0
   

Be careful of those compact fluorescent light bulbs!

 
 
Reyn
 
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 06:27 pm
If you've got any of these compact fluorescent light bulbs in your home, you'll want to read this.

Quote:
The CFL mercury nightmare

Steven Milloy
Financial Post

Saturday, April 28, 2007

How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent light bulb? About US$4.28 for the bulb and labour -- unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about US$2,004.28, which doesn't include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.

Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favour of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).

According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter's bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges' house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state's "safe" level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter. The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a "low-ball" estimate of US$2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began "gathering finances" to pay for the US$2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn't cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.

Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as US$180 annually in energy costs -- and assuming that Bridges doesn't break any more CFLs -- it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.

The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.

It's quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury. Given that there are about five billion light bulb sockets in North American households, we're looking at the possibility of creating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges' bedroom.

Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in, our homes. These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs.

As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a "highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children" and as "one of the most poisonous forms of pollution."

Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury-thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the United States, under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.

And let's not forget about the regulatory nightmare in the U.S. known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for requiring expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites, along with endless litigation over such cleanups.

We'll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.

As each CFL contains five milligrams of mercury, at the Maine "safety" standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to "safely" contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.

Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures. Yet governments (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of the world) are imposing on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,884 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 06:31 pm
Yeah, I prefer incandescent. But, it will take a series of unfortunate incidents to change the course of the stampede to fluorescent.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 07:08 pm
Me too.

Even incandescent...
I'm not used to ceiling fans. Here in NM I have four of them, every single one a replacement by me of twenty year old fans, watch money fly.
One of those ceiling fan lights burned out the other day, I go to replace it, it comes apart in my hand, luckily not cutting my hand. Sheesh, fragile city.
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 08:07 pm
Here in Canada, there is a proposal to ban incandescent light bulbs in 5 years time. In light of this article, I think they should carefully rethink that.

Can anyone tell me if there is a push in the U.S. to do the same?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 08:18 pm
Reyn wrote:
Here in Canada, there is a proposal to ban incandescent light bulbs in 5 years time. In light of this article, I think they should carefully rethink that.

Can anyone tell me if there is a push in the U.S. to do the same?


At least one or two states are moving on it. I don't have any links.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 08:20 pm
California is acting on it as we speak. Check the San Francisco Chronicla, at SFGate.com; bet there are scads of articles.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 08:26 pm
1) Let me get this straight...dropping a single light bulb yields a mercury level 6 times higher than what is considered safe.

2) A new study shows that levels 10 times lower than what is currently considered safe causes permanent brain damage to adults (meaning that dropping a single light bulb yields contamination levels that are at least 60 times greater than the actual safe level)

3) Regular light bulbs will be banned in 5 years

4) It costs $2,000 and a lot of phone calls and invasion of privacy to clean up 1 light bulb

Quote:
LEVELS of mercury currently regarded as safe for adults could impair brain function, according to a study in Brazil. The study has been dismissed as too small to be conclusive, but if it is right, mercury could be slightly reducing the mental performance of millions of people worldwide.

Low levels of mercury are already thought to damage the nervous systems of fetuses and babies. After a study in the Faroe Islands showed that children exposed to mercury in the womb have memory, attention and language problems at age seven, regulatory authorities in the US and UK advised pregnant and nursing mothers not to eat large predatory fish such as tuna, shark and king mackerel. Mercury and methyl mercury (a more toxic form generated by bacteria) are most concentrated in animals near the top of the food chain.

Now a study of villagers in Brazil suggests that adults may be at risk too. "Adults may be just as sensitive to mercury as children," claims Ellen Silbergeld at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Her team studied 52 men and 77 women living in fishing villages downstream of gold mines. Much of the mercury used to extract the gold ends up in rivers and in fish. "They act almost literally as a sponge," says Silbergeld.

The researchers tested the villagers' neurological abilities by asking them, for instance, to remember a story and thread beads onto a piece of string. The higher the levels of methyl mercury in the villagers' hair- a measure of recent exposure- the greater the deficits in memory and motor skills (Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, vol 2, paper 8).

Most worryingly, exposure levels were not particularly high. Hair concentrations in the villagers averaged 4 micrograms of mercury per gram of hair. This is just a tenth of the level considered dangerous for adults by the World Health Organization, and not much higher than that found in many countries. In the US and Japan, for instance, the average mercury concentration in hair is around 1 and 2 micrograms per gram respectively.


Quote:
The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges' house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state's "safe" level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.


source:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-06/ns-esm061103.php
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 09:05 pm
Thanks Edgar, Osso, and Stuh for the info.

Makes one think, eh?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 09:46 pm
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 09:52 pm
*This article brought to you by General Electric Incandescent Bulbs
0 Replies
 
bungie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 12:49 am
Reyn wrote:
Here in Canada, there is a proposal to ban incandescent light bulbs in 5 years time. In light of this article, I think they should carefully rethink that.

Can anyone tell me if there is a push in the U.S. to do the same?


The push is on in Australia to ban incandescent bulbs.
Once it was illegal to have fluorescent only as a source of light on machines such as lathes, milling machines etc. (stroboscopic effect)

I find the incandescent gives full light output until it fails. The other type gets duller and duller. They might last a long time but the light output falls off pretty quickly. Give me incandescent anytime.
Just my 2 cents worth.
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 07:56 am
bungie wrote:
I find the incandescent gives full light output until it fails. The other type gets duller and duller. They might last a long time but the light output falls off pretty quickly. Give me incandescent anytime.
Just my 2 cents worth.

I've never used a CFL yet, so I find this info very interesting.

Thanks for that.

I think I'll stick to my incandescents as long as I can.
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 12:36 pm
Has anyone got any stories about mishaps with these bulbs to share, or heard of someone else who has?
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 08:56 pm
I have heard that terrorists are planning on breaking a bunch of these bulbs on a subway. We are all doomed!
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 09:04 pm
Thanks, Nick!

Now you've given the bastards new ideas to work on. Mad




















Laughing
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 09:48 pm
A further danger of these spiral bulbs is, they look suspiciously like Dairy Queen ice cream cones. Pity the child eats one of those.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 10:04 pm
I'll admit I haven't bought new fluorescent bulbs since the beginning of 2005.

Has there been a change?

Sorry, for me, my need to see is primary. The fluorescents suck on that, just now. I admit I also like better light color. But -- I'm a person who shuts down on entering a room with low light. Some number of my a2k friends have seen me just stop in place.

I'm not the only one, as seniors do get to have night blind stuff going on. I'm just the canary.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 10:21 pm
Oh, wait, someday someone will do a biggy article about people with retinitis pigmentosa (me) or diabetic retinopathy (other folks) or macular degenration (more folks), trying to get along in the world of grocery stores.

I bring this up at all - wouldn't ordinarily - but that illumination, how to do it, matters a lot. Outlawing incandescents, as an idea, makes me flume.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 May, 2007 12:06 am
edgarblythe wrote:
A further danger of these spiral bulbs is, they look suspiciously like Dairy Queen ice cream cones. Pity the child eats one of those.


Most children won't touch them without sprinkles.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 May, 2007 06:00 am
I need all the illumination I can get. Just ask RexRed or Gunga.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Be careful of those compact fluorescent light bulbs!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 04:25:29