X10 Community Forum

💬General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: PajamaGuy on March 20, 2008, 11:27:06 AM

Title: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: PajamaGuy on March 20, 2008, 11:27:06 AM
Green shock: CFLs more dangerous than first thought  (Here's a posting I came across today - PJ)

The compact fluorescent lightbulb has plenty of supporters in the environmental movement, even while concerns have grown about their disposal. CFLs contain mercury, and when the glass breaks, it spreads the toxic dust in the area. Boosters had previously dismissed concerns over the issue, but now researches worry about the collective effect their massive disposal will have on landfills once they start failing in large numbers:
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. …
As long as the mercury is contained in the bulb, CFLs are perfectly safe. But eventually, any bulbs — even CFLs — break or burn out, and most consumers simply throw them out in the trash, said Ellen Silbergeld, a professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University and editor of the journal Environmental Research.

“This is an enormous amount of mercury that’s going to enter the waste stream at present with no preparation for it,” she said.

Even a single CFL could provide toxic levels of exposure for mercury. One contains five milligrams of mercury, which would be enough to contaminate 6,000 gallons of drinking water. Low-mercury models have about one-sixth of the amount, but that’s still enough to contaminate 1,000 gallons. It makes the CFL one of the most toxic components of a household, one that causes kidney and brain damage when people get exposed to enough of it.

What happens when an incandescent bulb hits the floor? Simple: sweep it up, and try not to step on a shard of glass with bare feet.

Here’s how people need to handle a broken CFL:

1. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
2. Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.
3. Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
4. Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
5. Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the glass jar or plastic bag.
6. Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
7. Immediately place all cleanup materials outside the building in a trash container or outdoor protected area for the next normal trash.
8. Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing cleanup materials.
9. Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a recycling center.
10. For at least the next few times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window prior to vacuuming.
11. Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.

Er, that’s quite a commitment for a lightbulb. I have several of these around the house, and I had no idea that a break could require such an intense cleanup. Like others who bought these products, I hoped to save a little energy and drive down replacement costs.
And guess what — I can’t even throw these in the garbage, broken or unbroken. As MS-NBC reports, Minnesota requires that I take any CFLs to a disposal center certified to handle them. I didn’t know that until tonight, and I have no idea where such a center might be. It does make sense, though, considering the disposal issues involving mercury.

In other words, we have opted for a product that has much more impact on our environment and could turn households into toxic-waste sites to replace a product that uses a little more energy, a change driven ironically by environmentalists. What’s next — lead containers to replace Tupperware?
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: dave w on March 20, 2008, 11:45:23 AM
Yeah, a bunch of hypocritical Chicken Littles. Next we will be forced to buy carbon credits from the company Al Gore owns. Hope you enjoy $4 a gal for gasoline....a-h-h- don't get me started.
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: steven r on March 20, 2008, 12:32:20 PM
Maybe they should include a pair of disposable gloves in each pack of CFLs.  ;)
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: steven r on March 20, 2008, 02:49:44 PM
Quote from: PajamaGuy on March 20, 2008, 11:27:06 AM
...The compact fluorescent lightbulb has plenty of supporters in the environmental movement, even while concerns have grown about their disposal. CFLs contain mercury, and when the glass breaks, it spreads the toxic dust in the area. Boosters had previously dismissed concerns over the issue, but now researches worry about the collective effect their massive disposal will have on landfills once they start failing in large numbers:...
...and yet another reason I hate CFLs. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for saving energy, recycling, and conserving energy. I probably support more "green planet" efforts than many CFL users. I even use CFLs in my flood lights but I don't use them where I need a controlled light source. i.e. The ability to dim my lights.

While many arguments, perhaps correctly, have been made that regular bulbs indirectly result in more pollution than CFLs, the fact is that CFLs are a pollution time bomb. When they do begin to fail, we will be faced with an on going massive disposal problem. The cost of disposal will be passed on to the CFL manufactures and then to the consumer. Research should continue for better lighting solutions such as LEDs before the CFL time bomb explodes.
 
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: Waynemor on April 09, 2008, 03:45:56 PM
I really get a kick out of the reactions people are having to CFL bulbs, and I don't mean from the light they produce.
I have a house full of them and I am quite happy with the brightness and quality of the light. All of them are working with X10 modules. They DO NOT flicker and they DO NOT burn out prematurely. I DO NOT buy cheap bulbs.
The house is 50 plus years old and there are no unusual problems.
My wife is prone to migraines and they have not made it worse.
As to the MERCURY thing... According to the American Government, if you break a bulb in a closed room of average dimensions, when the vapour concentrations are at their worst (before dissipating) your exposure is still less than what is considered the dangerous threshold for mercury exposure. (I found this tidbit of information on an American Government website. Unfortunately I have not been able to re-locate it, as I would have liked to include the link. Google CFL bulbs and see what you find). These incredibly arduous cleanup procedures are there to avoid the inevitable lawsuits.
Certain types of canned fish are allowed a higher concentration, so if you are really worried avoid the fish.
When I was a student in secondary school we were allowed to play with liquid mercury. We used to coat pennies with it.
The only weird side effect I developed from it was an interest in X 10.
Many different companies including Ikea and Home Depot are developing re-cycling programs for the bulbs. I will make use of that when and if any ever die. I will use them to help with environmental issues and I will act responsibly as a consumer and recycle them.
According to another website I found there was a similar situation back when the incandescent bulb was first popularized. Apparently a bar in Chicago converted from lanterns to electric lights just before 1900, and its customers boycotted it forcing the owners to use kerosene lanterns again.
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: HA Dave on April 09, 2008, 07:38:53 PM
Quote from: Waynemor on April 09, 2008, 03:45:56 PM
I really get a kick out of the reactions people are having to CFL bulbs, and I don't mean from the light they produce.

Interesting you get a kick out of that... so do I. Fluorescent bulbs have been around for nearly as long as Edisons filament bulb. The actual theory of the fluorescent (http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/kaniol/f2000%5Flect%5Fnuclphys/lect1/becquerel.htm) even pre-dates the Incandescent.

American, Peter Cooper Hewitt (1861-1921) patented (U.S. patent 889,692) the first mercury vapor lamp in 1901. The low pressure mercury arc lamp of Peter Cooper Hewitt is the very first prototype of today's modern fluorescent lights. A fluorescent light is a type of electric lamp that excites mercury vapor to create luminescence.

The "new" fluorescent light has been around about as long as electric light itself. Like most "progressive ideas" it dates back to my grandfathers day... and I am not a young man. So.... if the fluorescent light is such a great invention... why hasn't it caught on? Why does this "wonderful NEW light" require an act of law to be made popular? We need law enforcement officers... my dad was one. But we don't need a light source that requires government agents with guns... forcing people to use it.

Like the patrons of a Chicago bar [you mentioned].... it's silly to force anyone to use an old and outdated technology [that has never served the comsumer well]. Only a free market allows for technological advancement. CFL's are a step backwards in technology. Like my grandfather's hand-painted neckties... they are a fashion statement... from a by-gone era.

Personally.... I adapted the CFL more than a decade ago. But today... I use as many, or more, LED's than CFL's. Low voltage - low amperage Luminous paint... might have been.. the typical light source in the near future. If progressive lawmakers would have stayed out of the way.

I should have mentioned sooner.... this is all... IMHO.
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: KDR on April 09, 2008, 07:52:58 PM
Dave... IMHO the LED bulb is like TV... Its just a fad that won't catch on.  ;D

(http://www.bdshost.com/X10/lpup.gif)---(http://www.bdshost.com/X10/lpup.gif)---(http://www.bdshost.com/X10/lpup.gif)---(http://www.bdshost.com/X10/lpup.gif)---(http://www.bdshost.com/X10/lpup.gif)----KDR
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: Dan Lawrence on April 09, 2008, 08:12:51 PM
Quote from: KDR on April 09, 2008, 07:52:58 PM
Dave... IMHO the LED bulb is like TV... Its just a fad that won't catch on.

(http://www.bdshost.com/X10/lpup.gif)---(http://www.bdshost.com/X10/lpup.gif)---(http://www.bdshost.com/X10/lpup.gif)---(http://www.bdshost.com/X10/lpup.gif)---(http://www.bdshost.com/X10/lpup.gif)----KDR

TV ain't a fad. If it was, there would not be houses with a TV in the living room, the bedroom and the eating area (most new houses don't have a true kitchen).  :D

CFLs are the replacement for incandescent bulbs and AFAIK there's a drop dead date for incandescent bulbs.   If that's true, X10 better start making wall switches that are appliance modules.  LED bulbs don't like dimming either.   :(
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: steven r on April 09, 2008, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: KDR on April 09, 2008, 07:52:58 PM
...IMHO the LED bulb is like TV... Its just a fad that won't catch on.  ;D
That's a good one!
Remember the first LED street light you ever saw? Now they're everywhere!
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: HA Dave on April 09, 2008, 10:06:43 PM
Quote from: steven r on April 09, 2008, 08:27:38 PM

Remember the first LED street light you ever saw? Now they're everywhere!


True.... even brake lights in cars! The only thing that is (killing) keeping LED's from really finding their own place... are laws requiring sellers to provide CFL's and discontinue the filament bulbs.

Anytime the law favors one product... over another, or others... investors go to where the law favors them. This has effectively sucked investment money away from LED's. And completely shut down development on some other "truly new" light sources. LED bulbs have drawbacks... ALL light sources do... and there may very well NOT be a single one-bulb-fits-all replacement. But regulating the CFL as "the one bulb" simply shuts down research and marketing investment.

Half a century ago when I was a small child... we had in the kitchen... a shiny chrome light fixture with two circular fluorescent light bulbs. Those lights were all the rage after WWII. CFL's are NOT a step forward! They are a (albeit fashionable) government mandated step backwards.
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: Brian H on April 10, 2008, 06:43:37 AM
Most of all the traffic lights are now LED. I can remember years ago the state would be changing bulbs on a regular basis. Now very rarely do I see them having to do such a thing.
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: kieranmullen on April 18, 2008, 04:39:12 AM
I would assume that one way would be to do it like the flashlights do it.   Turn off a set # to produce less light.



Quote from: Dan Lawrence on April 09, 2008, 08:12:51 PM
LED bulbs don't like dimming either.   :(
Title: Re: CFLs more dangerous than first thought
Post by: Oznog on April 30, 2008, 01:41:45 AM
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/ask_treehugger_14.php:
Under these relatively conservative assumptions, this level and duration of mercury exposure is not likely to be dangerous, as it is lower than the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard of 0.05 mg/m3 of metallic mercury vapor averaged over eight hours. [To equate these values, we could estimate the average indoor airborne mercury concentration for 8 hours, beginning post-spill at an estimated starting value of 0.2 mg/m3 and decreasing from there. If one assumes the the air exchanges completely in one hour (a fairly standard assumption), then the 8-hour average concentration would be 0.025 mg/m3.]

Keep in mind tuna is running about 0.4mg/kg, much of which goes straight into the blood.  It's heavily contaminated primarily due to the emissions of coal burning power plants.  In fact, it'd be interesting to check how much mercury is saved by saving electricity from a coal burning plant from emitting mercury straight into the air:
http://www.energyrace.com/commentary/more_on_mercury_coal_and_cfls_updated/

Which says- the life of 150 million CFLs have a total of 2,259 lbs of mercury between the bulb content and the coal used to make the electricity.
150 million incandescents release 2,425 lbs of mercury from burning coal alone- and no chance of sequestering it in a landfill.  AFAIK it goes into the air and comes back as fallout for sure.  You'd have to talk about going nuclear or solar or natural gas or whatever to get around this problem.