Compact fluorescent light bulbs dangerous

[Koheli]

I just found out that these CFLs, energy efficient light bulbs have mercury in them!?

Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) serious dangers and alternatives

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) serious dangers and alternatives - National Holistic Science & Spirit | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/holistic-science-spirit-in-national/compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-cfls-serious-dangers-and-alternatives#ixzz1CdmowcXx

[Guest]

I just found out that these CFLs, energy efficient light bulbs have mercury in them!?

Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) serious dangers and alternatives

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) serious dangers and alternatives - National Holistic Science & Spirit | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/holistic-science-spirit-in-national/compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-cfls-serious-dangers-and-alternatives#ixzz1CdmowcXx

Coal has far more mercury in it, and yet we burn millions of tons of it a year and put that mercury right up into the atmosphere.

Many of the products we use daily will present risks if mishandled - the CFL is no different. If you do not break it at end of life and return it to a reputable recycler - it presents absolutely no risk to yourself or the environment.

This is scare mongering on the back of an anti Green agenda. There are far more credible risks to your health and safety than CFL's which are actually doing a very good job in preserving resources and protecting your environment.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 2, 2011 by Guest

[Agent Darkbootie]

I hate CFLs. They're so dim, and they make the basement look like the set of a horror movie. That's why I've reverted to kerosene lanterns.

[Michelle]

Cleaning Up A Broken CFL

Fluorescent light bulbs contain a small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. When a fluorescent bulb breaks in your home, some of this mercury is released as mercury vapor. The broken bulb can continue to release mercury vapor until it is cleaned up and removed from the residence. To minimize exposure to mercury vapor, EPA recommends that residents follow the cleanup and disposal steps described below.

This page presents only the most important steps to reduce exposure to mercury vapor from a broken bulb. View the detailed recommendations.

Before cleanup

Have people and pets leave the room.

Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.

Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.

Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb.

During cleanup

Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.

Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

After cleanup

Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.

If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

[ntech]

Clearly what the problem here is that some dim witted politicians combined with some business interests and now you have a "green" (anything but) movement now trying to kill incandescent bulbs and put in these dirty polluting bulbs.

Comparatively speaking incandescent bulbs are cheap. Less than a dollar a bulb at the dollar stores. Cfl bulbs are 8 to 14 dollars a bulb. Considering the intermittent use some bulbs get it takes a long time comparatively speaking for the long term energy savings to make a difference to the average consumer.

Yay for the government! They are sticking us with a inferior product overall for some elusive energy saving.

Led bulbs now may be the future but as of right now the Led bulb is just not prime time ready. $20 to $40 costs and low light outputs. Just inadequate and expensive at current technology levels.

It's just not time to replace the Edison bulb yet.

[Guest]

They are green because in their lifetime (up to 10 years) they will have resultede in the consumption of about a quarter of the resources been used andn about a fifth of the energy been used. This will lead to saving for the consumer and the planet. Remember that I said that coal has more mercury in it - the use of incandescents will result in more mercury contamination of the environment than if you broke a CFL and liberally spread the dust about your home.

There are far more serious things to be worrying about in this world.

Br Cornelius

[badluck101]

Lol, blame everything on the gov., hilarious, these bulbs arent dangerous. There was a false statement that went out about thekm that was probably put out by some other company that makes them.

[Mac E]

There is already a thread on CFL's in the forums. I'd love to shed some 'light' on this situation, but I'm 'burnt out' right now.

[Travelling Man]

Risking being known as a dim bulb on here, I'd like to add that CFL bulbs have to be disposed of as hazardous waste when thrown away. This isn't an issue right now - but I can't WAIT for about six more years when the first batch everyone put in their lights start to burn out and consumers find out what all is involved in disposing of these little monsters.

I am sure another environmental group will be formed to stop the use of "TEH EBIL MERCURY-LADEN BULBS" and will lobby for new legislation.

[Guest]

Risking being known as a dim bulb on here, I'd like to add that CFL bulbs have to be disposed of as hazardous waste when thrown away. This isn't an issue right now - but I can't WAIT for about six more years when the first batch everyone put in their lights start to burn out and consumers find out what all is involved in disposing of these little monsters.

I am sure another environmental group will be formed to stop the use of "TEH EBIL MERCURY-LADEN BULBS" and will lobby for new legislation.

Recycling technologies are well established for CFL's and all the mercury can be recovered without any risk. They have been around for over 20yrs and have not caused any serious issues so far - so I suspect that in another 6yrs the situation will not have changed.

Br Cornelius

[Travelling Man]

Where are these CFL recycling facilities? I know of programs for the 4' tubes for businesses and industrial facilities, but not for home use. There is a significant cost for recycling them. People aren't expecting this cost - and it will be quite a rude awakening when bunches of people get $12,500 fines from the EPA for throwing away CFL's with the regular trash.

After seeing reactionaries for years, I am just biding my time before this comes to pass. Then I will be just giggling my butt off - just like I am at the Sierra Club who long lobbied for a "safe" place to put nuke waste and really pushed for some isolated mountain hideaway. Then when the governent identified an isolated mountain hideaway, they suddenly changed their point of view to oppose the use of ANYWHERE in the environment for the storage of the stuff.

Then we have the folks that say we need to get rid of all of our coal power plants and start using something else... but we can't use nuclear power because of the waste, and we can't use hydro because it disturbs the water flow, and we can't use wind because it is dangerous to birds, and we can't use solar because it blocks out sun rays to the ground, and we can't use geothermal because it disturbs the ecosystems in the ground... but we gotta get rid of those pesky coal plants!!

[Guest]

Where are these CFL recycling facilities? I know of programs for the 4' tubes for businesses and industrial facilities, but not for home use. There is a significant cost for recycling them. People aren't expecting this cost - and it will be quite a rude awakening when bunches of people get $12,500 fines from the EPA for throwing away CFL's with the regular trash.

After seeing reactionaries for years, I am just biding my time before this comes to pass. Then I will be just giggling my butt off - just like I am at the Sierra Club who long lobbied for a "safe" place to put nuke waste and really pushed for some isolated mountain hideaway. Then when the governent identified an isolated mountain hideaway, they suddenly changed their point of view to oppose the use of ANYWHERE in the environment for the storage of the stuff.

Then we have the folks that say we need to get rid of all of our coal power plants and start using something else... but we can't use nuclear power because of the waste, and we can't use hydro because it disturbs the water flow, and we can't use wind because it is dangerous to birds, and we can't use solar because it blocks out sun rays to the ground, and we can't use geothermal because it disturbs the ecosystems in the ground... but we gotta get rid of those pesky coal plants!!

Throughout Europe it is mandated that small electronic items be recycled. You can take them to any municiple recycling centre throughout the country, and any town of greater than a 1000 population will have facilities. It costs money and councils would rather put them into landfills - but that is why you have a strong EPA which forces local authorities to deal appropriately with your waste. There is a small nominal charge placed on all electrical goods to cover the costs of setting up and running recycling infrastructure. Also since the Mercury is recovered and used to make new CFL's, the cost of manufacturing drops and there is less need for raw material extraction.

I repeat the fact that using tungsten bulbs puts far more mercury into the environment than CFL's because they use 4-5x the amount of coal generated electricity.

This is the future and until we can deal with all of our waste streams in an appropriate way we are buying a one way ticket to eventual extinction.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 3, 2011 by Guest

[Guest]

Here are the facts concerning CFL's and Mercury emissions compared to Incandescents;

How do CFLs result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light

bulbs?

Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent

lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt,

8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus

avoiding 4.3 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 3.9 mg.

EPA recommends that CFLs are recycled where possible, to maximize mercury savings.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

It seems from this document that the American EPA is rolling out suitable recycling facilities at municipal garbage disposal points - so there should be no excuse for sending them to landfill or receiving fines.

I hope this clarifies the risks somewhat.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 3, 2011 by Guest

[Guest]

Where are these CFL recycling facilities? I know of programs for the 4' tubes for businesses and industrial facilities, but not for home use. There is a significant cost for recycling them. People aren't expecting this cost - and it will be quite a rude awakening when bunches of people get $12,500 fines from the EPA for throwing away CFL's with the regular trash.

After seeing reactionaries for years, I am just biding my time before this comes to pass. Then I will be just giggling my butt off - just like I am at the Sierra Club who long lobbied for a "safe" place to put nuke waste and really pushed for some isolated mountain hideaway. Then when the governent identified an isolated mountain hideaway, they suddenly changed their point of view to oppose the use of ANYWHERE in the environment for the storage of the stuff.

Then we have the folks that say we need to get rid of all of our coal power plants and start using something else... but we can't use nuclear power because of the waste, and we can't use hydro because it disturbs the water flow, and we can't use wind because it is dangerous to birds, and we can't use solar because it blocks out sun rays to the ground, and we can't use geothermal because it disturbs the ecosystems in the ground... but we gotta get rid of those pesky coal plants!!

Careful risk assessments are carried out on all sustainable energy projects in Europe and America. As a result most of the issues you mention are avoided. There are large new solar PV and Thermal power plants been commissioned, there are large new wind farms (onshore and offshore) been commissioned, there are large geothermal plants been commissioned in suitable locations, even hydro can be commissioned with suitable precautions for the free migration of sensitive fish stocks. Offshore tidal shows huge potential to supply almost all of our electricity needs.

Despite what you may believe, and despite what the conventional energy concerns will attempt to convince you, there is a huge and sustainable push to green our electricity supply. It might not be fast enough to avoid the inevitable damge which coal powered electricity poses - but the environmental movement is not the main impediment to the greening of our energy supply - it is vested interests which do not want us to migrate away from fossil fuels. They profit by our lack of effective action to date.

I suspect the facts will not get in the way of a a good rightous winge

Br Cornelius

Edited February 3, 2011 by Guest

[Travelling Man]

If you were actually from the US and involved in environmental protection, you would see what I have in the past 20 years of my career. When you have rabid environmentalists that want all pollution cleaned up immediately, and then file injunctions to prevent cleanups because of possible impact to wildlife that lives in the area - you would also be as cynical as I have grown.

I was party to the risk assessments done for the huge wind-farm that is being built off of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Yes, we got the feedback from oil interests and fishermen, as well as the environmentalists who wanted to see several local coal plants shut down. The measure was approved with much fanfare. I then had the "pleasure" of seeing the EXACT same environmentalists begin lobbying to get the wind farm shut down as the off-shore windmills disturbed fish and whale migration patterns and the whirling blades would destroy the migrating waterfowl in their chopping blades.

And this is just a whinge to you? I've witnessed it with my own eyes.

Then I match this up with similar situations for harnessing hydroelectric power from Washington and Oregon states, and solar farms in west Texas, and nuclear power plants in Long Island (NY) and Ohio... and it's just a situation of "lather-rinse-repeat".

So... no... I'm not whinging.

You keep bringing up the wonderful recycling programs in Europe. Yes - I've been there - and it's wonderful.

In the States, however, we have MANY recycling facilities that collect materials because it is mandated by law - and then they take those materials to the same landfills that the regular trash is sent. It's a matter of problems in the WORDING of the laws - they invariably say that municipalities have to establish these facilities and collect the materials... but the laws never bother with, "And then the materials must be recycled."

Also, it's a matter of cost. The biggest reason they don't process the materials, is that there isn't a market for the recycled materials. It's a totally money-losing industry in the US - for MOST states. Some have made it successful, but they are in the tiniest of minorities.

I'm not sure you recognize the zealousness of American environmentalists. They push for a ZERO impact solution - not "minimal". It's a failing of our "everyone has a voice" society.

Sorry, my Irish friend - it's not just a whinge.

[ninjadude]

In the States, however, we have MANY recycling facilities that collect materials because it is mandated by law - and then they take those materials to the same landfills that the regular trash is sent. It's a matter of problems in the WORDING of the laws - they invariably say that municipalities have to establish these facilities and collect the materials... but the laws never bother with, "And then the materials must be recycled."

Also, it's a matter of cost. The biggest reason they don't process the materials, is that there isn't a market for the recycled materials. It's a totally money-losing industry in the US - for MOST states. Some have made it successful, but they are in the tiniest of minorities.

do you have a current source for this outlandish claim? Waste Managment, one of the largest, if not the largest in the country, claims to process a huge amount of recyclables.

[a nice cup of tea]

I've noticed that the new CFL lightbulbs burn out a lot quicker than the old style light bulbs. The old style bulbs aren't sold anymore in Australia due to new environmental legislation. I've got to confess that sometimes I miss the old style bulbs that don't need constant replacing.

[Guest]

I've noticed that the new CFL lightbulbs burn out a lot quicker than the old style light bulbs. The old style bulbs aren't sold anymore in Australia due to new environmental legislation. I've got to confess that sometimes I miss the old style bulbs that don't need constant replacing.

If you are referring to Incandescents - my own personal experience is that they lat about a quarter as long as CFL's.

If you are referring to the first generation CFL's which used choke ballasts, my experience was that they were more reliable than the current ones with electronic ballasts - with higher failure rates. However modern CFL's give better quality light for exactly that reason.

Br Cornelius

[Paracelse]

I've noticed that the new CFL lightbulbs burn out a lot quicker than the old style light bulbs. The old style bulbs aren't sold anymore in Australia due to new environmental legislation. I've got to confess that sometimes I miss the old style bulbs that don't need constant replacing.

From experience I've only noticed quick burn of CFL light bulbs where in places where they didn't have time to warm up, like stair cases, a place we turn the light for a maximum of 1mn at times. In my kitchen the bulb is now almost 3 years old, takes a little while to warm up but then gives me the luminosity I need for all my work.

Now I don't really know about the new LED light bulb that came out in France (don't know elsewhere) they are working on 220v and I will try one as soon as I find some on sale (sorry I'm cheap)(OK I'm not cheap I'm thrift)

[ninjadude]

I've noticed that the new CFL lightbulbs burn out a lot quicker than the old style light bulbs. The old style bulbs aren't sold anymore in Australia due to new environmental legislation. I've got to confess that sometimes I miss the old style bulbs that don't need constant replacing.

maybe you have some electrical problems.

Lifespan

The average rated life of a CFL is between 8 and 15 times that of incandescents.^[10] CFLs typically have a rated lifespan of between 6,000 and 15,000 hours, whereas incandescent lamps are usually manufactured to have a lifespan of 750 hours or 1,000 hours

source

[farandaway]

Here's are the benefits of CFL's:

• Use 75% less energy than regular light bulbs.
• Last about 10 times as long as regular light bulbs.
• Produce similar quality light as regular light bulbs (nothing like old-style fluorescents).
• Cost as little as $1.50.
• Don't generate ridiculous amounts of heat (which you would have to pay to remove with AC).

And here are the downsides:

• Most of them can't be used with dimmer switches. (Some can; check the package.)
• Cheap ones burn out really quickly. Buy Energy Star-rated bulbs, or bulbs with a warranty.
• They start dim and take a minute or two to reach full brightness.
• They contain a tiny amount of mercury, which might be an issue if you break a bulb and you're careless about how you clean it up. (More on this in a minute.)
• They produce a higher electromagnetic field than regular bulbs, and there is controversy about whether this has health effects. (More on this in a minute, too.)

Read More

I found this site because I've been concerned with the EMF output of the bulbs. There are pros and cons to these bulbs and I would really rather use something else, personally. Better safe than.....etc.

[Little Fish]

Environmental Release of Mercury from Broken Compact Fluorescent Lamps

"Hg vapor emission test revealed that the CFLs continuously release Hg vapor once broken and the release can last over 10 weeks. Total amount of Hg vapor released from a broken CFL can exceeds 1.0 mg, which can cause Hg level in a regular room to exceed the safe human exposure limit under poor ventilation conditions"

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/ees.2011.0027

[Doug1029]

do you have a current source for this outlandish claim? Waste Managment, one of the largest, if not the largest in the country, claims to process a huge amount of recyclables.

We had the same problem: trash haulers taking recycled material to the landfill. The offender was Waste Management. Created quite a stir. The reason was that the market for the materials was down at the moment. As soon as it started to pay to recycle, Waste Management started recycling again.

Some materials, like paper, may have a bigger carbon footprint if recycled than if hauled to the landfill. It all depends on the local situation.

Hauling materials by truck is an inefficient way to do it. We need local railroad sidings with plenty of room for storing materials until a carload quantity can be shipped. Then, ship the material directly to the purchaser, bypassing as many middlemen as possible. Recyclables are low-profit. It takes an efficient operation to make recycling pay.

One idea: chip tree trunks and branches into paper chips. Most cities don't even think of recycling yard waste.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Environmental Release of Mercury from Broken Compact Fluorescent Lamps

"Hg vapor emission test revealed that the CFLs continuously release Hg vapor once broken and the release can last over 10 weeks. Total amount of Hg vapor released from a broken CFL can exceeds 1.0 mg, which can cause Hg level in a regular room to exceed the safe human exposure limit under poor ventilation conditions"

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/ees.2011.0027

Probably true. I used to play with mercury when I was a kid. If there were any permanent effects, I'm not aware of it (Of course, folks tell me I act a little strange sometimes.). Doug

[Michelle]

We had the same problem: trash haulers taking recycled material to the landfill. The offender was Waste Management. Created quite a stir. The reason was that the market for the materials was down at the moment. As soon as it started to pay to recycle, Waste Management started recycling again.

Some materials, like paper, may have a bigger carbon footprint if recycled than if hauled to the landfill. It all depends on the local situation.

Hauling materials by truck is an inefficient way to do it. We need local railroad sidings with plenty of room for storing materials until a carload quantity can be shipped. Then, ship the material directly to the purchaser, bypassing as many middlemen as possible. Recyclables are low-profit. It takes an efficient operation to make recycling pay.

One idea: chip tree trunks and branches into paper chips. Most cities don't even think of recycling yard waste.

Doug

I can vouch for that too, Doug.

"The solution to pollution is dilution"