Slashdot Mirror
Long Island Town Enacts Tough Cell Tower Limits
crimeandpunishment writes "They're getting tougher on towers on Long Island. The town of Hempstead, NY has imposed some of the toughest cell phone tower restrictions in the country. The ordinance prohibits wireless equipment within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship, unless the company can prove absolute need. A spokesman for Verizon says, 'It's not unheard of for towns to have issues, but this is extreme,' and says this makes 95 percent of the town off limits to future antenna construction." With internet access by 3G, 4G and WiMax getting ever more common, I suspect that not everyone in the town will appreciate blocking out the companies that provide it.
Hempstead, New York, future home of "all circuits are busy."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I'm moving there - it'll save me a fortune in tin foil hats. Plus "hemp" + "stead" = a town that grows dope ? Great ! :-)
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
what percentage of most towns are consumed by cellular transceivers? is it far less than 5%? far far FAR less?
slashdot = stagnated with whining idiots.
Not to mention the negative effect on the economy this will have once people figure out that thinner and cheaper materials now suffice for the tin-foil hat.
If we impose the 1,500 foot blackout around homes, day care centers, schools and houses of worship, there is what, maybe ONE place to put a tower in Hempstead? Then everyone will complain about crap for signal and bandwidth. More NIMBY at work.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Hempstead,+NY&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.313287,86.572266&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hempstead,+Nassau,+New+York&ll=40.706214,-73.618698&spn=0.032077,0.084543&t=h&z=14
Dang, did I just get first post? The frosty-drink troll guy must be trying to use his Android from Hempstead.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't understand the purpose of these regulations at all. What difference does it make how close a tower is to a day care center or place of worship?
Within 1,500 feet of homes? How do they expect to get cellular service at home, then? Hm.
Fact is that your mobile phone will send a stronger signal if it notices that the cell tower is far away, so that the signal can be received there. So if you vary the distance from the cell tower, radiation from the tower will get less when you move further away, but radiation from your phone will get more. There is an optimal spot in between where the total radiation hitting you is minimised.
I would assume that this optimal point is less than 1500 feet from the tower. If that is the case, then anyone using their phone in these "protected" places will receive more radiation.
Administrators don't want antennas close to homes but they probably want their citizens to be able to use mobile phones inside their homes. One would think about upping the power but you can't have too high levels close to the antennas. Furthermore the higher bandwidth you want, the smaller you have to keep the cell radius. I wonder if they'll be able to use anything more than 2G there but I'm sure people will be blaming the operators.
... houses of worship? Seriously?
Do microwaves interfere with prayers or something?
This passage from Neil Gaiman's Color Colours comes to mind:
so, maybe they can form a religion around these towers and hold services?
And it would like to point out that the article starts by pointing out that this applies to new tower construction. It does not mean that existing towers must come down.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Assuming signal strength is somehow harmful, they're doing the exactly wrong thing to deal with it.
By imposing those limits, they force towers to be further apart. To cover the area anyway they'll have to bring the power way up. The schools, daycare centers and so on will probably get about the same amount of RF as before, but whatever is near that tower will get cooked. And for those who protest the aesthetics, it's going to be a big ugly one as well.
What they should be doing instead is peppering the area with a weak tower on every roof. Then they can have coverage without strong emitters anywhere.
If aesthetics are the issue they're legislating against, here is the alternative:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/04/03/gallery-cell-phone-towers-pretending-to-be-trees/
Probably the whacky politicians read a report about "dangerous EM emissions causing cancer and headaches and other scary things" so they decided to ban transmitters. (Not directly of course, but this law has the same effect.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
News flash. We don't need to be always connected, have Internet access in every nook and cranny, or engulf our homes in a mesh of (more) RF. I make my living in IT, but honestly sometimes (more and more lately) I wish it would all go away. Well, most of it anyway.
Hey, they do it with trees.
Oh wait, it's actually happening already.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
About 15 years ago my rural dwelling brother law was a leading light in a somewhat successful local campaign against the "radiation masts" that were sprouting up around the country side. As a city dweller who lived even then in a veritable sea of electromagnetic waves I was pretty sceptical of their protests and today , 15 years later, I am amused at his constant complaints that he cannot get a decent phone or internet signal.
If I were running the cell companies I wouldn't be worried - it's one town (not enough market to really hurt if it's lost) and people will realise within a month or two that they actually quite enjoyed being able to use their phones. Just let the administrators steam in their own stupidity once the population gets pissed off, making sure to politely point out exactly why nobody has phone coverage.
The town's ability to make rules is limited by its charter and bylaws, state law, the state Constitution, the federal constitution, and where the feds have jurisdiction e.g. interstate commerce, federal law.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So if carriers still provide service there, it will be spotty, customers will complain, reputation suffers. Sounds like a place to *not* do business.
The carriers should just pull out, and blackhole it. Add a new color to their coverage map for "we could work here, but the city government has its head up its ass"
The cell carriers should cancel the accounts of the bozo city officials who supported this.
Then the city can be a haven to the "get off of my yard" geezers.
You know those blasted scientists and the American Cancer Society, definitely in the pocket of "Big Cell Phone"
"Radio signal strength decays exponentially. "
No, it decays geometrically.
Exponential decay would be of the form P=An^d, where "d" is the distance, and A and n are constants.
The formula for free space losses is of the form P=Ad^2 - a geometrical loss.
www.eFax.com are spammers
This sort of legislation is due to the "OMFG I KIN FEEL IT IN MY BWAIN!!!" tinfoil hat crowd, saying "RADIASION IZ KILLIN DE BEEZ!"
And since the vast majority of people don't see fit to have an opinion on this, the vocal moronity - err, minority - are all that is heard, and the politicians will bow to the herd to get votes.
The right answer IMHO would be for all the carriers to say "OK, fine - since you are too sensitive for our signals, we will remove them." Let us see what happens when Joe Ranknfile finds his precccisouuuussss cellphone doesn't work, and it is due to the tinfoil hat brigade and the spineless political hacks who covet their votes. Suddenly it won't be JUST the tinfoilers who are making themselves heard.
www.eFax.com are spammers
And here's the other half of the issue:
"... unless the company can prove absolute need."
Such proof being provided on the memo line of a check with a lot of zeros, made out to the politico's reelection fund.
Somehow, I would guess that if Verizon wanted a cell site at some location, there are, $hall we $say, way$ to $ee $omething like that happen$.
www.eFax.com are spammers
We at Evil Co. sympathise with the town's wish not to be bombarded with EM radiation. A it is clearly the will of the people that they not have these signals directed in their vicinity, we wish to respect their wishes, even at the cost of some profit. Unfortunately, complying with these new laws would require significantly increasing the power output of other towers to compensate, and so we are unable to continue to offer service without violating the intent and spirit, if not the letter, of this law. As we can not provide a service in this town, we are willing to waive early termination fees for any customers in the affected area, as a gesture of good will. We hope that they will enjoy their relaxed lifestyle, free from the burdens of modern technology.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yeah, well, if they're that upset about radiation, maybe we don't give them television, radio, ban the 2-ways in the police, fire, and ambulance, nobody can own a cell phone or any other 2-way communications, no more wireless computer networks, wi-fi, etc. Landline phones only, no remote car door unlockers or garage door raisers... its fun to take it to an extreme... but this is already an extreme...
Its dumb as a box of rocks. All they're saying is, "We don't want ANYTHING to change, anywhere, anytime, for any reason."
People I love to hate...
Verizon (and other cell companies) should not only no longer place cell sites in Hempstead. They should disconnect all the sectors of out of town antennas which point into Hempstead, and make the whole thing a dead zone. Then there's a few things that could happen.
1) Much of Hempstead's population will get sick of being in a dead zone and will tell the tinfoil hatter's to STFU and repeal the law.
2) Hempstead will become a destination for tinfoil hatters and cranky old cellphone haters, and everyone's happy.
3) (most likely) Much of Hempstead's population will want their cell phone reception, but they'll fail to see any connection between lack of reception and anti-tower laws. They'll then complain that they're somehow being mistreated and/or discriminated against by the carriers. Maybe they'll even try a lawsuit. The rest of us will all have a good laugh at their expense.
TFA mentions another city that tried similar restrictions and was overturned by a federal court. There is a proposed Wi-Max tower half a block from my house and the neighborhood is doing everything they can to stop it. The city has made it clear they have no say in the matter as tower placement is governed by the state and feds. So... IMHO Hempstead will be in court the next time a carrier proposes a new tower, and while it may delay the tower being built Hempstead spend a lot of money and lose. Also, cell towers are a source of revenue and in my part of town they are primarily on school buildings (the building itself or their chimneys), churches, watertowers, one in a graveyard, etc. We have very few stand-alone towers which may be part of the NIMBY here.
five children who attended school 50 feet from cell antennas on a water tower have been diagnosed with cancer or leukemia and three have died
So ... instead of looking for the actual cause of the cancers you decided the tower was a good enough scapegoat?
Darwin in action.
No sig today...
If they want to vote themselves shitty cellphone coverage in their nurseries and schools then let them. Hope they can get a signal when snowflake is choking on something...
No sig today...
In fact I'm thinking of founding a company myself. I could easily disperse the harmful magnetic flux components by switching the polarity in the tachion inverter matrix and rerouting the resulting neutrino flux through the phase coils in the flux capacitor. Now, if only I could find my field remodulator!
Yes. They're also putting COLORS in the water now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8
Town of Hempstead is right in the center of Nassau County. County population 1.4 million. Median household income $95K. Several major highways pass through it. (Puts on tin-foil hat) I suspect that it's Cablevision behind it. Trying to hinder competition.
I hope Hempstead bans telephone polls and electrical wires too. And streetlights, and traffic signals.
On the day when the law comes into force, the companies should just turn off the towers within the limited areas for 30 minutes during a peak time, along with appropriate publication in local media before that.
Then the citizens can decide if their representatives are representing well, and the (currently) silent majority is welcome to lynch the activist group that achieved this.
Let's make a list of related lunatic fringe causes:
Artificial Sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose)
Vaccines particularly MMR
Chlorination / Fluoridation of drinking water
HFCS
Glyphosate
GMOs
Any more?
"Despite a 1996 federal law prohibiting municipalities from considering health issues in approving locations for cell antennas, a group of mothers concerned about what they consider risky cell towers outside their children's schools successfully lobbied the town of Hempstead. While the town board adhered to FCC regulations to not consider possible health effects, officials instead described the vote as a quality of life issue. The ordinance provides real protection against the siting of cell towers and antennae in locations that would adversely impact home values or the character of local neighborhoods,"
They town board thinks they're being creative and sneaking around the law, but their about to have the full weight of the multi-billion dollar cellular industry descend on them in the form of a tornado of lawyers that are going to ass-rape their board members until no other municipality ever thinks of trying something this stupid again.
So is this the result of:
1. Fraudulent and false claims of injury due to radio wave emission?
2. Scams by local governments preferring to force people to have to use their police tower, at rates 3-4x the going rate for private towers?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Honestly, this all comes down to how dumb people are. I'll give an example from where I grew up
It was a relatively small town, but within 10-20 minutes of large cities here in New York. There is literally NO cell phone reception around the entire radius of the town. You have to drive at least 10-15 minutes to get cell reception. So Verizon (and at that time, CellularOne who was recently bought out by AT&T) wanted to put up a tower right in the middle of the town behind some barns and silos. Not visible from the road but if you tried hard enough you could see it.
The town, who I knew from experience hated not having cell service, was concerned about property values dropping and how "bad the tower would look" when driving by...so Verizon proposed using one of the "camouflage" towers that looks like a pine tree. The town reviewed it, and STILL said no because it "didn't look enough like a tree". So Verizon came back and said "ok we will build the tower inside a silo. You won't be able to see it AT ALL. The reception will be reduced slightly because of it being enclosed, but you will still have service". Instead of approving it, they put it up for a vote, and the tower STILL voted it down over concerns of "radiation".
Weeks later I remember hanging out with friends, whose fathers and mothers were on the town board, and others who had voted no, and hearing them and their kids bitch about the fact that there still wasn't cell reception, and blaming the cell companies for NOT PROVIDING A FEASIBLE SOLUTION!
I think this happens more often than not around the country, where stupid backwards people who don't really know what they are talking about, wind up shooting town technological advances in favor of "oh that looks bad" or "oh i heard it does _______ which is bad" without knowing the facts, or understanding how important technology can be, especially in rural areas that have been without it. In this case, lack of cell phone reception and broadband internet kept many businesses and other things important for growth of a town or city out of the area because of the lack of available technology.
It really amazes me at how resistant people are. I'd rather have my property value go down a little than be without cell reception or internet service in this day in age. It hurts more not to have it than it would to just grin and bear it for the good of advancement.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
This gives us something to think about, however. It's one thing for (hundreds of) thousands of people to fill the aether in each cell with their mindless yabbering at each other over their phones, but as mobile phone usage approaches 100% of the population, with the added load of data traffic from smartphones, iPads and other devices, it is easy to visualise a scenario where metropolitan phone users find it difficult to jam so much as a metaphorical toe into the flood of traffic.
I can imagine an iPhone user grinding his teeth waiting for a typical media-intensive webpage to load at 9600 baud. In a way it would be funny, if only we hadn't allowed ourselves to become so dependent on this technology.
Although this might be (correctly, I suppose) regarded as being deliberately flamebaity, it might be worth pointing out that from an evolutionary point of view, blocking construction of cell towers around places of worship would be otiose. ;-)
Radio towers are a Federal issue and the only standing that provinces and municipalities have is what the feds care to give them. This federal perogative has been widely accepted by the provinces. Industry Canada is the regulating ministry.
This is not to say that the municipalities are ignored... just that if the feds say you can build a tower and approve the design then the local municipality can complain but they have no legal grounds to block the construction.
see http://www.cwta.ca/CWTASite/english/towers.html
especially:
"Local Land-Use Authorities
As a result of the federal jurisdiction of telecommunications operations, traditional municipal land-use planning controls such as zoning by-laws, site-plan control, development approvals, and Building Code requirements are rendered inoperative to the extent that they affect or interfere with the siting, physical location, design, construction and operation of federal undertakings such as cellular/PCS carriers. In other words, the prohibition, restriction or regulation of land for its use as a wireless telecommunications facility would not be the authority of the Land-Use Authority.
Nonetheless, Industry Canada requires anyone who is planning to install or modify an antenna system that doesn’t meet certain criteria to consult with the local land-use authority and/or local public where appropriate. Industry Canada generally considers that once a participating land-use authority is contacted, the consultation process should be concluded within 120 days."
To teach the town a lesson, maybe all of the cellular carriers should just pull out of the area. Then the townsfolk will have no cell service at all! Then they might rethink their decision making while voting.
All the comments here seem to focus on fears of health issues. That may be true, but I remember that when I was younger, a cell company put up a tower overnight in the middle of my community. There was a lot of protest, people complained. Not because of health issues, but because it was ugly--a giant ugly tower right up in the middle of the neighbourhood. So, just to say, it may not only be that people are 'nuts', but just that they want to preserve the aesthetics of their town. I think they were also quite insulted that this huge thing went up overnight without any consideration or permission of the residents. (Yes, this cell tower is still there.. they've gotten used to it I guess, but it's still ugly.)
Did the local cable or phone company propose this bill? "When you have no other choice in broadband or telephone service, you'll pay what we say."
I consider Edison's incandescent bulbs to be a superior technology to CFLs. Fast turnon, can be used in cold/hot areas (or enclosed fixtures), cost consumers 1/10th to buy, use fewer materials, easy to recycle, and no mercury vapor.
.
Somewhat off topic I know but I can't resist.
Let's examine those points you made:
A few indisputable advantages of incandescents:
A few indisputable disadvantages of incandescents:
In short, your assertion that incandescents are "a superior technology" is only true for specific applications. For most commercial buildings and residences, CFLs are a better choice much of the time for many many applications.
"The ordinance prohibits wireless equipment within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship, unless the company can prove absolute need."
Note the last part of that sentence from the summary. In essence, it seems to imply that their just requiring special building permits approved on a case-by-case basis for any new cell tower built in a potentially concerning place. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
At the very least, if the process for requesting permits for new towers becomes more cumbersome, perhaps the providers will look more closely at re-using/sharing existing towers in more elaborate ways. If not, we'll have cell towers on every block sooner or later (which isn't good for anybody).
This only bans new towers. This means existing towers will now be worth much more. Who owns those?
They can just build 1600ft tall "Freedom Towers" and then happen to place a cell antenna on top. The "cell equipment" will equipment will be at least 1500 ft away from all buildings and no politician will be able to argue against "Freedom Towers" :-p
Kick him really hard.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Aspartame really makes my sister sick. Two glasses of diet products -> Puking. Chlorination is bad because it tastes like shit an people have to buy bottled water(and throw away the containers). The rest, that is for nut jobs.
This law is about NEW towers. The old ones can stay.
There are people that do not want a cell tower within 5 miles of their home... But they want perfect cell coverage in their home including their basement. They complain about how WiFi makes you sick, while surfing the internet on their laptop/netbook/PDA via WiFi at the coffee shop or in their home.
Some people can actually feel it. Me, for example. I get headaches if I hold a celphone to my ear.
In fact, if my wife is next to me in the car and talking on the phone, I get her to hold it on the other side of her head.
AHA! You caught me out! It's all psychosomatic!
OK, mister genius, explain how I have successfully predicted incoming calls for people based precisely on the sudden headache I get when I'm sitting by where their celphones are on desks or tables. Unless your version of psychosomatic effects includes time travel, in which case you might want to prepare your Nobel prize acceptance speech.
And, yeah, actually, I'd be delighted if celphones were banned. I hate the damn things. Gee, wonder why... not that I think nobody should have them, but I'd be happier if they didn't hurt me. As in pain. With the ouch. Pain bad.
So, yeah. It may or may not be harmful, but to at least some percentage of the population it is genuinely, provably perceptible, and if people think that things which give them headaches are likely to be harmful, well, go figure.
First, please beware that I barely qualify as a layman when it comes to knowledge of cellular networks and/or RF transmission.
If I recall correctly though, the transmitting power used by a cellular phone is inversely proportionate to the proximity of a tower. That is, if the tower is far away and more difficult to reach, the phone will use more transmitting power.
So from a radiation perspective, is it safer to have towers located far away at the expense of having our cell phones constantly running at maximum power mere inches from our reproductive organs or brains?
I'm as pro tech as they come, but gheesh, people -- a heck of a lot of plain old misuse goes on too, like most tools it's a double edged thing. It's like, get a life that doesn't require mindless continuous babble with any and everyone to make you think you're OK. Does turning the thing off now and then really inconvenience anyone much?
As with the recent facebook downtime, maybe you're better off without some of this.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
I absolutely wouldn't buy a house in an area with no cell reception. If others feel the same wouldn't that lower property values?
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
some time when your car is stuck in the middle of nowhere and there isn't a pay phone you can use within 100 miles.
Or, assuming you've got a mobile phone regardless of your public opinion about cell phones, when you've got an emergency and zero bars.
Or no emergency at all, but a member of your family wanted to add something to your shopping list, a fact you did not discover until you got home and found out that said family member couldn't get through and as a result, you've got to hit the road yet again.
Or when you're lost and you can't connect to the Net to access Google Maps.
Tech Public Policy stuff
to exclude modern technology from their community.
Mainly because when the residents discover that their real estate values are dropping faster than everyone else's due to "zero bars" practically everywhere in town, I'm looking forward to hearing their screams of anger.
"People always get the kind of local government they deserve." E.E. "Doc" Smith
NIMBYs who demand services and band together to exclude what is needed to make them available from their community should get big middle fingers from their service providers.
Tech Public Policy stuff
There was an article on the internet a few years back, so I'm sure you could find it if you wanted, but it said that while the Amish don't like having phones in their houses, they're fine with cell phones, which they can use to call their men in from out in the fields if there's something going on. A metal triangle hanging by the back door will do fine if they're just out in the barn, but if they're plowing 100 acres by mules, they could be far away.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Amateur Radio operators have had to fight the same BS for years because neighbors consider towers ugly and/or are afraid of interference. Yet someone can paint their home/garage/etc... a gastly color, or erect ugly structures and nothing is said. The facts are that most people seldome look up, so most towers are not noticed. Most interference is caused by a combination of cheaply made home electronics, and CBers running illegally high (for them) power levels.
This is a classic case of "have your cake and eat it too" thinking. They want cell service, but don't want the towers.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
it wouldn't surprise me that the local cable company had something to do with the passage of the restrictive ordinance.
When you can't get 3G/cellphone internet connection that leaves only dialup (who wants that?) and cable.
The only question remaining is how much did it cost the cable company to insure their market monopoly?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I am sure that it makes your sister sick. There are a lot of people who have responses like this to all kinds of foods. Personally I can't stand cooked cabbage and have had some similar responses to it. That doesn't mean cooked cabbage is bad for me.
Similarly with chlorination - just because you don't like the taste doesn't make it bad for you. As far as the disposable bottles, there is no reason you can't use filtered water and a non-disposable bottle.
Let me guess, the town was predominantly conservatives?
If places like Hempstead make it too hard then the wireless companies should just pull out, and as soon as the council's CEO or Mayor finds their blackberry doesn't work anymore things might return to normality.
There was a case in Christchurch NZ (yep, shaky town) where the council ruling on a cell site on an old movie theatre was that there was 'no detectable emission' at ground level -- which made the installation completely pointless.
HFCS just ruins the taste of any "food" that is tainted with it. Ditto the artificial sweeteners, (and the physical effect in my body is disconcerting as well). Free Cl is pretty scary stuff, and many of its compounds are best avoided, IMO. I dislike and distrust Glyphosate, but mainly I see profit in charging boutique prices for produce grown without it (Mwa-ha-ha). You missed the endocrine disrupting features of some of our new plastic and pharmaceutical products, some real scientists actually believe there may be real problems with that stuff; Others assure us there is nothing to fear. My neighbor, Jeff Rense, seems to be a nut, and his website is pretty ludicrous, (and apparently VERY profitable) but just because something is posted there does not absolutely mean it is always total nonsense. Jeff Rense, -1 skepticism mod; Monsanto spokesman, -1 who's paying mod. My point is that I see more real hazards coming from your Fearless Leaders than your Lunatic Fringe.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
And you know the first people bitching about how bad their phone coverage now is will be all those idiots who supported these restrictions.
There are places in Silicon Valley (!) that have crappy cell coverage (e.g. San Jose, Evergreen) simply because of a lack of cell towers caused by NIMBYism. Talked to a city council person one time and she complained about the poor cell coverage and how the cell companies were so unresponsive. Of course the area she was talking about had cell tower restrictions and none of the cell companies (they don't generally share towers btw) had installed any cell sites in nearly a decade because of the cost of regulation and application - it would cost nearly 10x more than the physical capital costs and installation costs combined. This was why the cell site I'd always connect to (when I had cell coverage at all) was a tower at the corner of 280 and 17 nearly 10 miles away.
Put up towers here! Please! Duck River, Tennessee.
Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
Sweetener taste is a subjective thing. What I object to is the the idea that despite all scientific evidence there are thousands of web sites that will cheerfully make up all sorts of claims that anything except natural products like agave nectar and stevia syrup are bad for you when in fact opposite is true.
Free chlorine can be deleterious in high concentrations, however the fact of the matter is that if you stop using it you are in for a nasty cholera or other water borne epidemic. Peru tried that a few years ago and 19,000 people died of cholera. Even today deaths due to water borne diseases are killing thousands of people per day. So go ahead, stop adding chlorine to drinking water.
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/warmup/cholera/cholera.html
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2005-03-17-voa34-67381152.html
Distrust glyphosate all you want, however the facts are in. Any such fears are irrational. Perhaps it's good marketing to get people juiced up over something that isn't metabolized by mammals, I'll give you that.
As far as endocrine disrupters, there are some materials to be concerned about. You didn't see it my list of false bogeymen, did you?
My point is that I see more real hazards coming from your Fearless Leaders than your Lunatic Fringe.
Fringers like the anti-vax crowd and the ban chlorine types would throw away the two primary disease prevention mechanisms known to man. Combined they are the dominant reasons life expectancy has gone up to 74 from the 45 it was in 1900.
If you want to live on a cholera island infested with smallpox and polio and watch your children die of measles and whooping cough go right ahead. Personally I'll take my chances with sucralose.
I don't see how being able to see a tower devalues a property more than not being able to use your cell phone.
So, this is an argument against allowing everyone people to vote equally?
Where are these "instant on" bulbs?
All CFLs have a warm up period but some get 90% of the way there. Most of the ones in my house do not have a discernible delay to getting light after hitting the switch and achieve what seems to be full brightness after 40-60 seconds.
I've tried Lights of America, GE, and Philips, and they ALL take 3-4 minutes to slowly rise from a dim brownish light to a bright white. All of them.
I have about 30 CFLs in my house and none of them have either a "dim brownish light" nor do they take that long to warm up. Most of the bulbs I presently use are from Sylvania but I'd had good luck with the house brand from Home Depot too (which is the highest rated by Consumer Reports). There is definitely variability in quality of manufacture and design so sadly, some experimentation is often necessary.
CFLs can NOT be used in enclosed or upside-down fixtures. The trapped heat turns the capacitors into goop, and then they die.
Actually they can be and I've used them quite successfully in that capacity. You just have to get bulbs designed for that particular application. Not all CFLs are designed for use in enclosed fixtures and some fixtures are designed specifically for CFLs. "Current recommendations for fully enclosed, unventilated light fixtures (such as those recessed into insulated ceilings), are either to use 'reflector CFLs', cold cathode CFLs or to replace such fixtures with those designed for CFLs."
(DON YOUR FLAME SHIELD). Ya know I'm tired of rude, inconsiderate people (not you specifically but in general) who claim "You're full of shit" and "CFLs are the next best thing to a Pentium 20,
Buddy, you are debating on the internet. If you are expecting a warm and friendly environment I suggest you look elsewhere. If you say something on slashdot that people think is stupid or wrong, be ready to defend. No one is going to coddle you here.
and ignore REAL WORLD RESULTS from people who have experienced nothing but headaches and trouble with these fancy new lightbulbs.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Your personal experiences, while significant to you, are not backed up by the available data on the general performance of CFLs. Furthermore, your personal experiences are directly contradicted by my personal experiences so even if we ignore the performance data, you haven't remotely begun to convince me of your position.
IT'S RUDE to me and other, as if you think we are rednecks with no brains.
You said something that is not backed up by the available data beyond your personal opinion. If pointing that out hurts your feelings then, well... grow up. Have the confidence to back up your conviction because you're going to run into rude people the rest of your life. Waste of your time to spend it feeling hurt by people you'll never meet.
I've worked as an engineer and was trained as a scientist. Expecting me to be sympathetic to you claiming your anecdotal experience as some sort of universal truth is simply laughable. There are plenty of perfectly valid criticisms to be made of CFLs but you neglected to make any of them or back up any of your assertions.