One of the aspects of anthropogenic global warming that typically gets ignored by America's green press is that solutions being offered to solve this as yet unproven problem are untested and might in the end create other financial and/or environmental maladies in the future.
On Sunday, a New York Times editorial surprisingly went after one of the darlings of the climate alarmism crowd, the compact fluorescent light bulb, for this very reason.
Hold on to your seats, ladies and gentlemen, for the Times offered some inconvenient truths about this supposed environmental panacea that folks like Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his sycophantic devotees work tirelessly to hide from you (emphasis added):
Unlike traditional light bulbs, each of these spiral bulbs has a tiny bit of a dangerous toxin — around five milligrams of mercury. And although one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, almost 300 million compact fluorescents were sold in the United States last year. That is already a lot of mercury to throw in the trash, and the amounts will grow ever larger in coming years.
Businesses and government recyclers need to start working on more efficient ways to deal with that added mercury. Ellen Silbergeld, a professor of environmental health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, is raising the cry about the moment when millions of these light bulbs start landing in landfills or incinerators all at once. The pig in the waste pipeline, she calls it.
[...]
For all that good, the dangers are real and growing. It is time to find more efficient ways of recycling these fluorescents or, better yet, to invent light bulbs that don’t leave a toxic hangover.
How true. Yet, 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.
With that in mind, maybe the dangers associated with this highly-touted light bulb will remind media to not advocate folks diving into the deep end before they assess how far it is to the bottom.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Atlas Shrugged
February 17, 2008 - 11:37 ET by jnorvAnn Rand covered this 50 years ago in her novel "Atlas Shrugged".
Jim N
Seeing The Light
February 17, 2008 - 13:01 ET by zeestephenIf they add two "dots" of mercury, will one of these bulbs actually be bright enough to illuminate a room?
CFL
February 17, 2008 - 13:55 ET by dmntd1I have one, and only one, CFL at my house, and it's my front porch light. If I order a pizza, and it's cold out, I have to turn that light on IMMEDIATELY so it will warm up enough to spill enough light to see my front porch by the time the delivery guy gets here.
Bright enough for a front porch, btw. Doesn't attract nearly the number of bugs in the summer that a regular bulb does, while giving enough light to drink a beer to.
I really think that questioning others' masculinity is a game probably better left to people who haven't had more cock in and out of them than a Tyson Chicken regional distribution center. AceOfSpades 06162007
I bought a couple of these
February 17, 2008 - 14:05 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI bought a couple of these a few years ago, not afraid of trying new ideas out. They were soon relegated to the furthest corner of my basement as they are dim, flickery, and slow to come up to full brightness. I'm hoping the LED bulbs will mature (LED flashlights certainly have) enough to be inexpensive and good enough for reading.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
The Law
February 17, 2008 - 11:41 ET by FranksamThe law of unintended consequences has not been repealed. Some people claim that the CFB's cause the onset of migraines, and others say that the bulbs trigger vertigo. Me, I don't like them because, besides the downstream mercury problem, clip-on lampshades don't fit. Washington loves to determine a 'solution' and dump the challenges on the private sector. (See CAFE)
Liberals don't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory. -Franksam
frank
February 17, 2008 - 11:45 ET byyou can get CFLs with a 'cover' which shapes them like a conventional bulb. O you can get LED 'bulbs' if you don't mind paying through the nose
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Washington loves to
February 17, 2008 - 13:50 ET by motherbeltWashington loves to determine a 'solution' and dump the challenges on the private sector. (See CAFE)
Of course they do! That's their job! They did it with the flame-retardent pajamas for kids (it turned out the chemical used was carcinogenic) they did it with mandatory airbags (new law: kids must ride in the back seat; Oh, and how many accidents were caused by Moms trying to see what the little one was doing in the back seat?) and you mentioned the CAFE standards; those produced smaller, lighter cars and more deaths and injuries.
But what the hell...I guess destroying us and Mother Earth with mercury is preferable to global warming.
Noel
February 17, 2008 - 11:42 ET byso the NYT is catching up? Will our bud, Andy Revnik be next?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
New Lighting
February 17, 2008 - 11:50 ET by GForceThe "green" people who buy this junk, Compact
Fluorescent Lighting will soon realize they have been dooped. I just wonder how
much financial investment Pope Algore has in this bogus
product.
The new way to lighting will be fiber optic
and LED. This is a much safer source of light in terms of heat generation that may
cause fires. It is easily controlled and comes in a vast variety of
colors.
Although my preferred type of lamp is
halogen, a hard light that is easily controlled.
CFL is more difficult and
expensive to control when trying to dim them. They also have NO character when it comes to light variations.
These little "pigtail" lights will
go away just as fast as they came.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"-Aristotle
With that in mind, maybe
February 17, 2008 - 11:51 ET by ghotifunWith that in mind, maybe the dangers associated with this highly-touted light bulb will remind media to not advocate folks diving into the deep end before they assess how far it is to the bottom.
You don't expect media to do any valuable research. How about Congress...
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59298
In addition to raising auto fuel efficiency standards 40 percent, an energy bill passed by Congress yesterday bans the incandescent light bulb by 2014.
"capriciously concocted and implemented solutions...
February 17, 2008 - 11:54 ET by RJ(that) often cause more problems than they solve."
Of course, ethanol goes on the top spot of any list of poorly thought out solutions.
Right, RJ, after some here
February 17, 2008 - 13:55 ET by motherbeltRight, RJ, after some here said that ethanol wouldn't have any effect on corn crops or prices, because the ethanol was made after the usable part of the corn was taken, I posted an article that said beef prices were going to rise. Why? Beef farmers were reducing their herds because of the rise in feed corn prices, now that corn was being sold to make ethanol.
But it's all a big magic story, isn't it? We can be green, and rich, and create new jobs, and raise our standard of living, and it won't cost a thing!!!
Chris Matthews imitation : HA!
Listen to this.
February 17, 2008 - 17:26 ET by okiehawk44Here in this part of Florida we have a local politician advocating for wind generators to be placed on environmentally sensitive lands next to a nuclear power plant that exports its energy to other places because of the surplus it produces. These folks are NUTS!
Holy Cow!
February 17, 2008 - 17:40 ET by motherbeltYou really can't make this stuff up!
Actually
February 17, 2008 - 20:05 ET by pbthinkerActually, the PB Post had an editorial, on that subject, that didn't want these wind generators placed on the sensitive land. FPL has tried to put these wind generators up in a few places, only to be turned down, for one reason or another. That's the joke, really, as the environmentalists eat their young.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
“..capriciously concocted and implemented solutions..” II
February 17, 2008 - 19:48 ET by needle“..capriciously concocted and implemented solutions..”
“capriciously concocted” is a good and valid description of AGW too.
There is a pattern here.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
The mercury in a CFL is
February 17, 2008 - 12:04 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe mercury in a CFL is less than half the mercury emitted into the air by coal fired power plants to light conventional LBs instead of CFLs. So, mercury in an enclosed space v 2x the mercury in the air you are breathing.
Complaints about the CFL quality of light have not be blind tested, though comparative testing of CFLs have noted that cheaper (i.e. non branded bulbs from China) experience more failures and sometimes have light temps that aren't as pleasing.
Exactly why
February 17, 2008 - 12:16 ET bywe should be building mid-sized nuclear generation plants (ala France) and drilling in ANWR to supply oil powered plants!!!
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Oh, come on, Giles
February 17, 2008 - 12:19 ET by RJYou're being silly and alarmist. There's "2x the mercury in the air we're breathing?"
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness..." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
RJ
February 17, 2008 - 12:23 ET byexactly! if you break one of these CFLs you can not use your vacuum cleaner since that will put vaporized mercury in the air.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
EPA Guidlines for broken bulbs
February 17, 2008 - 13:11 ET by GForceHere are U.S. EPA’s guidelines for cleaning up a broken CFL:
a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes.
If you have fans, place the fans in the windows and blow the air out of
the room. Note: If the room has no windows, open all doors to the room
and windows outside the room and use fans to move the air out of the
room and to the open windows.
no other disposal or recycling options are available, private residents
may dispose of the CFL in residential garbage. Be sure to seal the CFL
in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash.
first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the
vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister)
and put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning
materials, in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected
outdoor location for normal disposal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll just stick to the good ol' fashion incandescent light bulb thank you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"-Aristotle
Shouldn't they mandate a
February 17, 2008 - 13:30 ET by RESTLESS 1Shouldn't they mandate a Hazmat suit be given with the sale of every CFL? Eh, soon we'll all be walking around in them thanks to the left giving us our nice shiny clean planet.
But wait - aren't they banning plastic bags now?
February 17, 2008 - 13:36 ET by Gary HallBut wait - aren't they banning plastic bags now?
opportunity to prevent mercury from entering our air
February 17, 2008 - 14:36 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Ironically, CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury
from entering our air, where it most affects our health. The
highest source of mercury in our air comes from burning
fossil fuels such as coal, the most common fuel used in the
U.S. to produce electricity. A CFL uses 75% less energy
than an incandescent light bulb and lasts at least 6 times
longer. A power plant will emit 10mg of mercury to produce
the electricity to run an incandescent bulb compared to only
2.4mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same time."
http://www.arlington...
though similar information can be found elsewhere.
Mecury Emissions
February 17, 2008 - 15:13 ET by CobraManThe mercury emissions from coal fired plants comes from the mercury that naturally exists in the coal. It is released when that coal is burned, but that is not the only way mercury can be released into the environment. The mercury in CFLs is a purer form and the amount per unit of weight is far greater then that which exists in natural deposits of coal.
Mercury emissions are strictly regulated for oil, gas, and coal burning industries and those emissions are dropping every year as plants comply with existing regulations. There are no current regulations concerning the possible environmental release of mercury from CFLs and no studies have been made that compare the environmental effects of CFL mercury and those of other sources.
Since the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs will require the production of hundreds of millions of CFLs, the amount of pure mercury used in their production will necessarily be enormous, as will the environmental effects of that mercury be if it is released into the environment. It is very possible that the amount of mercury released by broken and discarded CFLs will far exceed all other sources combined.
Also, the mercury emissions from US coal burning plants account for only 1 percent of mercury emission in the global environment.
"Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent"
http://www.epa.gov/c...
Scrub the coal emissions...
February 17, 2008 - 15:31 ET by Gary HallHere's what we do. Scrub the coal emissions... remove the mercury and use it for the CFL's.
They probably are
February 17, 2008 - 19:17 ET by CobraManI wouldn't be surprised if that is already occurring. If not, it soon will be as there's going to be a big demand for purified mercury in the near future, all thanks to CFLs.
"M-OPEC"
February 17, 2008 - 21:47 ET by zeestephenNo doubt 90% of the world's mercury is mined in North Korea. I say go straight to the original source - planet Mercury! Spock, Kirk, our planet is sick and needs you for one last mission!
I don't care!!!! I don't
February 17, 2008 - 17:50 ET by motherbeltI don't care!!!! I don't want those stupid, useless, dull mercury bulbs!! I am sick to death of the government dictating everything in our lives, from our light bulbs to how much water goes down our stupid toilets! If they would get off their butts and build more nuclear plants (and don't accuse me of NIMBY; I live near Three Mile Island) and drill in ANWR instead of screwing up our standard of living every time we turn around (Walk more, drive less, heat and cool your home less) and quit thinking that conservation is going to do it (It AIN'T!!) we are going to get nowhere! They think they can solve the problem by simply dividing up our current energy supply to serve more and more people. It'a AIN'T gonna work! Before you know it, we will be like Europe during WW II when they only had electricity 4 hours a day!!!!
OK, I'm done ranting now. Phew! I will now attempt to gingerly remove the duct tape from my head......
mb... You got that
February 17, 2008 - 17:57 ET by bigtimermb...
You got that right!
Plus I know you know how I feel about all of this...just wanted to throw in that some of us can always use generators if we only get power four hours a day...but gosh...that still takes gas...which means...OIL...dang that pesky little substance anyway.
right, bt, you won't be able
February 17, 2008 - 18:04 ET by motherbeltright, bt, you won't be able to run your generator when gas is rationed.
mb... Darn it all...I'm
February 17, 2008 - 18:07 ET by bigtimermb...
Darn it all...I'm gonna' have to stock up on that too...lol.
Btw...I'm not laughing too loud either, I may end up being serious.
Naw
February 17, 2008 - 19:19 ET by CobraManNaw, I'll just burn coal in a steam generator.
CFL Polutants
February 17, 2008 - 13:39 ET by CobraManNot only do CFLs contain mercury, they also contain phosphorous (a fertilizer) that, when released into the environment, poisons waterways and kills fish and other valuable species by increasing the growth of algae and other similar organisms. Phosphorous emissions from fertilizers are a known problem that farmers face every year and there are several environmental laws that restrict the use and release of phosphorous in the environment. So, just how can a product wich contains known (and dangerous) polutants, phosphorous AND mercury, actually bennift the environment, as some people claim?
Bunch of crap
February 20, 2008 - 23:53 ET by PVWe don't have to bring the power plant discharge into our homes. What about when the bulbs break? Didn't you read about the woman in Maine who had to pay $2000 to have a bulb that broke in her daughter's bedroom cleaned up.
The power plants discharge far up into the air which is quickly dispersed and diluted in the atmosphere.
I'm so sick of you insane environuts. We should put you all in padded rooms so you leave the rest of us alone. Go away.
Year 2000 Hype All Over Again
February 17, 2008 - 12:28 ET by BourbeauRemember the fear and anxiety created for business with entering the year 2000? Remember what happened? Nothing!!!! Absolutely nothing!!!! Oh, they'll tell you that it was a good exercise and well worth the investment. What it turned out to be was a two years of expanded IT budgets to prevent a hyped potential meltdown of systems. This CFL conversion is the same thing, only now they've legislated the changeover, which is nothing short of sheer stupidity. It's beyond comprehension how these regs got passed, unless it was buried in some other legislation and was never read or understood by the Congress (more likely scenario). If you pass any home with any of these blue tinted CFL lights, it looks more like a laboratory than a home. Good luck with this; I'm hoarding the regular bulbs so I'll never have to buy one.
Exactly.
February 17, 2008 - 12:29 ET by catnamedjakePretty much any of the themes that the looney left has come up with can be compared to "Atlas Shrugged". That is- "a picture of the world with it's motor cut off". As far as the lighbulbs are concerned, I don't think anyone has a coal-fired plant in their living room, what they may have is children who may or may not break the light bulb.
Money maker?
February 17, 2008 - 12:46 ET by acadia1755Quick ! Let's get a permit and become the first business to have a CFL Mercury removal / disposal enterprise. $$$
http://www.friendsof...
Recycling will soon be required, and expensive
February 17, 2008 - 13:17 ET by general companyLouisiana started requiring large facilities to recycle their florescent bulbs for some time ago. I have never heard of any enforcing, but when they got started their was some strong arming being done by these recycling plants. It is/was more expensive then the bulbs themselves. I dont hear much about this anymore though?
Another down side of these bulbs (by my experience) is they wont light at temps below 55deg or so, as well as when they do fail, they sometimes let out their smoke and it stinks. BTW all electrical devices have a certain amount of smoke to let out, once done the electrical device is in need of replacing.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
General
February 17, 2008 - 16:36 ET by ricklailI have flourescent fixtures in my garage and utility room. As you said they do not work in the cold. I can buy a ballast for them for about $15 each that will work. At 60 bucks then I haven't saved a thing.
I am not an electrican but I have worked in maintenance long enough to know that when the smoke is gone out of any electrical or electronic device, it is ready for the scap yard.
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
And once they really get
February 18, 2008 - 08:52 ET by motherbeltAnd once they really get going with the recycling, the price of the bulbs will really go up!
Right now there are piles of newspapers all over the place that are not being recycled because it's a financial loser. Same with plastic bottles.
In Recycling is Garbage, John Tierney explains (emphasis added):
Collecting a ton of recyclable items is three times more expensive than collecting a ton of garbage because the crews pick up less material at each stop. For every ton of glass, plastic and metal that the truck delivers to a private recycler, the city currently spends $200 more than it would spend to bury the material in a landfill. City officials hoped to recover this extra cost by selling the material but the market price of a ton has never been anywhere near $200. In fact, it has rarely risen as high as zero. Private recyclers usually demand a fee because their processing costs exceed the eventual sales price of the recycled materials. So the city, having already lost $200 collecting the ton of material typically has to pay another $40 to get rid of it.
So what makes anyone think recyclers will agree to lose money on the mercury bulbs? And they will have to be recycled, not voluntarily, but by government mandate, and under EPA guidelines. And that won't be cheap. Who do you think is going to foot the bill?
remember global warming is anti capitalism
February 17, 2008 - 13:21 ET by lunaticcringeradioso if the capitalist freemarket finds a solution to prevent this non existent problem the glob warms will complain. the whole point in global warming is to destroy the economy, it has nothing to do with saving the planet, it's everything to do with ruining the free market.
lunaticcringeradio
Typical Congress
February 17, 2008 - 13:56 ET by CobraManI think it's ironic that Congress would attempt to mandate the use of one product that contain phosphorous, CFLs, while attempting to ban another, dishwashing detergent, that contains the same chemical!
Feb 12, 2008 ... A Senate environmental panel approved a bill that would prohibit the sale of phosphorous-containing dishwasher detergents by July 1, 2010.
http://www.post-trib...
CFL Light Bulbs
February 17, 2008 - 14:20 ET by TigerOther than the quality of light, the issue I have is the unreliablity of the things. You can buy one (and they are not cheap) take it out of the package and it may or may not work.
I read somewhere that it
February 17, 2008 - 14:21 ET by rbosqueI read somewhere that it takes the equivalent of 30 regular incandescent bulbs to make one flourescent. Not sure if it's true bt it sounds right.
The CFL-China Connection
February 17, 2008 - 14:24 ET by scamoramaWhere are these produced?
China, in factories powered by coal-fired generators.
Don't you love that? We're being told to send even more of our money to China to buy something that will save us from AGW, while China pumps more CO2 into the air to make these things.
And the whole mercury issue is bogus. Right there with radon and dioxin as fear-mongering nonsense.
Al Gore
February 17, 2008 - 17:37 ET by okiehawk44Al Gore and his buddies are making a fortune (another fortune I mean) on these CFLs (horrible little things -- try one) and on carbon credits. Look it up. Same names will always appear.
You ever notice how Albert wears cowboy boots? That's his homage to his greatgrandfather who toured the old west selling snake oil.
Question
February 17, 2008 - 14:31 ET by ChaitealoverWhat am I supposed to do with all of my 3-way lamps when incandescent bulbs become illegal? While I haven't spent much time [any] in research, I don't believe the compact fluorescent bulb comes in a 3-way format.
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
Chai... I was wondering
February 17, 2008 - 18:00 ET by bigtimerChai...
I was wondering the same thing too when it comes to the three ways....I asked a nurse friend of mine who use these bulbs now, she said as far as she knows they are working on producing them, but there aren't any now.
I'm stocking up on the old ones anyway...
Screw the toxins.
February 17, 2008 - 18:01 ET by TruthMattersScrew the toxins. Everything is toxic, it is just a matter of degree. I hate the compact flourescent bulbs because they make things depressingly green looking...pun intended.
if we had some global warming
February 17, 2008 - 18:59 ET by RousseBut what if mercury causes global warming?
What about the RF!
February 17, 2008 - 19:26 ET by CobraManScrew the global warming. What about all the increases in cancer that will be caused by the massive increase in RF radiation those damn CFL's will produce? Want to find out how bad they are? Hold an AM radio next to one and you'll hear all the interference they produce. They generate large amounts of high frequency electromagnetic radiation. And they say cell phones are bad!
What energy savings? If you
February 17, 2008 - 21:56 ET by Lancasters Saved UsWhat energy savings? If you live in a cold climate and heat your house 7 months of the year, your heating bills will go up a corresponding amount. No heat from these CFL's. If you live in Arizona, get the CFLS's or just open the blinds.
The Climate Commies won't be satisfied until they have forced us
February 17, 2008 - 22:26 ET by R D HelmThe Climate Commies won't be satisfied until they have forced us back to using oil lamps and candles.
Then they will start griping about those.
Heck RD..that will just
February 17, 2008 - 22:35 ET by bigtimerHeck RD..that will just bring forth more work for the trial lawyers now wouldn't it?
Just think of the lawsuits they would attempt to file.
bt,
February 17, 2008 - 23:05 ET by R D HelmLast I checked, the trial lawyers were still the largest contributer to the dem party. And if the enviro-kooks do manage to cram the new bulbs down our throats, just wait for the class-action lawsuit for mass mercury poisoning. :-)
These people are nuts. They won't let us drill anywhere then complain about our dependence on foreign oil and the price at the pump. They complain about conventional light bulbs, then complain about their intended replacement.
LOL-If I didn't know better, I'd say they don't want us driving or seeing in the dark.
"Yet, there's potentially a
February 17, 2008 - 22:34 ET by lotr"Yet, 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."
Precisely. The only reason I see for using these bulbs is to lower your energy bills -- they are certainly good for that. Did not know about the potential mercury hazards.
Enviro Insanity
February 18, 2008 - 09:25 ET by PolazerusHas anyone picked up the story in Kalifornia where one neighbor was ordered to cut down his redwood trees so his neighbor's solar panels could work better?
A 30 year old law
February 18, 2008 - 13:17 ET by Chaitealoverin California states that you cannot allow anything to shade the solar panels of your neighbor that prevents them from working because they are his source of heat and light. The law applies to trees planted after 1979 and to trees that grew tall enough to shade the panels after they were installed. So, even though the trees had been planted first, they weren't shading the panels when the other neighbor installed them in the only place they fit on his roof. According to one expert, the panels sequesters [his word] more carbon dioxide in a few days than the tree does in a year. Of course, that only matters if you believe in AGW, which many in the Northern California area where this happened do, but I do not.
Bottom line: when a dispute goes to court, somebody wins and somebody loses. The guy with the panels won, I think, because he had no where else to put his panels while the guy with the trees had more trees.
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
→ Diogenes said that?
February 18, 2008 - 13:22 ET by Cool ArrowYou're sure Diogenes didn't say:
"Bury me face down with my buttocks exposed, that the children will have a bicycle rack"
♣ a seal
CA
February 18, 2008 - 13:27 ET by ChaitealoverYou're thinking of some of his later writings.
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
When these SUCKERS first came on the market they had a 7 year
February 18, 2008 - 23:27 ET by upcountrywaterGUARANTEE!!
I thought wow 7 years,, so making design changes we started using them in my equipment...( i needed a light source without the heat)
well these things BURNT OUT in 6 months! Guess what ! this company DROPPED the 7 year to 2 years.. NOW ZERO!!!
As with all green sh*t , another colossal waste of MY time.
Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!