Shining a light on hazards of fluorescent bulbs

[babylonsister]

Shining a light on hazards of fluorescent bulbs
Energy-efficient coils booming, but disposal of mercury poses problems


By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
updated 7:10 p.m. ET March 19, 2008



Compact fluorescent light bulbs, long touted by environmentalists as a more efficient and longer-lasting alternative to the incandescent bulbs that have lighted homes for more than a century, are running into resistance from waste industry officials and some environmental scientists, who warn that the bulbs’ poisonous innards pose a bigger threat to health and the environment than previously thought.

Fluorescents — the squiggly, coiled bulbs that generate light by heating gases in a glass tube — are generally considered to use more than 50 percent less energy and to last several times longer than incandescent bulbs.

When fluorescent bulbs first hit store shelves several years ago, consumers complained about the loud noise they made, their harsh light, their bluish color, their clunky shape and the long time it took for them to warm up.

Since then, the bulbs — known as CFLs — have been revamped, and strict government guidelines have alleviated most of those problems. But while the bulbs are extremely energy-efficient, one problem hasn’t gone away: All CFLs contain mercury, a neurotoxin that can cause kidney and brain damage.

The amount is tiny — about 5 milligrams, or barely enough to cover the tip of a pen — but that is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, extrapolated from Stanford University research on mercury. Even the latest lamps promoted as “low-mercury” can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels.

more...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23694819/

[CreekDog]

1. but the energy used to power them reduces mercury released from coal burning

so it's not as if you don't use CFL's and don't have mercury released into the environment.

that said, in California for instance, CFL's need to be disposed of properly (i.e., not in the trash).

[Squatch]

3. I thought modern CFL bulbs were being made with zero or reduced Hg quantities

This is a tough one, to be sure. Are the energy savings of CFLs greater than the risk of exposure to mercury contamination?

[Tesha]

6. No, their basic technology relies on a mercury-vapor arc.

But they still contain less mercury than the coal that
isn't burned to generate the electricity that they don't
use compared to conventional incandescent lamps.

And it's not like fluorescent lamps (and other mercury-
containing lamps) are something really new; they've been
common in households and absolutely ubiquitous in
commercial settings.

Just recycle them in ten years or so when they finally
fail.

Tesha

[slackmaster]

5. California gets less than 5% of its electrical power from coal

Just a data point. The issue of coal-burning plants releasing mercury into the atmosphere is valid, but choosing California as an example is a little ironic since we are one of the least coal-dependent states.

[tachyon]

2. Ah Jeez, not this

[high density]

4. LED bulbs would be great

But they are quite expensive now. Hopefully LED bulbs will be mainstream by the time incandescents are phased out.