Don't stock up on CFL's

[mycroftt]

I'm still trying to figure out how "they" got something with mercury in it MANDATED using "green" as the reason. If you're thinking green, wouldn't you want to be outlawing the CFLs? The world just keeps getting stranger!

Well, it's only a "little bit" of mercury in each bulb - which is equivalent to saying "It's only a little leak" or "It's only a little bit of fire."

 

[gnius]

Don't stock up on compact flourescent light bulbs!

I was at an earth day event today and had a god conversation at a booth that featured LED light bulbs. Many of us have been of the opinion that CFLs were bad technology that would soon be replaced by better LED technology and it seems to be happening. CFLs are better than incandescents but contain that small amount of mercury which makes them a HazMat. Neither CFLs nor LEDs currently work well with dimmers (although I can easily envision, and probably build, a "dimmer" switch that would simply shut off some LEDS as you dim). LEDs are also way more efficient (5 W puts out as much light as 100W incandescent) and have lives measured in the 20000 to 30000 our range. Fantastic advances in lighting!

Oh - don't stock up on the LEDs either - I hear the plasma bulbs will completely blow them away!

Not this again...

CFLs DO contain mercury, but the amounts are ridiculously small (on the order of milligrams)... and the way the mercury is bound, makes it unavailable for inhalation or any other way of contaminating a person.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

Please don't believe everything you read on the internet or what's passed around in chain letters.

You do not need a HazMat team to clean up your house if you break a CFL... just sweep it up and vacuum the small particles - the same way you'd treat it if it was just pure thin glass.

 

[marcangel]

The actual amount of mercury in a CFL is 1/5 that of a watch battery. 5mgs vs. 25 mgms. The ironic part is that less mercury is introduced into the environment from a CFL even if disposed of improperly due to the energy savings that occur from its use. In other words, from just a mercury perspective alone, 1/2 of the mercury is introduced into the enviroment, because of the of the energy savings, even if you throw the damn thing out in the trash. Each amalgam dental filling contains about 80X more mercury than a CFL, so every time we cremate or bury somebody with say, 5 amalgam fillings, that's equivalent to 400 CFL dumped into a landfill. EVEN GREENPEACE:barf: and Treehugger.com are in favor of their use over incandescents!

 

[c00per]

The trouble with mercury is that it bio-accumulates in the environment. So taking the ocean as an example, filter feeders accumulate more and more mercury larger fish eat lots of those and accumulate lots more mercury, larger fish eat lots of those and accumulate more mercury then we eat those fish where it accumulates (like most toxins) in our ladies breast milk. Great. 5mgs is a small amount for sure, but if everybody is using them it soon build up to quite a bit.

I had a friend whose doctor told her that if she ate any more fish caught in the bay area then there would be almost no doubt that if she were to have a child in her life then it would be born with defects...that's mercury left over from mining practices, but we'd do best to avoid exacerbating the problem all the same. In recent studies, dental amalgams are showing to release toxic levels of mercury into our bodies. Five micrograms/litre of blood in an average woman is considered to be safe, no more then that. I'm not sure I see the benefit in being glib with regards to mercury...

 

[Steven Penner]

Oh, you prefer the green tinge of CFLs?

I use the 42 Watt (150watt equivalent) 6500K temperature
"daylight" CFL's by Phillips.
I find that this daylight colour is a very nice bright "white" light with a blue tinge. I much prefer that over the red of an incandacent, or the other cheap "CFL that I have experienced.
Especially for reading and other detailed tasks, I find that I'm getting old and want lots of light to see.

One thing that I have noticed in this trend towards everything green...
The lights themselves are more efficient, but then they are produced in dimmer and dimmer specifications, in order to have the lowest wattage lamp.

Hell, when I turn on the lights I want to SEE. If I wanted to save power, I would just shut it off.

 

[Gollnick]

CFLs DO contain mercury, but the amounts are ridiculously small (on the order of milligrams)... and the way the mercury is bound, makes it unavailable for inhalation or any other way of contaminating a person.

But one thousand milligrams is one gram. And one gram of mercury IS very significant. If an average single-family house has fifty bulbs, then that's just twenty houses. That's less than your house and all houses within one block. And, while CFLs do have longer life than ordinary bulbs, they will all eventually burn out and be replaced. Most of them will end up -- despite recycling campaigns -- in the household waste stream bound to landfills. Many of them will be broken in the collection process.

Unfortunately, the mercury can not be "bound." It can't be. It is a mercury vapor inside the bulb that makes possible the arc which emits the UV energy inside the bulb which excites the phosphore-based coating inside the bulb which then emits the visible light we seek. The mercury needs to be free to form a vapor. When the bulb is off, the mercury does solidify. But it is still there and if you break the glass, the mercury will be released. If you bury the bulb or the broken glass, the mercury will leach into the ground and the water.

There is mercury in these bulbs, poisonous. bioaccumulative, elemental (i.e. does not break down at all, ever) mercury. And if you break the glass, you do release that mercury into the environment. Each bulb may only contain a few milligrams, true. But we are installing millions of these bulbs.

In fact, the tiny amount of each bulb is the problem. If each contained a pound or two of mercury, then we could get a hazmat team to come to your house and fully clean up the mercury. But when it is released one milligram at a time, no one sees the need to be too concerned about it. And so, milligram-at-a-time, milligram-by-milligram, bulb-by-bulb, we are releasing pounds and pounds of mercury.

 

[mycroftt]

Not this again...

CFLs DO contain mercury, but the amounts are ridiculously small (on the order of milligrams)... and the way the mercury is bound, makes it unavailable for inhalation or any other way of contaminating a person.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

Please don't believe everything you read on the internet or what's passed around in chain letters.

You do not need a HazMat team to clean up your house if you break a CFL... just sweep it up and vacuum the small particles - the same way you'd treat it if it was just pure thin glass.

Complete and utter nonsense. Nobody has believed any internet chain email or other false tales about mercury in CFL's. You are attempting to rebut a fallacy that has not been stated and are introducing more false data about the mercury being "bound". Pretty lame. Everyone involved in this discussion seems quite knowlegeable about the facts and we didn't need someone bringing in the myths. Thanks a pantload.

 

[marcangel]

Gollnick,

I have known you long to be an intellectual and linear thinker. Please read my post. We wind up putting TWICE as much mercury into the environment because of the fossil fuel used to generate the electricity used to power an incandescent, as opposed to a CFL. Those are numbers that are quoted on virtually every state's DEP website. I am well aware that mercury bio-accumulates. In 20 years of clinical practice I have yet to see a case of mercury poisoning or seen a birth defect related to mercury. I'm certain a boatload of mercury switches, watch batteries and everything else we use mercury for, have led to FAR greater contamination of the enviroment than CFLs have the potential to.

Please read Senate Testimony from Univerity of Rochester Research Team

http://epw.senate.gov/105th/mye_10-1.htm

 

[Gollnick]

We wind up putting TWICE as much mercury into the environment because of the fossil fuel used to generate the electricity used to power an incandescent, as opposed to a CFL.

The mercury released during electricity generation at power stations is released at one place and can be dealt with at that one place.

The mercury released when CFLs are broken is generated at your house, and the next house and the next house... a milligram here and a milligram there.

It is far better to release it all at one location where we can deal with it than bit-by-bit at millions to locations where it isn't practical to address the problem.

Also, it is true that in some place -- especially where the electricity comes from coal-fired power stations -- where mercury released per KWatt generated is high, CFLs may make sense... though it would be better to not release any mercury at all. But what about where I live where the power comes from Nuclear and hydroelectric sources? Such sources release little if any mercury. Should I and my neighbors use CFLs?

 

[marcangel]

The mercury released by power stations, whenever coal is burned, winds up in the ATMOPHERE. It is NOT contained, once it is in the atomsphere, it winds up in the water cycle. Game over.

 

[555]

With this talk about CFL's, I'm surprised that no one has said what has been happening with FL's from Businesses for decades. Where employees dispose of the old bulbs in dumpsters, a lot are broken at the site by workers for fun or these who carefully put the old bulbs back in the case in which the new bulbs came in only to be crushed and broken by the trash truck with the on board compactor and then to the landfill.

Each amalgam dental filling contains about 80X more mercury than a CFL, so every time we cremate or bury somebody with say, 5 amalgam fillings, that's equivalent to 400 CFL dumped into a landfill. EVEN GREENPEACE and Treehugger.com are in favor of their use over incandescents!

From what I have seen way too many times in this state, they bury non cremated bodies in concrete burial vaults.

As for the Eco Groups, I know these better than you know. You couldn't find a larger group of hypocrites that don't live by their own supposed Values.

 

[kgd]

My beef with the fluorescents is that they don't really last as long. I converted over to them with longevity as the big selling feature. The ones we bought come with 5 year warranties. Of course that means you have to save the package and receipt (who does that?). Anyhow, they last longer than incandescents, but certainly do not meet the promises made in terms of longevity. Apparently this to do with the fact that they have reduced life spans when they are turned on and off faster than they can become totally warmed up. Unfortunately that reflects a major use pattern for me.

Here are a couple of interesting studies about mercury release from CFLs from pretty credible sources:

www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/mercury-bulbs.pdf

The below cited article is an excellent and very recent research article in what is considered the most prestigious scientific journal in environmental sciences - Environmental Science and Technology. I've quoted some snippets from that article. Like all issues, this one is complex. Basically in areas where low quality coal is a major basis for power generation, mercury emission savings realized due to switch to CFL is higher even when accounting for emissions deriving from disposal of CFLs themselves. In other areas where alternative energy sources are used, the CFLs can contribute to additional emissions.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es800117h

As this is a copyrighted article, I've only quoted parts of it.

From Intro
In the United States, there are an estimated 4.2 billion mercury-containing lamps in circulation, of which about 4 billion are fluorescents (14). Some 700 million of these lamps are discarded annually (15). Several studies have examined the loss of mercury from fluorescent bulbs, most of them focusing on the disposal stage (15-17). More general research on the material flows of mercury also typically covers the lighting sector (18-20). According to these studies, mercury contained in fluorescent bulbs is emitted to the atmosphere in three primary ways: bulb breakage during transport, vaporization during incineration, and evaporation from landfills. Estimates of emissions from end-of-life handling of fluorescent bulbs range from 6.6% to 30% of the contained mercury, most due to breakage in transit. The most comprehensive analysis, which is still highly uncertain, estimates that approximately 13% of the mercury contained in fluorescent lamps is eventually released to the atmosphere (18). Proper recycling can reduce the environmental burden of lamp disposal. In aggregate, proper recycling (with mercury recovery) is applied to approximately 20% of all discarded bulbs in the United States, accounting for the recovery of almost 2.3 tons of mercury (2).

While there are strong concerns about mercury losses to the environment from breakage, fluorescent lamps also decrease total emissions of mercury through reduced demand for electric power. The relative risks posed to humans and the environment by release of mercury through power plants versus that of fluorescent light bulbs is complex. The toxicity of elemental or inorganic mercury that one might incur from direct exposure to a broken bulb is significantly less than that of organic mercury and is primarily associated with chronic exposure. Organic mercury, most commonly methyl mercury, formed through biological processes following deposition of inorganic mercury in the environment from sources such as power plants, is known to have a wide range of serious toxicological end points.

Nearly all (99%) mercury emissions from the power generation sector are a result of coal-combustion (9). This indicates that any potential reduction in mercury emissions is largely dependent on the characteristics of the coal-fired power sector and the specific coal being used for energy generation. Previous research into net mercury emissions from fluorescent bulbs has focused simply on the percentage of coal in the mix of electricity generation; however, other important factors include the quality and mercury content of the coal, the level of coal precleaning, power plant thermal efficiencies, electricity imports/exports, and any mercury control technologies that are utilized.
The present study aims to incorporate these factors into a detailed geographic accounting of the tradeoff between reduced atmospheric mercury emissions from the energy sector through the use and disposal of fluorescent bulbs and direct mercury emissions at end of life, both domestically and globally. Clearly there are other benefits associated with reducing electricity demand, particularly the reduction of energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions; however, this study focuses on mercury only. As such, this quantitative analysis will provide insight as to where fluorescent lamp use is most beneficial in terms of reducing total atmospheric mercury emissions, considering both energy savings and bulb disposal. A global perspective is important as atmospheric mercury is a transboundary pollution issue; for example, current estimates are that less than half of all mercury deposition within the United States comes from domestic sources (21), with much of the balance originating from industrial facilities in Asia.

Selected parts of discussion

The analysis reveals a large geographic variation in the net emissions of mercury that can be prevented by a marginal increase in the use of fluorescent bulbs. This is true both for the United States and globally. In general, for regions where coal is a major source of power, the substitution of CFLs for incandescent bulbs will result in a significant reduction in mercury emissions to the atmosphere. In places where coal will contribute less to electricity production or if energy portfolios expand to include renewables as a substitute for coal, the relative reduction of mercury emissions from this substitution would decrease.

For the United States, the greatest reduction in emissions occurs in North Dakota, West Virginia, and New Mexico, all of which derive more than 85% of their electricity from coal. Interestingly, both Indiana and Wyoming use a higher percentage of coal and yet the reductions in those states is approximately half of that of New Mexico’s. This is due primarily to differences in coal quality and mercury content, precombustion treatment of coal, and the use of pollution control technology. There are several states where marginal increases in the use of CFLs will result in increased atmospheric mercury emissions, namely Alaska, California, Oregon, Idaho, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island. All of these states use little coal for electricity production, with the notable exception of New Hampshire (18.3%), which has a fairly low input mercury emissions rate for its coal (39).

.....n general, it appears that increasing the use of fluorescent lighting is an effective way to reduce life-cycle mercury emissions. In countries where there is a small percentage of coal-based power generation and little to no recycling, the use of fluorescents may instead increase national atmospheric mercury emissions. It is also the case that many of the countries where fluorescent lighting would be most effective at reducing emissions are also places where recycling infrastructure is lacking, such as those in Central Asia and southern Africa.

.....luorescent Lighting Policy Analysis
Around the world, there are a number of interesting policies regarding fluorescent lighting that have been enacted in recent years or are being discussed. These fall into three general categories: those that limit the amount of mercury in bulbs, those that mandate increases in recycling rates for fluorescents, and those that restrict the use of incandescents. There are also national and state programs to promote the use of CFLs, particularly for residential customers (40).
In the European Union, the use of mercury and several other heavy metals in products is prohibited through the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive, which went into effect July 1, 2006. However, fluorescent lamps with 5 mg or less of mercury are eligible for an exemption, due to their usefulness for energy savings and a lack of functional alternatives (41). Canada has a standard in place to reduce the amount of mercury in lamps by 80% from 1990 baseline levels by 2010 (37).
Increasing the recycling rate of fluorescent bulbs clearly shifts net mercury emissions, as shown in Figure 4. The United States aims to increase fluorescent lamp recycling rates to 80% by 2009 (35). By achieving this rate for the more than four billion fluorescent lamps currently in service, our analysis indicates that the United States would reduce the amount of mercury emitted to the atmosphere from the treatment and disposal of these bulbs by two-thirds, for a total savings of nearly 2 Mg (metric tons) for the current stock of fluorescents. Emissions can be reduced further through safeguards against mercury losses from lamp breakage during transport, such as plastic sheathing or other effective end-of-life packaging.

National and regional governments in Australia, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, and several European countries (among others) have policies banning the future sale and/or use of incandescents; in December of 2007, the United States enacted similar legislation to phase out the use of incandescent bulbs by 2012−2014 (42). A significant proportion (40%) of the several billion incandescent bulbs currently in use in the United States are for small fixturesthese will likely be replaced by small, low-power solid state bulbs such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (43). But the remainder may well be substituted with low-mercury-content CFLs. Assuming that demand for residential lighting grows at an annual rate of 0.8% (43), that in 2012 all large incandescent bulbs will be replaced by CFLs, that the recycling rate will increase to 25%, and that the power mix will be unchanged from the current situation, the United States will avoid approximately 25 Mg of mercury emmisions.

......The private sector is also working to reduce mercury emissions from fluorescents, both by manufacturing low-mercury-content lamps and by increasing recycling and mercury recovery. Many of the largest CFL manufacturers such as GE, Royal Philips, Osram Sylvania, and Lights of America have achieved mercury levels 50% or more below the NEMA 5 mg standard. Looking to the future, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Vision 2020 project brought together researchers, manufacturers, and policy makers to push for the elimination of mercury from CFLs by 2020 (46). These reductions, coupled with appropriate handling systems and new technologies for the end of life could help reduce the negative impacts on human health and the environment.

 

[kgd]

As for the Eco Groups, I know these better than you know. You couldn't find a larger group of hypocrites that don't live by their own supposed Values.

That is a bit harsh. There are some hypocrites who trump up environmental safe guards as a way of hampering project developments. I can think of many situations where protection of a threatened species is used as a guise for stopping certain developments. Here in Southern Canada we see a lot of sillyness at trying to protect a species that is Nationally threatened but globally very common simply because we are at the northern limit of that species distribution. In my community there are a bunch of folks right now trying to use wind-mills killing birds as a way to prevent their construction. In reality their actual concern is that they don't like the aesthetics of them and view them as something that will decrease their property value. They are hypocrites since they don't actually state what their real agenda is.

However, there are people who believe in their cause and there are certainly well principled and ethically acting environmental groups who are open minded to actual data and promote sustainable policies even if that means changing their stance based on information that comes to light. There is a lot of spin in this world, real issues are complex and not everybody has the time to become true experts in every issue. That shouldn't stop you from acting on what you believe is a good cause though.

 

[tirod3]

I live in a metro that ranks as the #1 buyer of CFL's in America. Most of us who buy here do so based on energy savings alone. Longevity ranks next, but it's definitely NOT what is advertised.

I'll pass over the mercury issue. It's bad, and introducing more isn't good. There are places locally to recycle FL's and CFL's now. Most throw them in the trash with the used paint, oil filters, watch batteries, bad rechargeables, and other hazmat that is completely unregulated in most municipalities. Very few of us will bother to segregate and recycle until that issue is resolved.

As for UV, most retailer and workplaces use them. A few more at home isn't the issue. IF 90% of the artificial light you get comes from FL's, CFL's are minor. And don't forget, lots of HDTV's use FL as backlighting.

I'm all for LED's. The improvements in light output, color, longevity, and cost are phenomenal over the last 10 years. Just look at flashlights. LED HDTV's are the leading mass market edge now, and consume much less power than plasma. Automotive applications are increasing yearly. Just be careful replacing assemblies - a third mount brake light from the dealer can run $200. LED headlights are already on luxury cars.

I'm no real fan of CFL's, but even I realize they are transitional technology. The real nail in the coffin is that the government mandated them by 2010 or so to replace incandescents. That just shows how dated and inefficient they will quickly become.

 

[Bufford]

After reading about this, I went to Wallyworld earlier this week and spent $10 to find out what is so great about these LED lamps. At first glance the lamp looked like a showerhead inside a plastic bulb.

I screwed the bulb in and turned it on. Wow! That is some lamp, good light and it doesn't get warm. When prices come down, and it won't take long given the history of the electronics market, then everything will gradually go LED around the house.

30,000 hours of life, -20 cold startup, these are good specs for a lamp.

 

[mycroftt]

After reading about this, I went to Wallyworld earlier this week and spent $10 to find out what is so great about these LED lamps. At first glance the lamp looked like a showerhead inside a plastic bulb.

Heh, heh, heh. That is exactly what I thought too.

 

[gnius]

Complete and utter nonsense. Nobody has believed any internet chain email or other false tales about mercury in CFL's. You are attempting to rebut a fallacy that has not been stated and are introducing more false data about the mercury being "bound". Pretty lame. Everyone involved in this discussion seems quite knowlegeable about the facts and we didn't need someone bringing in the myths. Thanks a pantload.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But like any chemical substance, it possesses a characteristics of bioavailability, solubility, etc...

CFLs do not contain a layer of liquid molecular mercury flowing within some easily-ruptured membrane.

For instance, if a toxin is contained within a resin, and the resin is what is disposed into the environment, the toxin will not be released instantaneously, but rather the rate of its release will depend on the rate of degradation of the resin, and on the cumulative surface area and number of the toxin particles within the resin, and the solubility of said particles or their vapor pressure. Same goes for consumption of the toxin. It is entirely possible to incorporate a lethal toxin into a resin, and yet have the toxin remain unavailable for incorporation into a biological system for an extended period of time. It is also possible to create a resin that aids in bioabsorption of a compound. These variables that comprise the science of Pharmacology must be taken into account, when we are talking about disposing of solid waste containing mercury.

Or are you going to claim that if I make a plastic cube, containing 1 kilogram of mercury as part of the mix, and dump it at a waste site, it is equivalent to pouring out 1 kilogram of liquid mercury (which, by the way is not nearly its most bioavailable form) onto the ground in the same place?

So I would have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of what I wrote.

FOr instances, there's a mountain of reference material...
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es070138i
Evaluation of Mercury Toxicity as a Predictor of Mercury Bioavailability. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2007, 41 (16), pp 5685–5692
aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/63/11/4267.pdf
Effects of Dissolved Organic Carbon and Salinity on Bioavailability of Mercury. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Nov. 1997, p. 4267–4271
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2646878
Mercury Vapor Release from Broken Compact Fluorescent Lamps and In Situ Capture by New Nanomaterial Sorbents. Environ Sci Technol. 2008 August 1; 42(15): 5772–5778.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16451846
Elemental mercury spills. Environ Health Perspect. 2006 Feb;114(2):147-52.

 

[mycroftt]

I'm sorry you feel that way. But like any chemical substance, it possesses a characteristics of bioavailability, solubility, etc...

CFLs do not contain a layer of liquid molecular mercury flowing within some easily-ruptured membrane.

For instance, if a toxin is contained within a resin, and the resin is what is disposed into the environment, the toxin will not be released instantaneously, but rather the rate of its release will depend on the rate of degradation of the resin, and on the cumulative surface area and number of the toxin particles within the resin, and the solubility of said particles or their vapor pressure. Same goes for consumption of the toxin. It is entirely possible to incorporate a lethal toxin into a resin, and yet have the toxin remain unavailable for incorporation into a biological system for an extended period of time. It is also possible to create a resin that aids in bioabsorption of a compound. These variables that comprise the science of Pharmacology must be taken into account, when we are talking about disposing of solid waste containing mercury.

Or are you going to claim that if I make a plastic cube, containing 1 kilogram of mercury as part of the mix, and dump it at a waste site, it is equivalent to pouring out 1 kilogram of liquid mercury (which, by the way is not nearly its most bioavailable form) onto the ground in the same place?

So I would have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of what I wrote.

What you wrote was nonsense not because of gross scientific inaccuracy but because you were chastising people for bringing up myths which nobody had brought up. If someone had actually claimed that you need to call the HazMat cleanup for a several thousand dollar cleanup of a broken CFL, your lecture about why it isn't necessary would have been timely and valuable. Instead it came off as a school marm chastising miscreant students for something they had not done.

You do it again when you argue that "CFLs do not contain a layer of liquid molecular mercury flowing within some easily-ruptured membrane." Nobody said, or thought, that they did.

Your "Or are you going to claim..." statement is childish petulance and not worthy of a rebuttal.

There is a mountain of reference material indeed. I assume the links you have provided are particularly informative ones - hopefully I'll have some time later today to read them. I have already read a mountain of material and have even made some small contribution myself in developing guidelines in my agency.

 

[gnius]

I was not trying to be antagonistic. I was responding to what I viewed as a common misconception. If I was wrong (which I will assume that I am, given your subsequent posts), then the worst case scenario is that my post was redundant, or even irrelevant. If I offended you by posting something that you viewed as being beneath you, then I'm sorry.

I also managed to miss some of your later posts when composing my last reply, specifically the one addressing mercury vapor within the bulb. Again, no offense was intended, and I apologize if it was taken. It will be a lesson not to skim a discussion I am participating in.

You brought up a very valid point with regards to the problems associated with the difficulty of disposal when it comes to the mercury contained in CFLs due to the myriad of small releases, rather than bulk contamination... a point I admit I haven't considered, and one that I will have to ponder.

 

[mycroftt]

For my part, rereading the thread, I could have responded with a simple "Hey, nobody is bringing up the myths about CFLs!" and avoided the whole misunderstanding, rather than adding fuel with an unclear condemnation of your post. I apologize both for snapping back at you and for writing poorly. I hope there is no lasting enmity and we can go back to enjoying your information-rich contributions.