Can going green be hazardous to your health? Energy efficient compact flourescent lightbulbs (CFL's) have mercury in them. The Environmental Protection Agency has put out specific procedures to be used when handling bulbs that have broken:
What to Do if a Fluorescent Light Bulb Breaks
Fluorescent light bulbs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes.
Remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner.
Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available (do not use your bare hands).
Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard.
Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe.
Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it.
If your state permits you to put used or broken fluorescent light bulbs in the garbage, seal the bulb in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash (if no other disposal or recycling options are available).
Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.
NPR had a good piece about CFL's and their hazards. Aside from CFL's showing up in landfills, the article says that there are concerns that sanitation workers may be exposed to mercury if trash contains broken CFL bulbs.
the companies and federal government haven't come up with effective ways to get Americans to recycle them.
"The problem with the bulbs is that they'll break before they get to the landfill. They'll break in containers, or they'll break in a dumpster or they'll break in the trucks. Workers may be exposed to very high levels of mercury when that happens,"
The amount [of mercury in a CFL bulb] is tiny — about 5 milligrams, or barely enough to cover the tip of a pen — but that is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, extrapolated from Stanford University research on mercury. Even the latest lamps promoted as “low-mercury” can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels.
It will be interesting to see if mercury contamination of soil and water or in landfills rises in about 5-7 years when these CFL's start showing up in higher numbers in the trash and in our environment.
Sometimes technology gives us new problems as it attempts to solve current problems. As for me, I'm sticking to incandescents and just being frugal with the light switch in general. I very rarely have to replace light bulbs in my house as it is.
Because your time is valuable, I'd like to help you in your quest to economize. Here's a nifty little web page. Just enter your zip code on this site, and it tells you which gas stations have the cheapest prices (and the highest) on gas in your zip code area. It's updated every evening. You will see a map of your area and then scroll down and you will get a listing of gas prices in your area with addresses and brands starting with the cheapest and going up.
And here is a list of Cheapest gas prices in CT of course if you live near the Massachusetts border you can pay about 15-20 cents less and avoid the higher CT gas tax.
Gosh these folks need a vacation already. Sort of the presidential nominee version of "If It's Tuesday It Must be Belgium" - that was a good movie. Looks like he's already visited the state of confusion.
Unless it was some sort of Freudian slip: Did you know - There are 57 Islamic states - that is, 57 member states in the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) "The primary goals of the OIC are, according to its Status, "to promote solidarity among all Islamic member states." The flag of the OIC is green with upward-facing red crescent enveloped in a white disc. On the disc the words "Allahu Akbar" are written in modern Arabic."
Nah - that can't be it. The guy is just badly in need of time off.
A Right of Initiative and Referendum: Right for Connecticut?
As required by the state Constitution (Art. 13, sec. 2), this November Connecticut voters will vote whether to hold a convention to amend the Constitution. A potential amendment now being discussed is whether add a right of initiative and referendum, to provide voters with a direct voice in making laws, or rejecting laws enacted through the state legislature. In about half the states in the country, voters have initiative and/or referendum authority.
Should Connecticut join them?
Moderator:
Prof. Richard S. Kay University of Connecticut School of Law
Speakers:
Hon. Robert Satter Connecticut Superior Court Former State Representative
Atty. John Woodcock III Adjunct Professor, Political Science Central Connecticut State Univ. Former State Representative Former Member, State Ethics Commission
When: Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 12:00 - 1:30 p.m.
Where: State Capitol, Hartford – Old Judiciary Room (3rd floor, east side) (directions and parking info below)
Free and open to the public. A complimentary lunch will be served.
Parking is available in lot behind the State Capitol Building, accessible from Trinity Street, or in the Legislative Office Building (LOB), 300 Capitol Avenue, parking garage. Take first right after the LOB and proceed straight until the driveway turns to the right. Take a right to enter the garage and park in a visitor’s spot.
When it comes to upholding parental rights, there are some very good people who hold elected office in the CT State legislature. These are our children's heroes.
These are the people who showed our children that the people's voices do matter, and they demonstrated that they truly represent their constituents instead of ignoring them and creating more problems. These were the legislators that answered our phone calls and emails and agreed to meet with parents. Some of them came out to forums held in or near their districts last fall. These are the legislators who took the time to really listen and understand the problems and refused compromises on parental rights. They refused to blindly do the bidding of education lawyers and agents of special interests. They helped us. They represented us. They worked for us. They did so largely in a bi-partisan manner. Their aides deserve out thanks as well.
These legislators went on record as saying that they would support the original language for SB162 - Parental Rights Bill - which would have amended 10-220 (Duties of Boards of Education) and require that when a parent sends a letter of withdrawal to the school that the school must accept it and disenroll their child. They wanted to truly end the abuse of authority that has been going on in the past few years.
And so, we at NHELD would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank them, and all of the parents who assisted us this past year in trying to get legislative approval for SB162, An Act Concerning Withdrawal of Children from Enrollment in Public School, as well as amendments that contained the O'Neill/Children's Committee language. Although it was a valiant effort, sadly, the bill and the language we sought, was not adopted.
Below is listed the supporters of parental rights in CT - They co-sponsored amendments and signed their names onto bills. They deserve praise and thanks for their help and support of Rep. O'Neill's proposed bill - and we thank them all and hope that they will continue to support the effort to end the abuse of authority going that has been allowed to continue. If you are a constituent of theirs - please take the time to send them a note of thanks.
SEN. MCKINNEY, 28th Dist. SEN. FASANO, 34th Dist. SEN. RORABACK, 30th Dist. SEN. CALIGIURI, 16th Dist. SEN. CAPPIELLO, 24th Dist. SEN. DEBICELLA, 21st Dist SEN. FREEDMAN, 26th Dist. SEN. GUGLIELMO, 35th Dist SEN. HERLIHY, 8th Dist. SEN. KANE, 32nd Dist. SEN. KISSEL, 7th Dist. SEN. RUSSO, 22nd Dist
Co-Signers to SB162
Sen. Edith G. Prague, 19th Dist. Rep. Vincent J. Candelora, 86th Dist. Rep. Arthur J. O'Neill, 69th Dist. Rep. Pamela Z. Sawyer, 55th Dist. Rep. Richard F. Ferrari, 62nd Dist. Rep. Ruth C. Fahrbach, 61st Dist. Rep. Al Adinolfi, 103rd Dist. Sen. Robert J. Kane, 32nd Dist. Rep. Patricia M. Widlitz, 98th Dist. Rep. Anne L. Ruwet, 65th Dist. Rep. Richard Roy, 119th Dist. Rep. Lawrence G. Miller, 122nd Dist. Rep. Elizabeth B. Ritter, 38th Dist. Rep. Shawn T. Johnston, 51st Dist. Rep. Deborah W. Heinrich, 101st Dist. Rep. Anthony J. D'Amelio, 71st Dist. Rep. Jason W. Bartlett, 2nd Dist. Rep. Ron Burns, 77th Dist. Rep. Ed Jutila, 37th Dist. Sen. Joan V. Hartley, 15th Dist. Rep. Mike Alberts, 50th Dist. Rep. David Aldarondo, 75th Dist. Sen. Andrea L. Stillman, 20th Dist. Rep. Karen Jarmoc, 59th Dist. Rep. Kathleen M. Tallarita, 58th Dist. Sen. Edward Meyer, 12th Dist. Sen. Sam S.F. Caligiuri, 16th Dist. Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, 127th Dist. Rep. Peggy Sayers, 60th Dist. Rep. Joan A. Lewis, 8th Dist. Sen. Judith G. Freedman, 26th Dist. Sen. Gayle S. Slossberg, 14th Dist
We also thank those who supported Rep. O'Neill and CT parents in this effort, but did not specifically sign onto this bill or amendments that would have put the bill's language in place.
You can read the entire legislative wrap up for the proposed Withdrawal bill, SB162, which would have strengthened parental rights in CT, as our summary of the session and what happened with this bill is posted on the National Home Education Legal Defense website. Further Background on the issues surrounding SB162 can be found in our update on the NHELD website and on NHELD's CT Clearinghouse page.
This is all we wanted and this is what should have been inserted in CGS 10-220 (The Duties of Boards of Education)
"when a parent or guardian of a child provides by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the principal of the school that the child attends, to the superintendent of schools for the school district in which such school is located or the local or regional board of education for such school district, written notice originated by and signed by the parent or guardian of the child stating that the parent or guardian is withdrawing the child from enrollment in a public school and will provide instruction for the child as required pursuant to section 10-184, the principal of the school that the child attends, the superintendent and the local or regional board of education shall accept such notice and shall deem the child withdrawn from enrollment in the public school immediately upon receipt of such notice"
This is nothing new: Parents have always had this right.
"I've heard from Americans from all walks of life ... they want a choice," he said at a news conference in Washington. "They believe that America has more and better to offer than what the current political situation is serving up to us. " ..... Barr, 59, quit the Republican Party two years ago, saying he had grown disillusioned with its failure to shrink government and its willingness to scale back civil liberties in fighting terrorism. He has been particularly critical of President Bush over the war in Iraq and says the administration is ignoring constitutional protections on due process and privacy.
I had the opportunity to meet and talk to Bob Barr in person recently (along with Mike Gravel, Wayne Allyn Root, George Phillies and Dr. Mary Ruwart...well yeah, I think I know what some of you might be thinking, but nevermind, they were all very interesting people to meet, except for Mike Gravel who is a total macaroon).
Bob Barr made a really great speech and expressed some very appealing opinions, and Wayne Root had more enthusiasm and energy than the energizer bunny. Dr. Ruwart and George Phillies discussed some good points as well. I'll have to get a hold of Dr. Ruwart's book, Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression, it sounds like an interesting read.
While we may not see a Libertarian in the White House anytime soon, these folks are quite passionate and support liberty and the US Constitution and I am all for that. I really liked what Bob Barr had to say.
Some people are very concerned about what is known as the National Continuity Policy. Should we be concerned about NSPD-51 and NSPD-20 which establishes this policy by Executive Order?
An Executive order, does have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, when those acts give the President discretionary powers. It becomes law, or a directive, simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress can be bypassed in a manner of speaking. This from Wiki -
There is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to US executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office.
An executive order was how FEMA was born, April 1, 1979. (That was an odd date to choose, wasn't it?) FEMA is now under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security.
But let's turn our attention to NSPD-51: Read this.
Here is what the White House Executive Order on this continuity policy said:
"This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency."
That sounds nice - it is good to be prepared, however none of this had to be done when 9-11 happened did it? We recovered government and business functions quite quickly, even for New York City! Companies initiated their disaster recovery plans and government also had their disaster plans in place (save for the radio system malfunctions). We learned a lot from that unfortunate attack. Our front line responders were incredible. So, why the need for this type of heavy handed directive from the President? Why are the annexes to this directive classified information?
This type of directive basically also suspends the Constitution and Bill of Rights if the entity in charge, the President or his lead agent (the head of Homeland Security), decides to do so. That person will be in the position to control and coordinate ALL three branches of government in the event of a disaster. Several bills and directives , even some that have been in place since the 60's, combined also allow the government to seize airports and means of transportation, railroads, waterways, communication media, utilities, farms and food supplies, and more, in an event of a "catastrophic emergency". But now exactly what constitutes a catastrophic emergency seems to have been clarified.
The Bush directive defines a "Catastrophic Emergency" as any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
That could mean another 9-11 (God forbid), an earthquake, a hurricane, an influenza epidemic, or chemical spill, and even the crash of our economy. And since this also includes "a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies; this attack can happen in any location in the world as well.
Essentially,as many see it, President Bush, signed on May 9 2007 (over a year ago) a directive that grants near dictatorial power to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president. What do you make of that?
Some say that NSPD51 clearly protects the operations of Constitutional government and it is regarded as a “good business practice,” and part of the fundamental mission of agencies as responsible and reliable public institutions. Others give the opinion that it was nothing more than a power grab.
This directive came almost 6 years after 9-11 happened. So what's with the timing of this?
Let's hope that no national emergency happens prior to the national elections. Or ever! But if it does, why do we need the President to basically assume a type of dictatorial power? You know - The Constitution did not change after 9-11. Our rights are not supposed to evaporate after an emergency, and government should be able to operate unless many key elected officials are incapacitated, and even then we have rules on the lines of succession.
Here's what the Washington Post said about it in May 2007.(Administration, Not DHS, Would Run Shadow Government)
While some see this compilation of Executive Orders as being proactive and necessary, others find it to be very dangerous. Watch this and see what you think.
It certainly is enough to give anyone food for thought. Martial law is not a pretty prospect. People have certainly used disasters to wrest rights away from citizens in order to obtain power in the past. Roman rulers did it. Our Founders knew about that history too. That's why they believed checks and balances to be so important.
Among the most striking recommendations made by the commission is its proposal to hand governors control over active-duty troops, such as disaster response teams from the U.S. Army or Air Force, in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe. Governors now command state National Guard units during crises on American soil, but the president remains commander in chief of active-duty forces.
That division of power “places the nation at risk of a disjointed federal and state military response to a catastrophe,” the report concluded.
Additionally - read this post and notice that Canadian troops can also help US troops in an emergency.
So what do you make of all of this? Is it an attempt to co-ordinate efforts in the face of a calamity or to seize power and control? One of the more important aspects is that we as citizens should be aware of these reports, recommendations, and executive directives and how they relate to what our US Constitution specifies. Read the articles stating different points of view, and understand the concept of fear based policy making might take away your rights.
Remember: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963)
This quotation, slightly altered, is also inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
For all you moms out there, I hope you have a lovely day doing whatever it is you enjoy doing.
My family is planning to help me plant my vegetable garden today and I am sure they have other surprises in store as well. I am looking forward to a lovely day spent with the people that I love most.
I have to admit that I am a somewhat sad though, because this is the first Mother's Day that I will spend without my mom, since she passed away in September. But I know she is with me in spirit: So wherever you are mom - Happy Mothers Day and I love you.
This one's for her: My Yiddishe Momme recorded by Sophie Tucker
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Declaration of IndependenceJuly 4, 1776
"The American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." (Woodrow Wilson)
Purple Mountain Majesties
"Any appeasement of tyranny is treason to this republic and to the democratic ideal." (William Allen White)
The answer to 1984 is 1776. Teach your children well...
We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.-- Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, 1981
CTforLiberty is Connecticut's resource for local information and events for Ron Paul's campaign.
File This Under "Some Things Never Change"
The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. - Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)
The real danger is the gradual erosion of individual liberties through automation, integration, and interconnection of many small, separate record- keeping systems, each of which alone may seem innocuous, even benevolent, and wholly justifiable. -U. S. Privacy Study Commission, 1977
it sounds like an interesting read.
