Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATE x3: LED Lightbulbs Finally Ready for Prime Time! (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I DEMAND conservatives get busy NOW (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr Robert, Ender, Calamity Jean

    creating a conspiracy theory about why these are bad and want to hear verification they refuse to even consider them.

    Because I am entertained by their friggin stupidity.

    •  It is already in the diary comments (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean, JerryNA

      LED lights are made with nickel and copper.

      I am going to go work with some copper metal, now.

      Please, pray for my survival.

      •  Scientific American and Federal Government (0+ / 0-)

        agencies that monitor the health and the environment are part of a conservative conspiracy?

        Really??

        Now * that * is what sounds like a Conservative Conspiracy Theory!

        •  No government agrees with you! (0+ / 0-)

          You are making that up.

          Copper and nickel are perfectly fine in land fills.

          Please stop your fear mongering!

          LEDs are more environmentally friendly than any other form of lighting.

          •  I am not fearmongering (0+ / 0-)

            and where did I say anything about land fills?

            Now you are just making shit up about me.

            Why don't you stop THAT? (!!)

            •  So old light bulbs end up in martinis? (0+ / 0-)

              What exactly have you been warning us about if it isn't LED light bulbs contaminating the environment with their evil copper and nickel?

              •  For fucks' sake, the problem is in the (0+ / 0-)

                production process.  Not US landfills - WHICH I NEVER FREAKING MENTIONED!

                Did you even read the freaking SA article, which mentions all kinds of toxic metals such as arsenic and lead (while you fixated on two of the less toxic, but still dangerous, ones for some unknown reason).

                These metals - or at least most of them - don't have any clear function in the finished product and were most likely introduced during shoddy manufacturing - of the kind well documented for other forms of clean energy in China.  

                For example seeIn China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale

                But we are Americans, so gives gives a damn if third worlders suffer to make us feel good about "going green"?  And people are suffering, this is NOT JUST FEARMONGERING!!

                In any event, based on the analysis presented in the Scientific American article of what is in the LEDs, it is certain that similar problems and environmental impacts occur during their production.

                •  Wrong. Stop changing the subject. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rashaverak

                  The Scientific American article says nothing about effluent from production. You just threw that out there to distract from all of the nonsense that you have been slinging. The (bad) Sci Am article is only about supposed harmful substances in actual LEDs!

                  There is nothing in the article that even hints that toxic metals are being released in China to produce our LED lighting. In fact the article says nothing about the origin of the LEDs that they tested.

                  What I said about lead contamination applies equally to arsenic. It isn't in today's LEDs!

                  I say again, LEDs are more environmentally friendly than any other form of lighting.

                  Why can't you accept that?

                  PS. Why are you quoting a right-wing newspaper to discredit wind power?

                  •  Then YOU tell me how the toxic metals (0+ / 0-)

                    get in the LEDs.

                    Seriously, why are you deflecting and obscuring from this rather important issue?

                    And about the newspaper, do you doubt the content?  Because if your standard is "rightwing" or "leftwing" wrt to whether a source is reliable, your continually dissing of Scientific American is very very odd.  Not to mention extremely hypocritical!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site