Comments on: Mercury Poisoning from Light Bulbs?

By: phillipe

phillipe — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:59:52 +0000

Mercury performs a useful function in workplaces and even at home. But still, it is a toxic and can impair our health. Mercury is a highly dangerous substance that can kill if exposed to only a small amount. Jeremy Piven, star of the multiple Emmy award winning HBO program Entourage, was earning some serious extra cash for appearing in a Broadway play. He left the production on advice from his doctor due to a high mercury count in his blood. If you want to find out what would cause Jeremy Piven to turn down so much extra cash, check out this article.

By: johnt

johnt — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:29:19 +0000

Another point, 800 people a day die of cigarette smoking, yet nothing is said about this.

By: johnt

johnt — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:27:55 +0000

The above analysis concludes that in the life of a CFL, there is 13.6 mg of mercury. Two counter points,

a) if you recycle the bulbs, the mercury is recovered.
b) I doubt that more than 1 in 100 bulbs are broken in the process of installation/removal. I have to admit, I broke on installing it.
c) The mercury emissions from coal fired plants is often only considering air emissions. I don't know if this is the case with the above quoted numbers. Air pollution control hardware is 90% efficiency, so that said, nearly 10x the amount of mercury is captured in the ash and landfilled in toxic waste landfills or sequested in concrete blocks.
d) Mercury is only one of the pollutants from coal. Sulfur dioxide, uranium, thorium, lead, are also pollutants from coal.
e) Coal mining has killed tens of thousands of people over the years, both with mine accidents and black lung disease.
f) Coal mining has created huge environmental disasters in the past, and even with todays environmental considerations continues to create a lot of torn up mountains, and culm.

For me the best thing to do is to first turn off lights when not in use. Many people do not do this. Second, use lower watt bulbs, or dimmers. Third, you only need to install CFL's in the top 3 or so lights you use most frequently.

Last but not least, take your incandescent bulb, turn it upside down, and look at the bottom. You will see a drop of solder on most bulbs, which is lead.

By: Is there a downside to Energy Saving Bulbs?

Is there a downside to Energy Saving Bulbs? — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:50:18 +0000

[...] Enviornmental Defense Blog – Mercury Poisoning from Light Bulbs? [...]

By: Environmental Defense Fund: Easy Recycling of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs : Sustainablog

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:23:00 +0000

[...] of light. (For why, see Bill's post "Why Switch to Compact Fluorescents".) But some people fear CFLs because of the tiny amount of mercury they contain. The risk from a broken CFL is extremely small, [...]

By: onesmallinstrument

onesmallinstrument — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:32:35 +0000

Home Depot is now accepting CFL's for recycling!

By: lees

lees — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:46:02 +0000

Actually, the statement *is* correct. The figure often cited is .0234 milligrams/kWh of *coal* generated power (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/4217864.html). Coal contributes slightly over 50% of our energy needs in the US. The burden nationwide, on average, is then .0117 mg/kWh.Yes, you may burn 80% or 90% coal in your light bulbs, but as a nation, the .0117 number is the one to use when evaluating widespread adoption. This means a 22W CFL (about equivalent to a 100W incandescent in light emission) with a rated life of 6000 hours will, on average, represent about 1.5mg of mercury emissions from a coal plant in its rated lifetime. A 100W incandescent will represent an emission of about 7mg in the same time period. At the end of that life, the CFL will put around 4mg (perhaps much higher in some brands and lower in others) plus 1.5mg into the environment. We can argue all day about which form of mercury is worse, but first lets look at the myth that CFL's use less mercury.

To produce purified mercury in a CFL, the extraction process releases about .4mg for every milligram produced into the waterways, atmosphere, and soil as waste. This is a well-established worldwide average that includes many processes, both crude and hi-tech. This means that the 4mg in the CFL actually represents 5.6mg of mercury that enters our environment. Adding the coal energy contribution means the CFL's account for 7.1mg versus 7mg for incandescents.

Add to this the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories study that concluded that the average CFL life is reduced by 50% where they are turned on and off every hour and the mercury contribution goes up to a whopping 13.6mg or so. The reduction in incandescent life for the same use model (20%) does not affect its mercury consumption and it remains at 7mg or so. The same study concluded that a 30 minute use model reduced the CFL life by 85%…which would mean the CFL would use ..gulp.. 38.8mg of mercury by the time the rated life of the CFL was reached…compared to the 7mg used by the incandescents.

These are real numbers. CFL's can offer significant energy savings in general. However, the thrust of a lot of pro-CFL articles in addressing mercury emissions is completely unfettered by reality by claiming less mercury pollution is generated through CFL adoption. CFL's will use a lot more mercury than incandescents, period. How unhealthy that mercury is is a valid debate, however.

By: Climate 411 » Mercury Risk in CFLs: The Facts - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:23:49 +0000

[...] some alarming news reports, you don't have much to worry about. If a CFL breaks, some of the mercury that's [...]

By: Sheryl Canter

Sheryl Canter — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:13:58 +0000

> The EPA figures are incorrect for several reasons. The basic one is that they assume 100% of electricity in the US is from coal plants. This statement is incorrect. In fact, the EPA has a database you can access that computes your carbon footprint based on how electricity is generated in your zip code: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/powerprofiler

By: Ed

Ed — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:55:28 +0000

Here’s a short critique of the bogus argument that there will be a reduction in toxic mercury into the environment with CFL’s due to the energy reduction from coal plants: (1) The EPA figures are incorrect for several reasons. The basic one is that they assume 100% of electricity in the US is from coal plants. Not true. 50% of electricity does not come from coal plants in the US and coal plants are now mandated to reduce their mercury emissions by between 70% and 90% in the next several years.
(2) Places like California produce little energy from coal plants, so CFL energy reductions will not cut much mercury there.
(3) The 5mg of mercury generally claimed for CFL’s is largely a goal and not the current reality which can be 300% to 600% higher, depending on the manufacturer. The EPA assumes just 4mg.
(4) CFL’s are made in China with energy from mostly very dirty coal plants that emit much more mercury than US coal plants.
(5) CFL’s made in China spill as much mercury into the environment as goes into the CFL’s.
(6) CFL’s are delivered here on ships using bunker oil, the worst mercury producer of the fuel oils. Incandescent bulbs are still almost all made in the US.
(7) There is no recycling program in place or planned that could handle the number of CFL’s proposed. And after many years, even the industrial recycling programs only handle 25% of the mercury from fluorescent lights.
(8) It is likely that if any major recycling program is set up, the CFL’s will be shipped back to China for reprocessing.
Thus, a massive CFL program will put a massive amount of toxic mercury into the environment and very likely into our kid’s bodies. And the EPA says that a sixth of them already have too much mercury in them. Given the danger, it might be wise to believe the EPA in this case.