Author Topic: MV ban part 2  (Read 8651 times)
tmcdllr
Full Member
***
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


Re: MV ban part 2 « Reply #30 on: December 10, 2009, 06:34:00 PM » Author: tmcdllr
What is wrong with these idiots banning lamps? Since they are so ban happy let's ban nema, dark sky, and all lamps under 1000 Watts. Put in high flow toilets, shower heads, and bring back cars with only 9 miles to the gallon. Of course all of this is absurd but so is banning anything without proper research or study or just because you don't like the color of the light and can't make up your mind as to what source you say is bad...dark sky idiots. Whatg good is banning the mercury lamp going to do.... none. It will just end up costing more and forcing people to use less reliable sources which, in itself, will also end up costing more.
Let's see......
Save money......FAIL
Conserve energy...FAIL,
Reduce sky glow....FAIL,

Another thing, this thing about sky glow is crap. With what ds wants it will end up taking more fixture which equals more energy used/ to light the streets with an awful hps cycling glow wheras with current fixtures with mercury lamps the number of fixtures needed would be less and the skyglow would not be bad at all.  So for that I say EPIC FAIL.
Logged

Nothing like the beautiful cool white light of a coated Mercury Vapor lamp and the soothing hum of it's magnetic ballast.

DaveMan
Administrator
Jr. Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery

Re: MV ban part 2 « Reply #31 on: December 11, 2009, 02:57:13 PM » Author: DaveMan
@DaveMan: Could you post here a link of your petition?

I think I already did, but in case I didn't here it is again.
http://www.petitiononline.com/16mercvp/petition.html

Hope this is helpful.
Logged

David L.
Administrator, Lighting-Gallery.net

magslight
Full Member
***
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


WWW
Re: MV ban part 2 « Reply #32 on: December 11, 2009, 03:13:35 PM » Author: magslight
Yes ,it is.
I'm number 42 ;D
Logged
DaveMan
Administrator
Jr. Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery

Re: MV ban part 2 « Reply #33 on: December 30, 2009, 12:38:56 AM » Author: DaveMan
60 signatures and counting. Keep it up guys. We've got to make this count!
Logged

David L.
Administrator, Lighting-Gallery.net

magslight
Full Member
***
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


WWW
Re: MV ban part 2 « Reply #34 on: January 12, 2010, 09:02:19 AM » Author: magslight


In this fight shouldn't win the evil!
Logged
DaveMan
Administrator
Jr. Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery

Re: MV ban part 2 « Reply #35 on: January 30, 2010, 03:50:58 AM » Author: DaveMan
76 signatures so far. Keep up the good work. Let's see how high we can get.
Logged

David L.
Administrator, Lighting-Gallery.net

Mercury Man
Full Member
***
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


Re: MV ban part 2 « Reply #36 on: January 31, 2010, 02:09:23 AM » Author: Mercury Man
Alright, I suppose it's about time I chimed in with my two cents regarding the banning of MV lamps.

Without sounding pedestrian or unprofessional, I think banning mercury vapor lamps is entirely unnecessary and, to be quite frank, idiotic.  The reason I say this is because from all of the bantering back and forth regarding HPS vs. MV and the comparison of their individual efficacy, the end-use of each lamp type (which is roadway lighting and VISIBILITY/SAFETY--which, of course, can either be improved or hampered based upon the spectrum of light that each lamp type produces), how much mercury each lamp type contains, what the lifespan of each lamp type is, etc. etc...I am not at all convinced that mercury vapor lamps should cease to exist simply based on the shallow-minded opinion that they're an "obsolete technology".  If this is really all that the IDA can come up with aside from their propaganda and one-sided arguments disparaging white light sources for various reasons...then, they need a lesson in posing effective arguments, which entails looking at two opposing viewpoints and researching them thoroughly (and by thoroughly, NOT just based upon what serves THEIR particular platform) prior to their attempts to lobby the government.  An haphazardly composed argument inflicted on the "uneducated" governmental powers-that-be (and I say this because it's unlikely members of congress are lighting experts by any means), is simply borne of opportunism and NOT WHAT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE.

Furthermore, saying that MV technology is obsolete is a logical fallacy.  A technology is only obsolete when it is no longer practical, and has been superceded by newer and BETTER technology.  HPS lamps use less watts on the average than MV lamps...but at the expense of visibility.  It's a fact.  The human eye sees more sharply under light sources that lend themselves to the green and or blue end of the spectrum.  To put white light over the roadways really would increase driver safety and reduce driver confusion.  (How many times have you almost run a red light because you couldn't tell the yellow in the caution signal apart from the similary colored HPS lights when approaching an intersection at night?)

What DaveMan has said I believe in response to another member's upload...the ballasts have already been banned, and that there won't be any new installations of MV going forward...should be enough.  Furthermore, it is ultimately fixture design--not the type of lamp that it employs--which is the determining factor in whether or not light pollution occurs.  If I personally choose to run a MV light in my backyard until the end of time I should be able to do so.  Banning the bulbs won't stop people from using white light sources.  And if the ban does go into effect, I'll have enough MV lamps to run for the rest of my life, anyway. 

Let's stop worrying about banning silly things like light bulbs.  People will always have their opinions about what light source is better than another.  If we ban mercury vapor, then why don't we ban fluorescent lights too, while we're at it?  (Let's not also forget that they, too, contain mercury...as do the millions of CFLs now in use just about everywhere.)  Fluorescents are a white light source and used outdoors in many applications.  When looking at it this way, it seems pretty ridiculous.

That's my personal opinion after hearing all the back-and-forth about this topic.




 
« Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 02:17:28 AM by Brian » Logged
tmcdllr
Full Member
***
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


Re: MV ban part 2 « Reply #37 on: January 31, 2010, 04:29:01 AM » Author: tmcdllr
^Awesome post! I would love for you to post that in the dark sky forum, that would be sweet.
Logged

Nothing like the beautiful cool white light of a coated Mercury Vapor lamp and the soothing hum of it's magnetic ballast.

Mercury Man
Full Member
***
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


Re: MV ban part 2 « Reply #38 on: January 31, 2010, 10:58:18 PM » Author: Mercury Man
tmcdllr, give me a link to the IDA forum.  I'll copy and paste my post right into there. 
Logged
Print 
© 2005-2021 Lighting-Gallery.net | SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines