next »

[Movius]

there are problems with thermometers and mercury dental fillings as well; lots of people die because of both of those

Fuck off they do. Far more harm is done by charlatan quacks convincing their victims that they need to have their amalgam fillings removed.

Non-amalgam fillings are sometimes used in dentistry because they are superior aesthetically. Only unscientific cranks support the view that amalgam fillings are harmful.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

of course, but i think it's unscientific to "support" either side, and to ignore evidence because you already believe you know the answer; scientific both precludes believing in things without evidence *and* believing what authorities tell you (without evidence)

the scientifically minded also wouldn't mind looking into the details of the controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_amalgam_controversy

e.g. when you read something there like "Dental amalgam has been found to be a frequent contributor to oral lichenoid lesions[58] and is possibly a variable associated with an increased risk of other autoimmune conditions such as multiple sclerosis, lupus, thyroiditis and eczema.[59]" -- with citations of studies -- do you dismiss such studies without reading them, or go read them before dismissing them?

the citations are:

^ Dunsche, A; Kästel, I; Terheyden, H; Springer, IN; Christophers, E; Brasch, J (2003). "Oral lichenoid reactions associated with amalgam: improvement after amalgam removal.". The British journal of dermatology 148 (1): 70–6. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.2003.04936.x. PMID 12534597.

^ Prochazkova, J; Sterzl, I; Kucerova, H; Bartova, J; Stejskal, VD (2004). "The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity.". Neuro endocrinology letters 25 (3): 211–8. PMID 15349088.

which don't appear to be quack publications

[motorherp]

A similar thing has been happening in the UK for a while now but it seems they'v made energy saver bulbs dirt cheap to compensate and encourage people to change over.  I picked up a bunch for 10p each yesterday.  What I'm concerned about is how easy its going to be in the future to source appropriate lights for my pet snake once the old stocks run out but I'm guessing (hoping) there's be some alternative made or special circumstances allowed.

[C.A. Silbereisen]

Yeah, and what Paul Eres said about "why not target industry" - perhaps because the lightbulb-law-makers want people to die, or get sedated.

After you get sedated, you become fuel for the Centennial Light.

I don't see how it's possible to deny that there are corporate interests behind the lightbulb phase-out though. Yes, the fluorescent do save energy, but it's a miniscule amount compared to the world's energy usage or even the energy usage of your average household.

And yes I hate fluorescent bulbs mainly because of their cold, harsh light. I don't want my home to look like an office or a factory.

[Dugan]

The fluorescent bulbs I have aren't cold like office ones. The way they warm up slowly is a bit odd, but otherwise I have no problems with them.

[Nix]

I have a pair of fluorescent bulbs near my work area that are actually quite warm and yellowish, almost more so than a traditional incandescent. They are very cozy.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

yeah, they can make them so the frequency can approach natural light too, but the main issues are things like the flickering (which give some people migraine headaches or epileptic seizures) and the mercury vapor

[Cow]

The banning of incandescent lightbulbs is because of the reintroduction of the gold standard.

[im9today]

i'm pretty sure it is becasue of the war in labia

[Tycho Brahe]

The banning of incandescent lightbulbs is because of the reintroduction of the gold standard.

this.

[moi]

The banning of incandescent lightbulbs is because of the reintroduction of the gold standard.

this.

Okay, I'm gonna inform the president about this