" to Hooker. Either way, doesn't absolve the government there either, they still chose to dump (which I assume you consider a crime, even though it wasn't).

The customary practices then were to pile up such wastes in unlined surface impoundments, insecure lagoons, or pits, usually on the premises of the chemical factory, or else to burn the wastes or dump them into rivers or lakes. Except for disposal into water supplies, these practices were all legal until 1980, when the Environmental Protection Agency began issuing regulations implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

Quote:

and i read through the reason one of yours. it does have some validity. but it still doesn't answer my questions above. why didn't hooker let it be condemned, which is what they were being threatened with. they were not forced to hand over the land.

You obviously didn't read too closely:

Looked at one way, these provisions would seem to indicate that Hooker had been quite anxious to unburden itself of responsibility for this property. On the other hand, since the first condition, assumption of liability for use, only makes explicit what normally accompanies any property exchange, and since the second would protect Hooker only from claims made by the Board and subsequent owners, and not from claims by third parties, it would seem that these provisions are more in the nature of a warning. By incorporating them into the deed, Hooker had provided clear notice, recorded for all time, that its use of this property had been such that any future owner would have to take care to use it in a safe manner so as to avoid causing harm.

Ruthless and negligent? As I was subsequently to learn, Hooker had evidently been so concerned that the Board know what it was getting in taking over the Canal that the company had not left to chance whether School Board officials would physically inspect the property prior to acquiring it. Instead, Hooker had escorted them to the Canal site and in their presence made eight test borings–into the protective clay cover that the company had laid over the Canal, and into the surrounding area. At two spots, directly over Hooker’s wastes, chemicals were encountered four feet below the surface. At the other spots, to the sides of the Canal proper, no chemicals showed up. So whether or not the School Board was of a mind to inspect the Canal, Hooker had gone out of its way to make sure that they did inspect it and that they did see that chemicals lay buried in that Canal.

One thing, however, is clear: according to the School Board’s own records, the Board was already well along in its planning of the 99th Street School more than two years before Hooker deeded the Canal to the Board. And the Board meant business. It was gearing up for a string of condemnation proceedings for the Canal site and all properties abutting it. First, there’s a map, dated March 1951 and labeled "School Site Study Plan A" (Plan B was for the 66th Street School). This map not only shows the projected school being built right over the very center of the Canal itself but also shows the assessed condemnation values for the Canal property and each of the properties bordering it. Then there are two letters from the School Board’s attorney, Ralph Boniello–one dated September 4, 1952, informing the Board’s business manager, Frank Lang, that procedures were under way to purchase four lots abutting the Canal; the other dated September 19, 1952, addressed to Mr. Carmen J. Caggiano and sent registered mail, return receipt requested, informing Mr. Caggiano that since he had refused the Board’s "price offered of $10 per front foot" for the strip of 10 lots he owned along the east side of the Canal, "The purpose of this letter is to apprise you of the institution of an action in condemnation to acquire the above--escribed property for educational purposes."

One might wonder why Hooker deeded the property to the School Board for $1.00 rather than let it be condemned and seized under eminent domain. After all, condemnation would clearly have freed the company from future liability for the chemical dump, saving Hooker the trouble of spelling out such matters in the deed. Hooker claims that it had wanted any future property holder there to know of the dangerous chemicals and that it had therefore agreed to donate the property, subject to the Board’s recognition that, to quote Hooker’s letter of October 16, 1952, to the Board, "in view of the nature of the property and the purposes for which it has been used, it will be necessary for us to have special provisions incorporated into the deed with respect to the use of the property and other pertinent matters." Had the land been condemned and seized, says Hooker, the company would have been unable to air its concerns to all future owners of the property. It is difficult to see any other reason for what it did.

Your question is answered.

You realize that this is all beside the point of the discussion. We got off on this due to Big Business v. Government, and which does more harm/good.

Posted by: hrmwrm

you keep saying government shag. it was a school board. not municipal, state or federal government. and it's not splitting hairs. that's the start of your defence. they were forced. if it was land that had some value left to the company, you can bet they would have fought expropriation. and as for condemnation, there was a letter from hooker read into the minutes of a meeting stating this, but not much else backing up the claim. most negotiations were verbal. i'm not suggesting the threat wasn't there, there isn't much backing the claim up.

"The negotiations that culminated in Hooker’s transfer of the Love Canal property to the Board of Education took place over a period of several I years. The contemporary documentary record is very sparse, consisting of three perfunctory letters and the deed itself. Virtually all of the negotiations were verbal rather than written."

"According to reporter Michael Brown, in his book and other writings, the School Board’s attorney at the time denies that the threat of property condemnation was ever held out against Hooker for the Love Canal site."

"For example, the 99th Street School, which was built beside Love Canal,"
quoted from your article, shag. you contradicted yourself.

but then, this is off topic from the thread, so i will desist, if you will.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

you keep saying government shag. it was a school board. not municipal, state or federal government.

A: that is irrelevent; the school board is a government entity

B: a serious threat of taking the land through eminant domain assumes a school board with the full force, power and influence of the government behind it

C: The city government developed the land and ran sewer lines through the canal, breaking the seal of clay around the waste and exposing the population to the waste

D: the federal government wrongfully assigned blame to Occidental (as a scapegoat) when it was various government organizations that were being reckless and irresponsible causing the problems at Love Canal, not Hooker.

The developers had suggested a trade whereby they would have gotten chunks of the Love Canal property in return for their properties plus some cash. The deal would have netted the Board $11,000, and Wesley Kester and the rest of the Buildings and Grounds Committee were strongly in favor of it. But Hooker got wind of the proposal and was just as strongly opposed.

Hooker sent its attorney, Arthur Chambers, to attend the meeting of the Board on November 7. As reported in the Niagara Gazette the next day, Chambers admonished the Board of Education that it had "a certain moral responsibility in the disposition of the land. "After reminding the Board that chemicals were buried under the surface, he explained that this "made the land unsuitable for construction in which basements, water lines, sewers and such underground facilities would be necessary." He referred to "negotiations at the time the land was deeded to the board," in which Hooker had urged that it be used only for surface constructions or parks. According to the Board minutes from that evening, Mr. Chambers conceded "that his company could not prevent the Board from selling the land or from doing anything they wanted to with it," but he made clear Hooker’s "intent that this property be used for a school and for parking. He further stated that they feel the property should not be divided for the purpose of building homes and hoped that no one will be injured. "

Hooker was determined to prevent, if it could, the selling of this land to subdividers. The showdown came at the Board meeting of November 21. Arthur Chambers again made his appearance, this time reinforced with a lengthy letter from the company’s vice-president, Ansley Wilcox, in which the Board was reminded in no uncertain terms of the details of the mostly verbal negotiations and unwritten promises that had preceded the transfer of this property to the Board more than four years earlier. In addition, Hooker’s position on the proposed sale was again stated. According to the Board minutes, "They feel very strongly that subsoil conditions make any excavation undesirable and possibly hazardous." As the Niagara Gazette quoted him the next day, Chambers told the Board, "There are dangerous chemicals buried there in drums, in loose form, in solids and liquids." The Buffalo Courier-Express, too, referred to Chambers’s speech about this "chemical-laden ground."

It seems Hooker went "above and beyond" here trying to prevent the sale of the land by the School Board to developers...

Your argument of "it isn't the government, just a small part of the government" is simply an attempt to shift responsibility. Why are you covering for the government? You wouldn't apply that argument to Big Business. What if Enron had said "it wasn't us, it was our accountants"? Would that be a valid argument?

Quote:

they were forced.

So you admit it? or is this just a typo?

Quote:

if it was land that had some value left to the company, you can bet they would have fought expropriation. and as for condemnation, there was a letter from hooker read into the minutes of a meeting stating this, but not much else backing up the claim. most negotiations were verbal. i'm not suggesting the threat wasn't there, there isn't much backing the claim up.

There is enough evidence, and you know it. You are simply trying to more the bar on the threshold for the burden of proof, a sign of a weak argument.

Quote:

"According to reporter Michael Brown, in his book and other writings, the School Board’s attorney at the time denies that the threat of property condemnation was ever held out against Hooker for the Love Canal site."

Yes, trust the attorney on the school board side?! You really think he isn't lying? That he has nothing to cover up?!give me a break.

We already know through written records that the school board was condeming land around the canal, and that they had drawn up plans with express purpose of condeming the canal. We it comes down to claims by Hooker that they were threatened, and claims by the school boards attorney that they weren't threatened, the only logical conclusion, given the facts, is that they were threatened. Any objective court of law would uphold that one.

The article I posted also shows that Michael Brown distorted and exagerated certian claims. He also unquestioningly reported negative claims against Hooker without checking the written records which explicitly contradicted those claims. In short, Michael Brown is not a reliable source, either do to sloppy reporting or a knowing bias.

Quote:

"For example, the 99th Street School, which was built beside Love Canal,"
quoted from your article, shag. you contradicted yourself.

Looking over the School Board minutes from the early ‘50s, one notes two concerns that dominated and practically obliterated all others: construction of new buildings, and overcoming the monetary shortage. There is no indication that any long-term consequences were being thought of; the attitude seems to have been that the future could take care of itself. For example, the 99th Street School, which was built beside Love Canal, was being planned by the School Board simultaneously with the planning for another, the 66th Street School; and the Niagara Gazette reported on September 13, 1978, that high radiation had been found at that other location. It turns out that this school also may have been built upon a former dumpsite. The Board of Ed’s deed to the site (donated by the federal government) refers to the presence of radioactive substances.

Where is there a contradiction?

The 99th Street School was originally planned (by the school board) to be build on the Canal site. They later moved to a site next to the Canal that was (presumably) not accuired from Hooker (remember, they were acquiring sites through various means, including eminent domain, when neccessary, from a number of individuals and organizations).

It is interesting to note that the 66th Street School was likely built on another dump site (donated by the federal government) which was known to contain radioactive waste.

Further proof of government irresponsibility

Quote:

but then, this is off topic from the thread, so i will desist, if you will.

I would consider that, but you have shown that you refuse to see the truth on this issue and can't honestly and objectively debate this. Every fact points to Hooker doing everything responsibly and the fault here lies with the School Board as well as the local government, initially (later the federal government and the national media). You keep trying to find clever ways to ignore the truth. If you can't debate this issue honestly (most likely due to your irrational bias against against "Big Business" and the private sector), then how can there be an honest debate with you on the larger issue of Big Business v. Government?

Posted by: hrmwrm

me, dishonest? you find 1 article from 1 man and use it as a basis to defend your entire hypothesis. you keep defending a grossly polluting company that had been cited for other sites it owns as well, as if they had the best interest of the public in mind. they polluted the land and were held to task for it. you fail to see this truth. you don't think companies should be held responsible for what they create?

On January 21, 1954, the Board approved the removal of 3,000 more cubic yards of fill from the Love Canal. On the same date, the architect for the 99th Street School wrote to Board member Wesley Kester, chairman of the Buildings Committee, saying that

the General Contractor. . . hit a soft spot in the ground. This turned out to be a filled drain trench which gave off a strong chemical odor. Upon further investigation the excavator made contact with a pit filled with chemicals and immediately stopped work in this area. The General Contractor contacted one of his employees who formerly worked on this properly for one of the former owners. From this man we learned that. . . these pits were filled with chemical waste, some of which was in 55 gallon drums.

Suggesting that these chemicals "might be a detriment to the concrete foundations," the architect advised soil tests with a view toward possible "revisions of building location," and the building was shifted 30 feet eastward.

the school was built beside the canal. it was shifted only 30 feet. not the middle of the pit, like you describe. this is also from your article. they shifted 30 feet because they found waste where it shouldn't be.
"the 99th Street School, which was built beside Love Canal"

and as for my quote of force, it is out of context, isn't it. your abridging again.
"that's the start of your defence. they were forced."
if you want to play cheap tactics, then i will.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

you find 1 article from 1 man and use it as a basis to defend your entire hypothesis.

The article is well researched and a reliable source. That is all you would need in a court. Most aren't near as well researched and objective. The author even admits that he wrote an earlier article (before he did the research) condemming Hooker, based on the spin in the media. When the author researched the facts, the story changed. He was objective, why can't you be?

You really want to argue sources, when you are the one who cites wikipedia as a reliable source (without double checking the info)?

When did I develop a hypothisis on Hooker? I am going where the facts lead.

Quote:

you keep defending a grossly polluting company that had been cited for other sites it owns as well, as if they had the best interest of the public in mind.

What other sites?
The evidence shows they did have the public interest in mind. You don't wanna admit that.

Quote:

they polluted the land and were held to task for it. you fail to see this truth. you don't think companies should be held responsible for what they create?

They "polluted" legally (in other words, they didn't legally pollute). You fail to recognize that. To say they should be held accountable for that is to impose your own values on them, and expect punishment when they don't meet those values you impose. Seems extremely arrogant.

Companies should be held to task when they break the law, which wasn't the case here.

Government should also be held to account when they make bad decisions as they are instilled with the public trust. In this case, the government wasn't held to account. If fact, the government (as the one to assign accountability), abused their power and threw the blame off on and innocent party. You refuse to acknowledge what the facts show. The government was the entity at fault here, not Hooker. What did Hooker do wrong? legally desposing of waste in the manner typical for that time? Trying to prevent developement of the land, and when that failed, provide warning? What is wrong in any of that? Where is the law broken?

Quote:

"the 99th Street School, which was built beside Love Canal"

And what does that prove? Sewer lines were run through the canal. Was the school not hooked up to the sewer line? When the sewer lines were run through the canal, the seal that the clay made was broken. Where would the waste leak out? Right next to the canal; where the school was built!

Quote:

and as for my quote of force, it is out of context, isn't it. your abridging again.
"that's the start of your defence. they were forced."

I was unclear on that. I was asking for clarification. Not trying to take you out of context. Maybe I could've worded that better. Sorry.

The evidence is rather clear, here. The truth is obvious.

You have your own view of the story and don't wanna be proven wrong. IMO, your ego is preventing you from acknowledging the truth. I hate to be a dick, but with every post, you seem to be smearing more egg on your face. Your irrational bias against Big Business and blind faith in the government is on display for all do see (more so with each post). You've effectively hung yourself here.

Posted by: hrmwrm

the truth that is obvious, is that after the outcome of all this, it was still the government and not big buisness that took the interests of the general public. new standards of disposing of waste were created. business would have gone on doing the same were laws not enacted. it's not about the point of what WAS acceptable, but what IS acceptable. until legislation created a different way, buisness never created it themselves. hooker or any business never found a way to dispose of toxic wastes in a better manner until it was legislated upon them. the technology could have been found or created from a company that cared, but that would eat into the bottom line.

as to whether i have an irrational bias towards big buisness is only colored by your irrational bias towards big buisness. it seems that anybody with an opposed view to you, is irrational. that seems to make the way for your arguements. whether you can formulate a good arguement or not, you personally attack your opposer.

but anyways. my argument hasn't been to show the believability of government for everything. it's to show that if left to their own devices, big buisness will do nothing more than the minimum necessary to comply. your example of walmart and katrina is one of the few. oilsand pollution here in alberta is an abomination in the making that the government is so far refusing to get involved in. and big buisness is doing nothing to lessen their impact either.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

the truth that is obvious, is that after the outcome of all this, it was still the government and not big buisness that took the interests of the general public. new standards of disposing of waste were created.

You are forgetting the fact that they shifted responsibility from themselves to an innocent company (a blatant abuse of power). Also, business isn't required to take the interests of the public into account, just their customers. You are imposing your own views here again, and implying that when those standards aren't met, that party should be punished. You have no right to do so.

Quote:

It's not about the point of what WAS acceptable, but what IS acceptable.

When it comes to enforcement of laws that reflect what is considered acceptable, yes it is. Laws aren't (and shouldn't be) retroactive.

Quote:

The technology could have been found or created from a company that cared, but that would eat into the bottom line.

Again, imposing your own standards. Not a valid argument, just wishful thinking.

Quote:

as to whether i have an irrational bias towards big buisness is only colored by your irrational bias towards big buisness.

Your irrational bias is pretty self evident. My "irrational bias" (which doesn't exist) is supported by the facts here.

You are simply trying to turn the argument around here. There is no evidence to suggest an irrational bias on my part in this thread.

Quote:

it seems that anybody with an opposed view to you, is irrational. that seems to make the way for your arguements.

Not quite. If someone has an opposing view I will challenge it. Any examples brought up that I am unfamiliar with, I research. When I did that here, the facts proved different then your claims. When I pointed that out, you refused to consider the possibility that what you believed about that example you cited was wrong.

Quote:

whether you can formulate a good arguement or not, you personally attack your opposer.

You know better then that. I haven't made any personal attack. Now your just slandering.

Quote:

my argument hasn't been to show the believability of government for everything

.

What? Clarification please.

Quote:

it's to show that if left to their own devices, big buisness will do nothing more than the minimum necessary to comply.

Where is the crime? The function of business is to make money, plain and simple. To expect more is to impose your own standards on business.

Quote:

your example of walmart and katrina is one of the few.

Much more then a few examples.

Businesses creates wealth. That is HUGE! That drives the economy and maintains and improves the standard of living. Big business adds to society much more and in more diverse ways the any government ever could. The wealth created by big business is what the government taxes to get the funds for their programs. Taxes (among other government actions) reduce wealth and work against maintaining the standard of living.

Quote:

oilsand pollution here in alberta is an abomination in the making that the government is so far refusing to get involved in. and big buisness is doing nothing to lessen their impact either.

You'll forgive me if I don't take you word for it.

Business is ment to make money pure and simple. That leads to both positive and negative consequences. Enron is a great example of negative consequences. The creation of wealth and driving the economy are a few positive example. While most people take the positive consequences for granted, you can't have a realistic view of big business without looking at both the positives and the negatives that come with big business. When looked at together, the positives far outweight the negatives.

Government is a different animal all together. Government derives its power from citizens giving up some of their freedoms. As such, government must be looked at as a necessary evil to preserve civility in society (social contract theory). For a government to be active in society (regulations) means it needs more power and influence, which results in less freedom (taxes reduce wealth,etc...).

The bottom line:
Businesses try to make money, and in doing so produce both positive and negative results. On the whole, the good far outways the bad (wealth creation and driving the economy, among other things). Governments inherently reduce wealth and freedom by their actions. Both are subject to corrupt and evil individuals and interests abusing them to the detrement of society. However, due to the power and influence the government has, the consequences of its actions are far greater and farther reaching then anything a business could ever do (the exception, in some instances, may be the media).