Amazon Vehicles Beauty Return your textbook rentals STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Limited time offer Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Shop Shop Popular Services twinpeaksv2 twinpeaksv2 twinpeaksv2  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire HD 8 Kids Edition, starting at $129.99 Kindle Oasis Trade it in. Fund the next. National Bike Month on Amazon Ellen
Customer Discussions > Popular Science forum

Leftists infest another great magazine and destroy it


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-12 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 17, 2012, 6:14:20 PM PDT
Eclectic says:
If you want to read leftist faux-science propaganda, the "new" Popular Science for you. For everyone else, it's about as useless as the NY Times.

I've been subscribing to it for years, and finally canceled -- the magazine has become downright boring.

A great tragedy. I'm just hoping these people don't destroy Popular Mechanics.

Posted on Jun 25, 2012, 9:26:41 AM PDT
I called them also and told them to cancel me subscibtion

Posted on Jul 8, 2012, 7:35:29 PM PDT
Mike says:
It's too bad that they have succumed to pushing the leftist political agenda. It used to be a good magazine. I'm not renewing my subscription.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012, 3:31:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012, 3:33:03 PM PDT
It's Popular SCIENCE, not popular creationist right-wing propaganda. They're not going to publish stuff that is agenda-related, like Faux news. Go join the flat Earth society...

Posted on Mar 24, 2013, 2:39:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2013, 2:45:50 PM PDT
David says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Apr 2, 2013, 12:40:38 PM PDT
John says:
I gave up on Popular Science when they printed a "science" article entitled "Global Warming Destroyed My Hometown". Really? I thought weather and climate were not to be confused with one another.

Yeah, no political agenda there.

One day people will look back on global warming and laugh they way they do when they see decades of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazine covers predicting flying cars.

In reply to an earlier post on May 26, 2013, 1:00:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 26, 2013, 1:04:35 PM PDT
bfd_2009 says:
re: Sierra Vista Vision that's a shame...it may have, eventually, helped you learn to spell

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2013, 6:25:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 23, 2013, 6:28:05 AM PDT
Gregory says:
I recently used Consumer Reports when buying a new dishwasher. The model I selected, with its help, saves energy, is far quieter, cleans very effectively, and should be reliable. Energy conservation is just one factor.

Similarly, I've been using CFL lights for some time. I agree that the 60 watt replacements are dim. But, the 100 watt replacements are plenty bright, and still only consume 23 watts. And, I change them far, far less often than incandescents, saving me time as well as money. Five minute warm-up? 'Sorry, its maybe 1 second.

If it weren't for us "leftists" (really moderates), you wouldn't have the First Amendment right to read Consumer Reports, or the Flat Earth News. Nor, would the CFL or LED lamps have been invented.

Posted on Feb 8, 2014, 7:29:41 AM PST
Belerophon says:
I only read Popular science occasionally and have usually enjoyed the articles. I have not seen any real politics but I avoid the issues with what I would call pseudo science articles anyway. Now lets be clear hear I'm sure the articles about global warming were politically motivated, but wake up!! This is not just a problem with Popular Science itself its a problem with the scientific community as a whole. A quick read about the Manhattan Project should make that clear to anyone. A word about CFLs I use them they are the direct descendents of commercial Fluorescent lights. The incandescent light is ancient and inefficient technology. When I was growing up I remember an engineer down the block who had his whole house lit up by Fluorescent tubes. He said quite correctly that this was the future of lighting. But back to the issue at hand you should read a variety of magazines anyway ....... I usually will read Popular Mechanics, Science Digest, Scientific American and Discover magazine. Science may be objective but humans are not and you will always have to analyse and check sources to try and filter out bias, also a good bit of common sense helps.

Posted on Aug 31, 2014, 9:59:08 AM PDT
Matt says:
Oh wow. Right-wing nut jobs sticking their head in sand and ignoring scientific facts. Did you ever think that maybe, just MAYBE, your political views are overruling common sense?
Take a step back, realize all politics are crap, and consider something other than the ridiculous right-vs-left spin you have on every single thing anyone writes or speaks.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2015, 3:21:51 PM PDT
L. N. Davis says:
Excellent, fair and intelligent!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2016, 12:05:12 PM PST
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Fact: CFL lights take a long time to reach full brightness. Period. This is a matter of physics. The gas [argon and mercury vapor] inside the bulb emit photons as electrons change shell levels on the atoms. That does not happen efficiently until the gas has warmed up. Therefore, it takes time.

How long that takes depends on the ambient temperature. It can be a few minutes or it can take over ten minutes.

If you don't believe me then just go onto the websites of the manufacturers of the CFL bulbs and they openly discuss the warmup times of CFLs. Of course you know more than the manufacturers and engineers, right? Because you you think you know more, you will say nasty things to others. Therefore, since I think I know more than you [and I can prove it] you will have to endure me saying some nasty things to you.

Just because YOU are satisfied with the light output does not mean the light output is at full when you first turn the bulb on. To quote your own post:

"I agree that the 60 watt replacements are dim."

No they are not. I will prove that too.

The light output of bulbs is measured in "lumens." To declare a wattage equivalent, the light output must be within a certain range, a range that is similar to that of a 60 watt incandescent bulb. That is what "60W equivalent" means.

In the case of a CFL, that means when the LIGHT HAS WARMED UP it has a similar light output as a 60W incandescent bulb. Not all 60W incandescent bulbs have the same output, since coatings, shapes, durable filaments and other factors affect light output. But they are similar, within a certain range. The same is true when comparing a 60W incandescent to a 60W CFL or 60W LED.

For example:
A GE 60W equivalent [13W actual] bulb, available here on Amazon produces 870 lumens AFTER it has warmed up fully.
GE Lighting 68511 Energy Smart CFL 13-watt (60-watt replacement) 870 lumen light bulb with medium base, 6-pack

vs

A GE 60W incandescent, available here on Amazon that produces 840 Lumens
GE Lighting 41028 60-Watt A19, Soft White, 4-Pack

Th CFL actually produces MORE light than the incandescent, but not until it is WARMED UP!

So your environmentally responsible solution is to simply buy the 100 watt equivalent CFL so that the instantaneous light output is similar to a 60 watt equivalent after warmup. Then you want to tell someone else who is correct that they are wrong and then attack their politics too!

The cost to the environment for your decision is to consume "only" 23 watts instead of 13. That is a 43.5% increase in power consumption. If you use the bulb as many hours as in a typical household application that translates to about a quarter ton of CO2 per year or EACH one of those 100W equivalent bulbs you are using. An average home uses about 30 bulbs. If you are average then that is an additional 7.5 tons of CO2 per year. All that JUST so you can have the instant light of a 60W incandescent bulb.

Since the price of LEDs are almost as low as CFLs, why don't you use them? The average cost of an incandescent bulb is 94 cents, CFLs can now be had for about $1.60 for the non-dimmable type and LEDs are easily found for $2.00 for the non-dimmable type. The 40 cent difference in cost will be covered by the electric savings between a 60W CFL and a 60W LED in less than 6 months. Because you are using 100W CFLs, you will save instantly because the cheapest no-brand-name 100W equivalent CFLs are about $2.40 and most cost much more.

[A Note to readers: though prices are dropping very fast, 100W equivalent LEDs are still about 50% more than 100W equivalent CFLs within the same brand. However, the price difference will be covered by fuel savings in a year or two, depending on your local rates.]

The light in an LED is instant on and is typically of better quality than a CFL. Some brands of LED bulbs don't flicker at all and most others typically flicker much less than CFLs. All fluorescent lights including CFLs flicker.Also the color temperatures of LED bulbs are typically more desirable than CFLs.

LEDs last much longer, are easier to dispose of, contain no environmentally hazardous mercury [CFLs contain 1 to 5mg of mercury], are physically more durable so they can be used in ceiling fans, drop lights and other work lights where CFLs cannot be used. LEDs are less likely to be a cutting hazard. Why? Because of their shape CFLs must use very thin, easy to break glass. LEDs use thicker glass or in many cases unbreakable plastic.

A CFL, like any fluorescent light, can fail in such a way as to become a fire hazard and some have been known to start fires.

A CFL produces 10 times as much heat as an LED bulb. Not only is it possible for children to be burned by CFLs, but in air conditioned environments you use even MORE energy cooling the air heated by CFLs over LEDs.

Unlike CFLs, LEDs have no ultraviolet emissions so they don't damage the colors of fabrics or artwork and they do not attract insects making them ideal for porch lights. Even incandescent bulbs produce ultra violet light, but florescent lights, including CFLs use argon and mercury that natively create only ultraviolet light and that is converted to white light by the coating on the inside of the bulb tube(s). In contrast, most LEDs produce blue light natively and that is turned into white light by a different coating.

Ultraviolet light fades the colors of fabrics, paint, and photographs, It is a contributing factor in skin cancer and some people are photosensitive in the ultraviolet spectrum. It is also the primary component in what draws bugs to your porch light. That is why "bug zappers" use modified* florescent bulbs to attract bugs away from you and toward the zapper. [* Modified coating to convert less light into visible light and release more ultraviolet]. In order of ultraviolet emissions from most to least: Halogen (a lot!), Fluorescent (intermediate), Incandescent (moderate), LED (none).

CFLs are a poor choice for outdoor lighting in very cold or very hot climates because CFLs may not work in temperatures below -10°F [-18°C] nor above 120°F [49°C]. They can also take longer to start and longer to produce full light output even in just cool temperatures.

Unlike LEDs, CFLs are affected by humidity, so CFLs are a poor choice for bathrooms. Also, in bathrooms, closets, garage door openers and other locations where the light is used frequently for short periods of time, CFLs are a very poor choice because turning a CFL on and off will SUBSTANTIALLY reduce its life expectancy. CFLs are best where they are left on for a considerable time such as in living rooms and kitchens. [These are also where the light output will be closer to other bulbs because they have the time to warm up].

Now that we have shown that you don't know that much about light bulbs, let's look at your political statement.
====

"If it weren't for us "leftists" (really moderates), you wouldn't have the First Amendment right to read Consumer Reports, or the Flat Earth News. Nor, would the CFL or LED lamps have been invented. "

First, leftists are not moderates any more than conservatives are. Ironically, the further left someone is, the more moderate they view themselves. That usually applies to conservatives as well. The difference is that leftists always preach tolerance but rarely practice it.

Let's look at a few far left and far right people in history. We'll start at the worst: Mao Zedong [AKA Mao Tse-tung] liberal, who killed over 100 million of his own people in the name of liberalism. Joseph Stalin' liberal, who killed over 25 million people in the name of liberalism; Adolf Hitler, conservative, who killed at least 20 million in the name of conservatism, Czar Nicholas II, conservative, killed over 1 million; Emperor Hirohito, conservative, killed over 1 million; Prime Minister Pol Pot, liberal, killed over 1 million, President Kim Jong Il, liberal, killed over 1 million; President Saddam Hussein, conservative, killed over 1 million; President Ho Chi Minh, liberal, killed over 1 million.

That is not all, but I hope you get the point. The problem with polarized politics is that no matter which way you are polarized, it won't work. You claim you are a centrist? What a joke: "If it weren't for us "leftists" (really moderates), you wouldn't have the First Amendment right..."

Sorry, but by today's standards, the authors of the first amendment were quite conservative. It would be hard to say who has tried to yank more books out of our schools and libraries, liberals or conservatives, but it would be a close race. Conservatives usually go for the grab on things that challenge established religious tenets or are of a sexual nature, liberals tend to go for the grab on things advocating independence and self reliance, and religion. Liberals have also demanded that conservatives give them equal time on their private networks and radio stations which is direct contradiction to our constitutional guarantee of free association.

I am not conservative, nor liberal, nor even a centrist. I believe there are complex solutions to complex problems. I lean liberal on social issues, though there are exceptions and I lean conservative on fiscal issues and again there are exceptions. The problem with both liberals and conservatives is that they want everyone to fit into the same box, THEIR box and I find very very few exceptions to that.

I find both have a narrow view, are close minded and are arrogant. I will give the conservatives one small bone, they tend to actually listen and study their leaders and tend to be willing to criticize them while liberals just follow like sheep, even to their own destruction.

That is why we have big corporations like GE and DuPont making BILLIONS on the 'global climate change' fiasco. Oh don't get me wrong, I am a serious environmentalist. I recycle everything to the point where I wheel my garbage can to the curb only about once every three weeks. I also believe that man made climate change is real.

However, I studied meteorology in collage as part of one of my degrees. Because the "green scientists" have rather conveniently left out some critical factors when they talk about green house gasses, their calculations are extremely exaggerated. Of course this serves DuPont and GE and a bunch of Obama subsidized companies. In the mean time our oceans, water ways, rain forests and other key environments are literally being decimated while everyone ignores them in favor of the concerns over green house gasses.

Why have the Republicans started to embrace this too? Because there is more money to be made from joining the campaign than fighting it. Of course the Democrats will lay claim to this and beat the Republicans over the head with it. However, they should be careful. First, it is just a matter of time before the truth comes out. Remember the doomsdayers of today claim the warming world will kill everything but just 30 years ago they claimed everything was getting colder and we would all die from the cold. Second, most environmental policies have been initiated and passed under the Republicans, including our National Park system and most of the clean air policies.

The point is you can just admit you are a liberal. It is obvious, even by the way you write. That does not make you worse than the conservatives, it makes you about the same.

Remember what a one armed, one eyed zombie sees in the mirror: Another one eyed, one armed zombie that is missing the opposite eye and the opposite arm. What he sees is exactly the opposite of him but just as ugly.

You are ignorant and you are arrogant. That is just plain ugly.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Popular Science forum
Participants:  12
Total posts:  12
Initial post:  Jun 17, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 6, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

This discussion is about
Popular Science
Popular Science by Bonnier Corporation
4.2 out of 5 stars (1,210)