presumably because he's heard that guy pronounce his name before, but never heard anyone refer to the constellation.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is having its own problems with one "climate-friendly good" that might not be. Last week, the New York Times front page carried this headline: "The Bulb That Saved the Planet May Be a Little Less Than Billed."


The story recounted some Americans' misadventures with the new light bulbs that almost all Americans — all but those who are filling their closets with supplies of today's incandescent bulbs — will have to use after the phaseout of today's bulbs in 2014. (You missed that provision of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007?)


A San Francisco — naturally — couple emerged from Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" incandescent with desire to think globally and act locally, in their home. So they replaced their incandescent bulbs with the compact fluorescents that Congress says must soon be ubiquitous. "Instead of having a satisfying green moment, however," the Times reported, "they wound up coping with a mess."


Although supposed to last 10,000 hours and save, the Times says, "as much as" $5.40 a year in electricity costs, some bulbs died within a few hours. Some experts, reports the Times, "blame the government for the quality problems," saying its push to cut the bulbs' prices prompted manufacturers to use inferior components.


Furthermore, some experts have written a guide saying the new bulbs require "a little insight and planning." The Times says that "may be an understatement."


The bulbs, says the Times, "do not do well in hot places with little airflow, like recessed ceiling fixtures," and some do not work "with dimmers or three-way sockets." And: "Be aware that compact fluorescents can take one to three minutes to reach full brightness. This is not a defect." Well, if you say so. Because all fluorescents contain mercury, a toxic metal, they must never be put in the trash, so Home Depot and other chains offer bins for disposing of dangerous bulbs. Driving to one of these disposal points might not entirely nullify the bulbs' environmental benefits. Besides, the Times summarizes the Environmental Protection Agency's helpful suggestions for coping with the environmental dangers caused when one of these environment-saving bulbs breaks:


"Clear people and pets from the room and open a window for at least 15 minutes if possible. Avoid vacuuming. Scoop up larger pieces with stiff paper or cardboard, pick up smaller residue with sticky tape, and wipe the area with a damp cloth. Put everything into a sealed plastic bag or sealed glass jar. In most cases, this can be put in the trash, but the EPA recommends checking local rules."


Worrywarts wonder what will happen when a lazy or careless, say, 10 percent of 300 million Americans put their worn-out bulbs in the trash. Stop worrying. What do you think? That Congress, architect of the ethanol industry and designer of automobiles, does not think things through?

Worrywarts wonder what will happen when a lazy or careless, say, 10 percent of 300 million Americans put their worn-out bulbs in the trash. Stop worrying.

You can't possibly expect us to drive to Lowes everytime a lightbulb burns out.

subpatre wrote:
The pthalates part was only the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Yes, there was Democrat scaremongering ('your babies testicles won't grow' etcetera)

San Francisco Chronicle “toying” with parents’ fears
Trevor Butterworth, Nov 26, 2008
Media scaremongering over vinyl toys shows how little journalists know about science

The louder the media shouts about the perfidy of phthalates, the greater the probability that the journalist doing the shouting doesn’t know much about science or care. Phthalates have become something more than a chemical that has many, and hitherto safe, uses in everything from medical equipment to children’s toys; they are now symbols of industrial perfidy, a repository of disgust with the Bush administration’s perversion of science, and a scandal to redeem journalists from an increasing lack of social utility. Hence, the following hyperbolic editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Merry Christmas, American children! The Bush administration has a special Christmas present for you: phthalates in your toys now, and phthalates in your toys for as long as companies have them.

Sound merry? Well, no, considering that exposure to phthalates can harm the development of reproductive organs and have been linked to cancer. The chemical is used to soften plastic - making it popular for rubber ducks, teething toys, and anything else that young children love to chew on - but it's banned in much of the industrialized world and, starting in January, the state of California.”

Let’s assume for a moment that scientists such as William S. Knowles, a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, are wrong when they say phthalates are safe, and let’s assume that the European politicians who enacted a ban on phthalates in children’s toys against the advice of their own scientists, are right; let’s grant the editorial writers at the San Francisco the illusion of expertise, and declare that phthalates pose some kind of health risk: the question is do vinyl toys make that risk a manifest threat?

If a parent, in other words, fails to check to see whether the specific phthalate in vinyl toys – DINP – is present in the toy they buy for their child, will something bad happen to the child, like getting cancer, as the Chronicle suggests?

Here’s what the European Union says about DINP and cancer: “There is no concern for a potential carcinogenic effect in humans.” (Summary, p22) Why? The modes of action that caused cancer in lab rats are not applicable to humans.

What about development of reproductive organs? The European Union calculated that for children up to three years of age, the maximum total daily intake of DINP from all sources was 0.156mg/kg bw/d. Though it didn’t draw a formal conclusion about reproductive risk, it did note that there was a NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) for DINP of 311 mg/kg bw/d, and that the gap between actual daily exposure and the scale of exposure one would need to reach the safety threshold was so great there was no cause for concern:

“The end products containing DINP (clothes, building materials, toys and baby equipment) and the sources of exposure (car and public transport interiors, food and food packaging) are unlikely to pose a risk for consumers (adults, infants and newborns) following inhalation, skin contact and ingestion.”

What the San Francisco Chronicle has done is conflate the risk of one phthalate in toys with the potential risks of all phthalates from all sources. And that just isn't playing fair. (the evidence that even the combined exposure poses a significant threat to health is also limited).

So, as a consumer, you can believe the San Francisco Chronicle, or you can read the E.U. risk assessment for yourself and decide whether this is something worth worrying about. Either way, make sure that you dispose of the plastic wrapping from any toys you do buy, as each year, children demonstrate the actual risks from plastic by dying from suffocation. That, perhaps, is the kind of measurable risk worth remembering during the holiday season.