EPA Ignores Science to Propose Most Expensive Regulation in History

[daws101]

Compared to many other animals, humans are incredibly intelligent. Moreover, we have collectively accrued masses of data and facts, to the extent that we now refer to our present period as the Age of Information. Surely this large body of facts play a central role in our decision making about the world, right?

Well, unfortunately not. In fact, we often eschew facts for ideology. As a case example, let’s consider the strongly-held belief on the political right that industries and businesses are efficient and generative, whereas governments and state spending are considered inconveniences, or worse, impediments to development. Such beliefs represent an ideology – an organized set of beliefs that help us to make sense of the world. In keeping with this belief, companies such as Google and Apple are widely held up as golden examples of the power of self-driven innovation. But is this true? As observed by Mazzucato (2013), the Apple company in its early days was given a $500,000 cash injection in the form of a new business grant by the government. (link is external) As she points out, even when not directly funded, private businesses benefit from all kinds of state-funded research, including the development of “the internet, GPS, touchscreen displays and even the voice-activated smartphone assistant Siri.” Some of these developments obviously come from universities, many state funded, but many also find their origins in military research, which is clearly state-funded. Mazzucato goes on to point out that the NIH in the US pours tremendous sums into basic research benefitting the pharmaceutical industry, and the NSF financially supported the creation of the now-famous Google algorithm.

Upon exposure to such information, how are people likely to respond? People supporting state-funded enterprise and a strong government role in life will acknowledge these findings, perhaps even feeling that they “knew it all along” (even if they didn’t), what psychologists call the hindsight bias. Those opposing state-funds in business and healthcare are not likely to objectively read such information and dispassionately change their viewpoints to fit this new information. Rather, when faced with evidence disconfirming deeply held beliefs, we often ignore the new information, “doubling down” on the original belief. In psychology, we call this belief perseverance. Given that people will even cling to rather meaningless and newly formed beliefs, you can imagine how tenaciously we cling to deeply held, value-affirming beliefs linked to political ideologies. But we don’t just reinvest in the original belief; we often go on the attack, challenging the credibility of the source of the information or facts.

Clearly we can dismiss facts out of hand in preference of ideology. Even more troubling, we can also eschew ideology (or its content) to follow our social/political identities. In a fascinating study, Cohen (2003) manipulated message content and the supposed source of a message. When people were not given the position of their political party, they used their own beliefs as a source of information to guide their judgements. However, when informed how their political party voted or passed judgement, people went along with their political party, regardless of the message content and its relation to their own beliefs. Yet people were unaware of this effect (despite assuming that it happens to other people). In some ways, this should come as no surprise, given that we seek to fit in with others, to have a place within a social group, and often do not have sophisticated or informed political opinions on all topics. Voting with the herd can not only be easy but functionally adaptive.


You might ask “at the end of the day, does any of this matter?” You bet it does. Consider how we entrust our political leaders to make life-altering decisions after entrusting them to read and process all kinds of facts. Leading climate scientists, for instance, are “95% certain” that climate change is created by human-led activity (link is external). Yet many politicians have staked their careers denying climate change, and therefore find themselves clinging tenaciously to their original beliefs. With the weight of the evidence accumulating, it is true, some are slowly coming around. But facts don’t easily change ideology, leading instead to moves to underplay the risks of such climate change.

In many ways, this all reminds me of a topic I teach in one of my undergraduate classes. There is a belief in the so-called “Hot Hand” in basketball -- the belief that if a player is “hot” (i.e., just successfully made a shot on the basket) he/she is more likely to successfully make the next shot, relative to other players on the team. Sounds compelling enough, right? But the data simply don’t back this up (you can find more on this topic at these websites http://psych.cornell.edu/people/thomas-gilovich (link is external) and http://thehothand.blogspot.ca/ (link is external)). As interesting as it is that people hold such false beliefs, it is even more interesting how people cling to their original belief in the hot hand after learning that it is not supported by the facts. I’ve experienced this in class, where basketball fans become even MORE committed to their belief in the hot hand, even after I show them statistics and clear-cut demonstrations disconfirming the notion. After the first scientific papers emerged on this topic, basketball coaches actively disparaged the researchers, claiming that the researchers were clueless and that the findings were meaningless. Clearly, a more objective and sensible approach would be to thank these researchers for their hard work and expertise in statistically and empirically testing an assumption that could have serious implications for game strategy (and thus chances of winning championships etc).

This all looks rather comical and trivial in the context of sports, but the implications become evident when placed in the context of curbing climate change or plotting the financial course for our economies. Unfortunately, being drawn to ideology over facts is an all-to-present feature of human psychology, whether one is on the political left or right. The good news is that becoming aware of such biases can be the first step to overcoming them. The best defence is education (formal or informal), and the best approach to understanding the world is through open-mindedness and a hunger for facts (where possible). Chances are that if you agree with me, you’ll find this column eminently sensible; if you disagree, you’ll conclude that the author is driven by ideology.

References and Suggested Readings:

Cohen, J.L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808-822. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808


Facts? No Thanks, I’ve Got Ideology

Dead links???
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-of-innovation-busting-the-privatesector-myth

WTF???

nope

New Scientist | Science news and science articles from New Scientist

How about a site that doesn't admit political bias???
The New Scientist Admits Political Bias

and your source have no bias?

I am a Conservative who believes in conservation. I believe that areas of the wilderness should be protected completely from Man’s intrusions, while others should be managed – and to achieve the former money should be spent to purchase the land, not steal it through eminent domain laws. If environmentalists want to save a species, they should buy the land it sits on and station gun-toting guards at the perimeter of their land.


About Me


the words not credible and loser come to mind.
applicable to both of you.

You're about as "conservative" as Pol Pot. I have yet to see you submit a single post that contains any hint of conservatism.

Who do you think you're fooling?

You hit your head again ?
What I think you are yammering about is last paragraph and the highlighted "about me".
That's one , o fucked in the head one, is the blogger who obiwanker used a source
A non credible one.
Could be any less brain damaged?

?

 

[daws101]

brought to you by the folks

who thought putting mercury in millions upon millions of glass bulbs

was a great idea

The EPA was non existent when that was done.
It would be more accurate to give credit to the people who thought it was a great idea to spray DDT on school play grounds while school was in session.

Wrong again, numskull. Compact Fluorescent Bulbs were mandated during the Obama Administration.

False fluorescent bulbs have been around since the 1940s or even earlier.
Again you are full of shit.

 

[Obiwan]

Dead links???
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-of-innovation-busting-the-privatesector-myth

WTF???

nope

New Scientist | Science news and science articles from New Scientist

How about a site that doesn't admit political bias???
The New Scientist Admits Political Bias

and your source have no bias?

I am a Conservative who believes in conservation. I believe that areas of the wilderness should be protected completely from Man’s intrusions, while others should be managed – and to achieve the former money should be spent to purchase the land, not steal it through eminent domain laws. If environmentalists want to save a species, they should buy the land it sits on and station gun-toting guards at the perimeter of their land.


About Me


the words not credible and loser come to mind.
applicable to both of you.

You're about as "conservative" as Pol Pot. I have yet to see you submit a single post that contains any hint of conservatism.

Who do you think you're fooling?

You hit your head again ?
What I think you are yammering about is last paragraph and the highlighted "about me".
That's one , o fucked in the head one, is the blogger who obiwanker used a source
A non credible one.
Could be any less brain damaged?

?

And YOU talk about a credible source when you post sources that delete linked pages ON THEIR OWN SITE because they're bullshit???

 

[daws101]

Dead links???
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-of-innovation-busting-the-privatesector-myth

WTF???

nope

New Scientist | Science news and science articles from New Scientist

How about a site that doesn't admit political bias???
The New Scientist Admits Political Bias

and your source have no bias?

I am a Conservative who believes in conservation. I believe that areas of the wilderness should be protected completely from Man’s intrusions, while others should be managed – and to achieve the former money should be spent to purchase the land, not steal it through eminent domain laws. If environmentalists want to save a species, they should buy the land it sits on and station gun-toting guards at the perimeter of their land.


About Me


the words not credible and loser come to mind.
applicable to both of you.

You're about as "conservative" as Pol Pot. I have yet to see you submit a single post that contains any hint of conservatism.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Yeah, but he's a Lib...

You know, men can be women, white folks suddenly turn black, and all that bullshit.

Wow I for second I thought you were less dense than the op .


ost

 

[daws101]

nope

New Scientist | Science news and science articles from New Scientist

How about a site that doesn't admit political bias???
The New Scientist Admits Political Bias

and your source have no bias?

I am a Conservative who believes in conservation. I believe that areas of the wilderness should be protected completely from Man’s intrusions, while others should be managed – and to achieve the former money should be spent to purchase the land, not steal it through eminent domain laws. If environmentalists want to save a species, they should buy the land it sits on and station gun-toting guards at the perimeter of their land.


About Me


the words not credible and loser come to mind.
applicable to both of you.

You're about as "conservative" as Pol Pot. I have yet to see you submit a single post that contains any hint of conservatism.

Who do you think you're fooling?

You hit your head again ?
What I think you are yammering about is last paragraph and the highlighted "about me".
That's one , o fucked in the head one, is the blogger who obiwanker used a source
A non credible one.
Could be any less brain damaged?

?

And YOU talk about a credible source when you post sources that delete linked pages ON THEIR OWN SITE because they're bullshit???

False you have no evidence to backup that assumption.
Even if they deleted it does not change its credibility.
You're just desperate to make it seem that way lol.

 

[Obiwan]

How about a site that doesn't admit political bias???
The New Scientist Admits Political Bias

and your source have no bias?

I am a Conservative who believes in conservation. I believe that areas of the wilderness should be protected completely from Man’s intrusions, while others should be managed – and to achieve the former money should be spent to purchase the land, not steal it through eminent domain laws. If environmentalists want to save a species, they should buy the land it sits on and station gun-toting guards at the perimeter of their land.


About Me


the words not credible and loser come to mind.
applicable to both of you.

You're about as "conservative" as Pol Pot. I have yet to see you submit a single post that contains any hint of conservatism.

Who do you think you're fooling?

You hit your head again ?
What I think you are yammering about is last paragraph and the highlighted "about me".
That's one , o fucked in the head one, is the blogger who obiwanker used a source
A non credible one.
Could be any less brain damaged?

?

And YOU talk about a credible source when you post sources that delete linked pages ON THEIR OWN SITE because they're bullshit???

False you have no evidence to backup that assumption.
Even if they deleted it does not change its credibility.
You're just desperate to make it seem that way lol.

Then why would they delete their own source material , knowing that it could leave their article open to challenge???

You NEVER delete your "proof" unless it blows your entire case out of the water.

And then all you have is a bunch of hot air, with no proof whatsoever.

 

[daws101]

and your source have no bias?

I am a Conservative who believes in conservation. I believe that areas of the wilderness should be protected completely from Man’s intrusions, while others should be managed – and to achieve the former money should be spent to purchase the land, not steal it through eminent domain laws. If environmentalists want to save a species, they should buy the land it sits on and station gun-toting guards at the perimeter of their land.


About Me


the words not credible and loser come to mind.
applicable to both of you.

You're about as "conservative" as Pol Pot. I have yet to see you submit a single post that contains any hint of conservatism.

Who do you think you're fooling?

You hit your head again ?
What I think you are yammering about is last paragraph and the highlighted "about me".
That's one , o fucked in the head one, is the blogger who obiwanker used a source
A non credible one.
Could be any less brain damaged?

?

And YOU talk about a credible source when you post sources that delete linked pages ON THEIR OWN SITE because they're bullshit???

False you have no evidence to backup that assumption.
Even if they deleted it does not change its credibility.
You're just desperate to make it seem that way lol.

Then why would they delete their own source material , knowing that it could leave their article open to challenge???

You NEVER delete your "proof" unless it blows your entire case out of the water.

And then all you have is a bunch of hot air, with no proof whatsoever.

False there are any number of reasons any given site would delete material.
Your so called reasons don't even make the list .
Copyright problems are the major cause
.
I do love your completely no grasp of reality reasoning.

 

[bripat9643]

brought to you by the folks

who thought putting mercury in millions upon millions of glass bulbs

was a great idea

The EPA was non existent when that was done.
It would be more accurate to give credit to the people who thought it was a great idea to spray DDT on school play grounds while school was in session.

Wrong again, numskull. Compact Fluorescent Bulbs were mandated during the Obama Administration.

False fluorescent bulbs have been around since the 1940s or even earlier.
Again you are full of shit.

I said "compact fluorescent bulbs," numskull. And the government never forced you to buy them until a few years ago.

 

[daws101]

brought to you by the folks

who thought putting mercury in millions upon millions of glass bulbs

was a great idea

The EPA was non existent when that was done.
It would be more accurate to give credit to the people who thought it was a great idea to spray DDT on school play grounds while school was in session.

Wrong again, numskull. Compact Fluorescent Bulbs were mandated during the Obama Administration.

False fluorescent bulbs have been around since the 1940s or even earlier.
Again you are full of shit.

I said "compact fluorescent bulbs," numskull. And the government never forced you to buy them until a few years ago.

Meaningless as billions of fluorescent bulbs had been manufactured used put into land fills .
Compact fluorescents make up just a minscule fraction of the total.also the government never forced anyone to buy them.you can still buy incandescent bulbs anywhere .
You must have massive hemorrhoids from taking out your ass all the time.

 

[bripat9643]

brought to you by the folks

who thought putting mercury in millions upon millions of glass bulbs

was a great idea

The EPA was non existent when that was done.
It would be more accurate to give credit to the people who thought it was a great idea to spray DDT on school play grounds while school was in session.

Wrong again, numskull. Compact Fluorescent Bulbs were mandated during the Obama Administration.

False fluorescent bulbs have been around since the 1940s or even earlier.
Again you are full of shit.

I said "compact fluorescent bulbs," numskull. And the government never forced you to buy them until a few years ago.

Meaningless as billions of fluorescent bulbs had been manufactured used put into land fills .
Compact fluorescents make up just a minscule fraction of the total.also the government never forced anyone to buy them.you can still buy incandescent bulbs anywhere .
You must have massive hemorrhoids from taking out your ass all the time.

So when the EPA wants to shut down half the coal fired power plants in the country because they emit too much mercury, that was all just total bullshit? Is that really what you're admitting to?

It's funny, but when I go to my local hardware store or grocery store, they have no incandescent bulbs for sale. What country do you live in?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

However it was created is beside the point. The bottom line is that the EPA is infested by communist bent on destroying American capitalism. They are clearly bent on destroying American freedoms. They despise everything that made this country great. It's time for this agency to be reigned in. The only effective means to put an end to it's reign of destruction is to abolish it.

this qualifies you as unworthy of being taken seriously

 

[bripat9643]

However it was created is beside the point. The bottom line is that the EPA is infested by communist bent on destroying American capitalism. They are clearly bent on destroying American freedoms. They despise everything that made this country great. It's time for this agency to be reigned in. The only effective means to put an end to it's reign of destruction is to abolish it.

this qualifies you as unworthy of being taken seriously

Yeah, liberal turds like you despise people who tell the truth.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

However it was created is beside the point. The bottom line is that the EPA is infested by communist bent on destroying American capitalism. They are clearly bent on destroying American freedoms. They despise everything that made this country great. It's time for this agency to be reigned in. The only effective means to put an end to it's reign of destruction is to abolish it.

this qualifies you as unworthy of being taken seriously

Yeah, liberal turds like you despise people who tell the truth.

like I said...

 

[bripat9643]

However it was created is beside the point. The bottom line is that the EPA is infested by communist bent on destroying American capitalism. They are clearly bent on destroying American freedoms. They despise everything that made this country great. It's time for this agency to be reigned in. The only effective means to put an end to it's reign of destruction is to abolish it.

this qualifies you as unworthy of being taken seriously

Yeah, liberal turds like you despise people who tell the truth.

like I said...

Yes, you pretty much said that you're a dishonest moron.

 

[daws101]

The EPA was non existent when that was done.
It would be more accurate to give credit to the people who thought it was a great idea to spray DDT on school play grounds while school was in session.

Wrong again, numskull. Compact Fluorescent Bulbs were mandated during the Obama Administration.

False fluorescent bulbs have been around since the 1940s or even earlier.
Again you are full of shit.

I said "compact fluorescent bulbs," numskull. And the government never forced you to buy them until a few years ago.

Meaningless as billions of fluorescent bulbs had been manufactured used put into land fills .
Compact fluorescents make up just a minscule fraction of the total.also the government never forced anyone to buy them.you can still buy incandescent bulbs anywhere .
You must have massive hemorrhoids from taking out your ass all the time.

So when the EPA wants to shut down half the coal fired power plants in the country because they emit too much mercury, that was all just total bullshit? Is that really what you're admitting to?

It's funny, but when I go to my local hardware store or grocery store, they have no incandescent bulbs for sale. What country do you live in?

Nothing for me to admit.
If coal mines emit too much mercury then they should be shut down till the problem is fixed.
The too expensive excuse is bullshit.
I don't know what backwater hamlet you live in but incandescent bulbs are for sale at any Walmart, home Depot. Ace Hardware, grocery store . Or any place that sells lighting.
My guess is you are too busy faking a violation of your rights to look.

 

[daws101]

However it was created is beside the point. The bottom line is that the EPA is infested by communist bent on destroying American capitalism. They are clearly bent on destroying American freedoms. They despise everything that made this country great. It's time for this agency to be reigned in. The only effective means to put an end to it's reign of destruction is to abolish it.

this qualifies you as unworthy of being taken seriously

Yeah, liberal turds like you despise people who tell the truth.

like I said...

Yes, you pretty much said that you're a dishonest moron.

The op is the king of morons.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong again, numskull. Compact Fluorescent Bulbs were mandated during the Obama Administration.

False fluorescent bulbs have been around since the 1940s or even earlier.
Again you are full of shit.

I said "compact fluorescent bulbs," numskull. And the government never forced you to buy them until a few years ago.

Meaningless as billions of fluorescent bulbs had been manufactured used put into land fills .
Compact fluorescents make up just a minscule fraction of the total.also the government never forced anyone to buy them.you can still buy incandescent bulbs anywhere .
You must have massive hemorrhoids from taking out your ass all the time.

So when the EPA wants to shut down half the coal fired power plants in the country because they emit too much mercury, that was all just total bullshit? Is that really what you're admitting to?

It's funny, but when I go to my local hardware store or grocery store, they have no incandescent bulbs for sale. What country do you live in?

Nothing for me to admit.
If coal mines emit too much mercury then they should be shut down till the problem is fixed.
The too expensive excuse is bullshit.
I don't know what backwater hamlet you live in but incandescent bulbs are for sale at any Walmart, home Depot. Ace Hardware, grocery store . Or any place that sells lighting.
My guess is you are too busy faking a violation of your rights to look.

So it's bad if coal fired power plants emit mercury, but no problem if billions of mercury filled compact fluorescent bulbs are buried in landfills?

You know, it's hilarious that you are so stupid you don't see the fundamental contradiction in your post.

BTW, Home Depot and Lowe's both sell lighting of all kinds. What they don's sell is incandescent light bulbs. Neither does Publix or Winn Dixie or Costco or Sam's Club or Wallmart.

 

[daws101]

False fluorescent bulbs have been around since the 1940s or even earlier.
Again you are full of shit.

I said "compact fluorescent bulbs," numskull. And the government never forced you to buy them until a few years ago.

Meaningless as billions of fluorescent bulbs had been manufactured used put into land fills .
Compact fluorescents make up just a minscule fraction of the total.also the government never forced anyone to buy them.you can still buy incandescent bulbs anywhere .
You must have massive hemorrhoids from taking out your ass all the time.

So when the EPA wants to shut down half the coal fired power plants in the country because they emit too much mercury, that was all just total bullshit? Is that really what you're admitting to?

It's funny, but when I go to my local hardware store or grocery store, they have no incandescent bulbs for sale. What country do you live in?

Nothing for me to admit.
If coal mines emit too much mercury then they should be shut down till the problem is fixed.
The too expensive excuse is bullshit.
I don't know what backwater hamlet you live in but incandescent bulbs are for sale at any Walmart, home Depot. Ace Hardware, grocery store . Or any place that sells lighting.
My guess is you are too busy faking a violation of your rights to look.

So it's bad of coal fired power plants emit mercury, but no problem if billions of mercury filled compact flourescent bulbs are buried in landfills?

You know, it's hilarious that you are so stupid you don't see the fundamental contradiction in your post.

BTW, Home Depot and Lowe's both sell lighting of all kinds. What they don's sell is incandescent light bulbs. Neither does Publix or Winn Dixie or Costco or Sam's Club or Wallmart.

Did I say it was no problem ? Answer no I didn't
Nothing I've said is contradictory ,you just wish it was because you have no viable argument.
As to light bulbs your state must have phased them out faster than mine ,
No one is twisting your arm to buy the new ones.
Seems like living in the dark and shitting in an outhouse would be just the thing for a independent Patriot like yourself. Also if fluorescent lights in landfills bothers you so much are you willing to pay for clean up and removal?
Whether you admit it or not you helped put them there .
Bet there's one burning in your house right now.

 

[bripat9643]

I said "compact fluorescent bulbs," numskull. And the government never forced you to buy them until a few years ago.

Meaningless as billions of fluorescent bulbs had been manufactured used put into land fills .
Compact fluorescents make up just a minscule fraction of the total.also the government never forced anyone to buy them.you can still buy incandescent bulbs anywhere .
You must have massive hemorrhoids from taking out your ass all the time.

So when the EPA wants to shut down half the coal fired power plants in the country because they emit too much mercury, that was all just total bullshit? Is that really what you're admitting to?

It's funny, but when I go to my local hardware store or grocery store, they have no incandescent bulbs for sale. What country do you live in?

Nothing for me to admit.
If coal mines emit too much mercury then they should be shut down till the problem is fixed.
The too expensive excuse is bullshit.
I don't know what backwater hamlet you live in but incandescent bulbs are for sale at any Walmart, home Depot. Ace Hardware, grocery store . Or any place that sells lighting.
My guess is you are too busy faking a violation of your rights to look.

So it's bad of coal fired power plants emit mercury, but no problem if billions of mercury filled compact flourescent bulbs are buried in landfills?

You know, it's hilarious that you are so stupid you don't see the fundamental contradiction in your post.

BTW, Home Depot and Lowe's both sell lighting of all kinds. What they don's sell is incandescent light bulbs. Neither does Publix or Winn Dixie or Costco or Sam's Club or Wallmart.

Did I say it was no problem ? Answer no I didn't

Yes you did, asshole. Allow me to refresh your memory:

"Meaningless as billions of fluorescent bulbs had been manufactured used put into land fills ."​

Nothing I've said is contradictory ,you just wish it was because you have no viable argument.
As to light bulbs your state must have phased them out faster than mine ,
No one is twisting your arm to buy the new ones.
Seems like living in the dark and shitting in an outhouse would be just the thing for a independent Patriot like yourself. Also if fluorescent lights in landfills bothers you so much are you willing to pay for clean up and removal?
Whether you admit it or not you helped put them there .
Bet there's one burning in your house right now.

Yes, someone is twisting my arm, you fucking moron. The federal government is making the incandescent kind illegal.

You have to be brain dead not to know that.

Debating in this forum is so frustrating because it's so full of morons like you who have to be educated about the most obvious facts imaginable.

Answer this question: Is putting Mercury into the environment bad or not?

 

[daws101]

Meaningless as billions of fluorescent bulbs had been manufactured used put into land fills .
Compact fluorescents make up just a minscule fraction of the total.also the government never forced anyone to buy them.you can still buy incandescent bulbs anywhere .
You must have massive hemorrhoids from taking out your ass all the time.

So when the EPA wants to shut down half the coal fired power plants in the country because they emit too much mercury, that was all just total bullshit? Is that really what you're admitting to?

It's funny, but when I go to my local hardware store or grocery store, they have no incandescent bulbs for sale. What country do you live in?

Nothing for me to admit.
If coal mines emit too much mercury then they should be shut down till the problem is fixed.
The too expensive excuse is bullshit.
I don't know what backwater hamlet you live in but incandescent bulbs are for sale at any Walmart, home Depot. Ace Hardware, grocery store . Or any place that sells lighting.
My guess is you are too busy faking a violation of your rights to look.

So it's bad of coal fired power plants emit mercury, but no problem if billions of mercury filled compact flourescent bulbs are buried in landfills?

You know, it's hilarious that you are so stupid you don't see the fundamental contradiction in your post.

BTW, Home Depot and Lowe's both sell lighting of all kinds. What they don's sell is incandescent light bulbs. Neither does Publix or Winn Dixie or Costco or Sam's Club or Wallmart.

Did I say it was no problem ? Answer no I didn't

Yes you did, asshole. Allow me to refresh your memory:

"Meaningless as billions of fluorescent bulbs had been manufactured used put into land fills ."​

Nothing I've said is contradictory ,you just wish it was because you have no viable argument.
As to light bulbs your state must have phased them out faster than mine ,
No one is twisting your arm to buy the new ones.
Seems like living in the dark and shitting in an outhouse would be just the thing for a independent Patriot like yourself. Also if fluorescent lights in landfills bothers you so much are you willing to pay for clean up and removal?
Whether you admit it or not you helped put them there .
Bet there's one burning in your house right now.

Yes, someone is twisting my arm, you fucking moron. The federal government is making the incandescent kind illegal.

You have to be brain dead not to know that.

Debating in this forum is so frustrating because it's so full of morons like you who have to be educated about the most obvious facts imaginable.

Answer this question: Is putting Mercury into the environment bad or not?

Nice try slap dick stating a fact is not a contradiction,
False the government is phasing them out because they are inefficient and a 19th century technology that's out lived it's usefulness. That is in no way making them illegal, no one is going to jail you for having theme or raid your house to make you stop using them, although the idea no matter how insane probably gives you a hard on. .

As I said no one is twisting your arm.
Answer to your question, all existing mercury should be removed and and no new mercury be added if possible.
You have no room or right to judge the education or intelligence of any body ever.