Author Topic: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide  (Read 6656 times)

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« on: December 02, 2007, 03:40:03 PM »
Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
New concerns over mercury hazards split green activists on switch to CFLs
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58963

WASHINGTON  Al Gore says switching from incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescents can help save the planet from global warming.

California, Canada and the European Union are so persuaded he's right, the three governments are in the process of banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs, following the trailblazing paths of Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is on board, urging American citizens to do their part for the environment and switch to the twisty little CFL bulbs that last longer and use less electricity.

But opposition is building among other environmentalists who say the threat of mercury contamination as a result of hundreds of millions of broken CFLS, each containing about 5 milligrams of the highly toxic substance, outweighs any benefits from a switch from Thomas Edison's trusty old invention.

One new voice weighing in against the tide is Andrew Michrowski of the Canadian-based Planetary Association for Clean Energy: "I feel it's very important to warn people these 'green' bulbs contain mercury, which will end up in landfills throughout the country if we make the switch to them. In addition to filling our landfills with mercury, if the bulbs break you will be exposed to the mercury they contain."

He says consumers shouldn't buy them  even though they are now showing up in stores all over America.

Even the EPA, which is cheerleading the mania for the switch to CFLs, offers bone-chilling warnings about the dangers of mercury  if you search for them.

"Exposure to mercury, a toxic metal, can affect our brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver," says the agency.

When a CFL breaks, the EPA cautions consumers to open a window and leave the room immediately for at least 15 minutes because of the mercury threat. The agency suggests removing all materials by scooping fragments and powder using cardboard or stiff paper. Sticky tape is suggested as a way to get smaller particles. The EPA says vacuum cleaners and bare hands should never be used in such cleanups.

After final cleanup with a damp paper towel, the agency warns consumers to place all materials in a plastic bag.

"Seal and dispose of properly," says the EPA. "Wash hands."

But disposing of properly might be a tough thing to do, because CFLs never should be thrown in the trash like their old-fashioned incandescent predecessors. They need to be turned into recycling centers, which are few and far between.

When laws banning incandescent bulbs take effect, so do the mandatory fines on consumers and businesses that dispose of the new CFLs improperly.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health also offers cautions about mercury.

"Exposures to very small amounts of these compounds [mercury] can result in devastating neurological damage and death," says NIH. "For fetuses, infants and children, the primary health effects of mercury are on neurological development. Even low levels of mercury exposure, such as result from a mother's consumption of methyl mercury in dietary sources, can adversely affect the brain and nervous system. Impacts on memory, attention, language and other skills have been found in children exposed to moderate levels in the womb."

However, critics are concerned that the EPA and environmentalists are minimizing the dangers of mercury contamination from CFLs. Mercury, an essential component of CFLs, is a neurotoxin that the EPA classifies as a hazardous household material.

The craze to get consumers to buy CFLs, instead of the old incandescents, precedes any serious plans for disposal or recycling of the broken or unbroken fluorescents.

A major debate has erupted among architects about the pros and cons of CFLs, with many "now calling for lower mercury in lighting systems," says Michael Driedger, a Vancouver-based architect specializing in green technologies.

"Many people, especially in the lighting industry, are waiting for the lighting industry to develop mercury-free light emitting diode (LED) lighting as a safe substitute for CFLs," he says.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2007, 03:47:39 PM »
They need to get phosphors more into warm colors, or add a coating that adds a warmer color. As of now, white LEDs are COLD light, dead, sterile and lifeless.

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2007, 03:48:54 PM »
Quote
following the trailblazing paths of Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

They have electricity in Cuba and Venezuela Huh?   shocked
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin

Len Budney

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2007, 04:01:11 PM »
In other news, one environmentalist was quickly subdued when he stood up and said, "Hey! Maybe we should just consider not imposing our light-bulb preferences on others by force!" His injuries were considered serious but not life-threatening.
In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.

Fjolnirsson

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,231
  • The Anti-Claus
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2007, 04:22:27 PM »
Mercury vapor is no joke. That old phrase, "mad as a hatter"? It comes from when hat makers used to make hats out of felt, using a process involving mercury. The fumes used to drive them insane...I read a case history a few years back where a terminated employee coated the lights n his ex boss's office with mercury. When the light would heat up, it would give off vapors, which eventually landed the boss in an asylum. He got better, but relapsed upon his return to work, where the vapors did their job again. He ended up killing himself.
Hmm, wonder if I could find that again...
Hi.

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2007, 05:29:34 PM »
However, there's a huge difference between 5mg of mecury and the grams or even pounds of the stuff used by hatters or to coat that bulb.  Remember the old mercury thermometers?  My parents had a number of games that used a big blob of mercury, in the grams at least.

All of this also doesn't touch on that it wouldn't be released under normal use, at least until it reached the landfill(maybe the truck), and the fact that they last so long means that the average household will only be throwing one or two away a year.

By the same token - there's a radioactive source in most smoke detectors.  Why aren't the environmentalists screaming about this?  I mean, it's even possible to generate a working pile with enough of them.

Worst case, start having regular residential hazmat pickups - old batteries, some of the nastier chemicals&pesticides, oil based paints, and fluorescent lights.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2007, 05:32:27 PM »
Regarding mercury instruments, a lot of hospitals keep at least one mercury blood-pressure monitor to calibrate the electronic ones again. The electronic ones go off spec, the mercury ones do not...ever. People have found that antique ones are still perfectly accurate.

Nitrogen

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Who could it be?
    • @c0t0d0s2 / Twitter.
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2007, 07:13:33 PM »
Yet another well-thought out and researched story from WorldNetDaily.
 rolleyes
יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM

GigaBuist

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,345
    • http://www.justinbuist.org/blog/
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2007, 07:34:45 PM »
They need to get phosphors more into warm colors, or add a coating that adds a warmer color. As of now, white LEDs are COLD light, dead, sterile and lifeless.

Well, the story is about CFLs not LEDs, but you're right.  CFLs have a little way to go yet but I'm quite happy with the few I've got in the house.  They're fine for the kitchen, hallways, or office area in my experience.  I still wouldn't want to use them in the living room though. 

Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2007, 01:46:14 AM »
Yet another well-thought out and researched story from WorldNetDaily.
 rolleyes
Nice attempt at guilt by association in it too.
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,054
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2007, 02:42:06 AM »
Quote
When a CFL breaks, the EPA cautions consumers to open a window and leave the room immediately for at least 15 minutes


So it's such a threat that you have to leave immediately, after opening a window?  And it's OK after 15 minutes?  Sounds a little questionable to me.
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,659
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2007, 03:43:05 AM »
Quote
When laws banning incandescent bulbs take effect, so do the mandatory fines on consumers and businesses that dispose of the new CFLs improperly.
I suspect if policeThe Garbage Police police begin enforcing this against consumers, dead CFLs will be found in municipal trash bins, gas station waste containers, or simply strewn by the roadside.
Quote
By the same token - there's a radioactive source in most smoke detectors.  Why aren't the environmentalists screaming about this?  I mean, it's even possible to generate a working pile with enough of them.
The radioactive source in smoke detectors is a minute amount of Americium-241, in the oxide form, which emits alphas and low-energy gammas; as such, it poses no hazard unless ingested or inhaled . . . and the oxide form is insoluble, so it would probably pass through the GI tract. (Gram quantities of the material do present a gamma hazard.) At least one source reports the critical mass of an unreflected sphere of the pure metal to be about 60kg; the amount in a smoke detector is about 0.2 micrograms, so it would take the Am-241 (or 241Am for purists) from about 300 billion smoke detectors to accumulate enough to create a critical mass.
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,449
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2007, 03:44:52 AM »
NOT political forum fodder.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2007, 04:25:43 AM »
Yet another well-thought out and researched story from WorldNetDaily.
 rolleyes

Because the left would never lie, cheat, steal or gloss over the truth to get thier way.  Actually, I think the left invented it .......
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

mfree

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,637
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2007, 04:57:24 AM »
Hang a CFL around your neck to ward off hippies. It's like garlic to a vampire.

"Merrrrrcureeeeee noooooo *poof*"

Nitrogen

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Who could it be?
    • @c0t0d0s2 / Twitter.
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2007, 05:50:23 AM »
Yet another well-thought out and researched story from WorldNetDaily.
 rolleyes
Nice attempt at guilt by association in it too.

Well, you'll get more mercury in your body from eating a swordfish steak than you will by breaking a CFL, so, yes, It's a crap story, like most everything worldnetdaily prints.
יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2007, 05:59:20 AM »
The radioactive source in smoke detectors is a minute amount of Americium-241, in the oxide form, which emits alphas and low-energy gammas; as such, it poses no hazard unless ingested or inhaled . . . and the oxide form is insoluble, so it would probably pass through the GI tract. (Gram quantities of the material do present a gamma hazard.) At least one source reports the critical mass of an unreflected sphere of the pure metal to be about 60kg; the amount in a smoke detector is about 0.2 micrograms, so it would take the Am-241 (or 241Am for purists) from about 300 billion smoke detectors to accumulate enough to create a critical mass.

I was refering to the fact that a boy scout managed to turn his shed into a superfund site and remove his chances of working as a nuclear tech on a submarine.  I perfectly know that it's not a real hazard; neither is a CFL, even a broken one. 

Heck, some research to find the http://rehs.rutgers.edu/pdf_files/CFL-Fact-Sheet-EPA-4-Website.pdf"" target="_blank">EPA cleanup guide, found a guy posting recommendations on how to clean up 'large mercury spills' in case somebody dropped a grocery bag full of CFLs - Consider that a 'small' mercury spill is 'dime sized', and 5mg is 'end of ball point pen'.  That'd take a pretty large grocery bag to get enough mercury to form a dime sized spill.  At least the EPA guide considers that there's going to be glass in the spill.

I mean, if you think they're being paranoid about CFLs, research some of the other stuff they recommend - they're pretty much universally paranoid, they also recommend eye/mouth protection and wrapping used containers for oven & toilet cleaners as well.  They're even paranoid about bug repellent.

Thor

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,230
  • US Navy (retired)
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2007, 06:19:12 AM »
I like CFLs if they're behind or under a lampshade. Sometimes, one can't see the difference. I use them for lights that get left on a lot and for ones that are a bear to change. In the MN cold, they DO take a while to warm up and start having any decent amount of light. It takes a little forethought to turn on the outdoor lights if they're CFL, so one can actually see when it's dark. The main thing is that they use so little electricity when compared to incandescents that I'll put up with them in certain spots around the house. My wife hates them, but I put some in a couple of spots and she can't tell the difference. A local hardware store takes CFLs, Fluorescent bulbs and batteries. Too bad that other retailers don't follow suit.
" a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand." - Lucius Annaeus

for Military, Vets, & Supporters, check out:
USMILNET

Conservative Discussion Forum


Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2007, 06:23:19 AM »
Well, you'll get more mercury in your body from eating a swordfish steak than you will by breaking a CFL, so, yes, It's a crap story, like most everything worldnetdaily prints.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me, I was referring to this:

Quote
California, Canada and the European Union are so persuaded he's right, the three governments are in the process of banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs, following the trailblazing paths of Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Can't find much about PACE either, don't seem to have too many 'take them seriously' points.
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

Bogie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,232
  • Hunkered in South St. Louis, right by Route 66
    • Third Rate Pundit
Blog under construction

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2007, 08:00:45 AM »
Quote
it would take the Am-241 (or 241Am for purists) from about 300 billion smoke detectors to accumulate enough to create a critical mass

Well, if you start collecting them right now ........ Wink
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin

atomd

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2007, 08:02:36 AM »
That guy might just do ok in a Freddy Krueger look-alike contest. At least he's dedicated!

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2007, 08:04:30 AM »
I can't tell the difference between a 60 watt CFL and a 100 watt CFL.  They both throw off about the same light. They're cheap, though. $1-$2 for a 4 pack.

never_retreat

  • Head Muckety Muck
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,158
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2007, 08:34:05 AM »
I think that guy might have a case of PINK EYE.

I want LED light bulbs to replace the standard A type lamps. They last longer and use less juice than the CF'S
I needed a mod to change my signature because the concept of "family friendly" eludes me.
Just noticed that a mod changed my signature. How long ago was that?
A few months-mods

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Fluorescent vs. incandescent? Environmentalists can't decide
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2007, 08:42:41 AM »
I think that guy might have a case of PINK EYE.

I want LED light bulbs to replace the standard A type lamps. They last longer and use less juice than the CF'S

But the color they put out is suitable for an operating room.