Those Lightbulbs again

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
Morgul
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:50 am

Those Lightbulbs again

Post by Morgul »

I read some of that lightbulb thread we had. Before that thread, can honestly say I have never heard of these new lightbulbs. I did not really understand what all the hub bub was about, etc.

But, I seen this articale and came here to post a link to it, and I see the thread is locked. How does a lightbulb thread get locked anyways? :shock: Leave it to OO to have world war 3 over a lightbulb, heh.

Anyways, this article is about those lightbulbs and a $2,000 dollar clean up bill if you happen to break one. It is of course, on the all evil foxnews websight...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

Here is a copy/paste of part of it:

Consider the procedure offered by the Maine DEP’s Web page entitled, “What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home?”

Don’t vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask.

Collect the waste material into an airtight container. Pat the area with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth. Finally, check with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be properly disposed.

The only step the Maine DEP left off was the final one: Hope that you did a good enough cleanup so that you, your family and pets aren’t poisoned by any mercury inadvertently dispersed or missed.

This, of course, assumes that people are even aware that breaking CFLs entails special cleanup procedures.

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.
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Post by Enough »

Interesting article. Although it comes across loud and clear FOX has a big ole' axe to grind too, which sort of makes me chuckle. Here's a graphic from the locked thread:

Image

Disposal and the mercury content in general is still a valid issue, and is exactly the question my brother who builds corporate real estate asked me the last time we hung out.

Edit: here's a source that reviews the mercury issue. Perhaps recycling CFLs is the answer?
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
brettmcd
Posts: 4659
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:44 pm

Post by brettmcd »

Enough wrote:Interesting article. Although it comes across loud and clear FOX has a big ole' axe to grind too, which sort of makes me chuckle. Here's a graphic from the locked thread:

Image

Disposal and the mercury content in general is still a valid issue, and is exactly the question my brother who builds corporate real estate asked me the last time we hung out.

Edit: here's a source that reviews the mercury issue. Perhaps recycling CFLs is the answer?
The big difference, and where that graph is misleading is that the mercury from power production can be controlled with technology like stack scrubbers and other such things. The mercury can then be safely disposed of. A lot harder to do that control with millions of lightbulbs, as there is zero chance of getting people to 100% recycle them.

This was posted in the last thread and ignored, which im sure will happen here also.
There is no problem so large that it cannot be solved by a liberal dosage of explosives.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Can't we just skip to LEDs for household lighting?

Oh, wait, they're cheap, efficient, and last a long ass time. Nevermind.

I'm also guessing all the times we had swordfights with those flourescent tubes as a kid wasn't that good for me.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
Morgul
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:50 am

Post by Morgul »

I wouldnt say most of America has a good recycling record.

I would think these "valid" issues should be worked out before outlawing the other lightbulbs?
Morgul
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:50 am

Post by Morgul »

I also remember kids throwing the other lightbulbs do to the "pop" when they hit...
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

Enough wrote:Interesting article. Although it comes across loud and clear FOX has a big ole' axe to grind too, which sort of makes me chuckle.
It's an editorial.

I was actually thinking about getting a couple CFLs to see if I liked the light they throw (mostly because I want to change fewer light bulbs), but this is something to think about. I have two boys who wrestle, throw things, and generally search and destroy. I have to consider that breakage is a real possibility.
Owner: 4OTP Pittsburgh Pirates
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Post by Zaxxon »

LawBeefaroni wrote:Can't we just skip to LEDs for household lighting?
Aren't there issues getting bright, white LEDs sufficient for household use at reasonable pricing? I havne't read up on them in awhile...
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Post by Enough »

brettmcd wrote:
Enough wrote:Interesting article. Although it comes across loud and clear FOX has a big ole' axe to grind too, which sort of makes me chuckle. Here's a graphic from the locked thread:

Image

Disposal and the mercury content in general is still a valid issue, and is exactly the question my brother who builds corporate real estate asked me the last time we hung out.

Edit: here's a source that reviews the mercury issue. Perhaps recycling CFLs is the answer?
\



The big difference, and where that graph is misleading is that the mercury from power production can be controlled with technology like stack scrubbers and other such things. The mercury can then be safely disposed of. A lot harder to do that control with millions of lightbulbs, as there is zero chance of getting people to 100% recycle them.

This was posted in the last thread and ignored, which im sure will happen here also.
That must be why Bush pushed through weaker mercury standards for coal-fired plants. I think the argument the power companies make is that it is actually quite costly to remove from the stacks with scrubbers and not "easy," particularly so for the last 10% or so. Plus that would require government regulation you would likely be against, even if there was the political will to move on it.

And I am happy to not ignore your second point either. You say there is zero chance of getting 100% recycling of CFLs. This is likely true, just as it's true that you cannot achieve zero mercury emissions from a power plant, that last 5-10% is always cost-prohibitive to remove. But if we achieved solid recycling rates, society would come out ahead as a net positive if mercury emissions are the metric to be used (ignoring the obvious societal benefits of using less power and saving money on our bills). The mercury issue is a very important one to deal with, but mandatory CFL recycling programs could achieve high enough levels of participation to do just as good of job as could be hoped for with power plant reductions. Also the amount of mercury needed in CLFs has fallen fairly dramatically as my link above affirms.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Quaro
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:10 am

Post by Quaro »

A 75 watt LED lightbulb that you might use in a regular fixture costs about 40 dollars, so yeah, too expensive. Maybe in 3 or 4 more years.
brettmcd
Posts: 4659
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:44 pm

Post by brettmcd »

Enough wrote:
brettmcd wrote:
Enough wrote:Interesting article. Although it comes across loud and clear FOX has a big ole' axe to grind too, which sort of makes me chuckle. Here's a graphic from the locked thread:

Image

Disposal and the mercury content in general is still a valid issue, and is exactly the question my brother who builds corporate real estate asked me the last time we hung out.

Edit: here's a source that reviews the mercury issue. Perhaps recycling CFLs is the answer?
\



The big difference, and where that graph is misleading is that the mercury from power production can be controlled with technology like stack scrubbers and other such things. The mercury can then be safely disposed of. A lot harder to do that control with millions of lightbulbs, as there is zero chance of getting people to 100% recycle them.

This was posted in the last thread and ignored, which im sure will happen here also.
That must be why Bush pushed through weaker mercury standards for coal-fired plants. I think the argument the power companies make is that it is actually quite costly to remove from the stacks with scrubbers and not "easy," particularly so for the last 10% or so. Plus that would require government regulation you would likely be against, even if there was the political will to move on it.

And I am happy to not ignore your second point either. You say there is zero chance of getting 100% recycling of CFLs. This is likely true, just as it's true that you cannot achieve zero mercury emissions from a power plant, that last 5-10% is always cost-prohibitive to remove. But if we achieved solid recycling rates, society would come out ahead as a net positive if mercury emissions are the metric to be used (ignoring the obvious societal benefits of using less power and saving money on our bills). The mercury issue is a very important one to deal with, but mandatory CFL recycling programs could achieve high enough levels of participation to do just as good of job as could be hoped for with power plant reductions. Also the amount of mercury needed in CLFs has fallen fairly dramatically as my link above affirms.
It doesnt at all deal with the problems of a mercury spill in the home any time a lightbulb breaks.

If you want governmental controls which would be easier to regulate? A small number of power plants mercury emissions or 100 million or so homes recycling of lightbulbs?
There is no problem so large that it cannot be solved by a liberal dosage of explosives.
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Post by Enough »

LawBeefaroni wrote:Can't we just skip to LEDs for household lighting?

Oh, wait, they're cheap, efficient, and last a long ass time. Nevermind.

I'm also guessing all the times we had swordfights with those flourescent tubes as a kid wasn't that good for me.
Cheap??? $80 for an LED light of decent brightness vs. $2-$5 for an equivalent CFL. The $30 LED bulbs are of marginal brightness. LEDs also have not achieved good color temperature like the newer soft white CFLs have, but I do look forward to the day they become the best option. They are not at present.

And I am old enough to have played with mercury in my hands as a kid. I'm sure that wasn't so great either, LOL.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Zaxxon wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:Can't we just skip to LEDs for household lighting?
Aren't there issues getting bright, white LEDs sufficient for household use at reasonable pricing? I havne't read up on them in awhile...
Don't know. I didn't think so. At least not at a per-hour-of-life rate.

I have an LED utility light that I use around the house when I'm working. It's standard AC and bright as hell. All white LEDs. The light is maybe a bit harsh for regular lighting. But I'm sure that can be fixed for traditional lighting.

Bulbs that fit in regular sockets are fairly expensive, IIRC. They have dozens of individual LEDs in them. But they have a real world lifespan of 50,000 to 100,000 hours. We've used CFLs for a few years and their lifespan isn't that impressive.

Look for the Edison bulbs on this page. Not sure if that's representative pricing. I might try one.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
Quaro
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:10 am

Post by Quaro »

This article in the OP freaked me the heck out!

But I've been looking on the net and finding conflicting info. Most places say the mercury is like 1/500th of the amount in a typical thermometer, for example.
Is it true that compact fluorescent light bulbs contain harmful mercury?

Compact fluorescent lights contain a very small amount of mercury, significantly less than those in fever thermometers. This small amount of mercury slowly bonds with the phosphor coating on the lamp interior as the lamp ages, prohibiting its entry into the atmosphere. Even breaking a fluorescent bulb is not a significant health risk because the amount of mercury vapor released is so small that it dissipates into the air with a minimal chance of inhalation.
It sounds like the mercury scare might be some kind of FUD operation? If it's really as bad as in the original article, I won't be using CFLs any longer...
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

LawBeefaroni wrote: We've used CFLs for a few years and their lifespan isn't that impressive.
How long do they last in the real world?
Owner: 4OTP Pittsburgh Pirates
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Post by malchior »

That editorial is ridiculous grandstanding. Spill some oil in your sink and call up the local DEP and see how much it costs to get it cleaned up. Heck spill almost any of the hundreds of toxic chemicals that can be accidentally released in your home and call the DEP. Clean up costs will, of course be ridiculous for any of them if done by any hazardous material firm.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Enough wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:Can't we just skip to LEDs for household lighting?

Oh, wait, they're cheap, efficient, and last a long ass time. Nevermind.

I'm also guessing all the times we had swordfights with those flourescent tubes as a kid wasn't that good for me.
Cheap??? $80 for an LED light of decent brightness vs. $2-$5 for an equivalent CFL. The $30 LED bulbs are of marginal brightness. LEDs also have not achieved good color temperature like the newer soft white CFLs have, but I do look forward to the day they become the best option. They are not at present.

And I am old enough to have played with mercury in my hands as a kid. I'm sure that wasn't so great either, LOL.
At around 4 watts and 100,000 hours I'd call $30 cheap. It would pay for it self in a year or two.

Color is a problem. But for now they're fine for outdoor/utility lighting.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Post by Enough »

brettmcd wrote: It doesnt at all deal with the problems of a mercury spill in the home any time a lightbulb breaks.

If you want governmental controls which would be easier to regulate? A small number of power plants mercury emissions or 100 million or so homes recycling of lightbulbs?
Great so you are dropping the recycling argument now I take it? For someone so upset about an argument being ignored, you sure seem to do the same with great frequency.

Given that you seem very concerned about mercury contamination from CFLs I'm sure you must fervently desire stronger governmental regulations for power plants of the sort Bush struck down. I can only guess that must be it since you dropped that point too.

But let's do look at the home spill argument. You mentioned in the other thread you were going to research the mercury issue when you got home and that was days ago, so I'm sure you must have by now. I would appreciate if you would provide me a link quantifying what risk to my god child there is if she breaks a CFL while visiting our place.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

malchior wrote:That editorial is ridiculous grandstanding. Spill some oil in your sink and call up the local DEP and see how much it costs to get it cleaned up. Heck spill almost any of the hundreds of toxic chemicals that can be accidentally released in your home and call the DEP. Clean up costs will, of course be ridiculous for any of them if done by any hazardous material firm.
Still, if you broke a cfl, wouldn't you be concerned about the increased mercury cantamination in your home? What about pets and children?
Owner: 4OTP Pittsburgh Pirates
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Post by Enough »

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Enough wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:Can't we just skip to LEDs for household lighting?

Oh, wait, they're cheap, efficient, and last a long ass time. Nevermind.

I'm also guessing all the times we had swordfights with those flourescent tubes as a kid wasn't that good for me.
Cheap??? $80 for an LED light of decent brightness vs. $2-$5 for an equivalent CFL. The $30 LED bulbs are of marginal brightness. LEDs also have not achieved good color temperature like the newer soft white CFLs have, but I do look forward to the day they become the best option. They are not at present.

And I am old enough to have played with mercury in my hands as a kid. I'm sure that wasn't so great either, LOL.
At around 4 watts and 100,000 hours I'd call $30 cheap. It would pay for it self in a year or two.

Color is a problem. But for now they're fine for outdoor/utility lighting.
It's still cheap compared to incandescents I agree. I do use LEDs very actively wherever possible. LED utility lights, decorative lighting, head lamps, xmas lights are already in our lineup. The color issue may be solved down the line, but in the status quo we are not there now. We are there now for CFLs. So your request to skip straight to LEDs for "household lighting" is wishful thinking at best. I'll be happy to join in buying up LEDs as soon as they make sense for that application. My CFLs that contain a tiny amount of mercury will do me just fine until then.

I take exception to your remarks that CFLs don't last very long. I would speculate you have some wiring issues that are reducing their lifespan or something else is going on. We have CFLs going on their fifth birthday currently in my home and love the long life they provide. On the other hand I have one fixture in the bathroom with a wiring issue that results in a short life for any light bulb I've tried, including a decorative 7-color LED bulb that died in less than a month.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Post by malchior »

Poleaxe wrote:
malchior wrote:That editorial is ridiculous grandstanding. Spill some oil in your sink and call up the local DEP and see how much it costs to get it cleaned up. Heck spill almost any of the hundreds of toxic chemicals that can be accidentally released in your home and call the DEP. Clean up costs will, of course be ridiculous for any of them if done by any hazardous material firm.
Still, if you broke a cfl, wouldn't you be concerned about the increased mercury cantamination in your home? What about pets and children?
Depends on the quantity, and if really is a dangerous level. I don't quite buy the amount of mercury in the light bulb is so dangerous theory. Should they not be sold at all if they are so inherently unsafe that breaking even one would require an environmental cleanup?

The anecdote he provides doesn't even provide near enough facts. Was there any other source of mercury contamination? Is Maine's dangerous threshold unusually low (making it a natural choice for this argument)? Did it even happen or is he making it up? There are a lot of factors missing here. I have a house full of these and I'm not even a little concerned.
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Post by Enough »

malchior wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
malchior wrote:That editorial is ridiculous grandstanding. Spill some oil in your sink and call up the local DEP and see how much it costs to get it cleaned up. Heck spill almost any of the hundreds of toxic chemicals that can be accidentally released in your home and call the DEP. Clean up costs will, of course be ridiculous for any of them if done by any hazardous material firm.
Still, if you broke a cfl, wouldn't you be concerned about the increased mercury cantamination in your home? What about pets and children?
Depends on the quantity, and if really is a dangerous level. I don't quite buy the amount of mercury in the light bulb is so dangerous theory. Should they not be sold at all if they are so inherently unsafe that breaking even one would require an environmental cleanup?

The anecdote he provides doesn't even provide near enough facts. Was there any other source of mercury contamination? Is Maine's dangerous threshold unusually low (making it a natural choice for this argument)? Did it even happen or is he making it up? There are a lot of factors missing here. I have a house full of these and I'm not even a little concerned.
And as has been already posted:
Quaro wrote:This article in the OP freaked me the heck out!

But I've been looking on the net and finding conflicting info. Most places say the mercury is like 1/500th of the amount in a typical thermometer, for example.
Is it true that compact fluorescent light bulbs contain harmful mercury?

Compact fluorescent lights contain a very small amount of mercury, significantly less than those in fever thermometers. This small amount of mercury slowly bonds with the phosphor coating on the lamp interior as the lamp ages, prohibiting its entry into the atmosphere. Even breaking a fluorescent bulb is not a significant health risk because the amount of mercury vapor released is so small that it dissipates into the air with a minimal chance of inhalation.
It sounds like the mercury scare might be some kind of FUD operation? If it's really as bad as in the original article, I won't be using CFLs any longer...
I'm still waiting for Brett to produce his promised research on mercury in CFLs and what risk they create to my godchild.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
brettmcd
Posts: 4659
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:44 pm

Post by brettmcd »

Enough wrote:
brettmcd wrote: It doesnt at all deal with the problems of a mercury spill in the home any time a lightbulb breaks.

If you want governmental controls which would be easier to regulate? A small number of power plants mercury emissions or 100 million or so homes recycling of lightbulbs?
Great so you are dropping the recycling argument now I take it? For someone so upset about an argument being ignored, you sure seem to do the same with great frequency.

Given that you seem very concerned about mercury contamination from CFLs I'm sure you must fervently desire stronger governmental regulations for power plants of the sort Bush struck down. I can only guess that must be it since you dropped that point too.

But let's do look at the home spill argument. You mentioned in the other thread you were going to research the mercury issue when you got home and that was days ago, so I'm sure you must have by now. I would appreciate if you would provide me a link quantifying what risk to my god child there is if she breaks a CFL while visiting our place.
Umm hello?!?! I specifically mentioned recycling again in my post, so im not ignoring a damn thing.

You seem to claim that manditory recycling would work. I asked you which you think would be easier to regulate, a small number of power plants or 100+ million households using CFLs.
There is no problem so large that it cannot be solved by a liberal dosage of explosives.
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

malchior wrote:Depends on the quantity, and if really is a dangerous level. I don't quite buy the amount of mercury in the light bulb is so dangerous theory.
I don't know how dangerous it is either, but if mercury is a neurotoxin I would tend to err on the side of caution until I hear something that leads me to believe it's no big deal.
Owner: 4OTP Pittsburgh Pirates
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Post by malchior »

NEMA claims from here that the amount of Mercury in a CFL is 4 mg while a typical thermometer has 500 mg of Mercury in it. My non-panic has gone to total non-caring. Especially since I've broken probably 2 light bulbs in my lifetime and that was during a light bulb change. I'll be extra careful with these.
brettmcd
Posts: 4659
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:44 pm

Post by brettmcd »

Enough wrote:
malchior wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
malchior wrote:That editorial is ridiculous grandstanding. Spill some oil in your sink and call up the local DEP and see how much it costs to get it cleaned up. Heck spill almost any of the hundreds of toxic chemicals that can be accidentally released in your home and call the DEP. Clean up costs will, of course be ridiculous for any of them if done by any hazardous material firm.
Still, if you broke a cfl, wouldn't you be concerned about the increased mercury cantamination in your home? What about pets and children?
Depends on the quantity, and if really is a dangerous level. I don't quite buy the amount of mercury in the light bulb is so dangerous theory. Should they not be sold at all if they are so inherently unsafe that breaking even one would require an environmental cleanup?

The anecdote he provides doesn't even provide near enough facts. Was there any other source of mercury contamination? Is Maine's dangerous threshold unusually low (making it a natural choice for this argument)? Did it even happen or is he making it up? There are a lot of factors missing here. I have a house full of these and I'm not even a little concerned.
And as has been already posted:
Quaro wrote:This article in the OP freaked me the heck out!

But I've been looking on the net and finding conflicting info. Most places say the mercury is like 1/500th of the amount in a typical thermometer, for example.
Is it true that compact fluorescent light bulbs contain harmful mercury?

Compact fluorescent lights contain a very small amount of mercury, significantly less than those in fever thermometers. This small amount of mercury slowly bonds with the phosphor coating on the lamp interior as the lamp ages, prohibiting its entry into the atmosphere. Even breaking a fluorescent bulb is not a significant health risk because the amount of mercury vapor released is so small that it dissipates into the air with a minimal chance of inhalation.
It sounds like the mercury scare might be some kind of FUD operation? If it's really as bad as in the original article, I won't be using CFLs any longer...
I'm still waiting for Brett to produce his promised research on mercury in CFLs and what risk they create to my godchild.
Thank you so much for giving me only 10 minutes to post something I looked at while at home. Im at work right now and dont have the links I looked at. Ill have to remember this when you dont instantly answer a question asked of you.
There is no problem so large that it cannot be solved by a liberal dosage of explosives.
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Post by Fireball »

Enough wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:Can't we just skip to LEDs for household lighting?

Oh, wait, they're cheap, efficient, and last a long ass time. Nevermind.

I'm also guessing all the times we had swordfights with those flourescent tubes as a kid wasn't that good for me.
Cheap??? $80 for an LED light of decent brightness vs. $2-$5 for an equivalent CFL. The $30 LED bulbs are of marginal brightness. LEDs also have not achieved good color temperature like the newer soft white CFLs have, but I do look forward to the day they become the best option. They are not at present.

And I am old enough to have played with mercury in my hands as a kid. I'm sure that wasn't so great either, LOL.
Playing with mercury was fun. We did it in SCHOOL as part of a science class when I was a kid.

My parents have jars of mercury in their home. Probably a half-liter of the stuff, left over from my grandfather's 1950s-70s dental practice. A few years ago my dad got little glass ink jars, put mercury in them, melted the glass closed, and gave them to friends as paperweights.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Post by Zaxxon »

EnergyStar wrote:Does EPA recommend the use of CFLs?

Yes. CFLs, when compared with standard incandescent bulbs, offer many benefits. First, they help save energy and money. They use 2/3 less energy than standard incandescent light bulbs, and last up to 10 times longer. Replacing a 60-watt incandescent with a 13-watt CFL can save you at least $30 in energy costs over the life of the bulb. Second, CFLs offer convenience, because they last longer, and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture. In addition, CFLs produce about 70% less heat than standard incandescent bulbs, so they’re safer to operate and can help cut energy costs associated with home cooling. When shopping, always look for ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs.

Is it true that CFLs contain mercury? Why and how much?

CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing – an average of 5 milligrams (roughly equivalent to the tip of a ball-point pen). Mercury is an essential, irreplaceable element in CFLs and is what allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. By comparison, older home thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury and many manual thermostats contain up to 3000 milligrams. It would take between 100 and 600 CFLs to equal those amounts.

There is currently no substitute for mercury in CFLs; however, manufacturers have taken significant steps to reduce mercury used in their fluorescent lighting products over the past decade.

Should I be concerned about using CFLs in my home, or should I take any special precautions?

CFLs are safe to use in your home. No mercury is released when the bulbs are in use and they pose no danger to you or your family when used properly. However, CFLs are made of glass tubing and can break if dropped or roughly handled. Be careful when removing the lamp from its packaging, installing it, or replacing it. Always screw and unscrew the lamp by its base, and never forcefully twist the CFL into a light socket by its tubes. Used CFLs should be disposed of properly using the guidance below.

What should I do with a CFL when it burns out?

Follow these guidelines to dispose your CFL properly:
• Like paint, batteries, thermostats, and other hazardous household items, CFLs should be disposed of properly. Do not throw CFLs away in your household garbage if better disposal options exist. To find out what to do first check the following website: www.earth911.org where you can find disposal options by using your zip code (*see detailed instructions at the end of this document) or by calling 1-877-EARTH911 for local disposal options. Another option is to check directly with your local waste management agency for recycling options and disposal guidelines in your community. Additional information is available at www.lamprecycle.org. Finally, IKEA stores take back used CFLs, and other retailers are currently exploring take-back programs.
• If your local waste management agency offers no other disposal options except your household garbage, place the CFL in a plastic bag and seal it before putting it in the trash. If your waste agency incinerates its garbage, you should search a wider geographic area for proper disposal options. Never send a CFL or other mercury-containing product to an incinerator.
• ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs have a two-year warranty. If the bulb fails within the warranty period, return it to your retailer.

What should I do if a CFL breaks?

Because there is such a small amount of mercury in CFLs, your greatest risk if a bulb breaks is getting cut from glass shards. Research indicates that there is no immediate health risk to you or your family should a bulb break and it’s cleaned up properly. You can minimize any risks by following these proper clean-up and disposal guidelines:
• Sweep up—don’t vacuum—all of the glass fragments and fine particles.
• Place broken pieces in a sealed plastic bag and wipe the area with a damp paper towel to pick up any stray shards of glass or fine particles. Put the used towel in the plastic bag as well.
• If weather permits, open windows to allow the room to ventilate.


What is mercury, what are the sources of mercury emissions, and what are the risks?

Mercury is an element (Hg on the periodic table) found naturally in the environment.

Mercury emissions in the air can come from both natural and man-made sources. Utility power plants (mainly coal-fired) are the primary man-made source, as mercury that naturally exists in coal is released into the air when coal is burned to make electricity. Coal-fired power generation accounts for roughly 40% of the mercury emissions in the U.S. EPA is
implementing policies to reduce airborne mercury emissions. Under regulations issued in 2005, coal-fired power plants will need to reduce their emissions by 70 percent by 2018.

CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury emissions from entering the environment because they help to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. A coal-fired power plant will emit 13.6 milligrams of mercury to produce electricity required to use an incandescent light bulb, compared to 3.3 milligrams for a CFL. Even in areas without significant coal-fired power generation as part of the electricity mix (e.g., Alaska and the Pacific Northwest), there are other, equally positive environmental impacts from saving energy through the use of CFLs: reduction of nitrogen oxides (which cause smog), and prevention of substantial quantities of CO2, a greenhouse gas (which is linked to global warming), as well as other air pollutants.

Airborne mercury poses a very low risk of exposure. However, when mercury emissions deposit into lakes and oceans, they can transform into a highly toxic form that builds up in fish. Fish consumption is the most common pathway for human exposure to mercury. Pregnant women and young children are most vulnerable to the effects of this type of mercury exposure. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that most people are not exposed to harmful levels of mercury through fish consumption. However, the FDA and state agencies do issue public health advisories.

EPA offers additional information and resources on all sources of mercury at www.epa.gov/mercury.
Linky.
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

malchior wrote:NEMA claims from here that the amount of Mercury in a CFL is 4 mg while a typical thermometer has 500 mg of Mercury in it. My non-panic has gone to total non-caring. Especially since I've broken probably 2 light bulbs in my lifetime and that was during a light bulb change. I'll be extra careful with these.
I'm not sure that a broken cfl is safer than a broken thermometer is really the answer I'm looking for. That doesn't really answer the question.
Owner: 4OTP Pittsburgh Pirates
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Post by Fireball »

Poleaxe wrote:
malchior wrote:That editorial is ridiculous grandstanding. Spill some oil in your sink and call up the local DEP and see how much it costs to get it cleaned up. Heck spill almost any of the hundreds of toxic chemicals that can be accidentally released in your home and call the DEP. Clean up costs will, of course be ridiculous for any of them if done by any hazardous material firm.
Still, if you broke a cfl, wouldn't you be concerned about the increased mercury cantamination in your home? What about pets and children?
Less concerned than if a thermometer broke... wouldn't it cost thousands to clean up after a broken thermometer, too?

Those CFL bulbs aren't weak and easy to break like incandescents, either. You could drop one from a fixture to carpet and likely not break it. Good luck with that with a nasty old incandescent.

I'd think that the danger here is overstated. Fox is never a reliable source for information.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

Fireball1244 wrote:
Less concerned than if a thermometer broke... wouldn't it cost thousands to clean up after a broken thermometer, too?

Those CFL bulbs aren't weak and easy to break like incandescents, either. You could drop one from a fixture to carpet and likely not break it. Good luck with that with a nasty old incandescent.

I'd think that the danger here is overstated. Fox is never a reliable source for information.
But note that Zaxxon's quote from the EPA again doesn't talk about how dangerous a broken cfl is. It simply points out that there is less mercury than a thermostat.

And tougher or not, I have a 10 yearold and a 13 year old, both boys, and shit happens.
Owner: 4OTP Pittsburgh Pirates
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Post by malchior »

Poleaxe wrote:But note that Zaxxon's quote from the EPA again doesn't talk about how dangerous a broken cfl is. It simply points out that there is less mercury than a thermostat.
Read the What happens if a bulb should break section. They say you are more likely to be injured by the glass.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Post by noxiousdog »

Poleaxe wrote:
malchior wrote:NEMA claims from here that the amount of Mercury in a CFL is 4 mg while a typical thermometer has 500 mg of Mercury in it. My non-panic has gone to total non-caring. Especially since I've broken probably 2 light bulbs in my lifetime and that was during a light bulb change. I'll be extra careful with these.
I'm not sure that a broken cfl is safer than a broken thermometer is really the answer I'm looking for. That doesn't really answer the question.
Uh, why? Your parents likely played with liquid mercury as kids.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

malchior wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:But note that Zaxxon's quote from the EPA again doesn't talk about how dangerous a broken cfl is. It simply points out that there is less mercury than a thermostat.
Read the What happens if a bulb should break section. They say you are more likely to be injured by the glass.
Heh, he added that part in on an edit. I'm not sure the part where I should open a window and ventilate the home makes me feel all that much better.
Owner: 4OTP Pittsburgh Pirates
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

noxiousdog wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
malchior wrote:NEMA claims from here that the amount of Mercury in a CFL is 4 mg while a typical thermometer has 500 mg of Mercury in it. My non-panic has gone to total non-caring. Especially since I've broken probably 2 light bulbs in my lifetime and that was during a light bulb change. I'll be extra careful with these.
I'm not sure that a broken cfl is safer than a broken thermometer is really the answer I'm looking for. That doesn't really answer the question.
Uh, why? Your parents likely played with liquid mercury as kids.
And they lived in places with lead based paint...
Owner: 4OTP Pittsburgh Pirates
brettmcd
Posts: 4659
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:44 pm

Post by brettmcd »

noxiousdog wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
malchior wrote:NEMA claims from here that the amount of Mercury in a CFL is 4 mg while a typical thermometer has 500 mg of Mercury in it. My non-panic has gone to total non-caring. Especially since I've broken probably 2 light bulbs in my lifetime and that was during a light bulb change. I'll be extra careful with these.
I'm not sure that a broken cfl is safer than a broken thermometer is really the answer I'm looking for. That doesn't really answer the question.
Uh, why? Your parents likely played with liquid mercury as kids.
Which isnt exactly a safe activity.
There is no problem so large that it cannot be solved by a liberal dosage of explosives.
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Post by Zaxxon »

Poleaxe wrote:
malchior wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:But note that Zaxxon's quote from the EPA again doesn't talk about how dangerous a broken cfl is. It simply points out that there is less mercury than a thermostat.
Read the What happens if a bulb should break section. They say you are more likely to be injured by the glass.
Heh, he added that part in on an edit. I'm not sure the part where I should open a window and ventilate the home makes me feel all that much better.
No, I bolded it on an edit. :p

You also should open a window and ventilate the home when using Windex. People don't get up in arms about that. ;) We live in an age when people get a wee bit too worked up over very tiny risks.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Enough wrote:
It's still cheap compared to incandescents I agree. I do use LEDs very actively wherever possible. LED utility lights, decorative lighting, head lamps, xmas lights are already in our lineup. The color issue may be solved down the line, but in the status quo we are not there now. We are there now for CFLs. So your request to skip straight to LEDs for "household lighting" is wishful thinking at best. I'll be happy to join in buying up LEDs as soon as they make sense for that application. My CFLs that contain a tiny amount of mercury will do me just fine until then.

I take exception to your remarks that CFLs don't last very long. I would speculate you have some wiring issues that are reducing their lifespan or something else is going on. We have CFLs going on their fifth birthday currently in my home and love the long life they provide. On the other hand I have one fixture in the bathroom with a wiring issue that results in a short life for any light bulb I've tried, including a decorative 7-color LED bulb that died in less than a month.

I take exception to your remarks about my wiring issues.

:wink:

We use CFLs in stairwells. They're on about 70% of the time. I'd put the average lifespan around 9 months. It may be a wiring issue but I'm not entirely sure how that effects the life of a CFL.

I honestly don't think it's that difficult to get LEDs viable for home use. But there's not enough incentive right now. CFLs, as a huge improvement over incandescent bulbs, have seen to that. Skipping over the mercury issue, personally I'd still rather have everyone deal with unpretty LED lighting for the energy savings now and let the prettiness come later. But I'm an ass like that.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
RLMullen
Posts: 3591
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Somewhere between Louisburg and Raleigh NC

Post by RLMullen »

Poleaxe wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
malchior wrote:NEMA claims from here that the amount of Mercury in a CFL is 4 mg while a typical thermometer has 500 mg of Mercury in it. My non-panic has gone to total non-caring. Especially since I've broken probably 2 light bulbs in my lifetime and that was during a light bulb change. I'll be extra careful with these.
I'm not sure that a broken cfl is safer than a broken thermometer is really the answer I'm looking for. That doesn't really answer the question.
Uh, why? Your parents likely played with liquid mercury as kids.
And they lived in places with lead based paint...
and I used to ride my bike without a helmet...
and used an actual diving board at the pool...
and ran behind the "mosquito truck" breathing loads of whatever the hell gas it was blowing out the back...
and I played with mercury (fun stuff)...
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Post by Zaxxon »

LawBeefaroni wrote:We use CFLs in stairwells. They're on about 70% of the time. I'd put the average lifespan around 9 months. It may be a wiring issue but I'm not entirely sure how that effects the life of a CFL.
365 * 24 * .75 * .7 = 4,600 hours of use. Failure at that point isn't too far off from expected result, if we're only talking a few units and thus not enough for the law of averages to kick in.

In any event, it's 6x as long as the expected average life of incandescents.
Post Reply