I guess your reaction would depend on your perspective at the time. This was posted on a commercial email letter a few months ago. I just thought you might like to see how some of the rest of the world thinks (or not) about CFLs.
Health issues come to light on new energy-saving bulbs
Dear Friend,
Something new has come to light in the area of lighting. And it's put me in a pretty dark mood. By now you've probably heard the news that Congress, in its infinite wisdom (try not to snicker) has mandated a ban on the sale of good old incandescent light bulbs by the year 2012 in favor of the new, energy-saving compact fluorescent bulbs. You've no doubt seen these squiggly-looking new bulbs in stores, and probably been stunned at their staggering per-bulb cost compared to cheap and effective standard bulbs. Now I'm not about to shift gears on you and suddenly become an advocate for incandescent bulbs. I've warned you in the past about the potential dangers of these seemingly harmless everyday household items. Most of us get excessive exposure to the heavy infrared light that's generated by incandescent light bulbs, which is actually quite toxic. I believe the infrared light from these bulbs is a main cause of cataracts and can seriously weaken the immune system. However, even as I acknowledge the dangers of incandescent bulbs, I'm not sure that I'm ready to surrender personal freedoms to keep them out of America's lamp sockets. I've warned you about when the government starts chipping away at your freedoms in the name of the public good. So while I think you should avoid incandescent bulbs if at all possible (try full-spectrum light bulbs), I'm always opposed to the idea of a government ban. What's more, I'm not sure that these new bulbs are any better from a health perspective than incandescent bulbs. In fact, I'm here to tell you that I'm against these things, too. Now I'm sure you're thinking, "come on, doc - you can't come out against a light bulb that lasts longer and saves energy to boot?" And that would be true, I suppose if it weren't for the fact that these new miracle bulbs are poisonous. Yes, it's true. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that when these compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) break (as light bulbs are wont to do every now and then), they spread mercury everywhere, which is extremely hazardous to the health of children and pregnant women. In fact, these things are SO hazardous that the EPA says that if these bulbs happen to break on your carpet, the safest way to clean it up may require cutting out pieces of the contaminated carpet to avoid exposure to toxins. Just a quick reminder on the dangers of mercury: while it's a metal that occurs naturally, once it gets into your system it accumulates and does irreparable damage to your nervous system. This makes mercury especially dangerous to young children and fetuses whose central nervous system is still developing. No problem, right? Children and moms are rarely around when things like light bulbs get shattered. Well, it's not just the mercury that's left on the ground.According to some studies, a great deal of mercury is vaporized when the CFLs shatter - so much that sometimes even long after the bulb has been cleaned from the floor, the level of mercury vapor in the air exceeded the federal exposure guidelines by 100 times! In fact, it's so dangerous that not only must children, pets, and pregnant women be kept away from the place where these CFLs break - they need to be evacuated from the room while the room is properly ventilated. Do bringing any of these extreme dangers into your home seem worth saving a few extra kilowatt hours every year? I certainly don't think so. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress does. That's why they've banned the sale of incandescent bulbs everywhere in the U.S. beginning in 2012. Just imagine how many countless millions of light bulbs there are in the U.S. Imagine what percentage of these millions shatter in the home and the workplace every year. Now imagine that it's 2012, and every one of those shattering bulbs is a CFL, with all of its dangerous mercury. You're going to need patrols of men in Hazmat suits to keep up with all the mercury clean-ups. And don't forget that you'll no longer be able to just toss dead bulbs into the trash - these CFLs are mercury time bombs that must be disposed of as hazardous material. Is this CFL thing starting to sound like a bad idea yet? It should come as no surprise that the government hasn't thought this thing through all the way. The looming ban on incandescent bulbs is not a rational act, but a political one, driven by the legions of dolts who've bought into the lie of global warming and the need to "save the planet." As though a few million less kilowatt hours per year are suddenly going to mystically re-create the Garden of Eden here on earth. It's nonsense of the highest order - or lowest, depending on where you stand. So, following the law of unintended consequences, as the environmentalist loonies usually do, nasty planet-killing, energy-sucking incandescent light bulbs will be banished in order to put potentially deadly mercury bombs in every home in America. But hey, chill out dude - we'll be saving energy and mercury's like, natural man. Ugh. Leave it to Congress to swallow a line of bull hockey hook, line, and sinker if they think it'll get them one more vote or some more campaign donations. But there are more problems with CFLs than their mercury content. Because they're fluorescent, they take time to warm up. Unlike incandescent bulbs that just pop on at full wattage when you flip the light switch, CFLs start off with a dim initial light that only reaches full wattage after a couple of minutes. To say that it's frustrating is an understatement. Like I mentioned earlier, your best bet is to go with full-spectrum lights (assuming the government lets you have them). Personally, I think the more people wise up to the dangers and inefficiencies of these CFLs, the more likely that this pending ban on incandescent bulbs will fall by the wayside. There's plenty of time between now and January 1, 2012 for the light to go on for consumers that these CFLs are not the answer. To find out how to make your own stand against CFLs, go to my website, www.DouglassReport.com .
Shedding light on the subject of CFLs,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Copyright (c)2008 by www.douglassreport.com, L.L.C.
The Daily Dose may not be posted on commercial sites without written permission.
This May Amuse or Enrage You
Sign in or Sign up to comment
Well, Wm. Campbell Douglass II, M.D. may be an idiot (scientific training is no guarantee of intelligence), but the Treehugger article is misleading as well: "Ironically, compact fluorescent bulbs are responsible for less mercury contamination than the incandescent bulbs they replaced, even though incandescents don't contain any mercury." The problem that Douglass describes is mercury in your living room, in presumed concentrations much higher than ambient, however high ambient may be due to burning coal. They are, of course, both bad, but local exposure to broken CFLs is theoretically avoidable despite the coal plants. My personal experience with CFLs is that they fail far more frequently than advertised, and in any case we are left with the disposal problem. Which gets us back to the laws of unintended consequences, the folly of relying on high-tech solutions (though some high-tech may be helpful), and the essential three R's of sustainability: Reduce, Reduce, Reduce.
Cheers,
Adam
There is always going to be someone out there chest-thumping emotionally without the full story, at length. The good news is that life marches along and offers solutions - as it did yesterday. Home Depot wins BIG points for this massive CFL recycling program they have now implemented. See the link below: http://www6.homedepot.com/ecooptions/stage/pdf/cfl_recycle.pdf
Adam
Adam Segel-Moss, LEED AP
Green Building Outreach Coordinator,
Fresh AIRE -
Arlington Initiative to Reduce Emissions
Arlington County Department of Environmental Services Utilities and Environmental Policy Division
EMAIL [email protected]
My wife and I have been using nothing but CFLs in our home for at least 12 years, possibly longer (but my memory is getting patchy as I get older!). In that time, and remembering that we have 14 CFLs in our home, we have had to replace maybe 3 or 4. As well, we have never broken one, so our exposure to mercury from this potential source has been nil. My personal view is, provided the hazard posed by broken CFLs is well known throughout the community, people will act appropriately to minimise exposure to the mercury derived from this source. We don't hear people calling for incandescent lights to be banned because we might cut ourselves and bleed to death if we drop one and stand on the broken glass. So let's not get too precious about the small and mostly manageable risks posed by CFLs.
Bernie
....added to which, its a pity they haven't expressed concern about all the other toxins we have been putting into our environment for decades from a vast range of processes and products. I bet most households would have at least one fluorescent tube, and while the use of mercury and its consignment to landfill is not good, it strikes me as odd that there is suddenly such a concern over bulbs when we have been merrily using tubes for generations! There is always an agenda (usually easy to spot by the use of derisive and emotive language), and this one is bound to have come, either directly or indirectly, from the industry making the bulbs that are being phased out. But I agree it is frustrating to deal with getting clear messages to the public when the waters are continually being muddied by vested interests.
Sharon
Hi Mel -
Count me in the "enraged" group. This is a whole lot of fear-mongering twaddle in every respect. The thing about personal liberty is not my concern - that's personal preference - but I'm all for the "greater good" argument. Incidentally, the Australian Government decided some time ago to ban incandescent bulbs from 2010. Now while I readily acknowledge that mercury is highly toxic, the mercury scare associated with fluoro tubes was debunked some time back - there is an average of 5 milligrams of mercury in the average CFL which is roughly the amount that would cover the tip of a ball-point pen and about one-hundredth of the amount found in a single dental amalgam filling. In my 56 years on this planet, I have never actually seen a tube shatter in a house, shop, office or anywhere else. In fact, they take a good deal of force to break.. try one sometime. As for the wildly exagerrated phrases like "they spread mercury everywhere", this is utter nonsense -- you would be hard-pressed to even identify the Mercury released from a broken tube, it is very VERY small indeed. Mercury will readily form an amalgam with certain other metals such as gold and copper but it does NOT soak into carpet or any other soft furnishing material because it is self-attracting (the complete opposite of water). Experts advise that small amounts of mercury spillage can be cleaned up by addition of sulphur powder (dispose of the resulting mixture carefully). And as for his statement that "a great deal of mercury is vaporized when CFLs shatter", this again is a load of horse-feathers. Mercury is certainly volatile but its boiling point is 357C.. is he worried about breaking fluoro bulbs in ovens? The whole diatribe is full of nonsense.
regards
Lisha Kayrooz
Energy & Water Management
James Cook University Australia
Tel: (07) 4781 6535
Mobile: 0438 011 550
Hello all, I am normally respectful of those with M.D. or Ph. D. after their names, but I have to remind myself that a good M.D. implies technical ability first and foremost. And that even Ph. D's become unhinged from time to time. So if you liked the 'rant' , you should also order the book that Dr. Douglass wrote "The Health Benefits of Tobacco". http://www.rhinopublish.com/books/the-health-benefits-of-tobacco/the-health- benefits-of-tobacco-book.php That should be enough to illustrate that this man makes his money by being outrageous and/or for hire. Don't let the white lab coat fool you. I'm not outraged. The public needs to understand to 'buyer bewa re '. There have been charlatans as long as there have been human beings. There's even evidence in the other primates of this sort of behaviour.
Norm Ruttan
iWasteNot Systems
www.iwastenotsystems.com
1-800-630-7864
I have to agree to a point. I have long been annoyed at the push to convert to CFLs - without full disclosure of the mercury "danger." That news came out several years after CFLs began to be marketed as the next best thing to save the planet. I must say I was GUILTED (an interesting commentary in itself into what motivates some people to change behavior) into making the switch at home. I HATE the CFLs. I hate that they do have to warm up and I hate the quality of the light. But I suffer through it - to save the planet. And when one does burn out - I have to drive some 10 miles out of my way to the hazardous waste facility to dispose of it. How sustainable is that? What discourages me the most is terrible cycle of products are so touted - have the potential to be worse than what they replaced. What's going to happen to all those Prius batteries when they die?
Thanks for sharing the "rest of the story" Mel.
:-( Megan
Hello all
I did some research into the whole mercury issue last year when there was some local press about the issue. Lisha is correct in saying there's about 5 milligrams of mercury in your standard CFL globe. The studies I read showed that the mercury released into the atmosphere through burning of coal for energy production was a greater health risk than the mercury found in a CFL. Looking purely at the mercury issue, it could be argued that if someone is using 100% green power, then there is more potential for mercury to be released into the atmosphere using CFLs. However the reality is only a very small amount of energy produced in Australia comes from green energy sources, its mostly coal based, so it's not an issue. Additionally, the mercury is only released should the globe be broken. Personally speaking, I can't remember dropping a light globe (CFL or incandescent) and having it break on me. So this risk is pretty small, and if it does happen its fairly easy to clean up with some common sense. Should the CFLs break when they go into landfill, our landfill sites are designed to capture any potential mercury leachate that may be produced from the globes, so again this isn't an issue. In terms of the comments about mercury being in a gaseous or liquid state, it depends on whether the globe is operating or not. When the CFL globe is off, the mercury is in a mostly liquid state. When the light is turned on, an electric current is passed through the CFL, which causes the mercury to become mainly gaseous. This electric current causes a reaction which reacts with the phosphorous coating lining the glass in the globe, giving us light! Now, we are most likely to break a CFL when we drop it when we are installing it or removing it from a light socket, or a very small chance it might be broken whilst still in the box. In either case, the mercury will be in a liquid state and easy to clean up. Chances are a broken CFL will have landed on something solid like tiles, vinyl flooring, concrete etc, making clean up easy. If it is dropped onto carpet, chances are it will not break as the carpet will cushion the impact when it hits the ground. Now if we manage to break a CFL while it is on, the mercury will be in a gaseous state. The thing to do is open the room/windows/doors etc to let it air out, to allow the mercury to dissipate into the atmosphere. Again, given it's such a tiny amount of mercury, it will dissipate pretty quickly. Having debunked that argument, people will usually bring up that the current CFLs offered don't fit in their downlight fittings. Well light globe manufacturers would be well aware of this. The first company to make energy efficient light globes that fit in downlights will make a killing in terms of sales. There are also other alternatives to CFLs that lighting manufacturers will be investigating, such as LEDs. Just look at how many car manufacturers are using LEDs in headlight and taillight installations. We are even seeing them in traffic lights now too.
Andrew
The original email was about mercury released from broken lightbulbs which contaminates your local, indoor environment. Thank you for providing a "more educated analyses," as it is nice to compare the bigger picture contamination -- emissions by coal-fired power generation -- but that is not quite the same issue. While CFLs may be responsible for less mercury emissions overall, they are more dangerous to an individual than incandescents. That's the point. There's nothing made up about "CFLs contain mercury and are therefore a hazard if they break." Also, not every region relies on fossil fuel energy. And you don't need scientific education and double-blind clinical studies to know mercury is bad for you. As for the actual issue of using highly-toxic but energy-efficient equipment, well, I guess it's a trade-off. I can't say I'm surprised by US congress' decision, either. All I know is I'm not breaking any more CFLs.
GREG VALOU
METRO VANCOUVER CORPORATE RELATIONS /
HR FLOAT POOL
604-451-6016
[email protected]
This guy needs attitude readjustment - I am SO SICK of non-scientists blowing off like this. I have nothing against non-scientists per se, of course, I just can't stand it when people make stuff up! 1. "heavy infra-red light"????? that's HEAT. For pity's sake, we all emit a fair bit of that. Surely everyone knows that - can this guy really be a doctor? 2. Go to the following link for a more educated analysis: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/what_about_merc.php
cheers,
Lorna