Made In USA ? Yeah, Right !

We are in trouble. Deep trouble. Trouble with a capital T, right here in River City.

The United States has become almost totally dependent on other countries for everything. Clothing. Shoes. Computers and other electronics. Automobiles. Toys. Illegal immigrant workers. To a growing extent, even food. (I guess we should he happy that at least a large portion of the Japanese cars we buy are assembled in U.S. facilities, albeit by non-union workers.)

God help us if we ever go to war with China. They might have the largest army on the planet, but they wouldn’t have to fire a single shot. All China has to do is turn off the flow of goods they are flooding the United States with. We would starve to death. If you think the melamine flavored pet food or the lead-tainted toys from China are a problem, you ain’t seen nothing yet. It seems that even most of the products that still carry the “Made In USA” label contain at least some ingredients or components from China or other countries. I don’t mean to sound anti-China. I would be just as concerned if everything in America was coming from Russia, Argentina or Australia. I don’t think we would even be able to continue manufacturing the few things we still make in the USA if the supply of foreign components was cut off. We have very little manufacturing capacity left in the United States. Without our ability to manufacture things during World War II, America would have lost the war.

It looks like most automobile parts sold here are now coming from China. Silly me. I was worried that if they cut off the supply of auto parts, we would all be using bicycles to get around. Not to worry, since I think the bicycles are all made in China now also. Since the same holds true for our shoes, I guess we’ll be running around barefoot.  Read our related article about the questionable claims of “Made in USA” and how companies like the New Balance Shoe Company take advantage of the rules regarding what constitutes “Made In USA”.  We empathize with this fellow blogger after reading their post about the frustrating experience they had trying to buy a pair of New Balance shoes that were “Made In USA”.

Even without a war, could our military buy all the material it needs if a strict “buy American” rule was enforced? (And could someone please tell me why, when material is for military use, is it spelled materiel …or materiele, and pronounced “mah-tear-ree-elle”? Don’t they have a spell checker?) …but I digress.

I still seek out products that say MADE IN USA, but they are becoming scarcer and scarcer. Even things you assume are made or grown here often are not. I’m all for a law that would require product labels to identify the country of origin of every component in a product, and on every ingredient in food items sold in America.

I should have known trouble was brewing back in the early 1990’s. I bought a Dell computer that came in a carton that proudly proclaimed “MADE IN U.S.A”. I think it even had an American flag printed on the box. Michael Dell, shame on you. I’ve always admired people like Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and the other icons of the American computer industry, but I feel that Dell Computer lied to me. I love to take things apart, put them back together again, and void the warranty in the process. The first thing I did with that Dell computer was to open it up and take it apart. I couldn’t find anything inside that was made in the USA. It was assembled from parts made in China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, and elsewhere. I couldn’t find a single component made in the USA. I think that carton should have said “ASSEMBLED in USA”, not “MADE in USA”. Of course, Dell is no different than any other computer company. Nobody makes computers in America. They once did, though; IBM, Univac, Burroughs, Control Data, Digital Equipment, and on and on. Most of them are gone, and those that survive are different companies now. No more American “big iron”.

Go visit the Home Depot, and check out the plumbing aisle. Nearly everything is labeled “Made In China”. We won’t even be able to flush our toilets if they cut off the flow of merchandise.

Wake up, America. It may be cheap, but you’re not getting a bargain.

What’s In That Cup of Diet Soda?

Did you know that the ingredients in “fountain” soda are different than those in bottled or canned soda products, at least with diet soda? (You may call it “pop”, depending on where you live.)

I like to read labels. One of the things I avoid is saccharin. Being the curious type, I have been known to read the labels on those metal syrup cannisters you may sometimes see in stores that have soda fountains. I’ve read the labels on diet Coca-Cola and diet Pepsi cannisters. While I don’t have a list of which brands or flavors of fountain soda contain saccharin (or other ingredients you wouldn’t find in their bottled or canned counterparts), I believe that most diet fountain soda contains saccharin. For this reason, I avoid buying any diet soda dispensed by fountains.

Why the different formulation for fountain-dispensed diet sodas? My guess is that since consumers would not normally see the ingredient list for fountain soda, the manufacturers use whatever artificial sweetener is cheapest. Most people I know are concerned enough about the possible health or cancer risks of saccharin that they will only use aspartame, sucralose, or another artificial sweetener, or no artificial sweeteners at all.

What’s a thirsty Big-Gulper to do? Read the labels. Sometimes the five gallon stainless steel syrup cannisters are where you can see them. If not, make a pain out of yourself, and ask the store owner to show you the ingredient labels. Ask Coca-Cola or Pepsi what’s in their syrups. Like me, don’t buy diet soda unless it’s in a bottle or can and you can read the ingredients.

Unfortunately, fountain soda is not the only place where manufacturers are slipping saccharin ino your food, probably hoping you wouldn’t notice. See our posting, “What’s In That Little Blue Packet? Sweet Deception !“.

– Routing By Rumor

Are Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) A Bright Idea?

There has been a lot of buzz (literally and figuratively) about CFL’s lately. These “compact fluorescent lamps” or bulbs are supposed to save electricity, and hence save the planet. Are they the panacea that they are claimed to be? I’ve used CFLs in some applications for about five years, so I feel qualified to comment.

 

The first issue I’ll discuss is energy savings.

Because they operate more efficiently, they are claimed to produce about the same amount of light (lumens) as a conventional bulb while using only about one quarter the amount of electricity. While this is true, it does not tell the whole story.

A CFL takes many times the energy to manufacture compared to a conventional incandescent bulb. If you’ve ever opened up the base of a CFL (which must be done carefully to avoid damaging the fluorescent tube portion of the lamp and releasing the highly toxic mercury it contains), you have seen a treasure trove of electronic components. All of these components require energy to manufacture. I would be very interested to find out exactly how much energy is required to manufacture a CFL versus an incandescent lamp.

Almost all of the power consumed by any light bulb is dissipated as either light or heat. During the cooling season, the cooler-burning CFLs, in addition to consuming less power, also reduce the amount of energy you have to spend on air conditioning. However, during the heating season, since CFLs produce less heat, your home’s heating system has to make up the difference! I’ve never tried to calculate the difference in BTU output between CFLs and incandescents for an average sized home where all or most of the bulbs have been switched to CFLs, but the difference would be quite substantial. Just a dozen CFLs would consume about a kilowatt less energy for the same light output as the same number of 100-watt incandescents! To put that in perspective, it’s actually quite amazing how much heat is generated by just a single 100-watt incandescent bulb, a PC and a monitor, which together can consume 300 to 400 watts of power. The heat produced is enough to substantially raise the temperature in a small to average size room.

Interestingly, I’ve never seen any discussion of the fact that using CFLs will actually increase the cost of heating your home. If your home has electric heat, you would probably still use the same number of killowatt hours of electricity overall, but the increased energy used by your heating system will largely negate the savings you are expecting from the CFLs. If you use another fuel, say natural gas, you will need additional therms (cubic feet of gas) to make up for the reduced heat output of the CFLs. If you live in an area where most of the year is heating season, such as the northeast United States, then your heating costs will increase proportionately. Also, since the indoor versus outdoor temperature differential is generally much greater during the heating season than the cooling season (around here, the winter indoor/outdoor temperature differential is about two times greater than the summer differential). This means that the CFL’s reduced load on your air conditioner during the summer is going to outstripped by the increased demand on your furnace in the winter.

The bottom line is that your thermostat really doesn’t care whether the heat comes from your light bulbs, your computer, your oven, your furnace or you. If it’s 20 degrees outside, and you want it to be 70 degrees inside, that energy is going to come from somewhere.

 

Applications where CFLs can not be used

Compact Fluorescent Lamps can’t be used with a dimmer, unless they are one of the newer types specifically designed for dimmer applications. If that is the case, the packaging and the bulb will clearly state that it can be used in a circuit with a dimmer.

CFLs should never be installed in a fixture that encloses the bulb without ventilation. While conventional bulbs can withstand very high temperatures (with some decrease in bulb life), CFLs will quickly self-destruct if they get too hot.

CFLs should be operated base-down. If operated in an inverted, base-up orientation, the heat generated by the fluorescent tube will rise, heating the bulb’s base containing the electronics, shortening the bulb’s life.

Like any fluorescent bulb, CFLs don’t work well in low ambient temperatures. Even when used indoors, if the air temperature is, let’s say, 50 or 60 degrees Fahrenheit, a CFL will operate at significantly reduced brightness until it has warmed up. In outdoor applications, I suspect they will not start, or illuminate at all, below a certain temperature. You can buy conventional fluorescent lighting fixtures that have special ballasts for cold-weather starting, but I don’t know if CFLs are offered that way also. I think there is also the danger that a CFL will destroy itself trying to start when it’s too cold.

 

RF Interference from CFLs

Unlike conventional incandescent bulbs, the electronic circuitry (electronic ballast) in CFLs generate radio frequency interference (RFI). Depending on where they are installed, this may not be a problem, or it may be so severe, you will be unable to use CFLs in some applications.

They will interfere with most radio receivers, particularly AM (Amplitude Modulation) radios. You may be able to mitigate this by moving the radio farther away from the CFL, and/or plugging the radio, TV or other device receiving the interference into a different outlet or branch circuit. CFLs will render some remote controlled devices inoperable. I use home automation remote control devices sold under the X-10 brand name. The X-10 modules will simply not work anywhere near a circuit with an energized CFL. They produce so much RFI that they blind the X-10 receivers. Worse yet, some X-10 modules will randomly turn on and off due to the noise coming down the AC line (I’ve also seen this problem when trying to use X-10 modules to control computers which use switching mode power supplies). The closer a CFL is to an X-10 module, the more problems you will experience. I suspect this is true to varying degrees, for any brand of CFL, and any brand of RF-based remote control device.

If you have a burglar/fire alarm system that uses wireless modules, such as motion detectors or door/window sensors or smoke detectors, I think that the RFI generated by some CFLs might cause the alarm system to malfunction. Since this could create a dangerous situation, use CFLs with caution in these environments.

I’ve noticed that CFLs, like most other fluorescent lighting, can produce some acoustic noise. Conventional fluorescent lighting fixtures and ballasts carry acoustic noise ratings, which tell you how much buzz or hum they generate. I’ve never seen an acoustic noise rating on a CFL package.

 

Lighting qualities of CFLs vs incandescents

There is the issue of reduced light output in low ambient temperatures that I previously discussed. I’ve also noticed that new CFLs seem to operate at reduced brightness until they are “broken in”.

Not all light is created equal. Different light sources produce different color light, or more specifically, light in a different part of the visible spectrum. This “Color temperature” is an issue for some people. Experienced photographers know how important the color temperature is, and how it affects the way things appear under different lighting sources. Some people dislike the light produced by fluorescent bulbs, and prefer incandescent lighting. If this is important to you, check the CFLs before you buy. Some packaging will indicate the color temperature of the bulbs.

 

Mercury content of CFLs

I think that the shift from incandescent bulbs to CFLs might be creating a bigger problem then it solves. There is a small amount of mercury in every fluorescent bulb of any type, including CFLs. I think mercury is added to the inside of the fluorescent tube to make it electrically conductive.

Now, mercury is a really nasty element, environmentally speaking. I avoid eating a lot of certain types of fish, such as tuna, because of mercury contamination. Mercury poisoning, like lead poisoning, is forever. Mercury is forever. Mercury contamination of the environment as well as indoor mercury contamination are so dangerous, I don’t even think you can buy thermometers containing mercury any longer. Why would you willingly buy a product containing mercury (CFLs), when there are alternatives available (incandescent bulbs)? Are the advantages of CFLs so great that it’s worth the environmental damage they are causing?

Actually, this problem is larger than just Compact Fluorescent Lamps. Flourescent lighting fixtures are ubitiquous in commercial buildings, at least in the United States, and to a lesser extent, in residential buildings. Virtually all of the used fluorescent bulbs from these fixtures go into the trash stream. Then there’s also Mercury Vapor Lamps which are used in commercial applications such as street lighting. How many tons of mercury are being put into the environment every year due to discarded fluorescent and other mercury-containing bulbs?

Hey Charlie…

Starkist doesn’t want tuna with good taste; They want tuna that doesn’t contain mercury. If fish could talk, which type of bulbs do you think they would tell us to buy?

 

Fire danger

Obviously, even incandescent bulbs can start fires. The higher the wattage, the hotter the bulb, and the greater the danger. Some types of bulbs, such as quartz lamps, which are physically very small but very high wattage (up to at least 500 watts), pose a particular fire risk.

There is less of a chance of a CFL igniting nearby materials because they run cooler, but is there a new type of fire risk posed by CFLs? I’ve already had the electronics inside a CFL burn up and stink up the house with that characteristic “burning-electronic-component” odor. Can the electronics or plastic shell of a CFL ignite and start a fire? I would think they could. This is not a problem withincandescent bulbs, since they are just glass and metal… materials which don’t support combustion.

 

Claimed vs actual bulb life

Can you believe the claims made about the life of CFLs versus incandescent bulbs? In my experience, they do last longer than incandescents, but nowhere near the 10 to 12 times longer claimed.

I would estimate that they last three to four times longer than incandescent bulbs. I’ve bought some multi-packs of incandescent bulbs for as little as 25 cents per bulb. While the prices of CFLs vary greatly, I would guesstimate that they cost between two and four dollars (US) per bulb. I’ve seen single packs of CFLs selling for much more, perhaps $9.00 for a bulb. So, I’ll say they cost between ten and twenty times as much as incandescents. That’s a huge differential. It’s way out of proportion to the increase in life over incandescents. Will the claimed energy savings over the lifetime of a CFL (see my section about energy savings earlier in this article) be enough to offset the price difference and justify the environmental damage from mercury?

 

The Bottom Line

You’ll probably do more harm to the planet by jumping into your gas-guzzling, ozone-depleting, greenhouse gas-producing SUV and driving down to the Home Depot to buy a pack of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, than if you just kept using incandescent bulbs.

Turn off the lights when they’re not needed. Make sure your next car gets better gas mileage. Does everybody have to be driving a truck? Don’t travel unnecessarily, whether it’s to the grocery store or to Tahiti. Convince your employer to let you telecommute, at least part of the time. Recycle whatever products you can recycle. Insulate your home. Use rechargeable batteries instead of throw-aways. Doing some or all of these things will have a bigger impact than just changing a light bulb.

For more info, I recommend this extensive article on Wikipedia about CFLs.

When I continue, I’ll discuss…

– Cost of CFLs vs Incandescent bulbs

– Recycling of CFLs and other fluorescent lamps

General Motors, R.I.P.

Except for my first hand-me-down car when I got my driver’s license 30+ years ago, I’ve bought only new cars, and only General Motors vehicles. They were all Pontiacs, and were all assembled in the United States.

GM is dying, and that’s just fine by me. I don’t want any heroic measures taken to save them. So please, Doctor, sign the DNR order.

General Motors has been in declining health and suicidal for years. It has been predeceased by several of it’s children, and their surviving siblings are in frail health.

I have had my share of problems with GM vehicles, but I believe they are generally very reliable. I think that GM has made some poor design choices that affect reliability and which lead to unnecessary recalls. These design problems are probably driven by attempts at cost-cutting. I have always insisted on buying a vehicle that was, at the very least, assembled by Americans, in a USA assembly plant. (The UAW can contact me to find out where to send my check.)

So why have I written off General Motors? I feel that GM and it’s dealerships have no respect for their customers. They’ve been driving along, all fat and happy for years, and never noticed that the highway ends up ahead. I have never had a good sales experience with any GM dealership, and their warranty service has always been a nightmare. Dealer’s service departments don’t like to do warranty repairs because they are paid less than they earn from non-warranty work. My experience has always been that GM dealer’s service departments perform slip-shod work. Many times, either before you leave your car for a repair(s), or after you pick up your car, it is an exercise in futility to try and convince them that an obvious problem exists/still exists. In my opinion, Pontiac’s customer care toll-free number was always a sad joke. Worthless. They take your complaint, refer it back to the dealership, but can’t get a problem resolved for you. It’s a game, and you’re the looser. I honestly believe GM operates in the hope that they will simply wear you down, and you’ll give up. Bring back your vehicle as many times as you like, call GM as many times as you like, write all the letters you want to write. Get nowhere. It’s almost like they want to make you regret buying a GM product.

Case in point: My current GM vehicle has had problems with it’s automatic transmission since around 25,000 miles. GM dealerships removed and rebuilt the transmission twice, and serviced the transmission on the car a third time, while it was under warranty. It has never operated correctly since the first time they attempted repairs, and has been out-of-warranty for a few years now. I drive it the way it is, because I refuse to give GM another cent of my money, and because I have zero confidence in the quality of their service departments. When the vehicle is no longer drivable, I’ll make the decision to either junk it or have a non-GM shop work on it.

Now, General Motors is hurting.

Good.

I doubt I will ever purchase another GM vehicle. My next car will probably have a Japanese nameplate. It’s not so much that I love Japanese cars as it is that I refuse to buy another American nameplate. I think this is is a decision most Americans have already made. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me again and again, and you’ve lost me as a customer forever.

There are plenty of disgusted GM customers out there. Here’s one example.

Here’s another. And another. And another. And another.

It seems a lot of people are fed up with General Motors.

I’ll drive my Japanese car to GM’s funeral. I doubt many tears will be shed by the mourners.

Deception Engineering

I wonder how long it will be before MIT, Caltech, and other engineering schools add a new degree to their curricula, BSDE (Bachelor of Science in Deception Engineering), right along with their highly respected programs in mechanical, electronic, computer and chemical engineering.

Granted, the program will probably have a friendlier title, such as “Product Engineering”, or it will be a concentration within their Industrial Engineering programs. Some schools might already be offering courses in this technology, because there is certainly a demand for workers skilled in this field.

If you haven’t noticed, consumer product manufacturers are using every trick they can come up with to hide the fact that you are paying more for less. My guess is that there are entire departments at some companies that research how to avoid or minimize consumer perception of shrinking products, whether through creative marketing, deceptive packaging, or playing games with package weights or product quantities. If you walked through their corporate offices, I don’t think you’ll find a door that says “DECEPTION ENGINEERING LAB”, but you can be certain it’s there somewhere, in some form.

Here’s just a few examples I’ve noted within the last few years…

Ice cream: The standard half gallon (that’s a two quart) ice cream container has been downsized by nearly all brands to between 1.5 and 1.75 quarts. It seems that manufacturers have resorted to several new package shapes to try and camouflage the fact that you are getting less product.

Soda: The 2 liter soda bottle has shrunk to 1.5 liters in many cases. Brands like Coca-Cola have come up with interesting names for their new packaging, like “Smooth Serve”, and introduced different bottle shapes. But less is less, no matter how you slice it.

Paper products: Even though they aren’t sold by weight, have you noticed how packages of toilet paper, paper towels and tissues are getting lighter and lighter, and run out sooner and sooner? No, it’s not your imagination. Mr. Whipple must be turning over in his grave. Take Scott toilet tissue, a brand that I feel is still one of the better values out there. Their flagship product has always been 1000 sheets per roll, and it still is. But the size of those sheets has shrunk substantially in both width and length (and some would argue, in quality and strength) over the last few years. Yet they still advertise “1000 sheets per roll”. That’s sort of like saying a loaf of bread is still a full pound, but redefining a pound as being 13 ounces. It’s deceptive marketing, pure and simple. And I’m sick and tired of having to clean myself up after sneezing into tissues. Lint and bits of paper all over my shirt, because the tissues disintegrate when you sneeze into them.

Snack foods: Ever wonder why your bag of potato or corn chips, cheese doodles, etc. is two-thirds empty when you open it? I have too. An example… that 8 ounce bag of chips and other snacks have pretty much universally shrunk to 5 ounces, 4.5 ounces, 4.25 ounces, and even less. That’s about half as much for the same or higher price. At least air has zero grams of trans-fat, and zero calories per serving.

Candy: I’m a chocoholic. I love Hershey’s chocolate, but that 1 pound bag of Hershey’s chocolates has been shrinking and shrinking over the last couple of years. Most of their products I see in the supermarket are now down to between 10 and 11 ounces. And no, it’s not just Hershey’s chocolates that are shrinking, but they are my favorite.

Yogurt: The 8 ounce container was the standard for as long as I can remember. Try to find it today. Almost all brands have switched to 6 ounce containers, with some as light as 4 ounces. Most interesting to me is the lengths some brands have gone to in an attempt to make their containers look bigger, such as false bottoms, cups big enough to hold 8 ounces , but which contain only 6 ounces, tapered cups, etc.

Cheese: I’ve noticed that most brands of prepackaged, sliced cheeses (Munster, Swiss, Provolone, etc.) that used to be sold in 8 ounce packages have shrunk to 6 ounces lately.

Canned vegetables: Just try and find a 16 ounce (one pound) can of anything anymore.

The above examples only scratch the surface. It’s not limited to one category of food or other product, or to one brand. Shrinking products are everywhere. It’s an epidemic.

In searching for other websites that document shrinking or downsized products, I stumbled upon mouseprint.org. It’s a wonderful site, especially their food /groceries category. Check it out !

And forget the advice about “Plastics” given to Dustin Hoffman’s character, Benjamin Braddock, in Mike Nichols’ 1967 film “The Graduate”. My advice, Benjamin, is “Deception Engineering”.

The impact of deception engineering on everyday life, and on our shopping habits is becoming so great that RoutingByRumor has started a Shrinking Products category on this blog, where we will spotlight some of the best examples (or maybe that’s the worst examples) of shrinking products and how manufacturers are trying to deceive consumers.

I did a few web searches for “deception engineering”, but didn’t find anything. Perhaps this will be my claim to fame… having coined that phrase. Maybe some engineering school will honor me by creating the RoutingbyRumor School of Deception Engineering.

Ya never know.