Low Energy lamps Hazardous ?

[yesman]

Hi all,

I have been having a bit of a run in with a lighting manufacturer about compact fluorescent lamps being extremely hazardous (in my view anyway).

These lamps contain mercury, about 5mg which when exposed to the skin or inhaled as it becomes gaseous when exposed to air.

Anyway I will show the question that I put to the manufacturer.

With government departments now urging local building control to implement low energy lighting to new builds or major refurbishments, it has urged me to ask this question regarding compact fluorescent lamps. How much money does it take to use a compact fluorescent lamp? About £5.00 for the lamp and labour � unless you break the lamp. Then you could be looking at a cost of well over £1000, to clean up the 5mg+ of mercury that would be spilt in the room and which immediately raises the contamination high enough to cause the building to be sealed up. etc. These Low Energy lamps are not quite what they seem it would appear. And if they become 'compulsory' then the waste problem seems, well, large even if you don't break them Low energy lamps contain about 5 – 15 mg of Mercury, a highly toxic heavy metal. Mercury is a rated as highly toxic by ingestion, inhalation, and by skin absorption, and is a cumulative poison like lead. However the metal itself has low chemical reactivity, so, of your options for poisoning yourself with mercury, inhalation of the vapour is probably the worst. OK, so this is a green option for reducing energy, but is surely hazardous to the extreme in case of accidental breakage and of course disposal once again.

Here is the reply, I will link to it if necessary...

No

All fluorescent light sources like linear or CFL (energy saving) contain mercury. Allmost all the offices/schools are lit with fluorescent tubes and occassionaly they break due to external forces. The mercury is less then 5mg. This would be less then a pin head. The accepted way of dealing with mercury spillage is to sprinkle sulphur powder which will combine with Hg to form mercury sulphide. These can easily be swept away and disposed of at a licensed site. The biggest danger is from broken glass. Does not cost £1000or anywhere near this.
A power station produces far more mercury when burning coal, there is more mercury in a thermometer.
Its like saying smoking contributes to global warming!

Maybe I went a little over the top, however read on.....

http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

I am not sure I agree with his reply, but, I would appreciate any views others on here might have about this.

Thanks

[Wicked_and_Crazy]

I must remember to get a jar of Sulphur just in case i break a lamp

I guess i'd raise the question of even if the lamp isnt smashed how do people dispose of them. In land fill is my guess and therefore the mercury will end up in the water table. However the amounts are so low would it ever be traced, and as he replies, there is more mercury disposed of from other sources

[Rob]

Local authorities are beginning to wake up to the disposal problem and providing special facilities at household waste sites. But it's like so many things we've been dumping in our rubbish bins for years, like batteries. One day we'll get to grips with it all.

I'm not sure about 5mg of mercury being a sufficient hazard to require a building to be sealed?

Purely anecdotal, I admit, but I can remember several experiments at school where much larger quantities of mercury were involved, completely open to the atmosphere. No-one to my knowledge suffered any ill effects from this occasional exposure.

- now, while I am not denying mercury vapour is extremely toxic, I wouldn't be surprised if someone with amalgam fillings would be exposed to just as much mercury vapour over their lifetime, as from the odd broken light bulb???

What is important, in my view, is that awareness of the requirement to safely dispose of these type of bulbs, whether broken, or not, should be raised & facilities provided, much the same as for NiCd batteries.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by yesman

Maybe I went a little over the top, however read on.....

http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

I am not sure I agree with his reply, but, I would appreciate any views others on here might have about this.

Thanks

My view, 4mg is less than 10mg so I'd go with the energy saver.

Taking the above totals into consideration, mercury emissions by a CFL lamp from electricity consumption over its lifetime is about 2.4mg of mercury. Emissions from an incandescent light bulb is about 10mg. Therefore a CFL bulb emits 76% less mercury over the same time period. However, mercury stored in CFL bulbs is perfectly safe unless the glass is in someway damaged, in which case the bulbs can then emit mercury vapour. If the mercury from a CFL was to escape it would total 6.4mg, a 36% reduction on emissions from an incandescent.

The mercury in a CFL can however be reclaimed and reused through the process of recycling. Collected bulbs are crushed in a machine that uses negative pressure ventilation and a mercury absorbing filter. Therefore if you use a CFL with renewable energy and recycle it, the mercury emmission level is actually negated completely.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A22400182

I'd be more worried about the amount of heavy metals in oily fish

[yesman]

It looks like I don't have a case then

Oh well, on to the next one...

Thanks for all your replies

Originally Posted by yesman

It looks like I don't have a case then

Oh well, on to the next one...

Thanks for all your replies

you are right to raise it, if only to highlight the issue of safe disposal

[TheNorm]

What about the mercury in your mouth? Dental amalgam is about 50% mercury...

[Alien]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

What about the mercury in your mouth? Dental amalgam is about 50% mercury...

I have to admit I'm not overly happy about having amalgam fillings. I'm surprised it's still legal to use it.

On the topic of energy saving bulbs, I found this on Snopes.

[yesman]

It seems that my concerns were justified after all, well, up to a point anyway......

Official advice from the Department of the Environment states that if a low-energy bulb is smashed, the room needs to be vacated for at least 15 minutes.
A vacuum cleaner should not be used to clear up the debris, and care should be taken not to inhale the dust. Instead, rubber gloves should be used, and the broken bulb put into a sealed plastic bag - which should be taken to the local council for disposal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7172662.stm

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by yesman

It seems that my concerns were justified after all, well, up to a point anyway......



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7172662.stm

I just wonder where we will find all the time for these special disposal procedures for different types of waste.

I hate low energy bulbs, I tried one in the bathroom and it didn't last 12 months. I have to admit I tied up the pull cord and left it on constantly for thet period because it is such a pain waiting for the damn thing to get bright everytime I was popping in there to wash my hands etc.

In my case they are not more energy efficient because I had to leave them switched on, but a standard bulb I switch off when I don't need it.

PS. Also I heard that they were trying to ban all bulbs that are not low energy, I have noticed that plug in timers state that they must not be used with low energy bulbs. I guess the low energy bulb is an inductive load when switched on and draws a lot of current for a short period, and this will burn out the relay contacts in the timer. So what are we supposed to use if we want to use a timer on a light I wonder.

On top of the that the radiated RF rubbish coming out of one of those low energy lightbulbs causes havoc with reception on the HF radio bands, so I will not have them in my house. It's just a pity I couldn't take out all those nasty ones that are transmitting RF energy from my neighbours houses.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by yesman

It seems that my concerns were justified after all, well, up to a point anyway......

Upto a point....

Originally Posted by same link

But a toxicologist has played down the risks, saying several bulbs would have to be smashed at once to pose a danger.

People will eat more Mercury by eating tuna over their lifetime than they'll get from a low energy lightbulb.

[sparky621]

I for one don't intend to eat any compact fluorescents!
Joking aside, they are just the same old flurescent tubes that we've known and loved for decades but have been bent around a bit. The ones that replace incandescents (normal light "bulbs") have just had the control gear built in. The mercury content only becomes a real problem if a large amount are not disposed of correctly. I would say that they are also less likely to be smashed than the 5 or 6 foot tubes you will find in a lot of our kitchens and guarages. I also believe that most council household waste centres are now able to take fluorescents for recycling