Which would pollute more Hg?

Question

a) Not recycling a fluorescent light bulb

or

b) Burning the bituminous coal needed to power one incandescent light bulb

I'm curious about this one. Please post sources if you have them.

Answer 1

b) all the way.  Though, I've had very few CFLs go out, and I've been using them a good long while.

Answer 2

b)

Fossil fuels contain mercury.  Using incandescent bulbs causes more mercury to be emitted from power plants.  More than the tiny amount (0.005 grams or less) that is in a CFL.

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...

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl...

Note also that disposing of the bulb in a modern landfill (with a liner and ground water control) is far less of a risk than a power plant blowing the stuff in the air.

Answer 3

Mobile phones, rechargeable batteries are also a huge toxic threat, the EU has got it all topsy turvy over mercury..............banning traditional thermometers and encouraging the switch to low energy lighting means much much more mercury will now end up in landfill unfortunately...........never believe the hype........do your own research is my policy....same goes for fortnightly rubbish collections....what a stupid idea that was..........watch this space or it will be full of fly tipped trash in no time.