Mercury in energy-saving bulbs worries scientists

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032800598.html?nav=rss_technology

Mercury in energy-saving bulbs worries scientists

By Lisa Von Ahn
Reuters
Wednesday, March 28, 2007; 9:24 AM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - There's an old joke about the number of people it takes to change a light bulb. But because the newer energy-efficient kinds contain tiny amounts of mercury, the hard part is getting rid of them when they burn out.

Mercury is poisonous, but it's also a necessary part of most compact fluorescent bulbs, the kind that environmentalists and some governments are pushing as a way to cut energy use.

With an estimated 150 million CFLs sold in the United States in 2006 and with Wal-Mart alone hoping to sell 100 million this year, some scientists and environmentalists are worried that most are ending up in garbage dumps.

Mercury is probably best-known for its effects on the nervous system. The Mad Hatter in the classic children's book "Alice in Wonderland" was based on 19th-century hat makers who were continually exposed to the toxin.

Mercury can also damage the kidneys and liver, and in sufficient quantities can cause death.

U.S. regulators, manufacturers and environmentalists note that, because CFLs require less electricity than traditional incandescent bulbs, they reduce overall mercury in the atmosphere by cutting emissions from coal-fired power plants.

But some of the mercury emitted from landfills is in the form of vaporous methyl-mercury, which can get into the food chain more readily than inorganic elemental mercury released directly from a broken bulb or even coal-fired power plants, according to government scientist Steve Lindberg.

more...

[hunter]

1. It's funny how coal mining pollution and environmental destruction always disappears...

It's not just about the stuff coming out of the power plant smoke stacks.

There's a lot of stuff in these compact fluorescent bulbs that should be recycled, but in terms of environmental hazards, I'm certain they are better than incandescent bulbs, which is why I use them almost exclusively in my own house.

The good ones last a long time too -- I've got compact fluorescents that are eight or nine years old. Replacing light bulbs is a rare chore in our house.

[kestrel91316]

2. Same thing here. Most of mine are 5-6 yrs old and still going strong.

How much coal-fired pollution have they saved by NOT having to be changed, and by using far less electricity in the first place?

[Kolesar]

3. Local solid waste districts *DO* have procedures for handling fluorescent bulbs w/ mercury in them

We just have to educate the public better. Personally, I think the small amounts in CFLs are a minor problem. It is not as if the mercury is sprayed into the air like coal fired plants do.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Sadly, it IS a problem

The mercury gets into the ecosystem easily; elemental mercury forms methylmercury, which has a high affinity for the living tissue of plants and animals alike.

Most of our "solutions" have gotchas that we would prefer to ignore. Ethanol has recently bit us in the ass. PV panel and LED manufacture involves several toxic metals, and ramping the industry up could produce tremendous pollution. Wind power generators also use mercury, and poorly-engineered ones have generated health-threatening levels of noise pollution.

We're not just fighting energy and climate crises, we're fighting a mindset that has led us to make foolish decisions and to continue our practice. In the case of CFLs, nobody thought the mercury problem through.

So, should we abandon our efforts? Hell, no! I think it will be easy to correct our mistake with CFLs. Practical advice? You said it. I've been telling my friends lately to keep their burned-out CFLs and take them to recycling, too. Recycling programs are easy to set up and have a lot of PR value. It would be a good idea if the light bulb manufacturers had a deposit system like there used to be with soda pop bottles.

Other mistakes may require more work.

In general, what we should do is to approach this with a tough-minded engineering attitude. Currently, only the engineers are doing that. It's not enough to simply say, "let's convert to CFLs!" We must make changes systematically. Were screwed so many ways, our only possible "salvation" will be to deal with our problems as a giant interrelated (and chaotic!) system.

Ironically, that may be the easiest way to deal with the problems.

--p!

[Kolesar]

5. $1/CFL deposit

and a $1/incandescent excise tax to equalize things. That makes sense, but the talk radio thugs would surely pervert this. (it's early in this time zone).