OpEdNews » CFLs: Are We Insane?

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Activism Environmental; Energy; Energy; Environment-Ecology; Environment-Ecology; Government; Recycling; Terrorism Environmental; toxic products
Add to My Group

October 22, 2007 at 20:10:51

CFLs: Are We Insane?

by Barbara Peterson Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

I just saw an advertisement for compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). We are encouraged by environmental activists and government agencies to conserve energy, and that is a good thing. However, one of the popular solutions for conserving energy that these groups promote is the CFL. The fact that every CFL contains mercury, and mercury is highly toxic, does not make this an environmentally sound promotion. In fact, it is an environmental time bomb.

The U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are promoting the use of CFLs that are mainly supplied by China through the Energy Star program. Here is an excerpt from the Energy Star site:

If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars.

This government-sponsored Energy Star promotional program, and environmental sites such as Earth Easy at www.eartheasy.com that sell CFLs are prime examples of the two-faced environmental sword that is tearing us apart. The Earth Easy site promotes “Ideas for environmentally sustainable living.” In other words, it promotes the following, according to it’s website:

Eartheasy strives to:

·         help us reduce our impact on the earth's resources ·         help reduce our contribution to global warming

·         bring more simplicity to our lives

·         bring us closer to nature

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Finally, the government and the environmentalists agree, so it must be a good idea. Wrong! How will unleashing mercury-filled light bulbs on the general populace actually help us rid the earth of toxins? How will this supposed “environmentally friendly” program reduce our impact on the earth’s resources, reduce our contribution to global warming, bring more simplicity to our lives and bring us closer to nature?

Here is a warning on the handling and disposal of CFLs at the Earth Easy site:

Important Note: Handling and Disposal of CFLs

The mercury in compact fluorescent bulbs poses no threat while in the bulb, but if you break one:
- open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more
- immediately use a wet rag to clean it up and put all of the pieces, and the rag, into a plastic bag
- place all materials in a second sealed plastic bag
- call your local recycling center to see if they accept this material, otherwise put it in your local trash. Wash your hands afterward.
- if bulb breaks on a carpet, pick up pieces using sticky tape. If any debris remains, use the vacuum and dispose of vacuum bag by sealing it in plastic bags (as above), before disposal.

Although household CFL bulbs may legally be disposed of with regular trash (in most US states), they are categorized as household hazardous waste. As long as the waste is sent to a modern municipal landfill, the hazard to the environment is limited. However, CFLs should not be sent to an incinerator, which would disperse the mercury into the atmosphere.

The best solution is to save spent CFLs for a community household hazardous waste collection, which would then send the bulbs to facilities capable of treating, recovering or recycling them. For more information on CFL disposal or recycling, you can contact your local municipality.

The Energy Star site contains a similar warning, and is very careful to point out that the amount of mercury in one bulb is minimal. Now I ask, just how many small amounts of mercury does it take to make a large amount of mercury? My house contains at least twelve light bulbs, probably more. Multiply that by every household in America. Now, think of these mercury-filled bulbs being thrown in the trash. When thrown in the trash they break! This creates a hazard not only for the people whose house the trash is in, but also the trash collectors who handle it and dump it at the nearest refuse station. Not only are the trash collectors exposed, but these broken light bulbs spill their contents on whatever is around them. Mercury piles up in the environment and eventually reaches our water supply. But wait, this is an environmentally sound promotion, isn’t it? Sorry, but dumping mercury into the environment to sustain that environment is absurd, and thinking that we are immune to its effects is simply arrogant.

1 | 2

Barbara H. Peterson is retired from the California Department of Corrections, where she worked as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. After retirement, she went to college online to obtain a Bachelor's degree in Business, and graduated with honors. The most valuable thing she received from her time with UOP was a realization that her life's passion is writing. Now her business degree sits in her desk drawer, and she counts herself in the category of Writer/Activist. Someday she will make money writing, but that is not why she does it. "I do it because I must. A driving force compels me to reach out to others with what I learn about the condition we the people are in, and that is what I devote my time to. After all, time is the most precious thing we have, and the older I get the more I want to use it wisely." Barbara lives on a small ranch in Oregon with her husband, where they raise geese, chickens, Navajo Churro sheep, Oggie Dog, a variety of cats, and an opinionated Macaw named Rita. She believes that self-sufficiency and localization of food sources will be necessary to survive the coming depression. To this end, she has put up a website to share information at: http://survivingthemiddleclasscrash.wordpress.com. Her philosophy is this: You are on this earth for a reason - to fight for the light. Your words are swords that penetrate the darkness with truth and light. You have a purpose.

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

7 comments

Barbara H. Peterson is retired from the California Department of Corrections, where she worked as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. After retirement, she went to college online to obtain a Bachelor's degree in Business, and graduated with honors.

The most valuable thing she received from her time with UOP was a realization that her life's passion is writing. Now her business degree sits in her d...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Barbara PetersonBarbara H. Peterson is retired from the California Department of Corrections, where she worked as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. After retirement, she went to college online to obtain a Bachelor's degree in Business, and graduated with honors.

The most valuable thing she received from her time with UOP was a realization that her life's passion is writing. Now her business degree sits in her d...

to see more of bio, click on member name

More Information

Here is some more information regarding the hazards of mercury from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

Spills What Never to Do with a Mercury Spill
Never use a vacuum cleaner to clean up mercury (but see the "What to Do if a Fluorescent Light Bulb Breaks" section below for more specific instructions about vacuuming broken fluorescent light bulbs). The vacuum will put mercury into the air and increase exposure. The vacuum appliance will be contaminated and have to be thrown away.
Never use a broom to clean up mercury. It will break the mercury into smaller droplets and spread them.
Never pour mercury down a drain. It may lodge in the plumbing and cause future problems during plumbing repairs. If discharged, it can cause pollution of the septic tank or sewage treatment plant.
Never wash mercury-contaminated items in a washing machine. Mercury may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
Never walk around if your shoes might be contaminated with mercury. Contaminated clothing can also spread mercury around.

by Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments) on Monday, October 22, 2007 at 8:48:28 PM

57Yo m I'm a "been there, done that! Bought the tee shirt,to hide the scars!" type of person Ive workedï¿½many jobs fromï¿½a chicken slaughterer to managing a branch of a multinational and many jobs in between.Raised in colonial PNG Left School 16,Grad Hi school 22 Night School, University 36ï¿½ BBus (majored in Psyche and Marketing), Dip Comp prog and project Mmnt.at 50 I've been in 48 different community org ,23 on board with 18 prez or deputy prez.First social campaign at 17 for the aborigine...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Andris57Yo m I'm a "been there, done that! Bought the tee shirt,to hide the scars!" type of person Ive workedï¿½many jobs fromï¿½a chicken slaughterer to managing a branch of a multinational and many jobs in between.Raised in colonial PNG Left School 16,Grad Hi school 22 Night School, University 36ï¿½ BBus (majored in Psyche and Marketing), Dip Comp prog and project Mmnt.at 50 I've been in 48 different community org ,23 on board with 18 prez or deputy prez.First social campaign at 17 for the aborigine...

to see more of bio, click on member name

You're right of course but

You are absolutely right to be concerned but your article seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
But

Thinking objectively CFLs are at the moment and if handled correctly are still the best one of the better and more accessible responses to Global warming.It therefore seems to me to be a design and or engineering, motivational problem.We need to be motivated to demand either a better solution or a better designed product. The problem here is self interest (laziness).

· Self interest in that companies have a set up to produce a product it would cost profit if they were to change the set up.

· People resist expense increase regardless.

· People will buy on convenience if the better product isn’t there they’ll return to previous buying habit. Supermarkets know this and (ab)use it.

The solution is to design a better disposal (recycling system) which has been done (see www.eco-safe.com.au product Tube Terminator). The product not only does it safely but also captures all the chemicals for recycling or appropriate disposal... no I don't have shares! But I've seen it work.

The trick now will be to get it accepted in the market place until a better lighting product is designed, and marketed.In the mean time Handle CFL with care.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 8:31:28 PM

Barbara H. Peterson is retired from the California Department of Corrections, where she worked as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. After retirement, she went to college online to obtain a Bachelor's degree in Business, and graduated with honors.

The most valuable thing she received from her time with UOP was a realization that her life's passion is writing. Now her business degree sits in her d...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Barbara PetersonBarbara H. Peterson is retired from the California Department of Corrections, where she worked as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. After retirement, she went to college online to obtain a Bachelor's degree in Business, and graduated with honors.

The most valuable thing she received from her time with UOP was a realization that her life's passion is writing. Now her business degree sits in her d...

to see more of bio, click on member name

My concern

I am concerned that even with proper disposal options, the majority of these bulbs will end up in the nearest landfill, or tossed out wherever. This is simply human behaviour. You wrote:

Thinking objectively CFLs are at the moment and if handled correctly are still the best one of the better and more accessible responses to Global warming.It therefore seems to me to be a design and or engineering, motivational problem.We need to be motivated to demand either a better solution or a better designed product. The problem here is self interest (laziness).

And that is the problem, isn't it? Laziness. Manufacturers know that we will buy whatever is convenient. Most do not really care about the environmental or health concerns until they are gasping for breath from some toxic substance that they came in contact with unknowingly. Then it is too late because the damage to health is already done.

World Net Daily reports:

Though the amount of mercury in each bulb is small – about 4 milligrams – the potential environmental hazard created by the mass introduction of billions of CFLs with few disposal sites and a public unfamiliar with the risks is great.
To address the concern, Wal-Mart announced earlier this month that its suppliers – mainly in China – have agreed to reduce the amount of mercury in the bulbs. Yet the announcement itself came as something of a shock to many consumers who were blindsided about the risks of mercury.
Mercury is probably best-known for its effects on the nervous system. It can also damage the kidneys and liver, and in sufficient quantities can cause death.
With an estimated 150 million CFLs sold in the United States in 2006 and with Wal-Mart alone projecting sales of 100 million this year, some scientists and environmentalists are worried far too many will wind up in garbage dumps.
When sufficient mercury accumulates in a landfill, it can be emitted into the air and water in the form of vaporous methyl-mercury. From there, it can easily get into the food chain.

We all know how careful China is with making sure it exports safe products such as toys with lead paint.

You have to wonder about the real motive behind this push for CFLs. Might the government be planning some new regulations regarding the handling and disposal of these bulbs when it becomes obvious that they are creating a hazard? New regulations that further restrict our freedoms and impose fines?

There are already plans in motion to ban incandescent bulbs in favor of CFLs.

The Australian government said on Feb. 20 that it would seek to ban incandescent bulbs and replace them with compact fluorescents. Shortly thereafter, the environment minister of Ontario, Laurel Broten, said her province was considering a similar step, and a California assemblyman, Lloyd Levine, introduced a bill to do the same, the paper added.
Newsapaper Web Site: http://www.nytimes.com

The technology is there to make a better bulb without mercury, just like the technology is there to make an efficient, evironmentally friendly car. It is simply not cost-effective for the manufacturers to do this. As long as we keep purchasing unsafe products, they will keep on making them. Maybe this baby should be thrown out with the bathwater.

by Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments) on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 9:04:15 PM

Too True but we need to heed the approaching catastrophe

I recommend you look at the site the disposal method extracts and contains all parts of the product glass, gas, metal as separate entities for 100% recycling. Manufacturers would have access to cheap raw materials….no land fill if we had the motivation to insist on it. It is something we can do locally changing chinese plant isn't a real option. Petition body corporates and councils etc

In recycling there are a number of issues the biggest and most costly is the separation of the individual elements glass, metal, mercury etc. This product does it and stores them for collection. Tube terminator is a product that could be used say for a block of apartments and the contents collected once a month.

Part of the problem on second thought is more inertia rather than laziness but much of our choices are controlled by business interests.

I can remember the time when steel radial tires were banned in the US because they would have 'sent local manufacturers broke' they were set up to make cross plies and American Auto suspensions (jobs etc). This was done regardless of the safety or facts.

The US companies involved ran a campaign of Buy American. In truth it’s the same today.i.e. consider your choices on a ‘green auto’ one two models? That are based on petrol ones….because that’s what industry is set up to do.How many models of SUVs and petrol grunt monsters available…why? Because it’s in the interests of manufacturers. It’s even cheaper to close a factory than retool pity about the people.

That’s corporate Capitalism the basis for the USA (pity about the people or in this case the environment and Global Warming).

Business only responds to Profit. Business will resist change unless forced by weight of declining profitability and greater profits elsewhere. They rarely introduce totally different concepts unless they have exclusivity or are forced into it.

So where am I going with this? While the number of CFT produced are frightening until a better option is designed and marketed the best that we can expect is to minimumize the potential risk hence my favouring safe handling and recycling until a better option is available.

I view Global Warming as the biggest and least understood threat to mankind. A bit like Butch Cassidy and Sundance were standing on the cliff and one said “I can’t jump into that river down there because I can’t swim” the other replied by saying “don’t worry about it the fall will kill you”. Global warming is that fall.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 1:19:53 AM

Barbara H. Peterson is retired from the California Department of Corrections, where she worked as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. After retirement, she went to college online to obtain a Bachelor's degree in Business, and graduated with honors.

The most valuable thing she received from her time with UOP was a realization that her life's passion is writing. Now her business degree sits in her d...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Barbara PetersonBarbara H. Peterson is retired from the California Department of Corrections, where she worked as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. After retirement, she went to college online to obtain a Bachelor's degree in Business, and graduated with honors.

The most valuable thing she received from her time with UOP was a realization that her life's passion is writing. Now her business degree sits in her d...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Minimizing the risk

I checked the site out that you mentioned, and it is a good one. However, I cannot see most people using something like this when the trash can is so much more convenient, and monitoring people's use of eco-friendly recycling methods only places the government in a more invasive position in our lives. For example, let's say I have a little boy. I can choose to give him a toy that I know is the safest, or I can choose to give him a toy that I know is not, and therefore have to monitor him excessively to make sure that he does not get hurt by that toy. Which is my better option?

by Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments) on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 10:59:46 AM

I am a "lifer" in broadcasting, starting my career as a volunteer at KPFA, the first listener supported radio station in our country. I currently maintain two UHF television transmitters for KTSF in San Francisco, KTSF-TV26 and KTSF-D27, located on top of Mt. San Bruno. Mt. San Bruno is located a few miles south of San Francisco.

I hold a Lifetime General commercial FCC license and an Advanced class amateur radio license.

I am an INFP and an auditory learner. I e...

to see more of bio, click on member name
LinearBobI am a "lifer" in broadcasting, starting my career as a volunteer at KPFA, the first listener supported radio station in our country. I currently maintain two UHF television transmitters for KTSF in San Francisco, KTSF-TV26 and KTSF-D27, located on top of Mt. San Bruno. Mt. San Bruno is located a few miles south of San Francisco.

I hold a Lifetime General commercial FCC license and an Advanced class amateur radio license.

I am an INFP and an auditory learner. I e...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Which is worse? CFLs or burning more coal?

I think this "CFLs contain mercury" problem needs to be examined in context. Suppose we do not use CFLs (or any fluorescent lamps, for that matter) because they contain mercury. We would then have to generate a lot more electricity, since ordinary light bulbs are much less energy efficient than fluorescent light bulbs are. Generating the additional electricity will require burning a lot more coal, since coal fired generating plants account for about 1/2 of our electrical power generation capability in this country.

This begs the question; what would the consequences be of burning more coal to generate the additional electricity consumed by those ordinary light bulbs. Think about what coal is. Coal is a complex mixture of many elements and compounds, with carbon being the largest single component, but not the only component. Included in the coal mixture are arsenic, sulfur, phosphorus, cadmium, mercury, and even several radioactive elements like radium and uranium. All of these elements are present in small percentages in coal, but multiplying those small percentages of toxic elements by the immense quantity of coal that would have to burned to make the electricity consumed by the standard light bulbs would mean a lot more toxic pollution, including mercury pollution from those coal fired power plants. Coal fired power plants are already known to be the largest contributors to the mercury found in ocean fish like tuna.

So, does burning more coal add more mercury to the environment than using more CFL light bulbs does? My answer is yes, burning more coal does release more mercury into the environment than using more fluorescent lights would, which is why we should reduce our burning of coal by using more efficient lighting than ordinary light bulbs as much as possible, including CFLs.

by LinearBob (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 12:43:29 AM

Barbara H. Peterson is retired from the California Department of Corrections, where she worked as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. After retirement, she went to college online to obtain a Bachelor's degree in Business, and graduated with honors.

The most valuable thing she received from her time with UOP was a realization that her life's passion is writing. Now her business degree sits in her d...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Barbara PetersonBarbara H. Peterson is retired from the California Department of Corrections, where she worked as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. After retirement, she went to college online to obtain a Bachelor's degree in Business, and graduated with honors.

The most valuable thing she received from her time with UOP was a realization that her life's passion is writing. Now her business degree sits in her d...

to see more of bio, click on member name

A non-choice

A choice between two equally bad alternatives is actually a non-choice. It is like saying - do you want the cherry-flavored arsenic, or the rasberry? It is still arsenic, and the choice is a non-choice because the result of drinking it is the same. How about wind power? How about not making the non-choice that is presented to us by the powers that be? How about not complying with the people pushing us towards genocide?

We have to take a stand somewhere. I will not use their mercury-filled bulbs simply because the corporations choose to use coal and will not change their ways because it is not cost-effective for them. My household will not willingly expose itself to mercury because they will not change their method of producing electricity.

by Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments) on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 11:11:46 AM