English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why is U.S. (WalMart, consumer magazines, etc) mounting an "environmental savings" campaign to eliminate U.S. standard light bulbs for the new spiral fleurescent bulbs--last longer, use less electricity. Why is no one sounding an alarm when they read this P.S. in articles:,
"Be sure never to throw a spiral bulb in the trash, as EACH BULB CONTAINS A SMALL AMOUNT OF MERCURY.--discard in harzardous waste. NEVER BREAK ONE (if you break a kitchen bulb you will have mercury mist all over your food)." In the past US has eliminated environmental pests by importing a bigger and more invasive environmental pest. Help! Why not wait for a newer SAFE bulb in the works?

2007-06-09 02:51:55 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment Other - Environment

11 answers

The smaller amount of energy you use with these bulbs offsets itself by not requiring more energy to be generated in coal plants (which spew much more mercury than is in a bulb.) Most big-box stores will take used bulbs back and recycle them for you.

2007-06-09 02:55:50 · answer #1 · answered by ♫ Sweet Honesty ♫ 5 · 2 0

Hi,

I think Bob made some good points.

Another thing to consider along this line is that over its life, a CF will save about 600 to 1200 lbs of CO2 emissions depending on where your electricity comes from.

Its seems like this is worth the small hassle of disposing of the CF properly at the end of its life. But, even if you just throw it in the garbage, you have still reduced both CO2 and mercury emissions significantly -- not to mention saving yourself about $50.

Coal fired power plants are a responsible for about 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the US, as well a slew of other harmful emissions. Anything we can do to use less electricity and lessen the need for more coal fired power plants is a big plus. Because coal is cheap, the utilities are on a big push to build more coal plants -- there are applications in for about 150 huge 1000 megawatt class plants in the US.

Gary

The CO2 calculation:
A CF that is equivalent to a 100 watt inchandescent would use this much less energy over its 8000 hour life:
(8000 hrs)(100w - 25w) /1000 = 600 KWH

Electricity from coal plants results in 2 lbs of CO2 per KWH generated, so the extra 600 KWH it takes to run the incandescent would result in (2 lb/KWH)(600 KWH) = 1200 lbs of CO2. Electricity for NG powered plants is about half this.

2007-06-09 06:55:25 · answer #2 · answered by Gary Gary 3 · 1 0

Now we have mercury hysteria !!!

The warning of WalMart is a good legal move to prevent that some idiot may start a lawsuit complaining mercury poisoning.

The quantity of mercury in a CFL is infinitesimal. A fever thermometer contains in comparison a lot of mercury.

The organic mercury compounds are dangerous. The metallic mercury is not poisonous per se. Only mercury vapours are noxius, but you must breath a lot of it.

The areas of Monte Amiata in Italy and Almaden in Spain
should be deserted for hundreds of miles since there are mercury mines known since antiquity.

Pollutiion is becoming an hysteria and a source of good money for those that speculate on it and on the fears of gullible people !!!!

2007-06-09 05:52:19 · answer #3 · answered by giorgio s 4 · 2 0

Bob's answer was a good one. Just don't drop the bulbs and you'll be fine. I haven't dropped a lightbulb in my life. If you drop it, the cleanup process is a bit involved but not that difficult and the hazard isn't that dangerous. The savings in energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and yes even mercury make CFLs well worth the minor mercury hazard.

2007-06-09 05:11:16 · answer #4 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 2 0

Here's why we should switch.

If you're concerned about mercury pollution, you should immediately replace all the bulbs in your house with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). They reduce mercury pollution.

Fossil fuels contain mercury. Using incandescent bulbs causes more mercury to be emitted from power plants. More than the tiny amount (less than 0.005grams) that is in a CFL.

It's better if you dispose of old CFLs properly so that even the tiny amount of mercury is not released. But, no matter how they're disposed of, CFLs reduce mercury pollution.

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainable/Powerplay%20articles/16Powerplay.Mercury.CFL.html

If you're concerned about breaking one, have you replaced all the regular fluorescent bulbs in your house? I'll bet your kitchen has some regular fluorescent lights now. They contain 2-10 times as much mercury, and are much easier to break. Or you could read this:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

2007-06-09 03:06:52 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 0 2

Because the hazardous waste remediation contractors are waiting in the wings for mercury abatement. Word of warning to those that drop their CFLs and they break: DO NOT CONTACT YOUR STATE AGENCY. clean up the spill yourself, drop it in the trash can and let the landfill deal with it.


There was an incident in the south a couple of years ago where some school aged kids got ahold of some mercury in their school. Well, the kids took it on the bus to their homes to play with it. The bottom line is that it cost the EPA about $70K to abate the school, bus, clothes, homes of the mercury.

There was a CFL light that broke in maine that cost the homeowner $2000 to abate. Since it is pollution, it is not covered under homeowners insurance.

In about 5 years, the EPA will ban the CFLs because of all the micro spills. I would love to see how they plan on addressing it (though it would probably be handled much like the lead paint). Schools will not suffer as they should already recycle their lamps and ballasts.

2007-06-09 03:04:58 · answer #6 · answered by Christmas Light Guy 7 · 3 3

You are absolutely correct. Fluorescent lamps are supposed to be recycled, but no one is going to take 3 foot glass tubes in their cars and give them a ride to the nearest recycling center miles away. Not to mention wasting the gasoline used to take them there. Mercury is very toxic, but are allowed to be used in lighting. If we are going to ban regular lightbulbs, because they use more power than fluorescent lamps. Fluorescent lamps should be banned for containing mercury.

2016-05-20 22:27:28 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Some of G W Bush's friends have a lot of mercury laying around and they want to get rid of it without paying for hazardous waste disposal, so they're selling it to us a drop at a time.

2007-06-09 04:22:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

If more folks went to bed at night like they should, we'd have less need of the light bulb.

2007-06-09 16:13:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

tricky issue. lookup with yahoo and bing. it will help!

2015-04-05 19:50:45 · answer #10 · answered by Debra 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers