Do you strongly oppose Compact Fluorescent Bulbs because of their mercury content?

Question

Have you eaten a can of tuna lately?

http://www.gotmercury.org/

Answer 1

We've had Fluorescent Bulbs (the long tube variety) since before most of us were born.  This is nothing new.  The only difference is that they're now being made in a small screwable form that can fit in lamps and other light fixtures.  

We can simple do to the smaller CFLs the same as we've long been doing (or supposed to be doing) with the larger fluorescent bulbs: dispose of them property at a hazardous waste facility.  The mercury can be taken care of there.

If you're still worried about it, then consider an LED.  They do not have mercury.

Answer 2

I strongly oppose CFL's and the mercury is just the beginning of the problem.

Every website about global warming urges us to "replace one regular bulb with the new CFL and save X tons of CO2 emissions." The first CFL I bought came wrapped in a non-recyclable clam shell casing roughly the size of a small shoe box. What is eco-friendly about that? My regular light bulbs come in a simple, RECYCLABLE paper box. WalMart has stated that their sales goal of CFL's for 2007 is 6,000,000 units. 6 MILLION plastic shoe boxes going into landfills from just one source!

Regular light bulbs are fairly nontoxic and break down into glass, aluminum, a bit of brass, and a little argon gas. All fairly simple and non-toxic. CFL bulbs on the other hand contain argon and mercury vapor and phosphors. These TOXIC chemicals have to be disposed of in special ways-In my case by driving them to the recycling station. If you break a CFL you risk exposing yourself and family to mercury and the bulb is no longer recycleable so mercury is sent to a landfill.

These toxic chemicals are a very small percentage, I agree, but when I think about having 6 or 12 in my house it does start to add up. In fact, it really adds up when I consider that 134,475,214 CFLs have been purchased in the last 14 months. Each bulb contains 5-6 mg of mercury. That is : ((134,475,214 * .005) / 28) / 16 = 150 Pounds of pure Mercury and only about 15% are actually being recycled. That adds up to   127 Pounds of mercury is being added to American landfills every year.

In my area, I need to drive about 5 miles to take CFLs to the recycler and they do not accept broken CFLs. Other people do not have the facilities within 100 miles of them. What is the actual cost of disposing of the bulbs correctly and the penalty if 6,000,000 bulbs end up in landfills next year? CFLs are also very touchy! In 5 years I have broken at least 6, or about 1/3 of what I have bought.

My regular light bulbs are made by Americans, working good wage jobs in St Louis Missouri (GE is planning to close this factory in 2008) Philips Lighting has its corporate office in Somerset, New Jersey with manufacturing plants in Danville, KY; Bath, NY; Salina, KS; Fairmont, WV; Paris, TX. CFL's are made by hand in China by workers who make around 9 CENTS per hour while being exposed to Mercury Vapor on a daily basis.

Regular light bulbs are made mostly in American Factories under the close watch of the EPA, and maintain very high standards concerning air, water and soil contamination. CFL's are made with almost no environmental oversight, causing huge swaths of contaminated ground. The areas around CFL plants in China typically show mercury poisoning in the soil, water and air. These very areas are also, typically where the factory workers live and grow subsistence gardens, thereby ingesting even more mercury.

Regular bulbs travel up to 500 miles by truck and train(with American drivers) to reach consumers across America. CFL's travel thousands of miles on ships manned by low wage foreign sailors.

One further thought on this topic:

CFL's are a very good example of the new fake-green movement. There are a lot of ideas that seem green when you first look at them but once you go back to the source, it can be pretty scary. Any real solution to global warming or any other global problem has to make real improvement without causing damage in some other area. DAMAGING ONE AREA TO PROVIDE ANOTHER AREA WITH A GREEN SOLUTION IS JUST ABOUT MOVING THE MESS, NOT REALLY GREEN.

The vision of the future that includes domed cities amid vast wastelands comes to mind. Under the current "Green" standards we continue to pollute but limit where the pollution is allowed. As more and more of the plant becomes polluted the "green zones" will become smaller and smaller until all that is left is the cities.

Answer 3

chelate means to rid yourself of toxins, i believe, maybe loosely...anyhow, i am against using electricity for the most part, as i feel that it interferes with the electricity in my body and does irreparable damage....but, i use it anyway...until i find a better way...and when i do....good bye computer

Answer 4

I strongly oppose Fluorescent Bulbs for this exact reason.

Answer 5

Chelate means to surround the offending ion/molecule with another molecule, rendering the offensive molecule impotent and unreactive.  The "bad molecule" is still there - if you test for it, you will detect it, but it's effectiveness in the normal chain of things has changed.

As with spent uranium rods, lead batteries, old computer parts, etc., an effective and user friendly collection/recycle system for spent hi-tech parts will mitigate any environmental issues with fluorescent lights.  I've been sending my tube lights to such a recycling facility for years - I assume most of you have been also.

Otherwise, we're all going to start burning candles - no, wait!  Burning candles give off CO2!  And parafin comes from oil. I'll stick with my compact bulbs, and rejoice in the reduction of power consumed in my household.  I will also, in 5-7 years when these things burn out, send them to a facility that will recycle the components, keeping them out of the natural cycles.

I just love practical and doable solutions.

Answer 6

The Mercury in the oceans is not from compact florescent bulbs (that you can take to your local municipality for toxic disposal for free), the fish toxicity is due to the burning of coal, mostly from China.

Answer 7

the mercury in the tuna is in a bioavailable and lipophilic  bioaccumulative form, so even worse for you than the inorganic form in the light bulb.

the mercury in the cfl bulb is recycleable if bulb is disposed of correctly, and the extra mercury emitted by burning the extra coal in the power station to run old bulbs would out weigh it anyway.

Answer 8

YES AND NO WAY

http://www.noamalgam.com/

this is the only person who knows how to truly chelate mercury and other metals

Answer 9

Most c.f.l.'s don't actually contain mercury. Some of the cheap versions still do but if you look, you can find some that don't. As for the tuna... not so sure I'd believe everything I hear.

Answer 10

No.... but also no. I like tuna but I haven't eaten it in years because of the fact that dolphon safe no longer means dolphin safe. I don't reeally care too much about mercury as long as it is in safe levels I suppose, but I don't want to be eating tuna that was caught in ways that kill dolphins!