Those Lightbulbs again

[paulbaxter]

FWIW,

I had read the story at canada.com. I don't feel interested enough to see how their reporting differs from Fox's. I don't at all understand, though, why people think it must be an illegitimate point if it comes from Fox or why it would even make any difference if Fox had some sort of prejudice on the issue. Doesn't affect the underlying issue.

[paulbaxter]

And from the article I cited, thought this was a relevant consideration:

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.

FWIW

I'm not all up in arms over light bulb issues, but it seems like some of the surrounding issues need very close consideration before governments start legislating on them. It's always a public disservice when any interest group (environmental or otherwise) can get legislation pushed through in a hurried way before the forseeable consequences can be examined and judged.

[malchior]

FWIW,

I had read the story at canada.com. I don't feel interested enough to see how their reporting differs from Fox's. I don't at all understand, though, why people think it must be an illegitimate point if it comes from Fox or why it would even make any difference if Fox had some sort of prejudice on the issue. Doesn't affect the underlying issue.

It's the same article as on Fox, and it's all histerics. Find an actual bankable fact in that article. Also, go read other articles by that author. He is a fringe writer, who is whipping up protest, because that is what he is paid to do. Also, you may want to check out his junkscience website which is chock full of complete nonsense as well. This guy is pure wingnut.

Sorry misread your post, but my point still stands that this guy is a fringe wingnut and Fox often chooses to publish stories like this WAY outside the mainstream, and that's why their credibility is often called to question.

[malchior]

I'm not all up in arms over light bulb issues, but it seems like some of the surrounding issues need very close consideration before governments start legislating on them. It's always a public disservice when any interest group (environmental or otherwise) can get legislation pushed through in a hurried way before the forseeable consequences can be examined and judged.

The Bush administration's EPA is pushing CFL's too. This isn't about environmental lefties pushing products on people for some maginal gain. The returns on this technology are worth the 'risks' especially since they are so mild.

[brettmcd]

I'm not all up in arms over light bulb issues, but it seems like some of the surrounding issues need very close consideration before governments start legislating on them. It's always a public disservice when any interest group (environmental or otherwise) can get legislation pushed through in a hurried way before the forseeable consequences can be examined and judged.

The Bush administration's EPA is pushing CFL's too. This isn't about environmental lefties pushing products on people for some maginal gain. The returns on this technology are worth the 'risks' especially since they are so mild.

If there are no risks why the push that its so important to recycle them or wrap them in a plastic bag (which will never go away, just wonderful for the environment as well). There is a problem, and you know as well as I do that the recycling wont be effective, and I cant see people wraping all the bulbs they throw away in little plastic coffins.

[Poleaxe]

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...

If there is 125 times more mercury in a mercury thermometer, and when that thermometer breakes the mercury is concentrated rather than 1) sticking to the glass, and 2) being dispersed into the air, and the room can be evacuated rather than intentionally coming into contact with all 500mg, I find the risk presented by CFL mercury poisioning to be on the level of hysterics.

My apologies if your parents suffer from excessive mercury poisoning from liquid mercury thermometers.

My apologies for when the Saints kick the shit out of the Texans this year.

[paulbaxter]

FWIW,

I had read the story at canada.com. I don't feel interested enough to see how their reporting differs from Fox's. I don't at all understand, though, why people think it must be an illegitimate point if it comes from Fox or why it would even make any difference if Fox had some sort of prejudice on the issue. Doesn't affect the underlying issue.

It's the same article as on Fox, and it's all histerics. Find an actual bankable fact in that article. Also, go read other articles by that author. He is a fringe writer, who is whipping up protest, because that is what he is paid to do. Also, you may want to check out his junkscience website which is chock full of complete nonsense as well. This guy is pure wingnut.

It IS a shame when writers get paid. We'll have to put a stop to that.

I don't know what you mean by bankable. I thought the disposal safety standards (amount per cubic meter of soil) was interesting.

I understand that some people may not like the author, his general perspective, or what he's written before, but if what he's said in this particular article is in general correct, it sounds like a matter of concern. If it's full of lies and distortions, it would be good to know that as well. I'm prepared to believe either if folks have more info to present.

[malchior]

If there are no risks why the push that its so important to recycle them or wrap them in a plastic bag (which will never go away, just wonderful for the environment as well).

Who said there was no risk. I don't see people getting up in arms about oil disposed in landfills, or electronics, or batteries, all of which are far more toxic. Almost all garbage is risky by it's nature. But the risk in this case is outweighed by the return by far.

Again, this is just another bullshit issue to muddy the water.

[brettmcd]

If there are no risks why the push that its so important to recycle them or wrap them in a plastic bag (which will never go away, just wonderful for the environment as well).

Who said there was no risk. I don't see people getting up in arms about oil disposed in landfills, or electronics, or batteries, all of which are far more toxic. Almost all garbage is risky by it's nature. But the risk in this case is outweighed by the return by far.

Again, this is just another bullshit issue to muddy the water.

Mercury contamination in landfills is hardly a 'bullshit issue' just because you disagree. Reasonable people on this board and other places feel its an issue, again hardly 'bullshit'.

[malchior]

I don't know what you mean by bankable. I thought the disposal safety standards (amount per cubic meter of soil) was interesting.

Except that we don't know what disposal method he is referring to, and we don't know how Maine's disposal standards compare to other jurisdictions. Perhaps, they have very stringent standards, or that may be for pure liquid mercury which is a very different beast from the form in CFLs, but it can't be checked because this isn't a scientific article and he doesn't have to explain the methodology behind his calculation.

[malchior]

If there are no risks why the push that its so important to recycle them or wrap them in a plastic bag (which will never go away, just wonderful for the environment as well).

Who said there was no risk. I don't see people getting up in arms about oil disposed in landfills, or electronics, or batteries, all of which are far more toxic. Almost all garbage is risky by it's nature. But the risk in this case is outweighed by the return by far.

Again, this is just another bullshit issue to muddy the water.

Mercury contamination in landfills is hardly a 'bullshit issue' just because you disagree. Reasonable people on this board and other places feel its an issue, again hardly 'bullshit'.

It's not just I that disagrees, the EPA gave guidelines for it's disposal in landfills. They sure felt it was safe enough to publish an explanation why CFLs are a good idea, and that was because it reduces overall Mercury contamination.

And again you managed to evade the question, far more toxic things are thrown in landfills everyday. Where is the uproar over that?

[brettmcd]

If there are no risks why the push that its so important to recycle them or wrap them in a plastic bag (which will never go away, just wonderful for the environment as well).

Who said there was no risk. I don't see people getting up in arms about oil disposed in landfills, or electronics, or batteries, all of which are far more toxic. Almost all garbage is risky by it's nature. But the risk in this case is outweighed by the return by far.

Again, this is just another bullshit issue to muddy the water.

Mercury contamination in landfills is hardly a 'bullshit issue' just because you disagree. Reasonable people on this board and other places feel its an issue, again hardly 'bullshit'.

It's not just I that disagrees, the EPA gave guidelines for it's disposal in landfills. They sure felt it was safe enough to publish an explanation why CFLs are a good idea, and that was because it reduces overall Mercury contamination.

And again you managed to evade the question, far more toxic things are thrown in landfills everyday. Where is the uproar over that?

It may be no real issue IF people recycle all of them or IF they wrap them in plastic bags to throw them away. Both are things that american consumers wont do.

Also just because something might be worse doesnt mean that anything that isnt quite as bad should be ignored. Thats a really poor way to deflect an arguement.

[ChrisGwinn]

Me, last time we cared about this wrote:
Now we're getting at the core of the problem - how to respectfully and constructively deal with people who hold different beliefs than you. Let's use me and my post as an example. We disagree on whether or not you're behaving inappropriately. I hold the affirmative belief that you are, while you vehemently disagree.

First, don't mischaracterize the other person's beliefs.

In this exchange, I believe that you have been exhibiting poor behavior, which I described as "you seem to attach the worst possible reading to any post that addreses you". I don't believe that you've "done...horrible things", that "noone has insulted [you] or attacked [you] here", or that "[you] shouldn't post here at all". The first two can't reasonably be inferred from what I posted, while the second was phrased as a hypothetical (if X is true, then you probably shouldn't do Y).

Second, address the points the other person made.

In this example, evidence that I'm wrong would consist of threads where people have criticised you and you haven't taken the worst possible reading. You could also point to the responses to your earliest postings on this message board, which should (if you're correct) be able to establish a pattern of behavior that has existed from the very beginning of your time here.

Third, don't escalate to absolutes.

It's very unusual for any sentence with "no one", "never" or "always" to be correct. If the person you're arguing with doesn't use that language, there's rarely a good reason to introduce it. It just takes one counter-example to prove you wrong.

Fourth, try to use good grammar. People are more likely to misinterpret you if you're missing important parts of speech.

Let's take your response to my post and look at how it could be structured in a way that would facilitate good discussion.

Quote:

Again ive never been shown a shred of respect here, so I sure as hell am not going to respect people treat others like that.

You've started by making an absolute statement that has been frequently disputed. The fact that people have disagreed with you about this may indicate that you have a different concept of what it means to show someone respect.

Rather than making an absolute statement that can be countered by a single example (see noxiousdog's post), perhaps start by talking about the behavior you would expect to see from someone showing respect. A strong way to support this would be by providing examples from your early participation on this board, where you presumably showed respect to others (before they lost it). You did initially show respect to others, right?

You're also missing a "who" in that sentence. I assume it was meant to be a who. Missing words makes it harder to follow your argument. Try previewing your post before you submit it.
Quote:

I have zero control over how people decide to respond to my opinions. But somehow its all my fault that the 'tone' of things is somehow wrong.

We have a couple more absolutes here, and they've already been raised as points of dispute. Several of us are making the claim that how people post alters how people respond, which then influences the overall tone. Rather than just saying we're wrong, try explaining why you feel we're wrong. Find examples of similar posts with different opinions that don't elicit similar responses. Find examples of posts with the same opinions and different styles that elicit the same responses. Maybe there really are opinions that, when expressed, lead to a problematic tone in a way that's entirely unrelated to posting style. It would be interesting to identify those opinions.


The fact that I can copy and paste this from the last "intervention" and it's still relevant is sad.

The fact that I can still copy and paste this -- and every word is still relevant -- points to ongoing problems.

[brettmcd]

Me, last time we cared about this wrote:
Now we're getting at the core of the problem - how to respectfully and constructively deal with people who hold different beliefs than you. Let's use me and my post as an example. We disagree on whether or not you're behaving inappropriately. I hold the affirmative belief that you are, while you vehemently disagree.

First, don't mischaracterize the other person's beliefs.

In this exchange, I believe that you have been exhibiting poor behavior, which I described as "you seem to attach the worst possible reading to any post that addreses you". I don't believe that you've "done...horrible things", that "noone has insulted [you] or attacked [you] here", or that "[you] shouldn't post here at all". The first two can't reasonably be inferred from what I posted, while the second was phrased as a hypothetical (if X is true, then you probably shouldn't do Y).

Second, address the points the other person made.

In this example, evidence that I'm wrong would consist of threads where people have criticised you and you haven't taken the worst possible reading. You could also point to the responses to your earliest postings on this message board, which should (if you're correct) be able to establish a pattern of behavior that has existed from the very beginning of your time here.

Third, don't escalate to absolutes.

It's very unusual for any sentence with "no one", "never" or "always" to be correct. If the person you're arguing with doesn't use that language, there's rarely a good reason to introduce it. It just takes one counter-example to prove you wrong.

Fourth, try to use good grammar. People are more likely to misinterpret you if you're missing important parts of speech.

Let's take your response to my post and look at how it could be structured in a way that would facilitate good discussion.

Quote:

Again ive never been shown a shred of respect here, so I sure as hell am not going to respect people treat others like that.

You've started by making an absolute statement that has been frequently disputed. The fact that people have disagreed with you about this may indicate that you have a different concept of what it means to show someone respect.

Rather than making an absolute statement that can be countered by a single example (see noxiousdog's post), perhaps start by talking about the behavior you would expect to see from someone showing respect. A strong way to support this would be by providing examples from your early participation on this board, where you presumably showed respect to others (before they lost it). You did initially show respect to others, right?

You're also missing a "who" in that sentence. I assume it was meant to be a who. Missing words makes it harder to follow your argument. Try previewing your post before you submit it.
Quote:

I have zero control over how people decide to respond to my opinions. But somehow its all my fault that the 'tone' of things is somehow wrong.

We have a couple more absolutes here, and they've already been raised as points of dispute. Several of us are making the claim that how people post alters how people respond, which then influences the overall tone. Rather than just saying we're wrong, try explaining why you feel we're wrong. Find examples of similar posts with different opinions that don't elicit similar responses. Find examples of posts with the same opinions and different styles that elicit the same responses. Maybe there really are opinions that, when expressed, lead to a problematic tone in a way that's entirely unrelated to posting style. It would be interesting to identify those opinions.


The fact that I can copy and paste this from the last "intervention" and it's still relevant is sad.

The fact that I can still copy and paste this -- and every word is still relevant -- points to ongoing problems.

Chris we are back to discussing the issue at hand here, what was the fucking point in trying to derail this into more pointless crap? Do you enjoy causing trouble?

[malchior]

It may be no real issue IF people recycle all of them or IF they wrap them in plastic bags to throw them away. Both are things that american consumers wont do.

Wait, wait, wait. So you are telling me the EPA is recommending this, but they just didn't consider that people might not follow the directions carefully and correctly in all cases?

Also just because something might be worse doesnt mean that anything that isnt quite as bad should be ignored. Thats a really poor way to deflect an arguement.

It's not a deflection. It points out that terrible things are thrown in landfills everyday and there hasn't been some environmental cataclysm. Yet, CFLs which actually REDUCE pollution overall are the problem. That's why it's a bullshit argument. We can have Mercury pollution in GREATER volumes pumped into the air, but burying it in the ground at LOWER volumes in a totally different form which is less toxic is an issue. That's the bullshit.

[Hiccup]

I don't know why I'm going to try to post in this thread. History has proven that the information I will present will be ignored or the thread will become a version of Monty Pythons Argument. But here we go.

Mercury
Mercury is used in many household items: thermostats, thermometers, fluorescent lights, batteries and switches for appliances, lights and automobiles. Exposure to large quantities of mercury in our air, water and fish we eat is a documented risk to human health. An extremely small amount of mercury—an average of four milligrams—is sealed within the glass tubing of a CFL. This is said to be about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. It is an essential, irreplaceable element in CFLs, and it’s what allows the bulb to be such an efficient light source. The mercury in a CFL is no threat to the environment unless the glass is broken. For a basis of comparison, there are about one to three grams of mercury in your average home thermometer. It would take between 250 to 1000 CFLs to equal that same amount.4

Ironically, a regular incandescent light bulb actually releases much more mercury into the environment than a CFL. CFLs prevent mercury from entering our air, where it most affects our health by reducing energy demand at the power plant. The highest source of mercury in our air comes from burning fossil fuels such as coal, the most common fuel used in Michigan to produce electricity. A CFL uses up to 75% less energy than an incandescent light bulb and lasts up to 10 times longer. A power plant will emit 10mg of mercury to produce the electricity to run an incandescent bulb compared to only 2.4mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same time.7 (mg = milligrams)

The difference between CFLs and Incandescents is it shifts the mercury from the power plant to your home. However the amount of mercury in a CFL is a not a hazard (and would take upwards of 250 bulbs to equal your mercury thermometer).

What I'm seeing is that CFL recycling is an all or nothing argument. IF 1 person won't recycle, everyone won't. Here is a report from Oregon’s pilot program for recycling. What is shows is that the amount of bulbs it is recycling is increasing. With more people adopting CFLs into their homes, and recycling old CFLs becomes more available and commonplace, the risk of widespread contamination in a landfill will be dramatically reduced.

LEDs are the safest, and most cost effective in the long run, but are still upfront cost heavy (and some may argue that CFLs are upfront cost heavy). Incandescent light bulbs have the most negative impact on the environment out of the three options in terms of energy production/consumption.

The more energy is needed means more energy needed to produce, and in turn the more pollution power plants put out. The less energy we need to produce the better.

Now, back to your bickering about who insulted someone’s intelligence.

[LordMortis]

I don't know why I'm going to try to post in this thread.

Because some of us read and learn and only occasionally get caught on the silly noise distorting the signal.

[The Meal]

I don't know why I'm going to try to post in this thread.

Because some of us read and learn and only occasionally get caught on the silly noise distorting the signal.

Around here, I'd guess this is pretty close to the majority position, actually.

~Neal

[Enough]

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:

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.

Hey Brett, is an entire weekend enough time for you to get your promised links?

[brettmcd]

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:

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.

Hey Brett, is an entire weekend enough time for you to get your promised links?

Nope, not when you are the one demanding them.

[Hiccup]

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:

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.

Hey Brett, is an entire weekend enough time for you to get your promised links?

Nope, not when you are the one demanding them.

Can I humbly request them? I would really like to know.

[abr]

Maybe we should ask TMH what he thinks about the mercury issue.

[paulbaxter]

. . . helpful stuff . . .

That's all good. I think a helpful way to bring it forward (and I don't know whether folks here either would have or could find or create this info) is projections about what sorts of volumes of mercury would likely end up in various places if there was a large scale or total shift to CFL's.

The current mercury and other polutants produced by the power for incandescents is also relevant to the discussion, no doubt. But comparisons do need to include this element of WHERE the polutants end up. If, for the sake of argument, polutants from power generation were almost entirely contained and properly disposed/stored/whatever, then probably, I would think, CFL's would probably be responsible for comparatively more mercury polution.

This issue of HOW CFL's are likely to be disposed of is also relevant, and possibly predictable to some extent. Right now people are accustomed to just throwing broken light bulbs in the garbage. It seems liely that some portion of consumers would continue to due just that. Various types of conceivable legislation could affect this number: mandatory labelling on packing or on the bulbs about disposal processes; establishment of dedicated disposal centers; fines/penalties for improper disposal, etc.

My overall impression is that these bulbs are probably a wonderful and useful invention. My fear is that human stupidity will make them into a public hazard. There would be a certain irony (as Milloy implied) about being able to blame environmentalists for creating a hazard, but I'm not one who would want to see that just out of spite.

[Hiccup]

I think the main problem with CLF's and Consumers right now is it's still new, and the majority are still waiting for some definate answer to be told to them. Right now, I think the early adopters are taking advantage of them because they have researched them and know how to handle them.

It will take a while before we see less and less articles like the OP one, but I think it will happen soon...well, HOPE it will happen soon.

[malchior]

The current mercury and other polutants produced by the power for incandescents is also relevant to the discussion, no doubt. But comparisons do need to include this element of WHERE the polutants end up. If, for the sake of argument, polutants from power generation were almost entirely contained and properly disposed/stored/whatever, then probably, I would think, CFL's would probably be responsible for comparatively more mercury polution.

But that's the thing. You can't contain all of the mercury pollution from the factory. At least, in a cost effective manner. So either you jack the price of power up to stop Mercury pollution(through compliance efforts) or you reduce the increase in power demand. The EPA says that is the irony of this situation. And that's a BUSH weakened EPA.

This issue of HOW CFL's are likely to be disposed of is also relevant, and possibly predictable to some extent. Right now people are accustomed to just throwing broken light bulbs in the garbage. It seems liely that some portion of consumers would continue to due just that. Various types of conceivable legislation could affect this number: mandatory labelling on packing or on the bulbs about disposal processes; establishment of dedicated disposal centers; fines/penalties for improper disposal, etc.

I agree, but those mechanisms likely already exist. They just classified the CFLs as a certain product category, because those regulations already existed. But, the point remains that far more toxic stuff is dumped all the time, but this one category is the one we are going to die on the cross for seems like it is out of whack with reality.

My overall impression is that these bulbs are probably a wonderful and useful invention. My fear is that human stupidity will make them into a public hazard.

30000 people are killed by cars every year. We somehow accept that level of risk, but a tiny amount of Mercury in your bulbs is a danger. The relatively remote possibility of exposure to this threat comes across as pure hysterics.

There would be a certain irony (as Milloy implied) about being able to blame environmentalists for creating a hazard, but I'm not one who would want to see that just out of spite.

That statement was obviously an emotional cudgel--stealing from John Stewart here--to stifle honest conversation. Almost any broad spectrum policy choice is going to have risks, but again what is the trade off. I think it's pretty clear that the big tradeoff to the nearly miniscule risk is well worth it.

[malchior]

I think the main problem with CLF's and Consumers right now is it's still new, and the majority are still waiting for some definate answer to be told to them. Right now, I think the early adopters are taking advantage of them because they have researched them and know how to handle them.

It will take a while before we see less and less articles like the OP one, but I think it will happen soon...well, HOPE it will happen soon.

I agree, but articles like this are shameful attempts to disguise fearmongering as thoughtful discourse, and cost us as a society time and effort dealing with little risks here and there, when bigger problems that no one talks about loom over us.

People wonder why gas prices are so high, or heating bills, or electric bills, and then go about wasting energy left and right so that they feel a little safer, but aren't safer, in fact they might be worse off. It's frustrating, because there is a bizzare societal blindness at work here.

[paulbaxter]

I think it's pretty clear that the big tradeoff to the nearly miniscule risk is well worth it.

Just to be clear, I'm inclined to agree with you on the bottom line. I'm just trying to help pinpoint where the issues are and what sorts of information might help to clarify things further. I don't HAVE any of that info, so I'll keep my mind and ears open.

[malchior]

I think it's pretty clear that the big tradeoff to the nearly miniscule risk is well worth it.

Just to be clear, I'm inclined to agree with you on the bottom line. I'm just trying to help pinpoint where the issues are and what sorts of information might help to clarify things further. I don't HAVE any of that info, so I'll keep my mind and ears open.

No worries at least you are making the points pleasantly.

[aegistalon]

Several people mentioned-

...played with mercury in my hands as a kid.

I seem to recall that elemental mercury can't be absorbed through the skin. The extra fumes released from body heat/movement are another story entirely though.

[Enough]

Nope, not when you are the one demanding them.

I wasn't demanding, I was only going off of your offer to provide the links when you got home that you claim to already have ready to go. For a guy who says he is able to discuss and defend what he believes quite well it should be automatic to provide the research, regardless of who you are discussing the matter with. Particularly so when it was you who engaged me on this question in the first place.

It's not like I'm the only one who is interested. All of your arguments you've been tirelessly making in multiple threads on the dangers of CFL mercury contamination depend on your promised links. Put up or shut up, otherwise you are all hot air. Besides, I think all of us in this thread are honestly interested in the strongest argument about mercury danger from CFLs that is out there. So where's the data you claimed to have researched? Paulbaxter is providing actual sources for us to digest on the potential pitfalls, why can't you? Have you ever once provided a citation in any of the CFL threads to back up your claims? Not that I can find.

And I didn't realize I was on your hit list, when did that happen?

[Hiccup]

Other interesting info on CFL's and recycling:

ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs have a two-year warranty. If the bulb fails within the warranty period, return it to your retailer.

Also, find out how many CFL recycling centers are near you and where they are. Here

[Eightball]

I don't know why I'm going to try to post in this thread. History has proven that the information I will present will be ignored or the thread will become a version of Monty Pythons Argument. But here we go.

Thanks for the link and succeeding info. I'm really interested in the pros/cons of CFLs, something I literally knew nothing about before the last thread. More info is always good.

Edit:
And if anyone's interested, today's Washington Post has an article about how domestic adoption of the CFLs has been slow in the US. Link to article

Experts on energy consumption call it the "wife test." And one of the dimly lighted truths of the global-warming era is that fluorescent bulbs still seem to be flunking out in most American homes.

The current market share of CFL bulbs in the United States is about 6 percent, up from less than 1 percent before 2001. But that compares dismally with CFL adoption rates in other wealthy countries such as Japan (80 percent), Germany (50 percent) and the United Kingdom (20 percent). Australia has announced a phaseout of incandescent bulbs by 2009, and the Canadian province of Ontario decided last week to ban them by 2012.

The relatively glacial adoption rate of CFLs in most of the United States suggests continued stiff resistance on the home front, despite dramatically lower prices for the bulbs and impressive improvements in their quality.

"There is still a big hurdle in convincing Americans that lighting-purchase decisions make a big difference in individual electricity bills and collectively for the environment," said Wendy Reed, director of the federal government's Energy Star campaign, which labels products that save energy and has been working with retailers to market CFL bulbs.

"I have heard time and again that a husband goes out and puts the bulb into the house, thinking he is doing a good thing," Reed said. "Then, the CFL bulb is changed back out by the women. It seems that women are much more concerned with how things look. We are the nesters."

[Enough]

I don't know why I'm going to try to post in this thread. History has proven that the information I will present will be ignored or the thread will become a version of Monty Pythons Argument. But here we go.

Thanks for the link and info. I'm really interested in CFLs.

Seconded. With our ever increasing use of them in our home I am genuinely interested in the potential benefits and pitfalls.

[malchior]

Just an FYI, this article was posted on slashdot and here's a little heads up on the author, Steve Milloy. He's in the pocket of Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil, and other big money interests. And it looks like I was wrong about him. He's not a fringe wingnut, he's just a PR guy fronting for his clients.

That Fox knows about this and continues to not disclose those links stinks to high heaven.

[Zaxxon]

I don't know why I'm going to try to post in this thread. History has proven that the information I will present will be ignored or the thread will become a version of Monty Pythons Argument. But here we go.

Thanks for the link and info. I'm really interested in CFLs.

Seconded. With our ever increasing use of them in our home I am genuinely interested in the potential benefits and pitfalls.

+1.

[Enough]

Just an FYI, this article was posted on slashdot and here's a little heads up on the author, Steve Milloy. He's in the pocket of Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil, and other big money interests. And it looks like I was wrong about him. He's not a fringe wingnut, he's just a PR guy fronting for his clients.

That Fox knows about this and continues to not disclose those links stinks to high heaven.

Cool, lots of good stuff in the /. thread for those interested. This has to be the first article Milloy's written that takes any environmental risk seriously.

I found this Popular Mechanics link in the /. thread on which CFLs are the best buy to be interesting reading. The soft white n:vision bulbs we've been using at home scored well. Even more amazing the incandescent bulb came in last place. But the highlight so far was this link to a much less biased local newspaper account of the OP story of the women with the $2k cleanup bill.

Officials have said that Bridges has little to worry about and she could easily clean up the bulbs by hand.

State Toxicologist Andrew Smith said it would be unlikely that a person could contract mercury poisoning from the levels of mercury found in Bridges’ daughter’s room.

“In this situation, my understanding, was this 1,900 was the sign reading right at the spot of the floor where the bulb broke,” said Smith. “While 1,900 was certainly considered an elevated reading of mercury vapor, it was a very localized level that I would not expect to result in any sign of mercury exposure.”

Smith said mercury is only dangerous with long-term exposure and in this case the person would have to stay right at the spot of the 1,900 reading or there would have to be elevated levels of mercury vapor in the breathing zone — about 3 feet — above the spill. Mercury also dissipates over time.

The air in the bedroom at the 3-foot level measured between 31 to 49 ng/m3 of mercury, depending on the location.

Smith said a CFL light bulb breaking is not in the same category as when a mercury thermometer breaks.

“We encourage people not to panic if they break a lightbulb,” said Cowger.

Cowger said the instructions on the Web site are the same for if a mercury thermometer breaks. If a person breaks anything bigger than a thermometer, for example a thermostat, Cowger recommends calling a professional to clean up the spill.

The DEP spokesman said, though, it “isn’t necessary to hire professionals at all” for a light bulb. The specialist who responded to Bridges’ broken bulb was trained to respond to chemical spills and to clean up such spills to “appropriate standards.”

As for the dangers of CFL bulbs, Cowger said they are more help than hindrance.

For every CFL bulb a person uses, he or she is preventing mercury emissions and using less energy, said Cowger, but it is still important to educate people that these bulbs do contain a small amount of mercury.

“We’re doing our part and I think using fluorescent bulbs helps reduce that overall mercury burden on the environment, so people shouldn’t be afraid of them, by any means,” he said. “They should be proud to burn those bulbs as a way of lowering our entire mercury burden.”

[The Meal]

Several people mentioned-

...played with mercury in my hands as a kid.

I seem to recall that elemental mercury can't be absorbed through the skin. The extra fumes released from body heat/movement are another story entirely though.

Yeah. Famed astronomer Tycho Brahe used to drink elemental mercury by the liter before he finally croaked of mercury poisoning.

Most historians, including the authors, were skeptical of Kaempe's conclusion that Brahe accidentally caused his own poisoning. The writers point out that although modern equipment was needed to prove the cause of death centuries ago, this did not mean the alchemists of yore were ignorant of mercury's attributes. Interestingly, the Hindu word for alchemy is "rasasiddhi" meaning "knowledge of mercury," a name which reflects the ancient fascination with this metal. They knew that pure metallic mercury - such as is found in a thermometer - is relatively benign, while mercury compounds can be toxic and even fatal.

~Neal

[Hiccup]

But the highlight so far was this link to a much less biased local newspaper account of the OP story of the women with the $2k cleanup bill.

Sounds like the over protective parent in that article

Bridges still isn’t convinced. She’s worried about her daughter staying in the same house for the next 11 years, potentially having long-term exposure to mercury. She’s worried about the rest of her family’s health.

And she’s worried about “the state downplaying the threat of mercury and not letting people know the dangers coming from one bulb” and “telling everybody to clean it up themselves.”

“I think they are putting people’s safety and health at risk because they know what the financial repercussions are going to be for the consumer,” said Bridges.

I'm not sure what she's getting at in the last paragraph. And if I read correctly, she hasn't yet paid the $2,000, its more of a quote to clean up if she chooses to. One might wonder why she won't let someone clean the spot like they mentioned in the article (for free) and then retest the mercury in the area. Makes more sense then going all Cindy Sheehan about it.

[malchior]

Here's what an environmental health expert from Harvard has to say about CFL breakage in the home. Link.

[brettmcd]

Here's what an environmental health expert from Harvard has to say about CFL breakage in the home. Link.

Your source is as biased as junkscience.com and Mr Milloy. So I will ignore it as usless, as you claim Milloys opinions are.