A reminder: The CFL mercury nightmare

[Guest guest]

There's now an alternative to the CFL. It's an L.E.D. or light-emitting diode bulb which is a reasonable alternative except for the price: $100 a bulb.

Hugh

 

Viviane Lerner <vivlernerHEALTH & HEALING Cc: RADTIMES <resistSunday, August 17, 2008 3:54:30 PM A reminder: The CFL mercury nightmare

 

 

Just in case you haven't seen it....

==========http://www.financia lpost.com/ story.html? id=aa7796aa- e4a5-4c06- be84-b62dee548fd a

The CFL mercury nightmare

Steven Milloy, Financial Post

Published: Saturday, April 28, 2007

How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent light bulb? About US$4.28 for the bulb and labour -- unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about US$2,004.28, which doesn't include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.

Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favour of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).

According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter's bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges' house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state's "safe" level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter. The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a "low-ball" estimate of US$2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began "gathering finances" to pay for the US$2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn't cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.

Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as US$180 annually in energy costs -- and assuming that Bridges doesn't break any more CFLs -- it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.

The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.

It's quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury. Given that there are about five billion light bulb sockets in North American households, we're looking at the possibility of creating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges' bedroom.

Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in, our homes. These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs.

As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a "highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children" and as "one of the most poisonous forms of pollution."

Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury-thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the United States, under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.

And let's not forget about the regulatory nightmare in the U.S. known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for requiring expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites, along with endless litigation over such cleanups.

We'll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.

As each CFL contains five milligrams of mercury, at the Maine "safety" standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to "safely" contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.

Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures. Yet governments (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of the world) are imposing on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill? - Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience. com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk-science expert and advocate of free enterprise, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

 

 

=====

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

[Guest guest]

Yes, LED bulbs are the future, since they are much more energy

efficient than CFLs. One interesting minor health benefit with LED

bulbs is that there is zero flicker. They are continuously on rather

than alternating on-off 60 or 50 times a second. Some people such as

those on with autism may be sensitive to this flicker.

 

While the light intensity isn't quite there, an thorough internet

search will find bulbs retailing for say, US$15. (I find these LED

bulbs ugly and have designed better looking ones, but that's just one

more business idea of mine requiring capital.)

 

, Hugh Ramsdell

<hughman73 wrote:

>

> There's now an alternative to the CFL. It's an L.E.D. or

light-emitting diode bulb which is a reasonable alternative except for

the price: $100 a bulb.

> Hugh

>

>

>

>

> Viviane Lerner <vivlerner

> HEALTH & HEALING

> Cc: RADTIMES <resist

> Sunday, August 17, 2008 3:54:30 PM

> A reminder: The CFL mercury nightmare

>

>

> Just in case you haven't seen it....

> ==========http://www.financia lpost.com/ story.html? id=aa7796aa-

e4a5-4c06- be84-b62dee548fd a

>

> The CFL mercury nightmare

> Steven Milloy, Financial Post

> Published: Saturday, April 28, 2007

> How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent light

bulb? About US$4.28 for the bulb and labour -- unless you break the

bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be

looking at a cost of about US$2,004.28, which doesn't include the

costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.

> Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the

incandescent light bulb in favour of compact fluorescent light bulbs

(CFLs).

> According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges

had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her

daughter's bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

> Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges

called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the

CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control

hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of

Environmental Protection.

> The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges' house to test for mercury

contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in

excess of six times the state's " safe " level for mercury contamination

of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter. The DEP specialist

recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which

reportedly gave her a " low-ball " estimate of US$2,000 to clean up the

room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began

" gathering finances " to pay for the US$2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her

insurance company wouldn't cover the cleanup costs because mercury is

a pollutant.

> Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the

average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as US$180 annually

in energy costs -- and assuming that Bridges doesn't break any more

CFLs -- it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup

costs in the form of energy savings.

> The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as

Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost

of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.

> It's quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which

cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without

mercury. Given that there are about five billion light bulb sockets in

North American households, we're looking at the possibility of

creating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges' bedroom.

> Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in,

our homes. These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of

mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in

seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury

among the public that many local governments have even launched

mercury thermometer exchange programs.

> As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it

defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a " highly toxic

heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in

fetuses and children " and as " one of the most poisonous forms of

pollution. "

> Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning

contamination caused by a mercury-thermometer factory in India. But

where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the United States,

under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and

China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.

> And let's not forget about the regulatory nightmare in the U.S.

known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for

requiring expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites,

along with endless litigation over such cleanups.

> We'll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury

bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound

to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund

liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost

tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.

> As each CFL contains five milligrams of mercury, at the Maine

" safety " standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take

16,667 cubic meters of soil to " safely " contain all the mercury in a

single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy

cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal

costs of CFL disposal.

> Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and

emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they

pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal

procedures. Yet governments (egged on by environmentalists and the

Wal-Marts of the world) are imposing on us such higher costs, denial

of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of

saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill? - Steven Milloy

publishes JunkScience. com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk-science

expert and advocate of free enterprise, and an adjunct scholar at the

Competitive Enterprise Institute.

> =====

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving the included information for research and

educational purposes.

>

[Guest guest]

I haven't looked for cheaper yet, but I know with a certainty that if I buy just one of the $100 bulbs I'll find lots of cheaper ones right after I pay for it.

Hugh

 

 

Talmer Shockley <talmer Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:40:16 AM Re: A reminder: The CFL mercury nightmare

 

Yes, LED bulbs are the future, since they are much more energyefficient than CFLs. One interesting minor health benefit with LEDbulbs is that there is zero flicker. They are continuously on ratherthan alternating on-off 60 or 50 times a second. Some people such asthose on with autism may be sensitive to this flicker.While the light intensity isn't quite there, an thorough internetsearch will find bulbs retailing for say, US$15. (I find these LEDbulbs ugly and have designed better looking ones, but that's just onemore business idea of mine requiring capital.), Hugh Ramsdell<hughman73@. ..> wrote:>> There's now an alternative to the CFL. It's an L.E.D. orlight-emitting diode bulb which is a reasonable

alternative except forthe price: $100 a bulb.> Hugh> > > > > Viviane Lerner <vivlerner@. ..>> HEALTH & HEALING <>> Cc: RADTIMES <resist> Sunday, August 17, 2008 3:54:30 PM> [Health_and_ Healing] A reminder: The CFL mercury nightmare> > > Just in case you haven't seen it....> ==========http://www.financia lpost.com/ story.html? id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06- be84-b62dee548fd a> > The CFL mercury nightmare> Steven Milloy, Financial Post > Published: Saturday, April 28,

2007> How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent lightbulb? About US$4.28 for the bulb and labour -- unless you break thebulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could belooking at a cost of about US$2,004.28, which doesn't include thecosts of frayed nerves and risks to health.> Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban theincandescent light bulb in favour of compact fluorescent light bulbs(CFLs).> According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridgeshad the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in herdaughter's bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.> Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridgescalled her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that theCFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Controlhotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine

Department ofEnvironmental Protection.> The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges' house to test for mercurycontamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom inexcess of six times the state's "safe" level for mercury contaminationof 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter. The DEP specialistrecommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, whichreportedly gave her a "low-ball" estimate of US$2,000 to clean up theroom. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began"gathering finances" to pay for the US$2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, herinsurance company wouldn't cover the cleanup costs because mercury isa pollutant.> Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in theaverage U.S. household is touted as saving as much as US$180 annuallyin energy costs -- and assuming that Bridges doesn't break any moreCFLs -- it will take her more than 11 years

to recoup the cleanupcosts in the form of energy savings.> The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such asWal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the costof incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.> It's quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, whichcannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made withoutmercury. Given that there are about five billion light bulb sockets inNorth American households, we're looking at the possibility ofcreating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges' bedroom.> Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in,our homes. These are the same people who go berserk at the thought ofmercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury inseafood. Environmentalists have whipped up

so much fear of mercuryamong the public that many local governments have even launchedmercury thermometer exchange programs.> As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, itdefines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a "highly toxicheavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities infetuses and children" and as "one of the most poisonous forms ofpollution."> Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaningcontamination caused by a mercury-thermometer factory in India. Butwhere are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the United States,under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India andChina, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.> And let's not forget about the regulatory nightmare in the U.S.known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known forrequiring expensive but often

needless cleanup of toxic waste sites,along with endless litigation over such cleanups.> We'll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercurybombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is boundto make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfundliability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, costtens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.> As each CFL contains five milligrams of mercury, at the Maine"safety" standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take16,667 cubic meters of soil to "safely" contain all the mercury in asingle CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energycost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societalcosts of CFL disposal.> Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs andemit light that many regard as inferior to

incandescent bulbs, theypose a nightmare if they break and require special disposalprocedures. Yet governments (egged on by environmentalists and theWal-Marts of the world) are imposing on us such higher costs, denialof lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name ofsaving a few dollars every year on the electric bill? - Steven Milloypublishes JunkScience. com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk-scienceexpert and advocate of free enterprise, and an adjunct scholar at theCompetitive Enterprise Institute.> =====> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material isdistributed without profit to those who have expressed a priorinterest in receiving the included information for research andeducational purposes.>