If changing to florescent light bulbs is suppose to help with global warming is the trade off poisoning?

Question

If changing to florescent light bulbs is suppose to help with global warming is the trade off poisoning our water resources from all the florescent bulbs when they are disposed off in our landfills? All florescent bulbs use mercury which is a Hazardous Waste. The harmful effects of mercury consumed by animals that eat fish include reproductive failure, damage to intestines, stomach disruption, DNA alteration, and kidney damage. So is the little change in green house gas emissions worth poisoning ourselves?

Answer 1

As Bob said, our the fossil fuels we use to create electicity release more mercury into the ecosystem than CFLs. By using CFLS, you reduce your energy consuption for lighting to about an 1/8th of what your incandescents use. Even including the mercury in the CFL, given the average life span of a CFL bulb there is still a net reduction in mercury.

~X~

Answer 2

Moving to flourescent bulbs isnt going to stave off global warming!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

What idiots have been proffering this brand of idiocy?

Answer 3

Whilst the amount of mercury used in production a CFL bulb is at most 6mg, the average mercury content is 4mg. The total emissions of mercury created by a CFL bulb from electricity consumption over its lifetime is about 2.4mg of mercury. In comparison the emissions from an incandescent light bulb is about 10mg. Therefore overall CFLs result in a slightly less amount of mercury emitted over the lifetime of a CFL bulb. The real gain is the reduction of 38kg of Co2 per CFL and an overall saving of 14% on your electricity bill.

To ensure the safe disposal of CFL bulbs you should return them to the retailer or to an appropriate recycling facility. Once collected the bulbs are crushed in a machine that uses negative pressure ventilation and a mercury absorbing filter allowing the mercury to be reclaimed.

Note: It is assumed the emissions from electricity consumption is from standard electricity supply. Should renewables be used then the emissions of mercury would be 0mg (not including the production of the renewable source), however for the use of incandescent bulbs to be effective we would need to be using a high proportion of renewable energy.

PS ... you can now get CFLs with ultra-low mercury levels.

Energy Saver

http://howtosaveenergy.blogspot.com

[e-mail]

Answer 4

You bring up a valid argument.

That particular trade-off seems to leave us sort of backed up into a corner.

We go one way, we lose, we go the other way, we lose.

If there were to ever be a mass change to fluorescent light bulbs as opposed to regular light bulbs, I'm sure there would be some sort of government regulated program to "ensure" that people disposed of their old fluorescent bulbs into some sort of recyclable bin which would be regularly collected to be used to recycle the mercury from the bulbs for a virtually endless supply of bulbs.

However, as is the case with traditional recycling as we know it now, it is more than likely that a large number of people will never recycle their bulbs no matter how good it is for the environment and no matter how many times they are told so.

Answer 5

No.  Using compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) actually _reduces_ mercury pollution.

Fossil fuels contain mercury.  Using incandescent bulbs causes mercury to be emitted from power plants.  More mercury than is in a CFL.  And they blow it into the air, which a more effective way of getting it into the environment, than burial in soil.

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/sustainab...