4 ms·

You're kind of leaving out the whole "literally poisons the user or gives them cancer" part. I certainly wouldn't trade slightly better thermostats for a higher

You're kind of leaving out the whole "literally poisons the user or gives them cancer" part. I certainly wouldn't trade slightly better thermostats for a higher risk of heavy metals poisoning. Also LED bulbs are great – they're much more efficient, and much cheaper. They can be great for reading, you just need to get one of the correct brightness. You can even do things like https://meaningness.com/sad-light-lumens https://meaningness.com/sad-light-lumens which would bankrupt you (figuratively) if you used tungsten filament bulbs. Obviously you want to get LEDs of the right hue, and LEDs tend to be a bit colder than tungsten by default. Of course the upper range of tungesten is higher but this is irrelevant for all practical purposes (unless you're staging a West End or Broadway production).

wgjordan 3y ago
> You're kind of leaving out the whole "literally poisons the user or gives them cancer" part. I thought 'horrible' was a suitable word choice for this part.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
You might be if the difference in an accurate thermal signal is the difference in a jet engine blade expanding too much to self destruct while in flight :)
wannacboatmovie 3y ago
> You're kind of leaving out the whole "literally poisons the user or gives them cancer" part. It was left out because it literally does not happen as you describe it. The state of California compels me to remind you that everything will give you cancer. The risk is that these devices weren't being recycled properly, tossed in a landfill, and the effects were cumulative. Short of you smashing open the thermostat and drinking the mercury out of the bulb the risk posed to you, the user, was basically zero. Yet we introduced mercury-containing CFLs as an environmentally-friendly alternative to incandescents. What do you think is a more likely scenario? Being exposed to a blob of mercury sealed in a glass bulb inside a thermostat that is changed maybe once every 20 years or dropping a mercury containing CFL bulb on the floor? I'm curious, when you set foot in an automobile are you worried about being poisoned by its lead-acid battery? You shouldn't, it's irrational.

wgjordan 3y ago

> You're kind of leaving out the whole "literally poisons the user or gives them cancer" part. I thought 'horrible' was a suitable word choice for this part.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

You might be if the difference in an accurate thermal signal is the difference in a jet engine blade expanding too much to self destruct while in flight :)

wannacboatmovie 3y ago

> You're kind of leaving out the whole "literally poisons the user or gives them cancer" part. It was left out because it literally does not happen as you describe it. The state of California compels me to remind you that everything will give you cancer. The risk is that these devices weren't being recycled properly, tossed in a landfill, and the effects were cumulative. Short of you smashing open the thermostat and drinking the mercury out of the bulb the risk posed to you, the user, was basically zero. Yet we introduced mercury-containing CFLs as an environmentally-friendly alternative to incandescents. What do you think is a more likely scenario? Being exposed to a blob of mercury sealed in a glass bulb inside a thermostat that is changed maybe once every 20 years or dropping a mercury containing CFL bulb on the floor? I'm curious, when you set foot in an automobile are you worried about being poisoned by its lead-acid battery? You shouldn't, it's irrational.