The Trib Misleads. On CFLs. AGAIN

From today's New Year's wrap:

More bad news for the crowd that believes government should determine what light bulbs you can buy. London's Daily Mail reports that when compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) can no longer produce light, "the electronics in the base will still try to function, sometimes leading to overheating, smoke and fire." How comforting. [Bolding in original.]

And yet again, when you start to dig into the story you find the piles of facts that Scaife's braintrust casually omits.

Mystery of The Missing Altmire Op-Ed SOLVED

This is gonna give you a chuckle. I promise.

This morning I wrote about this complaint found on the Op-Ed page of the Tribune-Review regarding a pair of opinion pieces written (one each) by Congressman Mike Doyle and Congressman Jason Altmire. Scaife's braintrust complained that the two were too similar. I wanted to (as I often do) check their work. Usually, when I check their work I find they've spun a few things - and I can only assume they do that hoping no one will check. But this time, I couldn't.

Why not?

As I wrote this morning, I could easily find Doyle's opinion piece (it's here), but I could not find Altmire's.

So I contacted his office today asked them about it. Where was the Congressman's opinion piece about the CFL lightbulbs? I couldn't find it anywhere, I told them. Is there anyway I could see a copy? I further asked.

They sent me the piece (see below) and told me that while they submitted it to The Trib and then The Trib rejected it for publication.

So before we get on with the piece itself, let's mull this over for a second. Altmire's opinion piece is submitted to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for publication. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review rejects said opinion piece and then criticizes it in print sometime later. They're the only ones who have access to it and so they're the only ones who can assess whether it is, in fact, similar to the other opinion piece they claim it resembles. In short they're the only ones who could know whether they're telling the truth.

Until now, that is.

Remember, this is the braintrust's complaint about the two pieces:

The congressmen's offerings are so similar -- nearly word for word in spots -- that it has us highly suspicious that the two men regurgitated Democrat talking points for their op-ed submissions.

The two opinion pieces do cover similar ground - as well they should. They are talking about the same thing.

Both point out similar facts:

• Old style incandescent light bulbs waste 90% of their energy generating heat
• George Bush signed the original law in 2007
• New style incandescent light bulbs have been designed that meet the 2007 standard
• And so there is no "ban" on incandescent light bulbs - just inefficient ones
• Thomas Edison invented the light bulb

Altmire's op-ed is posted below, by the way. Do something the Trib doesn't want you to do - read it for yourself. Check my work.

Can someone show me the "nearly word for word in spots" similarities the braintrust is complaining about? Where are they? Apart from the obvious and banal congruencies ("Thomas Edison", "incandescent light bulb" and so on) I couldn't find any "nearly word for word" matches. Can you?

Think of it this way, if the two pieces were, in fact, so close that they ended each other's sentences, doncha think The Trib would be pointing them out to you sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase? They didn't. They couldn't. They're spinning this. Badly.

Anyway, here's Altmire's opinion piece the Trib (the one The Trib rejected then criticized in public):

When Thomas Edison first successfully tested a carbonized thread light bulb in 1879, it was a technology so revolutionary that the light bulb became the very symbol of innovation. Today, 132 years later, the image of a light bulb is still routinely used as an illustration of American ingenuity and scientific breakthrough. The technology that Edison pioneered, the incandescent light bulb, remains by far the most popular source of light in American households.

It is therefore not surprising that reports of a ban of the incandescent light bulb have caused a political firestorm and a public outcry. There have even been reports of organized efforts to hoard the remaining supply of the incandescent bulbs before the ban takes effect at the end of this year.

The topic has become especially popular on the political circuit, with members of Congress and presidential candidates making the “light bulb ban” part of their standard stump speech.

Adding to the public outrage is the fact that, as a result of the reported ban, consumers would be required to purchase and use expensive compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), some of which contain mercury and emit a lesser quality of light than standard incandescent bulbs.

The story goes that the government has banned the inexpensive bulbs produced by American companies and enjoyed by consumers for more than a century, and will now force consumers to use much more expensive, less illuminating lights that pose a significant health hazard, the compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). No wonder politicians are climbing all over themselves to defend the incandescent light bulb.

There is only one problem – none of it is true. The incandescent light bulb is not banned, nor will it be next year or thereafter. Consumers will continue to be free to buy the light bulb of their choice. American companies will continue to manufacture and market incandescent bulbs available to every American.

So, why the misconception about the so-called “ban”?

In 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act. One of the provisions of this bipartisan legislation was to establish energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. This was done primarily to reduce the strain and prevent overloads on our nation’s electrical grid, and to make energy more efficient, dependable and cost-effective for consumers.

Under the 2007 law, some household light bulbs are required to be approximately 28 percent more energy efficient. For the most commonly-used light bulbs, the phase-in occurs over a three-year period beginning in 2012. For example, by next year, a 100 watt incandescent bulb must emit the same amount of light using only 72 watts. The law does not specify what type of technology manufacturers may employ to achieve these standards, nor does it require consumers to purchase any specific type of light bulb.

Incandescent bulbs produce light by heating filament inside gas. This is nearly identical to the technology that existed in the initial Edison-inspired bulbs first made commercially available in the 19th century. These bulbs remain popular, but they are incredibly inefficient as a source of light. In fact, ninety percent of the energy produced by a standard incandescent bulb goes toward heat – only ten percent produces light. Of course, few consumers buy a household light bulb to use as a source of heat, so it makes sense that we should look for ways to make the bulbs more energy efficient than the bulbs Edison pioneered 132 years ago.

Some light bulb manufacturers have chosen to supplement their incandescent bulbs with other technologies, such as the CFL or the increasingly popular and potentially revolutionary light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs. Both technologies continue to evolve and will undoubtedly play a major role in America’s energy future, as will other technologies yet to be discovered. But what about the incandescent bulb?

As a result of the 2007 law, several large and small American companies, some of which have put down roots in western Pennsylvania, have developed energy efficient incandescent light bulbs that meet the new standards. Some of the new incandescent bulbs are already on the market, and many others will be available in time for the 2012 transition. These new bulbs have the same look and emit the same type of light as traditional incandescent bulbs, but they last much longer, offer substantial energy savings for the consumer and greatly reduce the burden to our nation’s electrical grid. So not only is the incandescent light bulb not banned, it has been improved and is now better than ever. Most important, it will still be made by American workers, for American consumers, for years to come.

Throughout our history, Americans have always risen to the challenges of the ever-changing global marketplace. Recently, American auto makers innovated and adapted to new fuel efficiency standards by producing fuel efficient cars that appeal to American consumers, resulting in General Motors surpassing Toyota this year as the world’s largest automaker.

Similarly, the quick transition to meet the new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs is yet another example of American ingenuity and innovation at its best. Without a doubt, others around the world are also researching and producing advanced light bulbs to compete with our American-made products. Just as Thomas Edison put America at the forefront of the development and manufacture of lighting technology in 1879, the American innovators of today continue to lead the way in the research and development of exciting new lighting technologies, like LEDs, as well as improving upon the popular technologies of the past, like the still-available incandescent light bulb.

Not Sure What To Make Of This

From Sunday's Trib:

PENNED BY POLTERGEISTS? Democrat U.S. Reps. Mike Doyle of Forest Hills and Jason Altmire of McCandless should consider consulting a specialist in paranormal activity.

Their offices appear to have been invaded by ghost writers.

Both supposedly penned recent opinion pieces defending the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The controversial law effectively bans Thomas Edison's incandescent light bulb as we've known it in favor of supposedly more efficient but also more expensive and hazardous alternatives, namely the compact fluorescent light bulb.

The congressmen's offerings are so similar -- nearly word for word in spots -- that it has us highly suspicious that the two men regurgitated Democrat talking points for their op-ed submissions. We just thought we'd shed some light on the matter.

The only problem?

I can't find Congressman Altmire's op-ed defending Energy Independence and Security Act. I've googled:

• Atmire "Light bulb"
• Altmire "Energy Independence and Security Act"
• Altmire CFL

And couldn't find anything. Nothing. Nada. The null set. That doesn't mean it's not out there, of course. Just that I couldn't find it. It's a mystery. Usually the trails to the sources the braintrust uses are quite easy to follow; Heritage Foundation, AEI, Washington Times and so on. But none of my usual tricks worked this time. And I can't imagine even the Trib making something like this up.

If you can find it, please drop me an email with the link. I want to see how similar they are. Or if you can explain what the Tribune-Review is doing here, editorializing on something no one else can see, drop me an email on that, too.

That being said, we'll talk about CFLs, Thomas Edison, and Mike Doyle's easily found opinion piece for a bit. Here's the trib:

Both supposedly penned recent opinion pieces defending the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The controversial law effectively bans Thomas Edison's incandescent light bulb as we've known it in favor of supposedly more efficient but also more expensive and hazardous alternatives, namely the compact fluorescent light bulb.

They make three points here:

• The CFL bulb's efficiency is questioned
• The CFL bulb is more expensive
• The CFL bulb is more hazardous

The Michigan DEQ has a page up describing the savings achieved by switching from an incandescent to a CFL. Over the course of the life of the CFL bulb the savings are substantial. That takes care of bullets one and two. What about the third? How hazardous is the CFL bulb?

Luckily, there's been work on that, too. From a page called Three CFL Myths Busted:

Myth: Compact fluorescent bulbs are a major safety hazard because they contain mercury.

Fact: Yes, it's true that CFLs contain tiny amounts of mercury, and if a bulb breaks you will be exposed to the neurotoxin. But, just how dangerous is a broken bulb? Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory set out to answer that question. They compared how much exposure you'd get from breathing in the amount of mercury released from a broken CFL bulb to how much mercury you'd take in from eating Albacore tuna.

If you do a common sense job of cleaning up (open the windows, clean up, and remove the debris), then your mercury exposure would be the equivalent of taking a tiny nibble of tuna, according to Francis Rubinstein, a staff scientist at Berkeley Lab. What if you did the worst job possible, say closed all the doors and smashed the bulb with a hammer? It's still no big deal, says Rubinstein, who points out that it would be the equivalent of eating one can of tuna.

Hmm - at worst it's the mercury equivalent of eating one can of tuna? Only ONE CAN? AND it saves money?

We already know The Trib's not really interested in facts that conflict with their politics, but I would have thought that the Trib would be in favor of saving money.

I guess not.

Again, if you have any info as to the whereabouts of the Altmire editorial please drop me an email. I'd love to see it.

The Trib Should Check Their Science

From the generally scientifically illiterate pages of the Tribune-Review, today we find yet another attack on compact fluorescent light bulbs. This time Scaife's braintrust is using material quoted from that respected and science journal political online magazine The American Thinker:

Pricey compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) are even more dangerous -- and make even less economic sense -- than previously thought. They're fire hazards and mercury's just the tip of their toxic iceberg.

Edmund Contoski reports for the American Thinker that Telstar- and Electra-brand CFLs were recalled on May 12 as overheating fire hazards. And he notes that cleaning up after CFLs flame out usually breaks environmental regulations.

And so on.

I was curious what a real science magazine had to say about CFLs. In 2007 Popular Mechanics did a side by side comparison between CFLs and the incandescent bulb. Know what they found? That's right:

The results surprised us. Even though the incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, our subjects didn't see any dramatic difference in brightness. And here was the real shocker: When it came to the overall quality of the light, all the CFLs scored higher than our incandescent control bulb. In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren't just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light.

Then they alsopublished this "reality check" regarding the newer better lightbulbs. Some highlights. On the safety of the mercury:

How much mercury is contained in a CFL?
Each bulb contains an average of 5 milligrams of mercury, “which is just enough to cover a ballpoint pen tip,” says Leslie, associate director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer. “Though it’s nothing to laugh at, unless you wipe up mercury [without gloves] and then lick your hand, you’re probably going to be okay.”

On the energy savings by using a CFL:

How much of a difference can CFLs really make?
According to EnergyStar—a program run by the Environmental Protection Agency—if each U.S. home replaced just one of its incandescent bulbs with a CFL, the electricity saved each year could light 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equal to that of 800,000 cars.

But the big concern about CFLs revolves around the mercury used in them. And to that issue Popular Mechanics points out:

How much mercury do power plants emit to light a CFL?
About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air—the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).

Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

So let's see. A real science journal vs a political opinion magazine. Where would you get your science?

To hear the chicken littles at the Trib describe it, a CFL packs enough plutonium to kill each and everyone of us twelve times over. Here's the Guv'ment's cleanup guidelines for CFLs.

It's Been A While...

The Tribbing is still going on at Richard Mellon Scaife's op-ed page - even if I haven't commented on it in a while.

This morning (hey, did you know the Trib had some publishing trouble yesterday?) on the braintrust's op-ed page we find this:

Revolt of the Light Brigade: Freedom Action has begun a petition drive to have Congress rescind what effectively is a ban on incandescent light bulbs. The group is an offshoot of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It cites not only the congressional overreach but the mercury danger of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Sans that, can a black market in incandescents be far behind?

And even that, they get wrong. But first, Freedom Action/Competitive Enterprise Institute.

We've discussed them before. Suffice it to say the CEI is a free market think tank aggressively funded by the Trib's owner, Richard Mellon Scaife. According to the numbers at mediamatters.org, he's supported it to the tune of a little more than $2.8 million over the last 25 years or so. According to those numbers, in fact, he is the single largest funder for the CEI.

No mention of that in the editorial - that he funds the think tank his editorial board references.

Also not mentioned in the blurb - the bill that "effectively" banned the old fashioned light bulb was signed into law in 2007 by that champion of Congressional Overreach and Environmentalistic fascism, George W Bush.

One interesting thing - if you actually were to go to the Freedom Action press release describing the petition to end the "ban" (which really wasn't a ban, of course) you'd find that it doesn't actually mention any "mercury danger" even though the Trib said it did. Nor is the word mercury found (at this point, at least) at the Freedom Action website at all.

So even though Scaife's given all this money to the CEI (of which Freedom Action is a part) and even though I am sure he pays his braintrust a very nice salary, they can't even get that simple part right.

The circle jerking continues at the Tribune-Review - even though they need a better fact checker.

The Trib. Again. And Again.

On today's ep-ed page at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust proves, yet again, how easy it is to spin a story by omitting important facts.

First on the CFLs (and no, we're NOT talking about the Argonauts or the Roughriders), they write:

Better late than never? Yes -- but the newfound eagerness of Republicans vying for the House Energy and Commerce Committee's chairmanship to repeal the impending ban on incandescent light bulbs raises another question: What was Congress smoking when it banned them?

Interesting question, no?

Perhaps the braintrust should check out the legislation phasing out the CFLs. And perhaps check with the many Republican Senators who voted for it, including:

• Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
• Sam Brownback of Kansas
• Saxby Chamblis of Georgia
• John Cornyn of Texas
• Chuck Grassley of Iowa
• Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
• David Vitter of Louisiana

And so on. Perhaps they should check with some of the many many many Republican House members who voted for the bill, (and there are too many to list - sorry).

Or perhaps they should check with the Republican President who signed the bill into law in 2007.

Then there's this from the Thursday Wrap:

Another Western Pennsylvania community has buckled to the politically correct Nativity scene crowd. Canonsburg, fearing a lawsuit that taxpayers could not afford, has moved its creche, long displayed outside its borough building, to private property a few blocks away. The late Canonsburg native Perry Como surely is turning in his grave.

It's not "political correctness" my friends. It's unconstitutional. As spelled out in County of Allegheny vs. ACLU which was a Supreme Court case from way back in 1989. According the decision, the Establishment Clause:

[A]t the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community."

Huh. I thought conservatives respected the Constitution. I thought they believed in what it said.

I guess it depends on what spin they're trying to make.