http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Compact Flourescent bulbs - 14 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c541905216cc4817?hl=en
* A La Carte satellite TV system under $250 or so? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2fe8108f1a4ac742?hl=en
* Frugal ideas (on topic) - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b0fb633415061f1d?hl=en
* refinancing a double to get moved quickly - questions - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c46772999d5969df?hl=en
* Things you never see in a Rod Speed post - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5a8798d403a6dd99?hl=en
* Tips On Frugal Living In The Philadelphia Region - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9a6cec6e6820207e?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Compact Flourescent bulbs
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c541905216cc4817?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 10:45 am
From: chief_thracian@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian)
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:45:56 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>Energy Star estimates that if all CFLs were landfilled they would add
>just .1% to the US human contribution of mercury.
Wait, there's more:
--
http://www.akdart.com/cfl.html
The articles listed below (and many more to be added later) set forth
clear arguments against the use of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, or CFLs,
for a number of very practical reasons, both technical and political.
The big political push toward their mandatory adoption is based on the
belief that the bulbs use less electricity to provide the same light
output....
Fluorescent lighting advocates claim that electricity consumption will
be reduced overnight when people switch to fluorescent lamps; however,
with that in mind, people will naturally be more inclined to leave
their lights on a lot more, since the new bulbs are so efficient.
That offsets the energy savings considerably....
Proponents of fluorescent lights are quick to point out that
incandescent bulbs waste 90 percent of their input power as heat.
CFLs are not 100% efficient, either, but somehow that is never
mentioned. (Of course the light from a light bulb also turns into
heat when it hits the walls and the floor, bringing the "wasted power"
total to 100 percent, unless some of the light goes out the window,
but I digress.) A hair dryer uses a lot more power than a light bulb.
Some consume 1800 watts, and 100% of that power is "wasted" as heat.
Sometimes heat is a beneficial byproduct.
Here's the way I look at it: In the winter, that "wasted" power
contributes to the heat in the house, which makes the heater run less.
I have an all-electric house, and I figure it costs nothing to run a
hair dryer or a computer or an electric blanket in the winter, because
all those things are supplementing the output of my central electric
heater....
I can tell you from my own experience that "9 year" CFLs don't last
nine years. A more accurate figure would be nine months. Notice that
the packaging says they will last 10,000 hours. Simple arithmetic
tells us that's only a little more than one year of continuous use.
(Since the life of a CFL is shortened by turning it on and off,
continuous use results in the longest life.) Incandescent bulbs have
been known to operate for decades: The world record is over 100
years.
If your CFL dies prematurely, the manufacturer will blame you for its
failure. (Must be something wrong with your wiring. You must have
turned it on and off too much.) Even if the bulb is under warranty,
and you send it back to the manufacturer for a replacement, you will
spend more on shipping than the price of a new bulb. Those shipping
costs come out of your pocket, and they offset any "energy savings"
you might have realized....
How much are you really saving? Ordinary incandescent bulbs cost less
than 19¢ apiece. When coupled with the fact that CFLs don't last very
long, it's easy to see that your "energy saving" amounts to
approximately zero when you switch to fluorescent bulbs....
CFLs are marketed with a number of half-baked promises. The packaging
may tell you, for example, that a CFL bulb that uses 23 watts and has
the light output "equivalent" of a 100-watt bulb. On the contrary,
the light is not "equivalent" by any means. Fluorescent bulbs emit a
cold, harsh and unnatural glow, along with an audible hum and a small
amount of ultraviolet light. They don't work in cold weather, and
some of them take two or three minutes to reach full brightness. Most
of all, they are far more expensive than incandescent bulbs, and the
alleged savings are never realized because the bulbs do not last as
long as the manufacturers claim. So yes, except for about a dozen
drawbacks, fluorescent lights are fine, and if the price of
electricity triples, or if I'm forced to run on generator power, or if
I want my home to look like a warehouse, I'll buy more of them.
--
--
The Final Testament
http://www.gay-bible.org
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 10:59 am
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <48a9162a.7214049@amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com>, Chief
Thracian wrote in part:
>On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:45:10 -0500, max <betatron@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>you seem pretty well versed in this topic. How much mercury is inside a
>>CF (say 13 watt) bulb? Are CF bulbs responsible for contaminating
>>fish from people throwing them in the water? (the bulbs, not the fish)
>
>Not yet, since their new technology. But just wait a few years, when
>the majority of CFLs are improperly discarded into landfills and
>rivers/lakes/ocean.
On average, a CFL avoids more mercury emissions into the environment
than it has - at least in the USA on a nationwide basis. About half of
USA's electricity comes from coal.
>I've had three CFLs break so far, due to bumps/knocking over desk
>lamps by either myself (when cleaning a room), or by a visitor. I live
>in a large apt. building where the owner gets the cheapest CFLs to
>light the lobby, hallways, cellar, etc. They burn out within a few
>months, so replacement is frequent. Add up all the other cheap
>landlords across the nation, and you got a BIG problem.
In my apartment complex, a majority of CFLs installed by the landlord
last at least 2 years and I have yet to see any fail to last at least 11
months - running 24/7.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 11:46 am
From: chief_thracian@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian)
Junk Science: Light Bulb Lunacy
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,268747,00.html
Sunday , April 29, 2007
By Steven Milloy
How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent
lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless you break the
bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be
looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn't include the costs
of frayed nerves and risks to health.
Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent
light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) — a move
already either adopted or being considered in California, Canada, the
European Union and Australia.
According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges
had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her
daughter's bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.
Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges
called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the
CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control
hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection.
The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges' house to test for mercury
contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in
excess of six times the state's "safe" level for mercury contamination
of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.
The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental
cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a "low-ball" estimate of
$2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic
and Bridges began "gathering finances" to pay for the $2,000 cleaning.
Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn't cover the cleanup costs
because mercury is a pollutant.
Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the
average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in
energy costs — and assuming that Bridges doesn't break any more CFLs —
it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the
form of energy savings.
Even if you don't go for the full-scale panic of the $2,000 cleanup,
the do-it-yourself approach is still somewhat intense, if not
downright alarming.
Consider the procedure offered by the Maine DEP's Web page entitled,
"What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home?"
Don't vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread
mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the
vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective
equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask.
Collect the waste material into an airtight container. Pat the area
with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth. Finally, check
with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be properly
disposed.
The only step the Maine DEP left off was the final one: Hope that you
did a good enough cleanup so that you, your family and pets aren't
poisoned by any mercury inadvertently dispersed or missed.
This, of course, assumes that people are even aware that breaking CFLs
entails special cleanup procedures.
The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as
Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost
of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly,
environmentalists.
It's quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which
cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without
mercury. Given that there are about 4 billion lightbulb sockets in
American households, we're looking at the possibility of creating
billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges' bedroom.
Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in,
our homes.
These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of mercury
being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in
seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury
among the public that many local governments have even launched
mercury thermometer exchange programs.
As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it
defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a "highly toxic
heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in
fetuses and children" and as "one of the most poisonous forms of
pollution."
Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning
contamination caused by a mercury thermometer factory in India. But
where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the U.S., under strict
environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where
environmental standards are virtually non-existent.
And let's not forget about the regulatory nightmare known as the
Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for requiring
expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites, along with
endless litigation over such cleanups.
We'll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury
bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound
to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund
liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost
tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.
As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine "safety"
standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic
meters of soil to "safely" contain all the mercury in a single CFL.
While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings
of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL
disposal.
Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit
light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a
nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures.
Should government (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of
the world) impose on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice,
disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few
dollars every year on the electric bill?
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk
science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 11:54 am
From: chief_thracian@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian)
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:45:56 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>Energy Star estimates that if all CFLs were landfilled they would add
>just .1% to the US human contribution of mercury.
Still more (all references below garnered from a more extensive list
at http://www.akdart.com/cfl.html):
Fluorescent lights are green, until they burn out. People like to
complain about the new fluorescent light bulbs. The light isn't warm
and friendly, the spiral bulbs don't fit their fixtures, and they
don't last as long as claimed. But the biggest gripe I've heard is
how hard it is to unload these bulbs, and that you have to pay for the
privilege. Incandescent light bulbs are easy: buy, burn and toss.
But not so with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/homegarden/17981589.html
--
Looming Lightbulb Liability: The speeding freight train carrying
toxic waste liability for makers, sellers and purchasers of compact
fluorescent lightbulbs, or CFLs, was only faintly audible in the
distance last spring when this column first warned of it. Now we're
beginning to see that environmentalist-stoked train speed toward its
victims, whom President Bush and Congress just finished tying to the
tracks.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331689,00.html
--
Green boondoggle: Greens loves CFLs because they use less energy than
incandescent bulbs and last for years. OK, so they cause eye strain,
and most can't be used with dimmer switches and the ones that can
flicker annoyingly, and they've been known to short out and give off
toxic fumes, and they're potential fire hazards, and they contain
mercury. But overall, the greens say, CFLs are good soldiers in the
war against global warming. And you don't want to be for global
warming, do you?
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2008/04/05/opinion/330742.txt#blogcomments
--
To revel in the glow of choice is to court glare of the eco-correct.
Oh, I wish I liked fluorescents — they bring your electricity bill
down to $1.95 per year, you get to shake a fist at OPEC, and those
curly pig-tail tubes look cool. But I detest the light.
http://www.startribune.com/local/17072411.html
--
NYT Surprisingly Attacks Climate Friendly Light Bulb. There's
potentially a larger issue here that these bulbs, and the lack of
foresight regarding them, is emblematic of: capriciously concocted
and implemented solutions often cause more problems than they solve.
This is one of the cornerstones of anti-climate alarmism. In fact,
the voices around the world begging governments not to overreact to
the hysterical prognostications of folks like Gore do so in an attempt
to prevent their nations from enacting policies that not only won't
cure this mythical malady, but also might result in potentially more
devastating and costly problems down the road.
--
Mercury leaks found as new bulbs break. Compact fluorescent lamps —
those spiral, energy-efficient bulbs popular as a device to combat
global warming — can pose a small risk of mercury poisoning to
infants, young children, and pregnant women if they break, two reports
concluded yesterday [2/25/2008]. … For the Maine study, researchers
shattered 65 compact fluorescents to test air quality and cleanup
methods.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/26/mercury_leaks_found_as_new_bulbs_break/
(BTW, CFLs can contain up to THIRTY milligrams of mercury!)
--
Mercury in Energy-Saving Bulbs Worries Scientists. Mercury is
poisonous, but it's also a necessary part of most compact fluorescent
bulbs, the kind that environmentalists and some governments are
pushing as a way to cut energy use. With an estimated 150 million
CFLs sold in the United States in 2006 and with Wal-Mart alone hoping
to sell 100 million this year, some scientists and environmentalists
are worried that most are ending up in garbage dumps.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41126/story.htm
--
Please Don't Mandate Compact Flourescent Lamps! There are a number of
reports of fires caused by CFLs near the end of their life. Consumers
have been advised to discard CFLs if they notice browning at the base
of the bulb. However, this reduced the useful life of the bulb
(therefore increasing the cost) and most consumers will not inspect
bulbs that are operating normally. CFLs produce ultraviolet light,
which is converted to visible light by a phosphor coating. Some
ultraviolet light is released from the bulb, but little information is
being made available about the amount of UV light released by a CFL.
CFLs produce less light as they age. CFLs are not well-suited for use
in areas where they are turned on and off frequently.
--
Environmentally friendly light bulbs 'can damage your skin', doctors
warn. New energy-saving bulbs produce a more intense light which can
cause eruptions of existing skin problems, like eczema, and even lead
to skin cancer, they claim. The revelation comes after health experts
warned the fluorescent bulbs, which are to become compulsory in homes
within four years, could trigger migraines and cause dizziness and
discomfort to people with epilepsy.
--
Warning About Energy-Efficient Light Bulbs. The EPA, the government's
own environment watchdog agency, is stepping up a campaign about
saving energy safely. That's because the energy-efficient fluorescent
light bulbs, or CFLs, contain mercury — a small amount. Here's what
you have to do if you break one of these new bulbs. First, open a
window and leave the room for 15 minutes. …
The Editor says...
There goes all the energy you saved — out the window! In addition,
turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life, which is why
the government's Energy Star program suggests you leave them on for at
least 15 minutes at a time.* Of course, if you only needed the light
on for a minute, there goes the environmental benefit down the drain.
And sure, CFLs contain mercury, but you can drive across town to the
Ikea store to have them recycled. Of course, if you have to travel
across the county to get to the Ikea store, that's a lot of driving,
and away goes the environmental benefit again.
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=4d7009d6-7213-43f0-9f30-5c73190b06cd
--
Costly savings. In response to the urging that we all replace our
incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs — and thus save the
planet — I have in recent months been changing from incandescent to
fluorescent bulbs. My experiences have not been what I expected. So
far, after only months (in one case weeks), four of the CFL bulbs have
burned out. I e-mailed the manufacturer and got a response
admonishing me that, among other things, my wiring might be the cause
of the premature failure. I had no problem with the wiring
previously.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-ed_thurltrs_12203dec20,0,1114281.story
--
Light Bulb Lunacy. How much money does it take to screw in a compact
fluorescent lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless
you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth,
Maine, could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn't
include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,268747,00.html
--
NBC Promotes Toxic Chinese Light Bulbs. The Alliance for Climate
Protection, which is part of Al Gore's Live Earth campaign, tells
people that by using compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs, they can
save energy, save money and live longer. But they fail to mention
that the bulbs are made in communist China and are potentially
hazardous to human health.
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=4008&PHPSESSID=a855a1421ec438e36ed4a132d7b1413f
--
Fluorescent Bulbs Must Be Disposed Of Properly. While experts agree
compact fluorescents are safe to use, and the EPA even recommends them
over traditional bulbs, the bulbs contain about 5 milligrams of the
heavy metal -- roughly equivalent to the tip of a ball point pen.
Last February, California state legislators concerned about soil and
groundwater contamination passed a law requiring mandatory recycling
of all fluorescent bulbs. That means you can no longer just throw
them away when they burn out or break.
http://www.kfmb.com/features/consumer_alert/story.php?id=81759
--
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 12:07 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <48a9a82a.1250498@amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com>, Chief
Thracian wrote:
>>Energy Star estimates that if all CFLs were landfilled they would
>>add just .1% to the US human contribution of mercury.
>
>Izzat so? Yes, Energy Star claims that "CFLs contain a very small
>amount of mercury...an average of 4 milligrams".
>
>But the following site disagrees:
>
>http://www.nlrlamp.com/householdpak.html
>
>"Over 300 million compact fluorescent bulbs, CFLs, were sold in the US
>last year. A CFL can contain upwards of 5mg of mercury per bulb.
That is high side, not average. I would go for 4 mg, making your 3306
pound figure 2645 pounds.
> Here is the math: 5mg of mercury x 300,000,000 CFLs = 3306 lbs of
>mercury that can be going into the trash and eventually into our
>environment! This mercury is an extreme health risk to humans and
>animals.
Now some more math: It appears to me that a fairly "average" CFL saves
50 watts and nowadays lasts 5,000 hours in household use. That is 250
kilowatt-hours.
Multiply that by 300 million and that is 7.5 E10 KWH.
Average mercury emission in the USA from electricity generation is
.0117 mg/KWH. This is considering that only about half of USA's
electricity generation is from coal. The figure is .0234 milligrams per
KWH generated by burning coal.
.0117 * 7.5E10 /453590 is 1934 pounds.
I have seen mostly worse figures, but recently .0117 or .012 milligram
per KWH has been making the rounds and the Energy Star website is using
.012 milligram per KWH.
If you replace a 60 watt incandescent with a 13 watt CFL having 4 mg of
mercury, the CFL reduces mercury pollution if it lasts more than 7,274
hours even if it is crunched by a trash truck on the way to a landfill.
For replacing a 75 watt incandescent with a 19 watt CFL, the figure is
6,105 hours.
For replacing a 100 watt incandescent with a 23 watt CFL, the figure
is 4,440 hours.
For replacing a 100 watt incandescent with a 26 watt CFL, the figure
is 4,620 hours.
(Use 23 watt instead of 26 watt CFL to replace 100W incandescent when
you can. My experience tells me that CFLs of wattage over 23 watts
are generally less reliable, mostly by overheating more easily. Higher
wattages should be plenty fine and OK when operated base-down in table
lamps and similarly favorable lamps however.)
The figures get better when one can shop for CFLs on basis of mercury
content. However, the market has shown little favorability to ones with
especially low mercury content - sadly, people with mercury considerations
have shown "zero tolerance" rather than rewarding production of ones with
mercury content pushing the lower limits of what will work.
CFLs have been made with as little as 1.4 mg of mercury - probably with
some compromise in life expectancy before they dim from mercury being lost
to binding to parts of the bulb. One with 1.4 mg of mercury can easily
reduce net mercury pollution once it lasts past 2,000-3,000 operating
hours.
But no, people with mercury concerns foolishly like to buy incandescents
rather than low-mercury CFLs.
>News article after news article have posed the same question: How &
>where to recycle CFLs? There are very few sustainable recycling
>solutions out there for consumers and businesses.
Most schools, hospitals and larger office buildings actually recycle
their fluorescents.
> The EPA has released
>guidelines of what to do when a CFL breaks and does offer a few
>resources for recycling to residents. Most of these are local town
>hazardous waste days.
People should pay attention to those - and stockpile until those days
not only their dead fluorescent lamps, but also dead batteries and
unwanted/expired chemical products.
> The number of CFLs in use are on the rise and as
>a result the issue of recycling is becoming paramount. What good is it
>to "go green" and change to energy saving CFLs if they are just going
>to be thrown out into our landfills at end of life?"
>
>(That site BTW, offers a recycling method for CFLs. Go to that page
>for more info.)
http://www.lamprecycle.org
http://www.earth911.org
>>What you should learn form this is to avoid cheap Chinese non rated
>>bulbs
>
>Yes, and the majority of families on a tight budget will readily
>comply by your suggestion.
Few of the CFLs that I see in use, even in homes, are the non-rated
stool specimens.
Screw-in CFLs normally have:
1. UL listing as "self ballasted lamp". (It is normal for ballastless
lightbulbs to lack UL listing.)
2. FCC "ID" - when the ballast is a high frequency electronic ballast,
which is what is in every spiral CFL I ever saw and about 99% of
all other screw-base CFLs that I have seen so far this decade.
In my experience, all that lack these are sold mainly in dollar stores
and are of "brands" that strike me as "dollar store brands" - such as
Trisonic, Telstar, Sonitech, Fieldbreeze (and over a dozen others that I
have seen only in dollar stores).
It also helps to see the Energy Star logo.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 12:33 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <48a9b1ef.3751858@amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com>, Chief
Thracian wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:45:56 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>>Energy Star estimates that if all CFLs were landfilled they would add
>>just .1% to the US human contribution of mercury.
>
>Wait, there's more:
>
>--
>http://www.akdart.com/cfl.html
>
>The articles listed below (and many more to be added later) set forth
>clear arguments against the use of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, or CFLs,
>for a number of very practical reasons, both technical and political.
>The big political push toward their mandatory adoption is based on the
>belief that the bulbs use less electricity to provide the same light
>output....
>
>Fluorescent lighting advocates claim that electricity consumption will
>be reduced overnight when people switch to fluorescent lamps; however,
>with that in mind, people will naturally be more inclined to leave
>their lights on a lot more, since the new bulbs are so efficient.
>That offsets the energy savings considerably....
>
>Proponents of fluorescent lights are quick to point out that
>incandescent bulbs waste 90 percent of their input power as heat.
Efficiency of incandescents at converting electrical energy to visible
light (wavelengths 400-700 nm) is mostly 4-7%.
>CFLs are not 100% efficient, either, but somehow that is never mentioned.
They tend to be about 18-20% or so efficient, and their light has
more lumens per radiated watt by having their red spectral content
being mainly wavelengths not close to infrared.
> (Of course the light from a light bulb also turns into
>heat when it hits the walls and the floor, bringing the "wasted power"
>total to 100 percent, unless some of the light goes out the window,
>but I digress.) A hair dryer uses a lot more power than a light bulb.
>Some consume 1800 watts, and 100% of that power is "wasted" as heat.
>Sometimes heat is a beneficial byproduct.
>
>Here's the way I look at it: In the winter, that "wasted" power
>contributes to the heat in the house, which makes the heater run less.
>I have an all-electric house, and I figure it costs nothing to run a
>hair dryer or a computer or an electric blanket in the winter, because
>all those things are supplementing the output of my central electric
>heater....
What about people who have heat pumps or non-electric heat?
What about when it is not heating season?
What about when it is air conditioning season?
>I can tell you from my own experience that "9 year" CFLs don't last
>nine years. A more accurate figure would be nine months.
Not in my experience - few of my CFLs fail to last a year. Most of mine
last at least 3 years.
> Notice that the packaging says they will last 10,000 hours. Simple
>arithmetic tells us that's only a little more than one year of continuous
>use.
>(Since the life of a CFL is shortened by turning it on and off,
>continuous use results in the longest life.)
Rated lifetime is with 3 hours on-time per start.
> Incandescent bulbs have been known to operate for decades: The world
>record is over 100 years.
For one with its filament running so cool that its energy efficiency is
about 1/4-1/3 that of usual incandescents.
>If your CFL dies prematurely, the manufacturer will blame you for its
>failure. (Must be something wrong with your wiring. You must have
>turned it on and off too much.)
Most premature failures of CFLs are from them overheating in fixtures
that build up heat.
> Even if the bulb is under warranty,
>and you send it back to the manufacturer for a replacement, you will
>spend more on shipping than the price of a new bulb. Those shipping
>costs come out of your pocket, and they offset any "energy savings"
>you might have realized....
>
>How much are you really saving? Ordinary incandescent bulbs cost less
>than 19¢ apiece. When coupled with the fact that CFLs don't last very
>long, it's easy to see that your "energy saving" amounts to
>approximately zero when you switch to fluorescent bulbs....
>
>CFLs are marketed with a number of half-baked promises. The packaging
>may tell you, for example, that a CFL bulb that uses 23 watts and has
>the light output "equivalent" of a 100-watt bulb. On the contrary,
>the light is not "equivalent" by any means. Fluorescent bulbs emit a
>cold, harsh and unnatural glow, along with an audible hum and a small
>amount of ultraviolet light.
I don't hear any hum from most of mine. Also, incandescents also emit a
small amount of UV and CFLs do not produce much more - in fact only a
fraction of what is present in same-quantity-of-daylight even after the
daylight has passed through 2 glass windows.
Also, my experience is that spiral CFLs up to 23 watts produce an
impressively warm incandescent-like light unless they have rated color
temperature higher than 2700K. Ones higher than 2700 in my experience are
either "daylight"/"bright white" or the like or Sylvania (Sylvania's
"usual" is 3000K, but slightly less-yellow-more-pink than halogen - can
appear harsh).
So a non-Sylvania spiral up to 23 watts, if it is not "daylight"/"bright
white" or the like, usually looks incandescent-like.
> They don't work in cold weather,
Outdoor types with outer bulbs generally do. Most CFLs are used
indoors.
> and some of them take two or three minutes to reach full brightness.
Some but not most. Ones without outer bulbs tend to be close to full
brightness in half a minute.
>Most of all, they are far more expensive than incandescent bulbs, and the
>alleged savings are never realized because the bulbs do not last as
>long as the manufacturers claim.
At USA national average residential electricity cost of 11 cents per
KWH, a $4 13 watt CFL only has to last 737 hours to cost less than a 19
cent 60 watt incandescent.
> So yes, except for about a dozen
>drawbacks, fluorescent lights are fine, and if the price of
>electricity triples, or if I'm forced to run on generator power, or if
>I want my home to look like a warehouse, I'll buy more of them.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 12:39 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <48a9b24c.3844590@amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com>, Chief Thracian wrote:
>Green globes trigger migraines
>
>"A leading British migraine body has claimed eco-bulbs worsen the
>symptoms of migraines, epilepsy and the auto-immune disease lupus."
>
>Read more here:
>http://tinyurl.com/CFLmigraine
Lupus? How lupus?
As for migraines and epilepsy, modern CFLs with high frequency
electronic ballasts and smoothing capacitors don't have nearly as much
power line frequency flicker as fluorescents with magnetic ballasts do.
Among those of us who went to school or worked in offices in the 1960's,
1970's, 1980's and early 1990's, what percentage came down with
or had worsening of migraines, epilepsy or lupus from the lighting?
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 12:51 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <48a9c387.8256490@amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com>, Chief
Thracian wrote:
>Junk Science: Light Bulb Lunacy
>http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,268747,00.html
>
>Sunday , April 29, 2007
>By Steven Milloy
>
>How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent
>lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless you break the
>bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be
>looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn't include the costs
>of frayed nerves and risks to health.
A famously unnecessary expenditure out of uneducated fear.
>Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent
>light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) — a move
>already either adopted or being considered in California, Canada, the
>European Union and Australia.
>
>According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges
>had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her
>daughter's bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.
>
>Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges
>called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the
>CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control
>hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of
>Environmental Protection.
>
>The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges' house to test for mercury
>contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in
>excess of six times the state's "safe" level for mercury contamination
>of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.
>The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental
>cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a "low-ball" estimate of
>$2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic
>and Bridges began "gathering finances" to pay for the $2,000 cleaning.
>Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn't cover the cleanup costs
>because mercury is a pollutant.
>
>Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the
>average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in
>energy costs — and assuming that Bridges doesn't break any more CFLs —
>it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the
>form of energy savings.
>
>Even if you don't go for the full-scale panic of the $2,000 cleanup,
>the do-it-yourself approach is still somewhat intense, if not
>downright alarming.
>
>Consider the procedure offered by the Maine DEP's Web page entitled,
>"What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home?"
>
>Don't vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread
>mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the
>vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective
>equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask.
That last sentence sure sounds extremist to me. For one thing, how is
one going to incur eye injury doing a broken CFL cleanup?
>Collect the waste material into an airtight container.
Like a zip-seal plastic bag.
> Pat the area with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth.
>Finally, check with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be
>properly disposed.
>
>The only step the Maine DEP left off was the final one: Hope that you
>did a good enough cleanup so that you, your family and pets aren't
>poisoned by any mercury inadvertently dispersed or missed.
>
>This, of course, assumes that people are even aware that breaking CFLs
>entails special cleanup procedures.
Funny how back when long tube fluorescents had 10 times as much mercury
as CFLs now have, and while mercury thermometers have a hundred or
two times as much mercury as CFLs have, we didn't hear about anyone
getting mercury poisoning from those being broken.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 12:58 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <48a9c0d8.7569390@amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com>, Chief
Thracian wrote in part:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:45:56 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>>Energy Star estimates that if all CFLs were landfilled they would add
>>just .1% to the US human contribution of mercury.
>
>Still more (all references below garnered from a more extensive list
>at http://www.akdart.com/cfl.html):
>
>Fluorescent lights are green, until they burn out. People like to
>complain about the new fluorescent light bulbs. The light isn't warm
>and friendly,
Actually is nice-and-warm from Philips, GE, N:Vision (Home Depot)
and most hardware store spirals up to 23 watts, unless they are "daylight"/
"Bright White" or the like.
> the spiral bulbs don't fit their fixtures,
I don't see that problem happening with spirals up to 23 watts, nor with
most 26 watt ones.
> and they don't last as long as claimed.
They mostly get close enough.
> But the biggest gripe I've heard is how hard it is to unload these
>bulbs, and that you have to pay for the privilege.
In most areas, homeowners and home renters are allowed to toss them in
the trash.
Preferable is to save a dead CFL until the next time one is making a
trip to the municipality's household hazardous waste disposal event -
still free.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 1:09 pm
From: "JR Weiss"
"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote...
>
>> and some of them take two or three minutes to reach full brightness.
>
> Some but not most. Ones without outer bulbs tend to be close to full
> brightness in half a minute.
Also, that characteristic can often be "a good thing"! When I turn on my
bathroom light in the morning, I prefer it not be full bright right away. The
CFL fills the bill perfectly!
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 1:11 pm
From: "JR Weiss"
"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:
>
>> But the biggest gripe I've heard is how hard it is to unload these
>>bulbs, and that you have to pay for the privilege.
>
> www.lamprecycle.org
>
> In most areas, homeowners and home renters are allowed to toss them in
> the trash.
>
> Preferable is to save a dead CFL until the next time one is making a
> trip to the municipality's household hazardous waste disposal event -
> still free.
Around here (Seattle), Home Depot will take CFLs for free, too...
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 2:13 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <4ZednRwXO_M4SjTVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com>, JR Weiss wrote:
>"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But the biggest gripe I've heard is how hard it is to unload these
>>>bulbs, and that you have to pay for the privilege.
>>
>> www.lamprecycle.org
>>
>> In most areas, homeowners and home renters are allowed to toss them in
>> the trash.
>>
>> Preferable is to save a dead CFL until the next time one is making a
>> trip to the municipality's household hazardous waste disposal event -
>> still free.
>
>Around here (Seattle), Home Depot will take CFLs for free, too...
Hey, I forgot and you reminded me! This is nationwide!
http://www6.homedepot.com/ecooptions/stage/pdf/cfl_recycle.pdf
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 4:10 pm
From: "h"
"JR Weiss" <jrweiss98155remove@remove.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ZednRwXO_M4SjTVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But the biggest gripe I've heard is how hard it is to unload these
>>>bulbs, and that you have to pay for the privilege.
>>
>> www.lamprecycle.org
>>
>> In most areas, homeowners and home renters are allowed to toss them in
>> the trash.
>>
>> Preferable is to save a dead CFL until the next time one is making a
>> trip to the municipality's household hazardous waste disposal event -
>> still free.
>
> Around here (Seattle), Home Depot will take CFLs for free, too...
>
I've had exactly one CFL die in the last 7 years, and that was because the
lamp was knocked over. The bulb didn't break, either, just ceased working.
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 5:00 pm
From: Jeff
Chief Thracian wrote:
>> Energy Star estimates that if all CFLs were landfilled they would
>> add just .1% to the US human contribution of mercury.
>
> Izzat so? Yes, Energy Star claims that "CFLs contain a very small
> amount of mercury...an average of 4 milligrams".
>
> But the following site disagrees:
>
> http://www.nlrlamp.com/householdpak.html
>
> "Over 300 million compact fluorescent bulbs, CFLs, were sold in the US
> last year. A CFL can contain upwards of 5mg of mercury per bulb. Here
> is the math: 5mg of mercury x 300,000,000 CFLs = 3306 lbs of mercury
> that can be going into the trash and eventually into our environment!
> This mercury is an extreme health risk to humans and animals.
Nicely skewed on several counts. First is that EPA estimates 104
metric *tons* of US mercury emission. Second is that 80% of a CFLs
mercury is fused into the glass at it's end of life and is not
leachable. And of course the average is currently just under 4mg, and
falling, not 5 mg.
>
> News article after news article have posed the same question: How &
> where to recycle CFLs? There are very few sustainable recycling
> solutions out there for consumers and businesses. The EPA has released
> guidelines of what to do when a CFL breaks and does offer a few
> resources for recycling to residents. Most of these are local town
> hazardous waste days. The number of CFLs in use are on the rise and as
> a result the issue of recycling is becoming paramount. What good is it
> to "go green" and change to energy saving CFLs if they are just going
> to be thrown out into our landfills at end of life?"
No small player, Home Depot recycles.
>
> (That site BTW, offers a recycling method for CFLs. Go to that page
> for more info.)
>
>> What you should learn form this is to avoid cheap Chinese non rated
>> bulbs
>
> Yes, and the majority of families on a tight budget will readily
> comply by your suggestion.
They are no bargain. They never yield the rated light output nor the
rated lifespan, not even the rated light quality, they should be banned.
Good bulbs at the same price or less are readily available at Walmart.
Doubtless far more are sold there than Big Lots.
And as far as the safety hazard of a broken CFL that is also skewed.
The mercury level does indeed exceed the US limit for *chronic*
exposure. Of course that exposure is not chronic but dissipates in minutes.
All this reminds too much of all the diversions for not doing
something about Global Warming, Cigarette Smoking, Water Quality... And
all this so you can keep your 100W tungsten incandescents.
Jeff
>
>
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A La Carte satellite TV system under $250 or so?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2fe8108f1a4ac742?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 11:05 am
From: "OhioGuy"
I've been thinking about setting up some sort of satellite dish system to
supplement the FTA broadcast channels we get. We don't watch a whole lot of
TV - most of what we watch comes from the local library on DVD.
However, at times I would like to watch something. I could either go for
a lot of variety, or else something like the Sci-Fi Channel. My wife loves
game shows, so the Game Show Network would be great.
I don't want to subscribe to cable, DirecTV, or anything where I have to
essentially subsidize a load of channels I would never watch.
What I DO want is the capability of getting a bunch of free channels, as
well as subscribing to several (and by that I mean perhaps 2-4 channels like
Discovery Channel, Game Show Channel, Sci-Fi Channel, etc.) a la carte.
For a while I was looking at getting a big dish, because I heard you could
do a la cart. Then I heard that most of that was switching over to 4DTV,
but that was expensive. Now I hear that 4DTV is on the verge of becoming
outdated, and something called DVB S2 (or something like that) has become a
de-fact standard.
Frankly, I'm very confused by all of the changes. I would like to be able
to get an inexpensive system, under $250, set it up and subscribe to a few
subscription channels. No, not a "tier" of channels, where I get to pay for
crap like the golf channel. (apologies to those who get their jollies by
trying to use a stick to knock a ball in a hole)
Can anyone suggest something like this? I'd be open to using one of those
PC cards, and a small dish or something, if it has stable drivers and
software, but I think I'd really prefer some sort of set top box. Big Kudos
if the system can get game show network, TBS, Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi, or
others a la carte for ~ $9 a year per channel like I saw with a KU band
system a few years back.
Thanks!
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 11:44 am
From: George Grapman
OhioGuy wrote:
> I've been thinking about setting up some sort of satellite dish system to
> supplement the FTA broadcast channels we get. We don't watch a whole lot of
> TV - most of what we watch comes from the local library on DVD.
>
> However, at times I would like to watch something. I could either go for
> a lot of variety, or else something like the Sci-Fi Channel. My wife loves
> game shows, so the Game Show Network would be great.
>
> I don't want to subscribe to cable, DirecTV, or anything where I have to
> essentially subsidize a load of channels I would never watch.
>
> What I DO want is the capability of getting a bunch of free channels, as
> well as subscribing to several (and by that I mean perhaps 2-4 channels like
> Discovery Channel, Game Show Channel, Sci-Fi Channel, etc.) a la carte.
>
> For a while I was looking at getting a big dish, because I heard you could
> do a la cart. Then I heard that most of that was switching over to 4DTV,
> but that was expensive. Now I hear that 4DTV is on the verge of becoming
> outdated, and something called DVB S2 (or something like that) has become a
> de-fact standard.
>
> Frankly, I'm very confused by all of the changes. I would like to be able
> to get an inexpensive system, under $250, set it up and subscribe to a few
> subscription channels. No, not a "tier" of channels, where I get to pay for
> crap like the golf channel. (apologies to those who get their jollies by
> trying to use a stick to knock a ball in a hole)
>
> Can anyone suggest something like this? I'd be open to using one of those
> PC cards, and a small dish or something, if it has stable drivers and
> software, but I think I'd really prefer some sort of set top box. Big Kudos
> if the system can get game show network, TBS, Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi, or
> others a la carte for ~ $9 a year per channel like I saw with a KU band
> system a few years back.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
Almost everything is scrambled so without subscribing to Dish or
Direct you will not get much.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 1:37 pm
From: Shawn Hirn
In article <g8cdm2$v86$1@aioe.org>, "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:
> I've been thinking about setting up some sort of satellite dish system to
> supplement the FTA broadcast channels we get. We don't watch a whole lot of
> TV - most of what we watch comes from the local library on DVD.
>
> However, at times I would like to watch something. I could either go for
> a lot of variety, or else something like the Sci-Fi Channel. My wife loves
> game shows, so the Game Show Network would be great.
>
> I don't want to subscribe to cable, DirecTV, or anything where I have to
> essentially subsidize a load of channels I would never watch.
Your only real option with that requirement is standard broadcast TV,
but even there, you are subsidizing channels you don't watch by paying
for the cost to market most of the products you purchase.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal ideas (on topic)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b0fb633415061f1d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 11:11 am
From: maryatbeach@webtv.net (Mary Mathews)
I read all of these posts, but I must have missed what I consider one of
the most frugal ideas, which is to have a timer on the hot water heater.
Twenty minutes a morning is time enough to heat water for my shower. I
do need more on days that I run the dish-washer.
Question: I am considering using an electric oil-based radiator to heat
this sunroom, where I mostly stay, and turn the heat down for the
remainder of the house for the winter. Is this particular heater a good
idea for this purpose? Gas is not available. Thanks. Mary
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 12:48 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Mary Mathews <maryatbeach@webtv.net> wrote:
> I read all of these posts, but I must have missed what I consider one
> of the most frugal ideas, which is to have a timer on the hot water heater.
No it isnt. A properly insulated hot water tank fixes that much better,
because you dont have to fart around restricting when you use hot water.
> Twenty minutes a morning is time enough to heat water for my
> shower. I do need more on days that I run the dish-washer.
Dish washers do better heating their own water, because that way
they use cold water to get some of the gunk off the plates before
heating the water and so dont cook the gunk onto the plates.
> Question: I am considering using an electric oil-based radiator to
> heat this sunroom, where I mostly stay, and turn the heat down for
> the remainder of the house for the winter. Is this particular heater a
> good idea for this purpose?
I prefer fan heaters myself for that situation. Instead of
heating the whole room, you sit in the hot air stream instead.
They are noisier tho.
You can get electric throws, that fixes the noise problem
and they use a lot less power than any other form of heater.
> Gas is not available.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 2:25 pm
From: me@privacy.net
maryatbeach@webtv.net (Mary Mathews)
wrote:
>Question: I am considering using an electric oil-based radiator to heat
>this sunroom, where I mostly stay, and turn the heat down for the
>remainder of the house for the winter. Is this particular heater a good
>idea for this purpose? Gas is not available. Thanks. Mary
I think it is..... just my gut intuition
But I haven't doe any calculus on the
idea tho to make sure
==============================================================================
TOPIC: refinancing a double to get moved quickly - questions
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c46772999d5969df?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 12:32 pm
From: "OhioGuy"
>By the way, aren't you the same poster that recently said >you put 30 grand
>in some stock? If so, why are you >acting like you have no resources for
>necessary home maintenance?
That's an easy one - it's in a Roth IRA. While I can invest the funds in
individual stocks as a value investor, my understanding is that I can't
liberate these funds to help fix the house without paying huge fees.
Am I wrong about that? If I am, I'd much rather tap my own finances than
take out a new loan. I just always thought there were penalties on
penalties for taking roth IRA funds out early.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Things you never see in a Rod Speed post
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5a8798d403a6dd99?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 1:38 pm
From: Cheapo Groovo
In article <Ermpk.10298$L_.6545@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>, souden@nospam.com
says...
>
>
> My job.
> My friends.
> My family.
> My vacation.
> My favorite restaurant.
> My hobbies.
> My disposable income.
> My education.
>
> Come on welfare boy, prove me right by doing the paper bag or fuckwit
> bots. Better yet give me the flushing bot to show how ashamed you are of
> yourself.
>
Cool post. Keep up the great insights.
Add Claims Casino to the list :-))
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 1:49 pm
From: clams_casino
Cheapo Groovo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>Cool post. Keep up the great insights.
>
>Add Claims Casino to the list :-))
>
>
and don't forget the resident spammer - Cheapo Groovo.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 3:10 pm
From: George Orwell
I just checked into this newsgroup for the first time in about a year. I
can't believe that the wanker Rod is still posting his nonsense here!
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tips On Frugal Living In The Philadelphia Region
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9a6cec6e6820207e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2008 4:31 pm
From: antianti@rocketmail.com
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/frugal-philly.html
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment