Maker Pro
Maker Pro

More on lead-free junk solder

A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ian Jackson said:
If we end up with a ban on incandescent lamps and fluorescent lamps, we'll
have to go back to burning whale oil.
Ian.
Absolutely. See my reply to Graham above for a link to the story.

Arfa
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Arfa said:
Look again Graham. The EU - specifically Merkel - have signed up to the same
thing as Aus is already doing ... There was a big article in the M.o.S. I
think it was about 6 weeks ago. Look at

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...ews.html?in_article_id=441200&in_page_id=1811

The last I heard it wasn't going to happen.

It's utterly crazy to ban incandesacents per se anyway. They have valid and important uses. As I pointed out
earlier it would also ban high efficiency halogens which is barking mad.

No surpise there though if politicians are involved. They're all clueless on technical and scientific matters.

I'd expect Philips to kill this one off if necessary.

Graham
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
The last I heard it wasn't going to happen.

It's utterly crazy to ban incandesacents per se anyway. They have valid
and important uses. As I pointed out
earlier it would also ban high efficiency halogens which is barking mad.

No surpise there though if politicians are involved. They're all clueless
on technical and scientific matters.

I'd expect Philips to kill this one off if necessary.

Graham
We can but hope ... I guess it depends on how Philips see the business model
and the potential for ' jumping on the bandwagon / gravy train ' as it were.
There could be potentially quite a 'political' coup to be had by a company
of such global proportions suddenly switching its company ethos to fully
embrace the green issue, to say nothing of huge profits for its
shareholders, many of whom are probably outright or at least closet, greens,
and likewise clueless on the finer points of the technology. After all, a
light is just a light isn't it ? And if it's "modern" and saves the planet
and saves me money, then that's all good isn't it ... ? We shall see ...

Arfa
 
S

Smitty Two

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
No surpise there though if politicians are involved. They're all clueless on
technical and scientific matters.

In the U.S., we used to have scientific advisors to the administration.
They were listened to and respected, and their expertise guided
political decisions. Now, those people are puppets. Political decisions
are made first, then scientists are found to rubber stamp them.
Uncooperative dissenters are fired.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Smitty said:
In the U.S., we used to have scientific advisors to the administration.
They were listened to and respected, and their expertise guided
political decisions. Now, those people are puppets. Political decisions
are made first, then scientists are found to rubber stamp them.
Uncooperative dissenters are fired.

It seems to be the way worldwide.

I've come to the conclusion that politicians need to be seriously brought back
down to earth. Our countries are democracies in name only and often more like
party political dictatorships.

Graham
 
J

Jamie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ian said:
If we end up with a ban on incandescent lamps and fluorescent lamps,
we'll have to go back to burning whale oil.
Ian.
That's ok, they're plenty of them walking around our streets here
these days! :)
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
It seems to be the way worldwide.

I've come to the conclusion that politicians need to be seriously brought
back
down to earth. Our countries are democracies in name only and often more
like
party political dictatorships.

Graham
I was reading an interesting dissertation on this very subject recently, and
it seems that a lot of it is down to the fact that we have many 'career'
politicians now, rather than responsible grownups who have served an
apprenticeship in life, and worked and lived and loved, before deciding to
go into politics to try to better everyone's lot. These career types have
been to university and taken a degree in political science or some such
other 'useless' discipline, and then have gone straight into the political
arena without ever having any experience of life at the sharp end. The only
thing that they have been prepared for by their studies, is the creation of
half arsed schemes based on half arsed theoretical models, that have no
basis in reality.

Seemed like a very valid insight to me. The waters have also now been
muddied by politically 'global' issues such as terrorism and climate change,
which all parties want to subscribe to, and which only serves to stagnate
effective opposition, and squeeze all policy in one direction. Once this
starts to happen, then it becomes very easy to find yourself in a one way
street to totalitarianism and complete government control of all aspects of
our lives. I sincerely believe that this is what we are beginning to see
now, and that worries me more than a little ...

Arfa
 
J

Jerry Peters

Jan 1, 1970
0
Arfa Daily said:
I was reading an interesting dissertation on this very subject recently, and
it seems that a lot of it is down to the fact that we have many 'career'
politicians now, rather than responsible grownups who have served an
apprenticeship in life, and worked and lived and loved, before deciding to
go into politics to try to better everyone's lot. These career types have
been to university and taken a degree in political science or some such
other 'useless' discipline, and then have gone straight into the political
arena without ever having any experience of life at the sharp end. The only
thing that they have been prepared for by their studies, is the creation of
half arsed schemes based on half arsed theoretical models, that have no
basis in reality.

Seemed like a very valid insight to me. The waters have also now been
muddied by politically 'global' issues such as terrorism and climate change,
which all parties want to subscribe to, and which only serves to stagnate
effective opposition, and squeeze all policy in one direction. Once this
starts to happen, then it becomes very easy to find yourself in a one way
street to totalitarianism and complete government control of all aspects of
our lives. I sincerely believe that this is what we are beginning to see
now, and that worries me more than a little ...

Arfa
Yes! Then we have all of the "activist" groups which raise money by
frightening people with all sorts of dire predictions. The current one
of course being "global warming" or as they're now calling it "climate
change". As if the climate never, ever changes. After reading some of
the alleged "climate change" MBE, I've decided that climate "science"
belongs in the same category as the social "sciences". One builds a
model, then "validates" it using statistical methods, and this
"proves" something. Of course the data is specially chosen to fit the
hypothesis.

Jerry
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jerry Peters said:
Yes! Then we have all of the "activist" groups which raise money by
frightening people with all sorts of dire predictions. The current one
of course being "global warming" or as they're now calling it "climate
change". As if the climate never, ever changes. After reading some of
the alleged "climate change" MBE, I've decided that climate "science"
belongs in the same category as the social "sciences". One builds a
model, then "validates" it using statistical methods, and this
"proves" something. Of course the data is specially chosen to fit the
hypothesis.

Jerry

Absolutely Jerry. See if you can get hands on a copy of that TV prog that I
told the others about. Made by UK TV company "Channel 4" and called 'The
Great Global Warming Swindle'. I understand that it is available on YouTube.
Essential viewing on the subject.

Arfa
 
S

Smitty Two

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes! Then we have all of the "activist" groups which raise money by
frightening people with all sorts of dire predictions. The current one
of course being "global warming" or as they're now calling it "climate
change". As if the climate never, ever changes. After reading some of
the alleged "climate change" MBE, I've decided that climate "science"
belongs in the same category as the social "sciences". One builds a
model, then "validates" it using statistical methods, and this
"proves" something. Of course the data is specially chosen to fit the
hypothesis.

Jerry

Absolutely Jerry. See if you can get hands on a copy of that TV prog that I
told the others about. Made by UK TV company "Channel 4" and called 'The
Great Global Warming Swindle'. I understand that it is available on YouTube.
Essential viewing on the subject.

Arfa[/QUOTE]

Gentlemen, I'm going to dissent on this one. Global warming is
absolutely real, and poses absolutely catastrophic consequences. The
alarmists may have cried wolf one too many times in the past, but this
one is rock solid. There is no more serious debate about it than there
is about smoking causing cancer. If you don't believe it, it's only
because you haven't looked into it to a sufficient degree.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Arfa said:
Absolutely Jerry. See if you can get hands on a copy of that TV prog that I
told the others about. Made by UK TV company "Channel 4" and called 'The
Great Global Warming Swindle'. I understand that it is available on YouTube.
Essential viewing on the subject.

It's not without certain significant flaws itself though, not least as a result
of oversimplifying the issues too just as the AGWists do.

However it's clear to me that global warming is way over-exaggerated with Al
Gore claiming that the Greenland ice sheet will melt in 100 years whilst real
scientists put the timescale of that happening with modest temp rises well over
a thousand years.

In the meantime a European satellite survey showed the huge interior of
Greenland's ice sheet to be *GROWING* ! Only the edges are melting it seems.

Graham
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Smitty Two said:
Absolutely Jerry. See if you can get hands on a copy of that TV prog that
I
told the others about. Made by UK TV company "Channel 4" and called 'The
Great Global Warming Swindle'. I understand that it is available on
YouTube.
Essential viewing on the subject.

Arfa

Gentlemen, I'm going to dissent on this one. Global warming is
absolutely real, and poses absolutely catastrophic consequences. The
alarmists may have cried wolf one too many times in the past, but this
one is rock solid. There is no more serious debate about it than there
is about smoking causing cancer. If you don't believe it, it's only
because you haven't looked into it to a sufficient degree.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that anyone is disputing that the weather patterns are
changing, or that the temperature is heading in an upwards direction. The
issue is as to just what man is doing, if anything, to cause it. For
instance, it has been much warmer in the Northern hemisphere than it is now,
in the comparitive recent past. Take 2000 years ago when the Roman army
occupied the British Isles. They grew grapes at significantly northern
lattitudes. You couldn't do that now. 2000 years ago, man was doing nothing
to even *potentially* alter weather patterns on the planet. As I pointed out
before in the thread, only 35 years ago, we were being told that we were
entering a mini ice age. Where has that gone now ? Just try to get a look at
that TV programme. Yes, of course, I accept that it has been made to put the
'alternative' position in a mildly forceful and entertaining way, but
never-the-less, I think that it contains some very valuable insights into
what is really going on, put forward by reputable scientists who are
prepared to put their professional necks on the line by dissenting, and not
in the hysterical way that seems to be the norm for this subject, now that
it has gained political credence and status.

Arfa

Arfa
 
R

Roy the Rebel

Jan 1, 1970
0
The planet is warming but I dont believe it is entirely due to
mankinds activities. I think that it is part of a naturally occurring
long period cycle which is solar system wide. The climate on Mars is
also warming at the present time, scientists believe that it is
emerging from an ice age. Obviously not down to anything we are doing
on Earth.
 
J

Jerry Peters

Jan 1, 1970
0
Roy the Rebel said:
The planet is warming but I dont believe it is entirely due to
mankinds activities. I think that it is part of a naturally occurring
long period cycle which is solar system wide. The climate on Mars is
also warming at the present time, scientists believe that it is
emerging from an ice age. Obviously not down to anything we are doing
on Earth.

There are also indications that Saturn & Jupiter are receiving more
solar energy.
I find it _very_ interesting that there are scientists trying to find
an alternative explanation for Martian warming - any explanation,
since if it's caused by the sun, that kind of knocks a very large hole
in their anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis.

Jerry
 
J

Jerry Peters

Jan 1, 1970
0
Smitty Two said:
Absolutely Jerry. See if you can get hands on a copy of that TV prog that I
told the others about. Made by UK TV company "Channel 4" and called 'The
Great Global Warming Swindle'. I understand that it is available on YouTube.
Essential viewing on the subject.

Arfa

Gentlemen, I'm going to dissent on this one. Global warming is
absolutely real, and poses absolutely catastrophic consequences. The
alarmists may have cried wolf one too many times in the past, but this
one is rock solid. There is no more serious debate about it than there
is about smoking causing cancer. If you don't believe it, it's only
because you haven't looked into it to a sufficient degree.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. There's just too much evidence that the
way the global warming research is being conducted is "I know mankind
is causing it, now all I have to do is prove it". I especially note
that when a researcher says that "solar forcing" (the sun) can't
account for the observed temperature increase, he does not add:
according to my model. It's just assumed that the model must be
correct.
Now ask if any of the models have been validated. That is, we know
what conditions are now, if we use one of the models and go back to
say 1920, and attempt to run the mdoel forward from there, does it
predict _today_?
And of course all of the journalists and politicians have jumped on GW
as another chance to implement environmental controls and regulations.
Now explain to me what most of these politicians and journalists know
about science.
Anthropomorphic GW isn't even a theory at this point, it's a
hypothesis.

Jerry
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jerry said:
There are also indications that Saturn & Jupiter are receiving more
solar energy.
I find it _very_ interesting that there are scientists trying to find
an alternative explanation for Martian warming - any explanation,
since if it's caused by the sun, that kind of knocks a very large hole
in their anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis.

Another big knock for the AGW case is that the ice on Greenland is actually
getting *thicker* in the middle.

Graham
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jerry Peters said:
Sorry, but I have to disagree. There's just too much evidence that the
way the global warming research is being conducted is "I know mankind
is causing it, now all I have to do is prove it". I especially note
that when a researcher says that "solar forcing" (the sun) can't
account for the observed temperature increase, he does not add:
according to my model. It's just assumed that the model must be
correct.
Now ask if any of the models have been validated. That is, we know
what conditions are now, if we use one of the models and go back to
say 1920, and attempt to run the mdoel forward from there, does it
predict _today_?
And of course all of the journalists and politicians have jumped on GW
as another chance to implement environmental controls and regulations.
Now explain to me what most of these politicians and journalists know
about science.
Anthropomorphic GW isn't even a theory at this point, it's a
hypothesis.

Jerry

Very well put Jerry.

Arfa
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes, but it's bullsh*t.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

And often used as an apocyphal tale of "THEM" watching over "US" to
steal our freedoms and put fluoride in our drinking water...

Give me a break!


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Based on the article in that link, how can you say that ? Yes, OK, the
amount of mercury is not hazardous to the point of needing a toxic waste
cleanup team after a single breakage, but the article never stops discussing
the hazardous nature of the CFLs, their toxic contents, and the special
facilities to dispose of them safely. ' Do not use a vacuum cleaner' it
says. 'Secure the broken bits in a plastic bag and seal up' it says. 'Open
the windows' it says. If that makes the safety angle bullshit in comparison
to incandescents, then you and I have very different understandings of that
word ...

Arfa
 
Based on the article in that link, how can you say that ? Yes, OK, the
amount of mercury is not hazardous to the point of needing a toxic waste
cleanup team after a single breakage, but the article never stops discussing
the hazardous nature of the CFLs, their toxic contents, and the special
facilities to dispose of them safely. ' Do not use a vacuum cleaner' it
says. 'Secure the broken bits in a plastic bag and seal up' it says. 'Open
the windows' it says. If that makes the safety angle bullshit in comparison
to incandescents, then you and I have very different understandings of that
word ...

Arfa- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Mpffffff.... The BS is in the requirement for a HazMat team. Not
"normal precautions". As it happens, you are in far more danger from
mouse droppings (Hanta Virus) and their mishandling, some of the salts
used in the coating inside incandescent lamps (phosphor salts amongst
others), beryllium coatings on HID lamps... even the toxic build up of
Triclosan in mothers' milk, insecticides and many other materials and
chemicals commonly found in the house.

So, if something contains a potentially toxic chemical or substance,
one simply does not lean into the punch and spread it all over
creation in ignorance.

One needs to learn that the opposite of "Black" is not necessarily
"White"... but simply "not black". William of Occam figured this out
in the 14th century, it still has not gotten through to the general
population. We live in a world where polar opposites are almost life-
necessity, and one is either "with" or "against" on any given point,
process, belief or system, where anything but certainty is viewed with
deep suspicion... and >your< necessities are madness and mine are
truth and reason. It ain't necessarily so.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
 
Top