Don’t knock the new ‘green’ lightbulbs

To the editor:

In his Tuesday letter, R.A. Salter describes his negative experience with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). He apparently has not seen a difference in his power bill.

But there are explanations for this, including higher average maximum/minimum temperatures in 2007 in Las Vegas, as reported in the same issue of the Review-Journal. This would cause greater air conditioning loads — and there’s also the possibility that some of the replacement bulbs were oversized to deliver higher light levels (and, therefore, higher drawn power levels) to match the incandescent bulbs they replaced. Thus, his experience does not constitute a controlled experiment, and his single data point does not prove his assertion.

Mr. Salter mentions that CFLs are a disposal hazard. Well, it takes about 100 CFLs to yield the mercury contained in one fever thermometer. The Environmental Protection Agency does not expect adverse effects from occasional exposure to broken lamps, although care must be exercised for CFLs just as has been done for commercial fluorescent bulbs over the past 70-odd years.

This disposal issue is much less significant by comparison to that of spent nuclear power plant fuel, or to the emissions of coal-fired plants.

Regarding life and cost, Mr. Salter should consider the incandescent bulb. With every doubling of the quantity produced, the cost of manufacture was reduced by 10 to 20 percent. We have seen similar results for other products such as VCRs, PCs, and flat screen displays — all while performance, quality and service life has improved. This will happen for CFLs and other emerging low-energy light sources.

Finally, we should remember that Henry Ford was once a representative of a “special-interest group” in the eyes of horse stable operators, feed sellers and harness and saddle makers.

To maintain our standard of living, we need to embrace, not resist, new technologies if they work and are affordable.

DOUGLAS RUSTA

HENDERSON

Green hype

To the editor:

The Dec. 20 story in the Review-Journal about building green is nothing more than marketing hype (“Pulte erects two green homes”). Builders and developers get to advertise that their product is built green, and that buying this product saves the planet.

We are talking about building a single-family, detached, 2,000-square-foot house in a remote area outside of Las Vegas, for maybe three people to occupy. Does the carbon footprint created by lengthy commutes to work, shopping and recreation really help? Do the construction workers commuting to the job site, plus the delivery of materials by trucks really help reduce greenhouse gasses?

Does the carbon footprint created by endless manufacturing of wood products — the mining for cement, gypsum — really help? Does the fact that a 2,600-square-foot house is probably for a small family of four or fewer occupants, overfurnished, with two or three automobiles, two ATVs and a boat, really help?

The roads around Las Vegas are becoming gridlocked as a result of housing subdivisions spreading away from the city centers. A remote suburb of detached housing does absolutely nothing to help reduce any greenhouse effect. The meaningless steps approved by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design will have a very minimal effect on solving the problem, except for making the consumer feel good about his purchase.

I am not a tree hugger by any means, but this is a silly approach to effecting real change. A hybrid car not driven at all will do more to affect change than one used 50,000 miles a year. A 2,600-square-foot detached suburban “green” house not constructed at all will do more to help the climate and planet, than building one.

Our ever-increasing population, wanting the American dream, will do us in — unless we can do without. Will our world economy survive us doing without? I do not think so.

Let’s stop the hype.

steven ginther

MESQUITE

Voting rights

To the editor:

In response to your recent editorial on voter ID laws:

Here we go again. I am almost 80 years old and all of my voting years I have been under the delusion that voting was a privilege granted to U.S. citizens to allow the common man to participate in the democratic process. A precious privilege at that. Never once did I have a problem identifying myself — and I was proud to do it.

Now I hear from the liberal element — mostly Democrats — that providing proof of your identity in order to vote shouldn’t be necessary. Their purported reason for this position is to make it easier and friendlier for the populace to vote.

Oh really? Why not then carry it a bit further and make it easier for underage folks to buy a drink in a bar, or a bottle of wine in a store or cigarettes without being “carded”? Is voting that much less significant than this?

Those of us who can think out of the box — including your newspaper — are well aware that the true objective of our Democrat leadership is not to make it easier to vote for those of us who are authorized and entitled to do so. Rather, it is indeed the objective to make it possible for those not authorized to vote to do so.

al ciricillo

LAS VEGAS