# Display from sunrise to sunset. If shown at night, it should be illuminated.
# The flag should be placed in superior prominence to other flags.
# The union (blue part with stars) should be at the highest position and on the upper left as viewed by the observer. Flags in windows should be placed as if the person on the street is the observer.
# The flag should hang free, not be used to drape something.
# The flag should not touch anything beneath it, such as the ground or water.
# Flags should be clean and not tattered. Worn out flags should be burned.
Source: U.S. Army, U.S. Department of State, U.S. General Services Administration"
1. Open a new file in your computer. 2. Name it 'Barack Obama'. 3. Send it to the Recycle Bin. 4. Empty the Recycle Bin. 5. Your PC will ask you: 'Do you really want to get rid of 'Barack Obama?' 6. Firmly Click 'Yes.' 7. Feel better?
GOOD! - Tomorrow we'll do Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid!"
Democratic House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive.
By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 9/24/2008 4:00:57 PM
Are journalists playing favorites with some of the key political figures involved with regulatory oversight of U.S. financial markets?
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews launched several vitriolic attacks on the Republican Party on his Sept. 17, 2008, show, suggesting blame for Wall Street problems should be focused in a partisan way. However, he and other media have failed to thoroughly examine the Democratic side of the blame game.
Prominent Democrats ran Fannie Mae, the same government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that donated campaign cash to top Democrats. And one of Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive.
The media coverage of Frank’s coziness with Fannie Mae and his pro-Fannie Mae stances has been lacking. Of the eight appearances Frank made on the three broadcasts networks between Jan. 1, 2008, and Sept. 21, 2008, none of his comments dealt with the potential conflicts of interest. Only six of the appearances dealt with the economy in general and two of those appearances, including an April 6, 2008 appearance on CBS’s “60 Minutes” were about his opposition to a manned mission to Mars.
Frank has argued that family life “should be fair game for campaign discussion,” wrote the Associated Press on Sept. 2. The comment was in reference to GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her pregnant daughter. “They’re the ones that made an issue of her family,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to the AP.
The news media have covered the relationship in the past, but there have been no mentions since 2005, according to Nexis and despite the collapse of Fannie Mae. The July 3, 1998, Reliable Source column in The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.
Frank was and remains a stalwart defender of Fannie Mae, which is now under FBI investigation along with its sister organization Freddie Mac, American International Group Inc. (NYSE:AIG) and Lehman Brothers (NYSE:LEH) – all recently participants in government bailouts. But Frank has derailed efforts to regulate the institution, as well as denying it posed any financial risk. Frank’s office has been unresponsive to efforts by the Business & Media Institute to comment on these potential conflicts of interest.
While the relationship reportedly ended 10 years ago, Frank was serving on the House Banking Committee the entire 10 years they were together. The committee is the primary House body which along with the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) has jurisdiction over the government-sponsored enterprises.
He has served on the committee since becoming a congressman in 1981 and became the ranking Democrat on the committee in 2003. He became chairman of the committee, now called the House Financial Services Committee, in 2007.
Moses was the assistant director for product initiatives at Fannie Mae and had been at the forefront of relaxing lending restrictions at the company for rural customers, according to the Feb. 23, 1998, issue of National Mortgage News (NMN).
“Herb Moses, who helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs, has left the mortgage industry,” Darryl Hicks wrote for NMN. “Mr. Moses - whose last day was Feb. 13 - spent the past seven years at Fannie Mae, most recently as director of housing initiatives. Over the course of time, he played an instrumental role in developing the company’s Title One and 203(k) home improvement lending programs.”
Hicks explained in his story how Moses orchestrated a collaborative effort between Fannie Mae and the Department of Agriculture.
“The Dartmouth grad also played a crucial role in brokering a relationship between Fannie Mae and the Department of Agriculture,” Hicks wrote. “This led to the creation of Fannie Mae’s rural housing program where the secondary marketing agency agreed to purchase small farm loans insured through the department.”
While Moses served at Fannie Mae and was Frank’s partner, Frank was actively working to support GSEs, according to several news outlets.
In 1991, Frank and former Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass., lobbied for Fannie to soften rules on multi-family home mortgages although those dwellings showed a default rate twice that of single-family homes, according to the Nov. 22, 1991, Boston Globe.
BusinessWeek reported in its Nov. 14, 1994, issue that Fannie Mae called on Frank to exert his influence against a Housing & Urban Development proposal that would force the GSE to focus on minority and low-income buyers and police bias by lenders regardless of their location. Fannie Mae opposed HUD on the issue because it claimed doing so would “ignore the urban middle class.”
Moses left Fannie in 1998 to start his own pottery business. National Mortgage News called Moses a “mortgage guru” and said he developed “many of Fannie Mae's affordable housing and home improvement lending programs. Moses ended his relationship with Frank just months after he left Fannie.
Even after the relationship ended, however, Frank was a staunch defender of Fannie Mae even as other experts suggested there were serious problems building in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
According to an article by Kathleen Day in the Oct. 8, 2003, Washington Post, Frank opposed giving the Bush administration the right to approve or disapprove business activities that “could pose risk to the taxpayers.” He told the Post he worried the Treasury Department “would sacrifice activities that are good for consumers in the name of lowering the companies’ market risks.”
“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said to the Times. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Frank has also reaped campaign contribution benefits from Fannie Mae and its counterpart Freddie Mac. According a front page story in the Sept. 19, 2008, Investor’s Business Daily by Terry Jones, Frank has received $40,100 in campaign cash over the past two decades from the GSEs.
Frank is ranked 16th on a list that includes both houses of Congress and fifth among his colleagues in the House. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org, political action committees financed by both Freddie and Fannie have contributed $3,017,797 to members of Congress since 1989. And according to the July 16 issue of Politico, the two entities have spent a whopping $200 million to buy influence – including not only campaign donations to members of Congress, but also presidential campaigns and lobbying efforts.
In a July 23 op-ed, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot put the blame for the GSEs’ collapse firmly on the members of the liberal establishment who took money from Freddie and Fannie. “Fan and Fred also couldn't prosper for as long as they have without the support of the political left... This includes Mr. Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Capitol Hill, as well as Mr. [Paul] Krugman and the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein in the press.”
Frank was asked by CNN’s John Roberts on the Sept. 22, 2008 “American Morning” about this and his opposition to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Originally, he claimed he didn’t think the two GSEs were facing any problems when the issue first surfaced in 2003. He instead blamed the Republican-controlled Congress for their ultimate fall, failing to mention his friendly relationship with Fannie Mae and the contributions it had made to his campaign over the years.
“Yes, I did not think we were facing a crisis in 2003, but that didn't mean we didn't have to have reform,” an animated Frank said when confronted with the question. “Here’s the deal, the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 through 2006. They did zero to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
However, on Sept. 17, 2008, former Bush administration Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove elaborated on the Bush administration’s efforts to curb abuses at the two GSEs in 2003. He told Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes” that Frank was among the most aggressive opponents of White House attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“All of this bad stuff on Wall Street happened because people got greedy and the greed started at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Rove said. “And I know this because five years ago, the administration was alerted by the regulator, James Lockhart, that there was insufficient authority and that these institutions – particularly Fannie – were out of control.”
Rove said the Bush administration’s efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie were opposed by congressional Democrats – specifically Frank and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.
“And I got to tell you, for five years, I was part of an effort at the White House to fight this and our biggest opponents on the Hill who blocked this every step of the way were people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. And Fannie and Freddie are the $200 billion contagion at the center of this.”
Frank has been quick to blame deregulation for some of the problems in the financial environment, as he did on Bloomberg television’s Sept. 19 “Political Capital with Al Hunt.” However, as earmark crusader Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. pointed out – it’s not deregulation, but it was the structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that had been guarded by Frank and other members of Congress.
“Some people point at deregulation,” Flake said to the Business & Media Institute on Sept. 23. “It’s not deregulation at all. We have for far too long shielded Fannie and Freddie for example, with the implicit and now explicit guarantee. I just found it humorous.”
Flake specifically named Frank as one of the members behind letting allegations of transgressions at the two GSEs for slipping by without oversight from Congress.
“Just a few minutes ago, a reporter was asking me about this and saying, ‘Barney Frank is saying that’s just – because there were allegations,’ correct ones – ‘that Fannie and Freddie have been the playground for politicians for years and now the other side is saying Fannie and Freddie were just a small part of this and this goes far beyond.’ It does, but these same people a couple of weeks ago said, ‘You got to bail out Fannie and Freddie because they touch everything out there. They touch nearly every mortgage out there.’ And because of that explicit guarantee – that we would come and bail them out, nobody has been subject to market discipline.”
Frank claims differently, according to a letter to the editor published in the Sept. 17, 2008 Wall Street Journal.Frank noted that in 2005 he supported regulating compensation for Fannie and Freddie executives.
“In fact, my reform efforts had begun when we were still in the minority. In 2005, I joined Michael Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, in supporting legislation to increase the regulation of Fannie and Freddie that passed the House by a vote of 330 to 90,” Frank wrote. “When former Congressman Richard Baker proposed to examine the compensation structure of Fannie and Freddie's top executives, and some members of Congress tried to block him, I explicitly spoke out in support of his right to do that and our right, as a Congress, to examine the GSE’s compensation practices.”
The red flags were raised long before the government bailed out the two GSEs in August 2008. The first egregious scandal involving Fannie Mae occurred in 2004. A 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial was first to point out claims in an OFHEO report that showed accounting malpractices by the GSE.
“For years, mortgage giant Fannie Mae has produced smoothly growing earnings. And for years, observers have wondered how Fannie could manage its inherently risky portfolio without a whiff of volatility, the Oct. 4, 2004, editorial, “Fannie Mae Enron?” said. “Now, thanks to Fannie’s regulator, we know the answer. The company was cooking the books. Big time.”
It seems that NBC will even censor itself, to promote its own left wing agenda.
Newsbusters: Early Sunday morning, as is customary for NBC, the video of this sketch was posted at its website. Some time Monday, it was taken down without any explanation.
I guess the politics of divisiveness applies only to his opponents.
Google Obama Ayers Google Obama Khalid al-Mansour Google Obama Donald Warden Google Obama Mohammed Hasan Chandoo Google Obama Rezko Google Obama Saul Alinski Google Obama Wright Google Obama Khalidi Google Obama Malcolm X Google Obama Alwaleed bin Talal Google Obama Farrakhan Google Obama Woods Fund Google Obama Red Party Google Obama ACCORN Google Obama The Black Panthers"
'If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.' -Mark Twain
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.... But then I repeat myself. -Mark Twain
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -Winston Churchill
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. -G. Gordon Liddy
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. -James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. -Douglas Casey,
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. -P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. -Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -Ronald Reagan (1986)
I don't make jokes... I just watch the government and report the facts. -Will Rogers
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! - P.J. O'Rourke
In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -Voltaire (1764)
Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! -Pericles (430 B.C.)
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -Mark Twain (1866 )
Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it. -Unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal: a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. -Ronald Reagan
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. -Winston Churchill
The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. -Mark Twain
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
There is no distinctly Native American criminal class...save Congress. -Mark Twain
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. -Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -Thomas Jefferson
No major candidate for President of the United States ever received less critical examination than Barack Obama. In The Case Against Barack Obama, David Freddoso convincingly demonstrates that despite the hype, Barack Obama doesn't represent "change" in American politics at all. In reality, he is a shameless product of Chicago's corrupt political Machine -- and a far-left liberal in the mold of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, and Walter Mondale -- but with charm and political savvy that rival those of Bill Clinton.
Freddoso digs up shocking new revelations about Obama's career -- showing how he has cooperated with Chicago's Democratic Machine to preserve one of the most clearly corrupt political systems in the nation. Freddoso also dissects the cynical political calculations behind Obama's long friendships with the likes of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and unrepentant '60s bomber Bill Ayers. Freddoso also reveals the complex web of favors and payback behind Obama's association with corrupt developer (and convicted felon) Tony Rezko.
Above all, Freddoso clearly shows that as a policy maker, Obama has very bad ideas that would hurt America -- and that if he is elected President, America will be a very different place from the one we know now: both militarily and economically weak, and under the thumb of a Supreme Court full of young judges enthralled by the notion of a "living, breathing Constitution" that says whatever they want it to say.
The reality behind the rhetoric, the plans behind the promises, and the faults behind the façade
How Obama won his first election (to the Illinois State Senate) by having his lawyers knock all his opponents --including the black, female incumbent -- off the ballot on technicalities, so he could run unopposed
How Obama voted to deny medical care to babies born alive after abortion -- a bill too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi (Freddoso has an exclusive interview with the nurse central to the case)
A story Obama would like to stay buried in Chicago: How he used his clout as a U.S. Senator to save the corrupt Cook County Political Machine when reformers of both parties tried to challenge the entrenched political bosses
How Obama's wife Michele's salary nearly tripled in 2005 -- the same year he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate and began earmarking funds for her employer
How Obama's friendship with the hate-spewing Reverend Jeremiah Wright was no accident -- but a carefully thought out personal and political decision
How state Senator Obama was paid more than $100,000 for legal work -- then helped his client's company get $320,000 in taxpayer grants
How, at a time when he says he was short of work and short of cash, Obama obtained $112,000, plus campaign contributions, from someone he later made into a government grantee through his public office
Inside Obama's 17-year relationship and irregular land deal with developer Tony Rezko, whose livelihood depended on sapping the taxpayer for subsidies
"I've never done any favors for him," says Obama about Rezko. But he has -- lots of them, as Freddoso shows
Why Rezko's conviction for corrupting public officials might become the Whitewater scandal of Obama's campaign
How Obama speaks of the days when his family was making $240,000 per year as if he had been suffering poverty -- while, just last March, he voted to raise your taxes if you make over $32,500 per year
The Chicago Machine politician who "made a U.S. senator" out of Obama by giving him plum committee assignments and high-profile legislation in its late stages (often removing the original sponsors), and helping him spread money around through earmarks and "targeted" grants
How Obama avoided taking unpopular stands in the state Senate by voting "present" about 130 times -- or simply by absenting himself from tough votes altogether
Obama's little-known vow to Planned Parenthood in July 2007 -- and why it would mean the end of every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, and the end of all restrictions on government abortion funding
A "new politics"? How, in less than four years as a U.S. senator, Obama has voted for some of the worst special-interest legislation to move through the chamber
How Obama opposes school choice through vouchers or tax credits -- while sending his own children to an elite private school
How Obama wants -- and has voted -- to abolish secret-ballot elections in the workplace when employees determine whether to unionize, allowing unions to intimidate and harass workers who don't support them
Why Obama's foreign policy would take its cues from Jimmy Carter's
"Post-partisan"? Why the respected National Journal named Obama the most liberal member of the United States Senate in 2007 -- beating out Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton... and the previous title-holder John Kerry
Trust me on this: The Case against Barack Obama is so chock-full of news-making revelations it's sure to become a nationwide bestseller -- and it might very well bring Obama's presidential juggernaut to a screeching halt.
Finally a true conservative on a ticket. This is someone I can vote for without biting my tongue.
I know the Liberals will attack her for anything they can find, but it will be hard for them on many levels. She is a woman - don't they support women's issues? She has a Down Syndrome baby - Oh yea, they would have aborted the baby. She is inexperienced - She has more experience than their Presidential Candidate. She has accomplished more than B. Hussien Obama has. She is young - BOH is barely older that she is.
Political activists and even certain U.S. senators have argued that the federal government should reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, which would require broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. Opponents charge that Fairness Doctrine advocates are trying to reduce the impact of conservative talk radio.
Click for larger image
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced The Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905), which would bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
The controversy touches on America’s most fundamental civic values. Do we still cherish freedom of speech, or are some of us succumbing to the tyrannical impulse to stifle the speech of political adversaries? Do our leaders trust us to accept responsibility to govern ourselves, or do they wish to control which information we receive?
Three principal arguments support resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine. First, the “scarcity” argument holds that the airwaves are public property with a limited number of broadcast frequencies, so government can and should intervene if the public debate is out of balance. Second, the “censorship” argument holds that major corporations are muzzling liberal opinion on the radio, so Americans are not hearing both sides of issues. Third, the “public interest” argument holds that the Fairness Doctrine would increase the amount and variety of opinions available to the public.
Are these arguments valid? They are myths.
1. The scarcity argument. Is conservative dominance of commercial talk radio distorting the national debate about public policy issues?
Americans have never enjoyed so many professional sources of news and opinion. Americans can choose from a dozen or more daily network television news shows, 10 separate 24/7 cable news and public affairs channels, 1,400 daily newspapers, and more than 2,200 radio stations airing news/talk.
The Internet has exponentially increased the availability of news sources. Thanks to the Internet, Americans are no longer limited to local media. Any St. Louis resident with a modem can read the Sacramento Bee and listen to political talk radio stations in Washington, D.C. The World Wide Web has pushed the number of daily news sources available well into the thousands for anybody with Internet access, and 70 percent or more of Americans are on line.
Only 7 percent of American adults consider radio to be their main source for news and information. Fifty-five percent rely primarily on television news, a ratio of nearly 8 to 1. The Newspaper Association of America says 57 percent of American adults read a newspaper every day.
2. The censorship argument. Are Americans hearing both sides of debates about controversial public policy issues, or are liberal voices being shut out?
Liberal voices are well represented in talk radio, and are available to anyone with a modem or an FM radio. Six of the top 25 commercial talk radio hosts are liberals. The commercial Air America network, created to spread liberal ideas, has 55 stations broadcasting over the air. Twenty-six of these stations also stream over the Internet, as do hundreds of public radio stations. Noncommercial public radio has more than 800 stations with a total weekly news/talk audience of 14 million. At least 850 of the 2,200 talk stations air mostly liberal programming.
Radio is only one slice of the pie. Major liberal-leaning sources of news and opinion reach a far greater audience than conservative-leaning sources. Audience reach and circulation statistics illustrate the liberal domination of the five major information media, two of which have no conservative sources:
Broadcast TV news, millions/day Liberal 42.1 Conservative 0
Top 25 newspapers, millions/day Liberal 11.7 Conservative 1.3
Cable TV news, millions/month Liberal 182.8 Conservative 61.6
Top talk radio, millions/week Liberal 24.5 Conservative 87.0
Newsweeklies, millions/week Liberal 8.5 Conservative 0
3. The public interest argument. Would the Fairness Doctrine increase or reduce discussion about public policy issues? History says speech would be curtailed.
When the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, talk radio avoided controversial topics. Most stations programmed only general talk and advice.
Politicians repeatedly have used the Fairness Doctrine to chill speech. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson both used the Fairness Doctrine to stifle criticism, suppress the speech of political adversaries, and force radio stations to provide free air time.
Conclusion
Efforts by liberal politicians to restore the Fairness Doctrine bring to mind the worst moment of Israel’s King David. David was not satisfied with his many wives and concubines; he also had to have the beautiful Bathsheba, the only wife of one of his soldiers. American liberals already dominate four of the five most important news and information media, and they are determined to take over the fifth medium as well.
America has so many sources of news and information available that no federal regulation of broadcasting content can possibly be justified on the grounds of public interest. The Fairness Doctrine has an ugly history of political abuse directly intended to restrict the free exchange of ideas. As liberals propose and agitate for a resumption of the Fairness Doctrine, history may repeat itself.
For a look at the future here today, follow the title link above. I know I travel less than 40 miles each day, and this would be ideal for me. When I do travel further I would still want this vehicle. It is a gas/electric hybrid that can go 150 miles on a gallon of gas. If you only travel 40 or miles or less per day, then you would never have to visit a gas station.
Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations
NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.
There is no significant man made global warming.There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed.But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”.For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period.That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age.Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
In contrast to the U.N. (United Nutheads) experts on Global Warming. It seems that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually beneficial. Leave it to the Environmental Fanatics to get it wrong again.
I am all for protecting our environment, but let us be guided by intelligent thought and common sense.
This is the first time I had ever seen one of these. I was near the Ludlow Division of the Springfield Waterworks Reservoir. I had to look it up on the Internet and this site had the best representation of what I saw.
I did not hear it sing, but here is what I would have heard had it decided to sing (wav).
Looks like I can have my omelets again. It seems the granola crunching, pony tailed, holier than thou crowd and their egg white omelets are proven once again, to be the idiots I always thought they were. Check out the link above, and the article below that illustrates that it is not dietary cholesterol intake that is at issue.
Rethinking cholesterol
For decades, we were warned to avoid foods containing cholesterol, such as eggs, shrimp, and many other types of seafood. The thought was that dietary cholesterol would contribute to high blood cholesterol. Now we know better.
Most of the cholesterol in your body is produced by your own liver. A diet high in saturated fats tends to promote the production of cholesterol by the liver. Dietary cholesterol, on the other hand, does not seem to have this effect. If anything, your liver will adjust its cholesterol production to compensate for the amount of cholesterol in your diet. That is, if you take in more dietary cholesterol, your liver will make a bit less.
So, isn't it time to put eggs and shrimp back on the heart-healthy menu? Although both foods contain a good amount of cholesterol, they are both low in saturated fat and rich in good-quality protein and other nutrients.
Contradictory advice?
Back in 2000, the American Heart Association (AHA) revised its recommendations in view of the new wisdom on cholesterol. For those without high cholesterol or heart disease, the AHA now countenances the consumption of an egg a day. However, their recommendations on cholesterol intake remain unchanged. For healthy adults, the AHA advises a limit of 300mg of dietary cholesterol per day. That seems unrealistic--and unnecessary--to me.
I can easily imagine a healthy diet, one that is well within the recommendations on saturated fat (less than 7-10% of total calories), exceeding this limit. For example, if you ate just one egg ( with 213mg of cholesterol) and a shrimp cocktail (90 mg) in the same day, you'd be over the limit for a healthy adut--even though these foods contain only about 2 grams of saturated fat.
Now that we know that dietary cholesterol is not the culprit in high blood cholesterol, I'm not sure what the justification is for this recommendation anymore--especially for those without cholesterol issues. It seems to me that there are more important things to focus on, such as keeping your saturated fat intake within recommended limits, and eating plenty of eating fiber- and nutrient-rich foods (i.e., veggies!).
For those with high cholesterol, the AHA's recommendations are even stricter...less than 200mg of dietary cholesterol per day, even though several studies have shown that netiher dietary cholesterol nor egg consumption appears to be the culprit in heart disease. I'm not saying that high cholesterol levels don't matter--they do. I'm just saying that I don't think dietary cholesterol is the reason that people have high cholesterol.
Usually, high cholesterol levels are brought on by a combination of genetics and lifestyle factors (such as not exercising, smoking, poor diet, etc.). The stronger the genetic component, the more likely that diet and lifestyle changes alone will not be enough to bring cholesterol levels down to safe levels. In this case, cholesterol-lowering medications (plus lifestyle modifications!) may be needed.
If you have high cholesterol, you obviously need to follow your doctor's advice, including his or her dietary recommendations. Limiting your intake of saturated fat, eating a diet high in antioxidants and fiber, exercising and avoiding cigarette smoke are all key factors in treating and preventing heart disease. But if you are doing all of this, and you miss eating eggs and seafood, it might be worth probing to see whether your doctor really feels that drastically limiting your intake of healthy foods that contain cholesterol is necessary.
If you believe in man made Global Warming, then prepare for the worst. OMG! How the world will change. Just check out this link to find the Complete list of things caused by global warming.
While you are at it don't forget about the Over Population problem that was supposed to deplete the earth of food supplies.
Way back in ancient times, the 1970's the world was going to experience a new ice age, but now its global warming, oops no, it really "Climate Change".
I think I will corner the market on construction helmets, and make my fortune selling to "Chicken Little's" who are afraid the sky is falling.
John Coleman wants to sue Al Gore for fraud. Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982, thinks taking legal action against Al Gore would be a great "vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming." Coleman rejects the notion that people must take drastic actions to reduce their energy use.
Speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on Monday, Coleman sharply chastised those who further global warming alarmism. Coleman believes that the station he founded has been captured by alarmists, such as the Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen, who has advocated revoking the license of meteorologists that believe global warming can be explained by cyclical weather patterns and not human activity.
The majority of the scientific community seems to agree that humans are contributing to climate change. Do you think there's any merit to raising concerns about global alarmism? Would a lawsuit against Al Gore help the public determine fact from fiction?
"Cherchez la femme," advised Alexander Dumas in: "When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman." In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama's women reveal his secret: he hates America.
We know less about Senator Obama than about any prospective president in American history. His uplifting rhetoric is empty, as Hillary Clinton helplessly protests. His career bears no trace of his own character, not an article for the Harvard Law Review he
edited, or a single piece of legislation. He appears to be an empty vessel filled with the wishful thinking of those around him. But there is a real Barack Obama. No man - least of all one abandoned in infancy by his father - can conceal the imprint of an impassioned mother, or the influence of a brilliant wife.
America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America is the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster. Between half and nine-tenths of the world's 6,700 spoken languages will become extinct in the next century, and the anguish of dying peoples rises up in a global cry of despair. Some of those who listen to this cry become anthropologists, the curators of soon-to-be extinct cultures; anthropologists who really identify with their subjects marry them. Obama's mother, the University of Hawaii anthropologist Ann Dunham, did so twice.
Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother's revenge against the America she despised.
Ann Dunham died in 1995, and her character emerges piecemeal from the historical record, to which I will return below. But Michelle Obama is a living witness. Her February 18 comment that she felt proud of her country for the first time caused a minor scandal, and was hastily qualified. But she meant it, and more. The video footage of her remarks shows eyes hooded with rage as she declares:
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.
The desperation, frustration and disappointment visible on Michelle Obama's face are not new to the candidate's wife; as Steve Sailer, Rod Dreher and other commentators have noted, they were the theme of her undergraduate thesis, on the subject of "blackness" at Princeton University. No matter what the good intentions of Princeton, which founded her fortunes as a well-paid corporate lawyer, she wrote, "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."
Never underestimate the influence of a wife who bitch-slaps her husband in public. Early in Obama's campaign, Michelle Obama could not restrain herself from belittling the senator. "I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There's Barack Obama the phenomenon. He's an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right? And then there's the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy's a little less impressive," she told a fundraiser in February 2007.
"For some reason this guy still can't manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure the bread so that it doesn't get stale, and his five-year-old is still better at making the bed than he is." New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reported at the time, "She added that the TV version of Barack Obama sounded really interesting and that she'd like to meet him sometime." Her handlers have convinced her to be more tactful since then.
"Frustration" and "disappointment" have dogged Michelle Obama these past 20 years, despite her US$300,000 a year salary and corporate board memberships. It is hard for the descendants of slaves not to resent America. They were not voluntary immigrants but kidnap victims, subjected to a century of second-class citizenship even after the Civil War ended slavery. Blackness is not the issue; General Colin Powell, whose parents chose to immigrate to America from the West Indies, saw America just as other immigrants do, as a land of opportunity. Obama's choice of wife is a failsafe indicator of his own sentiments. Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common. Obama imbibed this hatred with his mother's milk.
Michelle Obama speaks with greater warmth of her mother-in-law than of her husband. "She was kind of a dreamer, his mother," Michelle Obama was quoted in the January 25 Boston Globe. "She wanted the world to be open to her and her children. And as a result of her naivete, sometimes they lived on food stamps, because sometimes dreams don't pay the rent. But as a result of her naivete, Barack got to see the world like most of us don't in this country." How strong the ideological motivation must be of a mother to raise her children on the thin fair in pursuit of a political agenda.
"Naivete" is a euphemism for Ann Dunham's motivation. Friends describe her as a "fellow traveler", that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report. Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them, twice. Ann Dunham met and married the Kenyan economics student Barack Obama, Sr, at the University of Hawaii in 1960, and in 1967 married the Indonesian student Lolo Soetero. It is unclear why Soetero's student visa was revoked in 1967 - the fact but not the cause are noted in press accounts. But it is probable that the change in government in Indonesia in 1967, in which the leftist leader Sukarno was deposed, was the motivation.
Soetero had been sponsored as a graduate student by one of the most radical of all Third World governments. Sukarno had founded the so-called Non-Aligned Movement as an anti-colonialist turn at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia. Before deposing him in 1967, Indonesia's military slaughtered 500,000 communists (or unfortunates who were mistaken for communists). When Ann Dunham chose to follow Lolo Soetero to Indonesia in 1967, she brought the six-year-old Barack into the kitchen of anti-colonialist outrage, immediate following one of the worst episodes of civil violence in post-war history.
Dunham's experience in Indonesia provided the material for a doctoral dissertation celebrating the hardiness of local cultures against the encroaching metropolis. It was entitled, "Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving against all odds". In this respect Dunham remained within the mainstream of her discipline. Anthropology broke into popular awareness with Margaret Mead's long-discredited Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), which offered a falsified ideal of sexual liberation in the South Pacific as an alternative to the supposedly repressive West. Mead's work was one of the founding documents of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and anthropology faculties stood at the left-wing fringe of American universities.
In the Global South, anthropologists went into the field and took matters a step further. Peru's brutal Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerilla movement was the brainchild of the anthropologist Efrain Morote Best, who headed the University of San Cristobal of Huamanga in Ayacucho, Peru, between 1962 and 1968. Dunham's radicalism was more vicarious; she ended her career as an employee of international organizations.
Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household. In the Muslim world of the 1960s, nationalism rather than radical Islam was the ideology of choice among the enraged. Radical Islam did not emerge as a major
political force until the nationalism of a Gamal Abdel Nasser or a Sukarno failed.
Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.
There is nothing mysterious about Obama's methods. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are the world's biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone Power's portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley. The latter is available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt uplifted by an Obama speech.
America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point.
Since the Ronald Reagan boom began in 1984, the year the American stock market doubled, Americans have enjoyed a quarter-century of rising wealth. Even the collapse of the Internet bubble in 2000 did not interrupt the upward trajectory of household assets, as the housing price boom eclipsed the effect of equity market weakness. America's success made it a magnet for the world's savings, and Americans came to believe that they were riding a boom that would last forever, as I wrote recently [1].
Americans regard upward mobility as a God-given right. America had a double founding, as David Hackett Fischer showed in his 1989 study, Albion's Seed . Two kinds of immigrants founded America: religious dissidents seeking a new Promised Land, and economic opportunists looking to get rich quick. Both elements still are present, but the course of the past quarter-century has made wealth-creation the sine qua non of American life. Now for the first time in a generation Americans have become poorer, and many of them have become much poorer due to the collapse of home prices. Unlike the Reagan years, when cutting the top tax rate from a punitive 70% to a more tolerable 40% was sufficient to start an economic boom, no lever of economic policy is available to fix the problem. Americans have no choice but to work harder, retire later, save more and retrench.
This reversal has provoked a national mood of existential crisis. In Europe, economic downturns do not inspire this kind of soul-searching, for richer are poorer, remain what they always have been. But Americans are what they make of themselves, and the slim makings of 2008 shake their sense of identity. Americans have no institutionalized culture to fall back on. Their national religion has consisted of waves of enthusiasm - "Great Awakenings" – every second generation or so, followed by an interim of apathy. In times of stress they have a baleful susceptibility to hucksters and conmen.
Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word "hope", they instead hear, "handout". A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as "something for nothing". Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over.
The George W Bush administration has squandered a great strategic advantage in a sorry lampoon of nation-building in the Muslim world, and has made enemies out of countries that might have been friendly rivals, notably Russia. Americans question the premise of America's standing as a global superpower, and of the promise of upward mobility and wealth-creation. If elected, Barack Obama will do his utmost to destroy the dual premises of America's standing. It might take the country another generation to recover.
"Evil will oft evil mars", J R R Tolkien wrote. It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. As he recalled in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama idealized the Kenyan economist who had married and dumped his mother, and was saddened to learn that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a sullen, drunken polygamist. The elder Obama became a senior official of the government of Kenya after earning a PhD at Harvard. He was an abusive drunk and philanderer whose temper soured his career.
The senior Obama died in a 1982 car crash. Kenyan government officials in those days normally spent their nights drinking themselves stupid at the Pan-Afrique Hotel. Two or three of them would be found with their Mercedes wrapped around a palm tree every morning. During the 1970s I came to know a number of them, mostly British-educated hollow men dying inside of their own hypocrisy and corruption.
Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell.
Danger - The US Congress wants to put poison in your house. They have already passed a law which requires you to replace all your regular bulbs to these poisonous bulbs. Danger Will Robinson.
The lamp contains a small amount of mercury, but you can clean this up yourself if you do the following:
Do not use a vacuum cleaner to clean up the breakage. This will spread the mercury vapor and dust throughout the area and could potentially contaminate the vacuum.
Keep people and pets away from the breakage area until the cleanup is complete.
Ventilate the area by opening windows, and leave the area for 15 minutes before returning to begin the cleanup. Mercury vapor levels will be lower by then.
For maximum protection and if you have them, wear rubber gloves to protect your hands from the sharp glass.
Carefully remove the larger pieces and place them in a secure closed container, preferably a glass container with a metal screw top lid and seal like a canning jar.1 A glass jar with a good seal works best to contain any mercury vapors inside.2
Next, begin collecting the smaller pieces and dust. You can use two stiff pieces of paper such as index cards or playing cards to scoop up pieces.
Pat the area with the sticky side of duct tape, packing tape or masking tape to pick up fine particles. Wipe the area with a wet wipe or damp paper towel to pick up even finer particles.
Put all waste and materials into the glass container, including all material used in the cleanup that may have been contaminated with mercury. Label the container as “Universal Waste - broken lamp.”
Remove the container with the breakage and cleanup materials from your home. This is particularly important if you do not have a glass container.
Continue ventilating the room for several hours.
Wash your hands and face.
Take the glass container with the waste material to a facility that accepts “universal waste” for recycling. To determine where your municipality has made arrangements for recycling of this type of waste, call your municipal office or find your town in this list municipal collection sites.
When a break happens on carpeting, homeowners may consider removing throw rugs or the area of carpet where the breakage occurred as a precaution, particularly if the rug is in an area frequented by infants, small children or pregnant women.
Finally, if the carpet is not removed, open the window to the room during the next several times you vacuum the carpet to provide good ventilation.
The next time you replace a lamp, consider putting a drop cloth on the floor so that any accidental breakage can be easily cleaned up. If consumers remain concerned regarding safety, they may consider not utilizing fluorescent lamps in situations where they could easily be broken. Consumers may also consider avoiding CFL usage in bedrooms or carpeted areas frequented by infants, small children, or pregnant women. Finally, consider not storing too many used/spent lamps before recycling as that may increase your chances of breakage. Don’t forget to properly recycle your used fluorescent bulbs so they don’t break and put mercury into our environment.
1Other jars that can be made of glass and also work are pickle, peanut butter and applesauce jars. Not ideal but also a good choice for containing breakage is a heavy duty #2 plastic container with either a screw lid or push-on lid such as a joint compound bucket or certain kitty litter-type containers.
2If the only suitable jar available has food in it, you may need to empty it into another container before using it.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) facts regarding the Prospect, Maine Compact Fluorescent Lamp breakage.
Upon receiving a call from a citizen in Prospect, Maine who was concerned about mercury exposure from the accidental breakage of a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), a Department spill response staff person went to the individual’s house on March 14, 2007 to evaluate the levels of mercury present.The Department has extensive experience with other types of mercury spills, but did not have experience with the mercury levels that might occur from a CFL breaking on carpet.In addition to evaluating the levels in the home, the Department planned to use this breakage event as a means of gathering information to better respond to future events.
A single CFL fell onto carpet in the homeowner’s child’s bedroom two days earlier.The CFL had been dropped when it was being cleaned.It fell and hit a metal vent between the second floor and first floor.The carpet, squares of multi colored carpet, was planned for removal as part of an intended renovation.Prior to the DEP staff person’s arrival, the visible pieces of the bulb had already been cleaned up.All measured air levels mentioned below reflect levels two days after the initial breakage and not necessarily the levels at the time of breakage.
The Department staff person arrived with a Lumex instrument, which is designed to take instantaneous mercury vapor readings.The Department responders work under a guidance value of 300 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3)[1] for mercury.If readings are 300 ng/m3 or less, the area is considered to not require any additional actions and no additional clean up advice is given.In situations with values over 300 ng/m3, the Department responder consults with the State Toxicologist for a more refined evaluation.This consultation considers whether additional actions are warranted to clean up the spill or whether precautionary actions need to be taken to protect the homeowner.In addition, if individuals are particularly concerned about mercury related hazards or any of the mercury readings, they are also referred to the State Toxicologist.
When a Department responder goes to the site of a spill, there are typically two types of instrument measurements that they would take.The first is an evaluation of the source of the spill.This is to identify any hot spots or areas of concern, to determine the extent of the spill, and whether it has been tracked extensively throughout the home.This helps determine the extent of the effort to clean up the spill, if any.This type of measurement is generally at the floor or point of impact.The second type of measurement taken are those readings that are more useful for homeowner exposure and are typically in the “breathing zone”, at an intermediate height for children and a higher height more appropriate for adults.
The Lumex values as recorded by the Department responder at the Prospect home were:
Underneath the carpet square where the break happened
36
%R 14
Over the carpet where bulb broke
1,939
%R 12
Toys
93
%Rless than 25%
Carpet on first floor under vent to downstairs where lamp broke
18
%R 6
Exist baseline
15
%R 6
Since the homeowner was very concerned about mercury exposures and the carpet (planned to be removed for renovations) had a value directly on the carpet of over 300 ng/m3, the homeowner was referred to our State Toxicologist for further guidance.In addition, the homeowner questioned the Department staff with how to deal with the carpet.The homeowner expressed particular nervousness about exposures to mercury even in low numbers.Based on that concern, the responder explained two ways to minimize exposures to mercury: one way was to wear respiratory protection and another way was to hire a clean-up contractor.Since the homeowner did not have any respirator protection, the responder referred her to a commercial clean-up contractor.The responder further suggested that the homeowner talk with their homeowner’s insurance company to see if her policy would cover the cost of a professional clean-up contractor.
The homeowner did follow up with the State Toxicologist at the responder’s suggestion.The State Toxicologist talked with the responder about the values along with a discussion of the values over 300 ng/m3.The only value within the room that was over 300 ng/m3 was directly at the bulb breakage location on the carpet.Moving the Lumex instrument six to eight inches in either direction or up toward the ceiling dropped the value significantly.To visualize the area of high readings, it could be covered by a dinner plate.All other values in the room, including in the first floor room where some residue might have fallen through the vent, were well below the 300 ng/m3 action level.Based upon this information, the State Toxicologist assured the homeowner that the potential mercury exposure would be very low and likely of negligible health concern.
The homeowner called a clean-up contractor and got a quick quote for a mercury spill clean up. This price has been quoted in newspapers as being $2,000.Newspapers have also quoted the homeowner as stating that her insurance policy would not cover clean up costs.
The Department tried to reach the homeowner to determine the current levels of mercury on the one spot with readings over 300 ng/m3.The homeowner called the Department on May 15, 2007 and agreed to have the Department come to her house on Friday (May 18, 2007) to obtain measurements and potentially remove the carpet piece in question.Upon arrival on Friday, the Department responder found no measurements over 300 ng/m3, including at the point of impact.However, the carpet piece was removed by the responder at the request of the homeowner.
The Department notes that CFLs do contain a small amount of mercury, they do need to be properly cleaned up when broken, and they need to be taken to a recycling facility for fluorescent bulbs when being disposed of.The Department has a list of local recycling locations as well as directions on how to clean up a fluorescent light bulb breakage on its website www.MaineDEP.com .In addition, the Department is working with the Maine Public Utilities Commission to establish additional CFL collection locations at local hardware stores.
The Department has designed a controlled CFL breakage study which will begin the week of May 21st to test various clean-up options and techniques available to the homeowner.This experiment will provide more information to the Department to give future guidance based upon a study geared to the issues associated with CFL use in the home.
Prepared by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, May 18, 2007.
[1] The Maine ambient air guideline for mercury is 300 ng/m3.
[2] Value is an average of the average of three separate results taken over a 30 second time frame.
[3] %R is the relative deviation of three measured concentrations.The more variability, the higher is the %R.
