[Make it Lady]

This is all very well but what picture should we use for "new theories?"

What about one of the earliest naked scientists: Archimedes in his bath...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archimedes_bath.jpg

Or given the content of "New theories" a photo of a collection of nuts  [].

I think I can see his nuts

[JimBob]

I think you mind is just smutty - like mine. But I am unable to see his 'nads.

[that mad man]

Thanks for that link JimBob.  []

Although the data is a bit old this makes interesting reading from the same site.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/volume2.pdf

Page 20, Table ES-3, Best Point Estimates of 1994-1995 National Mercury Emission Rates by Category.

I was surprised to see lamp breakage at 1% of total and a whopping 86.9% for combustion sources alone. Around half the electricity in the USA is generated by coal power which produces around 45% of the mercury emissions, addressing that I would have thought a priority. Maybe the US emission laws have changed since that report?

In a twisted bit of logic, you use mercury CFL's to help reduce the overall mercury pollution.

I agree, still too much being put out though.

[John Chapman]

Hi JimBob

I do not know about the UK replacements but the ones we are urged to use here in the US, halogen bulbs, are as bad environmentally as the incandescent bulbs - they contain mercury - so what is the advantage here ? less CO2 but more Mercury in the environment???

Bored Chemist is correct. I'm afraid the bulb shown in your picture is not a halogen. It is a CFL. If you look at the product code in the bottom left hand corner of your photo (under the barcode) it says PLG266CFL. I don't know what the 'PLG' stands for, but the the 26 is 26 watts, the second 6 refers to the product being a 6 pack, and the CFL is self explanatory. The front of the packaging, which can be seen here, more clearly states that it is a CFL.
 

[JimBob]

OK, I stand corrected - but I did say in the beginning "... and perhaps I am in error assuming the bulb shown below is a halogen bulb even though that is the way it was marketed." That is what I was told by the clerk at Home Depot. My package is also older and not as well marked. It was bought at least 3 years ago.

I still maintain that mercury is a very serious environmental problem in light bulbs.

[RD (OP)]

BTW Archie Medes was probably not the first to recognise solid objects displace water ... http://www.youtube.com/cellpressvideo  [:0]

[RD (OP)]

Let there be light, instantly ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1222614/The-light-bulb-lasts-25-year-Its-environmentally-friendly-bright-old-ones--cost-30.html?ITO=1490&referrer=yahoo

[Don_1]

When I read this thismorning, the first thing that came into my head, was the initial outlay. Even a small house might require ten or more bulbs. £300.00 is far too much for many households to find, even if bought over a period of weeks or months.

If the government are serious about reducing electricity usage, perhaps these bulbs should be subsidised.

[Don_1]

If we all just wear one of these, then we will only have light where and when we need it.

[time-cop]

sure, they're often not quite as bright and take a little longer to get started, but equally they don't fail nearly so often so I don't need to spend so much time standing on a chair

Is this a reference to frisky old folks ?  []