Home

Vault

Green
Room

Ed
Morrissey Show

Green shock: CFLs more dangerous than first thought

posted at 8:32 pm on March 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The compact fluorescent lightbulb has plenty of supporters in the
environmental movement, even while concerns have grown about their disposal.
CFLs contain mercury, and when the glass breaks, it spreads the toxic dust in
the area. Boosters had previously dismissed concerns over the issue, but now
researches worry about the collective effect their massive
disposal will have on landfills once they start failing in large numbers:

Compact fluorescent light bulbs, long touted by environmentalists as a more
efficient and longer-lasting alternative to the incandescent bulbs that have
lighted homes for more than a century, are running into resistance from waste
industry officials and some environmental scientists, who warn that the bulbs’
poisonous innards pose a bigger threat to health and the environment than
previously thought. …

As long as the mercury is contained in the bulb, CFLs are perfectly safe.
But eventually, any bulbs — even CFLs — break or burn out, and most consumers
simply throw them out in the trash, said Ellen Silbergeld, a professor of
environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University and editor of the
journal Environmental Research.

“This is an enormous amount of mercury that’s going to enter the waste
stream at present with no preparation for it,” she said.

Even a single CFL could provide toxic levels of exposure for mercury. One
contains five milligrams of mercury, which would be enough to contaminate 6,000
gallons of drinking water. Low-mercury models have about one-sixth of the
amount, but that’s still enough to contaminate 1,000 gallons. It makes the CFL
one of the most toxic components of a household, one that causes kidney and
brain damage when people get exposed to enough of it.

What happens when an incandescent bulb hits the floor?
Simple: sweep it up, and try not to step on a shard of glass with bare feet.
Here’s how people need to handle a broken CFL:

1. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
2. Shut off
the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.
3.
Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard
and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a
sealed plastic bag.
4. Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any
remaining small glass fragments and powder.
5. Wipe the area clean with
damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the glass jar or
plastic bag.
6. Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on
hard surfaces.
7. Immediately place all cleanup materials outside the
building in a trash container or outdoor protected area for the next normal
trash.
8. Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags
containing cleanup materials.
9. Check with your local or state government
about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states prohibit such
trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a
recycling center.
10. For at least the next few times you vacuum, shut off
the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window prior
to vacuuming.
11. Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off
and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is
completed.

Er, that’s quite a commitment for a lightbulb. I have several of
these around the house, and I had no idea that a break could require such an
intense cleanup. Like others who bought these products, I hoped to save a little
energy and drive down replacement costs.

And guess what — I can’t even throw these in the garbage, broken or unbroken.
As MS-NBC reports, Minnesota requires that I take any CFLs to a disposal center
certified to handle them. I didn’t know that until tonight, and I have no idea
where such a center might be. It does make sense, though, considering the
disposal issues involving mercury.

In other words, we have opted for a product that has much more impact on our
environment and could turn households into toxic-waste sites to replace a
product that uses a little more energy, a change driven ironically by
environmentalists. What’s next — lead containers to replace Tupperware?

Tags: Minnesota

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments
from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air
management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because
we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting
privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Right Voices

Pro Cynic

Baseball Crank

jeux poker

enquête casino on net

Blatant Reality » Blog Archive » Barack Obama's
Love/Hate Relationship with Toxic Mercury

Towards a (Re)Definition of Sustainability: Justin Van
Kleeck and Caroline Savery. 2-Caroline : Sustainablog

A bright idea? « The Green Scene

ecotyrants.com » Blog Archive » Stopping Global
Warming by poisoning our water

The DNC’s “Director of Greening” and “Carbon Advisor”
«

BOHICA » Cold Fury

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: The light bulb goes …
off

Government forcing us to switch from regular light
bulbs to fluorescents because they are better for the environment. Really? «
Are you Freaking Stupid?

Comments

Comment pages: «
Previous 1
2
3

I have been using CFLs for several years. My first couple burnt out rather
soon. So I started writing the installation date on the base. Over many bulbs of
various brands, I am averaging about a year’s life per bulb. This is MUCH LOWER
than the advertised life. At this rate, the savings in power is being
overshadowed by the increased cost of the bulbs. I have a few more left, but I’m
not going to buy any more.

Seabecker on March 20, 2008 at 2:30
PM

I remember the good ol’ days when we were worried about pollution, and all
kinds of nasty chemicals. Not any more!!!!! Now, as long as we aren’t putting
CO2 into the atmo, almost anything goes.

Seabecker on March 20, 2008 at 2:40
PM

I still can’t believe nobody has addressed or acknowledged the fact that we
have been in the presence of this exact same technology in Malls, offices,
grocery stores, hospitals, government buildings, and garages for our entire
lives!

What’s the big effin deal?

beefytee on March 20, 2008 at 2:43
PM

So are you saying that the mercury is in the bulb itself? That sounds
rather strange to me, because I’ve never heard of the BULB having mercury,
JUST the transformer. Perhaps we can get some clarification on this point?

wearyman on March 20, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Fluorescent lights require (1) a low-pressure gaseous medium to conduct the
current and (2) a phosphorescent coating on the glass to produce and diffuse the
light. The mercury is present in both liquid (to assure the gas is present) and
gaseous (the conducting medium) form.

The “transformer” you refer to is really a “starter,” which is necessary to
ignite the bulb and limit the current through it. The “starter,” (which may be
electromagnetic, electronic, or a combination of both), is always a frequent
source of failure in fluorescent bulbs, and can overheat and cause other
problems. In industrial fluorescent lighting, you can replace the starter
separately, but with the Chinese CFL bulbs, you get to throw the whole bulb away
when the starter fails.

If you break a CFL you have a combination of solid, liquid, and gaseous
poisons to contend with, and if the glass breaks your skin, you have to deal
with the fact that you may have introduced these poisons into your bloodstream.

Wasteful? YES: CFL’s cost 7-20 times the comparable incandescent solution,
and they don’t work at all in many fixtures. They inherently flicker, and will
go out altogether if the local power factor strays too far from 1.0 (as it
sometimes does in industrial areas or in your home when your air conditioner
starts up). They are also more susceptible to irreversible damage from power
spikes: especially if electronic starters are used (a single short-duration
spike over 600V will kill electronic starters every time). The light they put
out is almost always the wrong spectrum, which results in a requirement for more
illumination (i.e. you must turn on more bulbs) in order to get adequate
light.

And if you are so concerned about “the environment,” why aren’t you asking
how many pounds of non-recyclable and/or toxic waste there will be from CFL vs
the comparable amount of incandescent illumination?

landlines on March 20, 2008 at 2:47
PM

If you break a CFL you have a combination of solid, liquid, and gaseous
poisons to contend with, and if the glass breaks your skin, you have to deal
with the fact that you may have introduced these poisons into your
bloodstream.

still, tell me how this is any different from the existing technology found
all over the world.

The only difference I can see (if someone can show me great) is that the
CFL’s have thicker glass that the industrial type.

beefytee on March 20, 2008 at 2:52
PM

replacing all of them with CFL lights saved us an average of about $50.00
each month

Really?

Lets do some math:
60 Watt lightbulb, vs. 15 Watt CFL (standard
replacement).

The average cost of electricity in 2006 (the first number I could find) was
9.86¢/kWh. Maybe not perfect, but probably close.

Lets assume you use a light bulb 12 hours/day, in a 30 day month (just to get
some numbers for one bulb). 12 * 30 = 360 Hours * 45 watts(saved) = 16,200
watt/hours, or 16.2 KWh… or it will save you (16.2 * 9.86 = ) $1.60 per month to
switch that bulb. Now you’re saving $50/month. 50.00 / 1.6 = 31.25. So you have
30+ light bulbs in your house that run 12+ hours a day (or some variation on
that theme).

To save $50 you use over (30 * 12) 360 (60-watt or equivalent) light bulb
hours per day for lighting your home (by whatever formula for hours & light
bulbs you have)?

Or, another way to get there, 15-16 light bulbs left on 24/7? Are you really
using that much lighting?

I’m not going to call you wrong, maybe you’ve got a mansion, maybe you leave
every light on 24/7, maybe you’ve got 4-6 lights per room… but your usage is
well outside the average range I suspect.

gekkobear on March 20, 2008 at 2:57
PM

landlines on March 20, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Thank you for the information, I was entirely unaware of the toxins present
inside the spiral tube of a CFL.

However, the last part of your comment is rather confusing. I thought I was
quite clear that I bought them to save money on my electric bil, not to “save
the environment”.

I have had reservations about the environmental benefits of CFL bulbs for
some time, simply due to the fact that they MUST take more energy to manufacture
simply to to their more complex design.

Now that I have a better understanding of the toxicity of the bulbs, I’m
going to see if there is anywhere I can purchase any LED light bulbs in my
area.

I still want to save money, so I’d rather not have to go back to old
Incandescent bulbs again.

wearyman on March 20, 2008 at 3:03
PM

I’m not going to call you wrong, maybe you’ve got a mansion, maybe you
leave every light on 24/7, maybe you’ve got 4-6 lights per room… but your
usage is well outside the average range I suspect.

gekkobear on March 20, 2008 at 2:57 PM

There’s another possibility that people really don’t take into consideration,
but I will say it definitely happened to me.

I got these light bulbs and suddenly I’m conscious of when they’re on and
don’t need to be…so I friggin turn them off when I leave the room, or when I
notice they’re on and no one is IN that room. Also, it made me more aware that
my PS3 is sometimes left on even over night…not any more. Same with other
entertainment components.

This light bulbs, if absolutely nothing else, made me become a more
responsible and efficient consumer of energy.

This teamed up with using a product that by all arguments IS in fact more
efficient, PLUS con-ed’s system and seeing my consumption drop…these things
combined are most likely what netted my $40.00 savings.

Still, I’m happy with it, and the CFL’s were the catalyst.

beefytee on March 20, 2008 at 3:07
PM

gekkobear on March 20, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Methinks your calculations are wrong, or aren’t taking exorbitant NY State
taxes into account.

All I can tell you is that in a 1200 SQ foot Cape Cod home, built in the
1950′s with up to date electric systems and Gas heat, after I went through and
replaced all our incandescent bulbs with CFL’s our electric bills went down
about $50.00 on average. This was DURING THE WINTER when we tend to use lights
much more often.I didn’t notice as much change during the summer months.

If you are wondering how I noticed, I have a large filing system where I file
all my paid bills and other important paperwork. It was easy as pie to go back a
year or two and check and compare on a month-to-month basis. My bills went down
an AVERAGE of roughly $50.00 after we swapped to CFL’s.

You can throw out all the fancy numbers you want, but my bills trump them as
far as me and my wallet are concerned. ;)

wearyman on March 20, 2008 at 3:11
PM

The part that makes me cringe is the blather about how much less heat the
CFLs generate. They’re actually calling this an advantage. That’s because
they don’t think.

The annual cooling season is shorter than the annual heating season for the
majority of Americans. Most of us run our furnace for more of the year than we
run our air conditioning units; October – April for the furnace, June –
September for the AC (obviously, it’s different if you live in Phoenix or
Birmingham). Light bulbs actually produce a measurable amount of heat in the
average home — not nearly as much as the refrigerator, but enough that
architects sizing AC units and furnaces take them into account. If we replace
incandescent bulbs with cooler bulbs, we’ll have to replace the btus by running
the furnace, most of which burns fossil fuels — natural gas, fuel oil, and some
is electrical. Net result: cooler bulbs = more furnace usage.

I’ve never seen an analysis of the new bulbs mention this.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog:
Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com/. Thanks.)

philwynk on March 20, 2008 at 3:55
PM

The truly galling thing about measures like the incandescent light ban is the
arrogance evidenced by them. At the root of every such measure is some group of
people who genuinely, in their heart of hearts, thinks “The only reason
everybody doesn’t live the way I live is that they are too stupid to
change the way I’ve changed.” They can’t wait for the market to replace the
“inferior” product with the “superior” product; they have to force us all to
change, for our own good.

The irony is that the market proves they’re wrong. If the “superior” way
really were superior, it would not be necessary to force most people to change;
they’d do it on their own. Invariably — without a single exception that I can
think of — the market has chosen not to make the change because of perfectly
valid reasons that consumers notice but “experts” don’t. Thus, every time an
environmentalist move forces a change in practice not already underway by market
forces — every time — a better practice is being replaced by a less
effective one.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog:
Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com/. Thanks.)

philwynk on March 20, 2008 at 4:03
PM

Feedie here; irked as always. :-) Here are long
and short articles on the CFL and its many problems. I use 3 of
them in one kitchen fixture where changing bulbs is a nuisance. The color isn’t
bad, but the fixture has a milky white glass diffuser. These bulbs look
unpleasant just about everywhere else. Don’t care for them in the living room
and there is something that is just wrong about them in porch
lights.

Manufacturers had a role in pushing the incandescent ban — another sore
point. Also the companies persistently cheat on the lumen output for an
equivalent incandescent. Today’s business climate squeezes everything ’till it
bleeds and low quality in the power electronics can have dire consequences. See
the links above for some good illustrations. And when it’s cold, who hasn’t
occasionally used a 100W bulb in a service light to protect pipes from
freezing?

Thanks Bush; thanks Congressmen. If imbeciles could fly, the White House and
Congress would be airports.

Feedie on March 20, 2008 at 4:47
PM

Ok, I see a lot of posts here about saving money but no real values of bucks
saved. Can someone please give me a cost breakdown of just how much money they
have saved by using CFL’s instead of incandescent light bulbs. No theoretical
assumptions either. Please include the cost per KW hour that you pay for
electricity seasonally averaged and the KW hours saved.

Oldnuke on March 20, 2008 at 5:00
PM

Well, whether they are good or bad doesn’t matter any more. Our Congress and
the president have banned incandescent light bulbs which must be phased out by
2012 as part of the massive energy bill. And nobody seems to care except for a
few libertarians. If you are like me and hate CFLs, which, by the way, also have
been known to cause headaches and trigger epileptic seizures, you’d better start
stocking up on incandescent bulbs. I wonder how many congressmen took a nice
lobbyist trip and campaign contributions from manufacturers of CFLs? Our
government has a tendency to pass regulations without looking at long term
ramifications. Is this going to be like the MTBE gasoline fiasco in California?
The government screws up everything they get involved with!!!

Special K on March 20, 2008 at 6:01
PM

Oh, heck yeah. That, and the low-flo shower heads.

JetBoy on March 19, 2008 at 9:06 PM

Low-flo? I don’t like the sound of that.

soundingboard on March 20, 2008 at 6:19
PM

The problem is that the non-compact fluorescent bulbs were big and long, and
could not be tossed so easily into the garbage, leaving the garbagemen able to
see and reject the burned-out bulbs, forcing people to dispose of them properly,
more or less.

CFLs are no bigger than a standard bulb, and there’s no way anybody’s diving
through garbage looking for them. One million times “Oh, it’s just one bulb,
it’s too big a bother to dispose of it properly” equals one million
improperly-disposed-of fluorescent bulbs.

Sekhmet on March 20, 2008 at 7:20
PM

If you are wondering how I noticed, I have a large filing system where I
file all my paid bills and other important paperwork. It was easy as pie to go
back a year or two and check and compare on a month-to-month
basis.

I’m not saying your wrong, and the NE seaboard has a much higher KWh than the
rest of the country. Looking over a 2003 chart (again, what I could find) at
“http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html” NY looks awful.

I live in Colorado, used to Live in Kansas (8.14 and 7.71 cents/KWh, looks to
be median numbers for that year). The Chart shows NY as 14.31 for the state.
Beyond that, Cape Cod may very well be pricier than most of NY (so above average
there), and I was in a lower cost area of Kansas I think…

I’d be curious to know what your KWh usage is (if that’s on the bills) but no
biggie. Your location helps explain the discrepancies.

Where I live, I’ve lived by myself in apartments where my electric bill
didn’t hit $50, and I had 3 roommates once in Kansas in a 4 bedroom duplex and I
don’t think we ever cleared $150 for the electric bill (but expenses in Lawrence
Kansas don’t exactly relate 1:1 to Cape Cod). :) And I think Lawrence is off
Wolf Creek Power Plant from KCP&L, which is one of the few Nuclear plants
running, so that could affect the cost too.

So a $50 savings (when mine now is $60-80, live alone, 2 bedroom condo)
sounded iffy. But when you’re paying double or more for electricity, that
changes things (both the usage calculation, and the savings).

I’d be curious to know what you pay per KWh today (which may be on your
current bill). That would help give an idea of how that $50 savings would
correlate elsewhere.

Again, though, no pressure. Knowing you’re in one of the worst areas for
electric costs (California and NY seem to fight for the top of that list)
answers the questions I had about your statement.

I’ll try to remember there are places where the simple cost of living is more
than twice what I’ve known, and therefore people stating savings aren’t talking
in “my dollars”… and I’ll avoid moving to Hawaii.

But yes, as lighting is generally 1/6th of electric usage, your bill must be
staggering (to those of us in cheap electricity land).

Oh, HA, March 18th news story quote “The average cost of electricity is
higher on Cape Cod than it is in any state in the continental United States.
”

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/NEWS/803180325

So yeah, you’re in the worst of the worst.

And, looking for another story (from Dec. last year)… “Climate and customer
ownership of Colorado Springs Utilities combine to rank the typical Springs
residential energy bill as fifth-lowest in
the nation, according to a recent
study of 300 cities.”.

Sorry, the simple comparison I did in my head here wasn’t really comparable,
worse than any state VS one of the low 5 cities nationwide. Yeah, that’s not
going to relate well.

gekkobear on March 20, 2008 at 7:51
PM

FYI

gekkobear on March 20, 2008 at 7:51 PM

Wearyman’s use of Cape Cod refers to a type of house. The place Cape Cod is
in Massachusetts

dentalque on March 20, 2008 at 8:34
PM

And all my eco-nut “friends” thought I was nuts to replace all my bulbs with
LED bulbs.

opusrex on March 20, 2008 at 10:55
PM

Wearyman’s use of Cape Cod refers to a type of house. The place Cape Cod is
in Massachusetts

I wondered, but honestly I have no clue. Either about North-East USA
geography or about home buying/styles. I rent, and I’ve never been closer to NY
than Chicago.

And the extra research did show that apparently I live in a below average
cost area… My electric bill January (I don’t save them, but that one missed the
trash) was $39.58 for electricity (2 bedroom condo, total 450 KWh for 33 days).
I know I can’t save $50/month.

And switching over for $5/month? Hell, when I first looked into it, each bulb
was around $5.

Sorry, I didn’t realize the extent of the cost of living sticker shock when I
wrote that first post. Remind me not to move to New York without getting paid a
hell of a lot more.

gekkobear on March 20, 2008 at 11:29
PM

When incandescent bulbs are outlawed, only the outlaws will have incandescent
bulbs.

electric-rascal on March 21, 2008 at 4:49
AM

It comes as no shock to me that a left-wing “solution” only causes more
problems downstream. Isn’t that the way with all their ideas? Got poor people?
Easy, just start writing them checks every month. You say that will torpedo
their family and sap their desire to move up and they’ll become dependent on
those checks? You heartless fascist, you!

Kafir on March 21, 2008 at 8:32
AM

Where can you buy LED light bulbs? I thought they were hugely expensive, very
bulky, and cast very little light. Is that true?

Outlander on March 21, 2008 at 9:19
AM

Want to know if these bulbs are dangerous? Take the ultimate test– TRY TO
TAKE ONE ON AN AIRPLANE.

Bicyea on March 21, 2008 at 10:49
AM

There is the same amount of mercury in these bulbs as in a rectal
thermometer. Let’s just stick them in our #$^^ and when it glows we have a
fever.

Trying to dispose of them in the regulated manner is tooooooo costly that
their value as an energy saver is well below the economic realities to make the
claim they are cheaper over the long term.

Let me think. Before electric light there was gas/coal fired fixtures. Let’s
take a step back and use gas/coal fired fixtures or candles to light up our
lives.

No can do. That would increase our carbon foot print and it takes up oxygen
to stay lit and we need to breath to stay alive.

Another foolish factor that has not been considered, is the fact that when we
exhale (and we must or die) we are emitting Carbon Dioxide (green house gas and
necessary for the plants to absorb in their process of emitting oxygen that we
must inhale).

Life is a vicious circle of choices. But, I sense we can make the right
choice on our own, and do not need the help of environmentalists that do not
understand physics to tell us how to survive in the world today.

MSGTAS on March 21, 2008 at 10:51
AM

this thread is intersting. i do not know about you folks but i checked my
electric bills. my average electric bill over the last 19 months is 64.79.

if i could save $50 a month by switching to cfl then it whould mean i could
operate:

air conditioner
refridgarator
televisions
dish washer
clothes
washer
computer and printer
stereo
clothes dryer even though its gas it
still uses electricty
furnuce though gas still uses
electricty
phones
vaccumm cleaner
garage opener
my wood working
shop(hobby)
weed eater blower trimmer
sump pump
and others i have not
listed

for 14.79 a month. I DO NOT THINK SO.

i truly do not know af any one spend $50 a month on lighting.

if you do please post.

TomLawler on March 21, 2008 at 3:21
PM

Want to know if these bulbs are dangerous? Take the ultimate test–
TRY TO TAKE ONE ON AN AIRPLANE.

Bicyea on March 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Heeheheehee!!

Califemme on March 21, 2008 at 6:42
PM

For some real energy savings insulate your house with
cellulose instead of
fiber glass. cellulose is made with 80% recycled paper/ 20% borax, and uses very
little energy
to make. Energy savings of up to 50% (heating +
cooling)
have been proven. This would have a bigger impact on the enviroment
and be the best posable use for many newspapers
that are out there.

aceinstall on March 21, 2008 at 8:41
PM

Comment pages: «
Previous 1
2
3

You must be logged
in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.

Logged in as . Log
out »

Note: your comment may take up to 30 seconds to show up on the site
(longer, if it goes into moderation). Please do not resubmit.

Axelrod:
Why are we wasting time talking about which dogs Obama ate as a kid?

Secretary
Salazar: “Not even Harry Potter” has the ability to lower gas prices

New
York Times experiment in self-awareness lasts all of two days

The
Ed Morrissey Show: Guy Benson, John Lott

Finally:
Obama “slow jams the news”

GreenRoom

Meet
Obama’s field general

Themage*:
60 Minutes, Media Matters, and media narrative-building on Christians and
Israel

Official
WH word: Obama has not yet held a campaign rally

Busted:
Autistic child wearing ‘wire’ exposes abusive teacher

Why
Obama’s war on oil speculators is poppycock (Choose – onions or corn)

How
I learned to stop worrying about “manufactured” outrage

Who
wants a debate on education “fairness?”

Support
for claim that niece of suspected Etan Patz killer was raped by uncle

TSA
nabs 4-year-old terrorism suspect in act of hugging crime-partner
grandma

Comic
video titled “Pray for (WH dog) Bo”: Pass it along

Hot Links

Right
Channels

Ace of Spades
HQ

Andrew
Malcolm

Andrew Marcus

BigGovernment.com

Daily
Caller

Defining
Ideas

Doug Powers

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

Evan Coyne
Maloney

Fausta's Blog

Gateway Pundit

La Shawn Barber’s
Corner

Le·gal
In·sur·rec·tion

Matt
Lewis

Michelle
Malkin

Nevada Caucus Results

Newsbusters

NRA News

Patterico

Poll
Tracker

Power Line

Pundit &
Pundette

Real Clear
Politics

Ricochet

Right Wing
News

South Carolina Primary Results

The Shark Tank

The Sundries Shack

Tip Sheet
Blog

Townhall

Left
Channels

BloggingHeads TV

Evil Google
Current

War on
Terror

Blogging
the Qur’an

Counterterrorism
Blog

Flag911

Jihad Watch

Masih TV

MEMRI TV

Michael Yon

NEFA Foundation

Zombie

Audio
podcasters

Ashbrook
podcasts

Blogtalkradio

Instapundit

John
Derbyshire

Scrappleface

Shire Network
News

Cartoons/Satire

Conservative eCards

Day by Day

Doug TenNapel

Mallard
Fillmore

Political
Cartoons

Entertainment

Happy Slip

John
Hanlon Reviews

Industry/Internet
TV

Ed
Driscoll

Jim Treacher

Johnny Dollar

Olbermann Watch

Roger L.
Simon

Hangouts

Drudge Report

Linkiest

Lucianne

Memeorandum

Twitchy

Talkers

Hugh
Hewitt

KFI – Los
Angeles

Kirby Wilbur

Lars Larson

Laura Ingraham

Mark Levin

Michael
Graham

Michael
Smerconish

Mike
Gallagher

Radio Vice
Online

Roger Hedgecock

Rush Limbaugh

Sean
Hannity

Tammy Bruce

Hot Air
Affiliates

Brian
Maloney

David Lunde

Investigative
Project

Jawa Report

Shire Network News

Suitably Flip

¡No
Pasarán!

Feeds

Subscribe in a reader

Recent Tags

obama

romney

election

republican

2012
presidential election

Secret Service

2012 Republican
primary

Delaware

Gingrich

Barack Obama

military

Democrats

DNC

deficit

North Carolina

economy

Social Security

Pennsylvania

White House

dog

debt

campaign

GSA

media bias

rick
perry

© 2006-2012 Hot Air | Designed by The
Blog Studio | Terms of Use | About | Advertise