Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dim Bulbs of Bias - RW'ers attack fluorescent light bulbs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:42 PM
Original message
Dim Bulbs of Bias - RW'ers attack fluorescent light bulbs
They say a good story never dies. But a misleading story has quite a bit of staying power as well, especially when the ConWeb is perpetuating those misleading claims.

An April 16 WorldNetDaily article by Joseph Farah on the alleged toxicity of "energy-saving and money-saving compact fluorescent lamps" that "everyone is being urged, cajoled and guilt-tripped into purchasing" featured the case of the Brandy Bridges family, who purportedly faced a $2,000 bill to clean up mercury contamination in their home after a fluorescent bulb broke. Since the family could not afford it and insurance would not cover it, the family "has been forced to seal off her daughter's bedroom with plastic to avoid any dust blowing around. Not even the family pets are permitted in to the bedroom. Her daughter is forced to sleep downstairs in an overcrowded household."

In fact, Farah's article is a big load of scaremongering hooey.

Farah apparently lifted his story about the Bridges family from a an April 12 article in a Maine newspaper, the Ellsworth American. But Farah didn't copy-and-paste the part stating that a four-figure cleanup following a broken fluorescent bulb is unnecessary overkill:

"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."

...

So the bedroom doesn't need to be sealed off! They can air out the room and sweep up the glass! There's absolutely no reason to spend $2,000!

Further, blogger PZ Myers noted another relevant issue: According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the amount of mercury in a compact fluorescent bulb, plus the amount of mercury emissions from the electricity needed to power that bulb (as generated by a coal-fired power plant) is still less than the mercury emissions generated for the electricity needed to operate an incandescent bulb.

Farah didn't mention any of this. No surprise -- for being the head of a "news" organization, Farah's own reporting record is abysmal.

Still, Farah followed up with a May 11 column noting that his original article was being used as an "example" of a fallacious charge on the Snopes urban-legend-debunking site. Farah retorted:

"The story was so good, if I do say so myself, it was picked up internationally.

Everything in the story is 100 percent accurate and truthful – and not a word of the original story has been altered.

(...)

Snopes reports my story is an "example" of this ludicrous assertion: "An environmental clean-up crew needs to be called in to deal with the mercury dispersed by one broken CFL bulb."

Now, I dare you. Go read my story and tell me where I, the reporter in this case, suggested any such nonsense."

...

Farah was the most shameless misleader on the subject, but he wasn't alone in peddling an incomplete -- and thus false -- story about the Bridges family.

A May 10 CNSNews.com article by Fred Lucas took a page out of Farah's notebook,making misleadingly alarmist claims about CFLs. Lucas stated that "Bridges dropped a fluorescent bulb in her daughter's room and it shattered, leaving potentially unsafe levels of mercury inside the rug. At the suggestions of the state's Department of Environmental Protection, she now has to pay $2,000 for a professional environmental clean up. Her seven-year-old daughter sleeps in the family room, as her room is sealed off by plastic."

But like Farah, Lucas descended into scaremongering and ignored information showing that the Bridges case was overblown. And like Farah, Lucas failed to mention that, according to the Ellsworth American, another spokesman for Maine's Department of Environmental Protection points out that it "isn’t necessary to hire professionals at all" for a broken CFL bulb, and that the specialist who responded to Bridges’ broken bulb query was trained to respond to chemical spills.

...

Two months later, this misleading meme and incompletely told story about the Bridges family was still kicking around the ConWeb. A July 5 Accuracy in Media "special report" by Cliff Kincaid and Andy Selepak puts a protectionist twist on scary claims about compact fluorescent light bulbs, claiming that CFL proponents "fail to mention that the bulbs are made in communist China and are potentially hazardous to human health," further attacking General Electric for manufacturing CFLs "in Red China at the expense of American jobs and workers." Suddenly AIM is concerned about American jobs moving overseas?

Kincaid and Selepak went on to claim: "The Washington Times reported on May 3, 2007, that it cost one Maine family $2,004.28 to clean up the toxic mess from just one broken CFL, and that it would 'take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to 'safely' contain all the mercury in a single CFL.' " In fact, the only CFL-related item the Times ran that day was not a news article but, rather, a column (reproduced at the Fox News website) by conservative activist Steven Milloy that was an attack on CFLs, not the balanced "news" article Kincaid and Selepak suggest it is. Milloy has a habit of spouting debunked claims in order to attack global warming and nuclear radiation concerns.

In repeating the anecdote about the Maine family purportedly facing spending "$2,004.28 to clean up the toxic mess from just one broken CFL," Milloy -- and, thus, Kincaid and Selepak -- fails to tell the whole story.

Another thing this whole bunch failed to mention: that they may have been played by Brandy Bridges. The Ellsworth American reported that Bridges "spent roughly two to three hours a day over the past several weeks, talking on the phone and in person and contacting local papers to get the word out on what she believes are dangerous light bulbs." Did WND, CNS or AIM print their articles based on a personal entreaty from Bridges -- with the caveat that they make her look like a victim and hide the full story? Only they can answer.

Either Farah, Lucas, Milloy, Kincaid and Selepak are dimbulbs for not doing basic research to tell the full story about CFLs and the Bridges family, uncritically regurgitating Brandy Bridges' claims -- or, in knowingly peddling such misleading, incomplete tripe, they assume that we are the dimbulbs.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/outthere/otbulbs.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've posted several times about this on DU.
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 11:49 PM by Maat
Hubby is a chemical engineer, and showed me the facts - the new ecofriendly lightbulbs actually have less mercury in them than a family's thermometer, or one their light assemblies on the wall (that under the cute lightswitch).

When Farah, and WorldNutDaily, first put that nonsense up, I wrote him an email. That did a whole lot of good, as you can imagine.

I have the link to the EPA factsheet, if anyone needs it.

That having been said, when one goes out (literally, they seem to last forever - and I'm not having any problems with them), they have recycling centers for them nearby (e.g. at IKEA stores).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. One of mine broke the other day. I swept up and threw out the
remains.

Hope I don't die or somethin'...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. I have bad news for you: you're going to die.
It won't have anything to do with the broken CFL, of course,
but it will eventually happen.

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Eventual death is such a bummer. LOL nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. You did exactly what the EPA recommends (as I read it)!
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 12:08 PM by Maat
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf .

The fact sheet states that the CFL has less mercury than other regular household items.

If I get the jist of it, you just sweep it up and throw it out (although, ideally, we should specially recycle the bulb, or keep the materials in a special place at the dump). It does look like they want the area to be well-ventilated, and that, ideally, they want you to put any remnants in a plastic baggie. We just need to remember that for the future.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. Something else good about them.
The SO is a former engineer.

He pointed out that not only do the squirrely fluorescent bulbs put out more light for less electricity, they put out less heat.

Because they put out less heat, your air conditioner doesn't have to work as hard to remove the heat the light bulb produces.

So you save money TWICE on your electricity bill, putting the heat into the atmosphere and taking it out via the A/C.

Damn I'm glad he's smart enough to think of this stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. $2,004.28 - That's how I know the story is bogus.
Just the figure.

No environmental clean-up firm mentioned. No itemization of services. No bill produced.

Just a number that fits neatly into the pre-conceived story line.

Oh, and a non-existent Washington Time article.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. LEDs Will Make CFLs Obsolete Soon
They last practically forever, no mercury, and they don't break.
The latest LEDs are producing similar lumens/watt to CFLs, and
they are getting better every month.

By the time the CFLs I'm using and the spares in my closet are done,
LEDs will probably be the light source of choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durablend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Oh come on--that'll never happen!
Everyone knows LEDs are the devils work and an admission that the user supports terrorists!

Get with the program already!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Will it burst your bubble if you learn that LEDs contain arsenic?
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 10:31 AM by Tesha
LEDs will be very nice, yes, when they finally match
CFLs for price and efficiency and incandescents for
spectrum and color temperature, but they're no panacea.

Semiconductor manufacturing is a very chemical-
intensive process and many of the LEDs contain
Arsenic (those that are made from Gallium Arsenide).
Not all LEDs, but at least some LEDs. Plus
the electronic controls within the LED lamp
assemblies contain the exact same sorts of stuff
as the electronic ballasts in CFLs. Plus the plastic
packaging of the completed lamp assembly contains...
Plus the plastic shipping packaging of the product
contains...

And, like any electronic device, at least some
of the magical LED lamps *WILL* experience
"infant mortality"; premature failures occurring
long before their (say) 25-year lifetime has
run out.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Not That Many Use GaAs
It's really expensive so most don't. You're right that the bright, light colored ones use it, but those tend to be obnoxiously bluish, so it will be a matter of time before a better chemical combination is found to emit a broader spectrum light centered around yellow, rather than around blue.

The excitiation state of the outer orbital of both gallium and arsenic emits blue and green light. So, those will never work as standard lighting. They have to find something else before LED's can take the lion's share of illumination.
GAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. I believe you need to read more about the underlying technology.
Mainstream white LEDs are based on two basic schemes:

Fancier lamps use multiple colored LEDs (Red, Green, and Blue)
to create a light spectrum that we'll see as "white"; many of
these allow direct control of the proportions of the three
colored lights so that you can change their color at will.

Cheaper LEDs use a Blue LED and a scintilator crystal (roughly,
a "phosphor") to convert a portion of the blue light to yellow
light.

Some work is also being done regading the use of UV-LEDs with
more conventional phosphors, zinc selenide that directly emits
both blue and yellow, and "quantum dots".

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode#White_LEDs

But meanwhile, until the coming of white LEDs, nearly
every LED in the world was some combination of Gallium,
Arsenic, Aluminum, and/or Phosphorous.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Sorry, Don't Need To
I've done consulting work on the quantum chemistry involved, in the very plants where they make them, with the very people making them. Wikipedia is not a universally regarded technical source. Good starting point, but hardly the alpha-omega. I'll trust my direct experience.

Gallium arsenide is used in high end electronic components because the atomic matrix is very compact and the orbital shape is such that there is little decay in electron velocity. Hence, they are fast and generate very little heat. The trade-off is cost.

Aluminosilicates are and always have been the most common chemical component in an LED.
GAC

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Perhaps you have a reference you can supply?
'Cause your contention certainly fails the Google test.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Then Look Harder
I just did. If you missed it that's on you.

And i gave you my source. Being in factories where they make them and working with the quantum chemists who design them on power yield improvements.

I'm out.
GAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. References are things like actual publications, not your claim...
References are things like actual publications, not your claim
to know something personally.

For example, how about a study that cites the production rates
of gallium-based LEDs versus aluminosilicate LEDs?


Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Yeah, that's what I figured. (NT)
For references for *MY* contention, see the catalogs
of *ANY* of the major LED suppliers.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
9. Costco in my area has a sweet deal on CFL's, i got 12 of them and after the instant rebate
from my utility company they cost a total of $6. Northern California for you Sac folks, instant rebate at the register from SMUD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libnnc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
11. I swear my local news did a piece on this not 2 days after Live Earth
It was such obvious horse shit -- "What You Don't Know About So-Called Energy Saving CFLs Could Kill You...Tonight at 6!!11111!"

and now I know the source.

Fuckers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
15. I'd love to have all CFL lights in my home - but -
we have some oddly shaped lights in our house and I've had trouble finding bulbs to fit them - we have some recessed lights in our kitchen that seem almost like small spotlight-like lights.

Any ideas on where I can find some besides the local Target or Home Depot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
18. Godamighty!!!! Are these people really that ignorant???
I am continually shocked and appalled (although I know I shouldn't be) by the head-up-their-asses mentality of the wingnuts! Anything -- ANYTHING AT ALL -- that is reasonable, green, energy-saving, less polluting, they immediately pronounce evil! As if God Him/Herself handed Moses the incandescent bulb on Mount Sinai and gave him a V-8 SUV to drive home in! They refuse to consider ANY alternative to the raping and pillaging of the Earth.

I simply cannot for the life of me understand that mindset.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC