Mercury

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

homebrewer_99

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
19,581
Reaction score
1,217
Location
I-80, Exit 27 (near the Quad Cities)
:off: Something I thought many of us should know...

The CFL mercury nightmare

Steven Milloy, Financial Post

Published: Saturday, April 28, 2007

How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent light bulb? About US$4.28 for the bulb and labour -- unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about US$2,004.28, which doesn't include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.

Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favour of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).

According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter's bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges' house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state's "safe" level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter. The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a "low-ball" estimate of US$2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began "gathering finances" to pay for the US$2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn't cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.

Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as US$180 annually in energy costs -- and assuming that Bridges doesn't break any more CFLs -- it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.

The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.

It's quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury. Given that there are about five billion light bulb sockets in North American households, we're looking at the possibility of creating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges' bedroom.
Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in, our homes. These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs.

As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a "highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children" and as "one of the most poisonous forms of pollution."

Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury-thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the United States, under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.
And let's not forget about the regulatory nightmare in the U.S. known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for requiring expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites, along with endless litigation over such cleanups.
We'll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.

As each CFL contains five milligrams of mercury, at the Maine "safety" standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to "safely" contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.

Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures. Yet governments (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of the world) are imposing on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill?

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk-science expert and advocate of free enterprise, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
© National Post 2007
 
This is terrible. I would have never known there was a problem with these and I've been putting them everyone in the house as needed. How on earth is the government allowing these to be sold??

I can buy poison lights at wal-mart but I can't buy beer.
 
Figure your 2 T-12 tube watt shop light at 14 to 100 mg. I've got six 8 footers in my kitchen. There really isn't anything safe in this world, not even water.
 
I'm really curious about the mercury issue since it sounds like more and more areas are pretty much forcing the use on CFL bulbs. Didn't I hear that California is banning regular incandescent bulbs in a couple of years?
 
the_bird said:
I'm really curious about the mercury issue since it sounds like more and more areas are pretty much forcing the use on CFL bulbs. Didn't I hear that California is banning regular incandescent bulbs in a couple of years?
Yeah, I heard that too. I bet no one's been told about the mercury. Once they do they'll force a reversal simply by refusing to buy them.

We should all do the same.
 
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

-The total amount of mercury used to make a CFL and power it for 5 years is 6.4 mg, 4 of which will not enter the environment if the bulb is properly handled and recycled. An incandescent bulb powered for 5 years produces 10mg.

-The mercury test was performed near the spill site in the room shortly after the bulb was broken. Simply cleaning/airing out the room and maybe removing the carpet would take care of that. Yes, you would potentially put 4mg of mercury into the environment but that is still less than the 10mg from a normal incandescent.

-The author, Steven Milloy, is an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. www.cei.org. To give you an idea of where they stand on the environment, they claim that the fuel efficiency trend is deadly because larger cars are safer and the government's attempt to limit car size is costing lives.

I agree, there is a slight risk in using CFL's. There is also a risk in using antifreeze, motor oil, paint, cleaning products, fertilizers...
 
Thank you robnog, the article smelled like bullsh!t but I didn't think to look up what the EPA had to say.

Actually, I knew it was bullsh!t, especially when the author started ranting about superfund sites.
 
the_bird said:
I'm really curious about the mercury issue since it sounds like more and more areas are pretty much forcing the use on CFL bulbs. Didn't I hear that California is banning regular incandescent bulbs in a couple of years?
Some nut jobs in the legislature are trying to. The CA legislature has the most socialist nannys than just about anywhere. I don't think they're going to get anywhere with it, but who knows. And I have some CFL's in my house. Just not in the garage/brewery. There it's only incandescent bulbs.
 
Any worthy article should have documented proof and sources or you can't trust it. Ther internet is full of bull****.
On a somewhat related note I was watching fox news for like 15mins today and heard a reporter say 3 things I knew were completely untrue, and this wasn't a political opinion type of thing, it was a fact that they were completely wrong about.
I think I may write an email to them. Kind of pissed me off, cause I know most people wouldn't know the difference. The only reason I did was because we went over the topic earlier this semester in class.
 
the_bird said:
Didn't I hear that California is banning regular incandescent bulbs in a couple of years?


Canada is banning them outright as well. We'll be the mercury-contamination capital of the world! :rockin:

I just have to remind myself that in the post-apocalyptic warzone, the brewer is revered, kinda like techies in Foundation...
:D
 
Canada is also the #1 exporter of uranium ore, but that actually the cleanest fuel there is.
 
robnog said:
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

-The total amount of mercury used to make a CFL and power it for 5 years is 6.4 mg, 4 of which will not enter the environment if the bulb is properly handled and recycled. An incandescent bulb powered for 5 years produces 10mg.

-The mercury test was performed near the spill site in the room shortly after the bulb was broken. Simply cleaning/airing out the room and maybe removing the carpet would take care of that. Yes, you would potentially put 4mg of mercury into the environment but that is still less than the 10mg from a normal incandescent.

-The author, Steven Milloy, is an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. www.cei.org. To give you an idea of where they stand on the environment, they claim that the fuel efficiency trend is deadly because larger cars are safer and the government's attempt to limit car size is costing lives.

I agree, there is a slight risk in using CFL's. There is also a risk in using antifreeze, motor oil, paint, cleaning products, fertilizers...
Well, I can completely agree with you and the others comments that followed yours that MANY opinions are biased and organizations have agendas.

The point of me posting this was to inform everyone here of the potential danger and unexpected costs.

Was it ensationalized a bit. Probably. Is it complete BS? I doubt it. It's the lack of information and truth the consumer is told/not told about that concerns me.

It will still cost that woman $2000.00 from a broken bulb in her daughters room. :mad:

It only takes one. Who's house is next? Yours? I hope not.
 
homebrewer_99 said:
the lack of information and truth the consumer is told/not told about that concerns me.

Isn't it that way with just about everything??


I just finished a marketing class and this is the fundamental idea I walked away with
 
Chairman Cheyco said:
Canada is banning them outright as well. We'll be the mercury-contamination capital of the world! :rockin:

I just have to remind myself that in the post-apocalyptic warzone, the brewer is revered, kinda like techies in Foundation...
:D

Everyone in Canada knows that the CFL is better than anything else -and we never test for banned substances.

:ban:
 
That story is flat out B.S. BIG FLAMING B.S. I couldn't even read through half the story.

F.Y.I. The amount of mercury in a CFL is the same as that in a thermometer. All you have to do is sweep it up and toss it in the trash. The landfill won't give a crap about that little mercury. The EPA doesn't give a crap about that little mercury.

If the story is real and she really spent $2000 to clean up the mercury from one CFL, she's a idiot.

http://energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

Because there is such a small amount of mercury in CFLs, your greatest risk if a bulb breaks is getting cut from glass shards. Research indicates that there is no immediate health risk to you or your family should a bulb break and it’s cleaned up properly. You can minimize any risks by following these proper clean-up and disposal guidelines:

• Sweep up—don’t vacuum—all of the glass fragments and fine particles.
• Place broken pieces in a sealed plastic bag and wipe the area with a damp paper towel to pick up any stray shards of glass or fine particles. Put the used towel in the plastic bag as well.
• If weather permits, open windows to allow the room to ventilate.
 
from http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3585_30068_30172-90210--,00.html
For a basis of comparison, there are about one to three grams of mercury in your average home thermometer. It would take between 250 to 1000 CFLs to equal that same amount.

Ironically, a regular incandescent light bulb actually releases much more mercury into the environment than a CFL.

The highest source of mercury in our air comes from burning fossil fuels such as coal...

If your bulb breaks, your greatest risk actually is being cut by broken glass. Handle it sensibly and be certain to sweep up all the glass fragments (don’t vacuum, because that can disperse particles). Place the broken pieces in a plastic bag and wipe the area with a damp paper towel to pick up any stray shards of glass or powder.

And in case you cared that article sites this
as one of it's sources.
 
I don't think the point of the story is that CFL's are bad or good. Obviously the author knows that the vast majority of CFL’s that break don't end up with a $2000 clean up bill and I am sure he has no problem if people choose to buy them. His sarcasm leads me to believe the author was trying to make another point. I think he wanted to show that there are pros and cons to everything and when the government gets involved they usually just muddle the issue and make things worse. He also illustrates how people get so stirred up over issues like the environment that they let emotions rather than logic drive their actions. What I took from the article is that government should stay out of the business of making decisions for us and let the people (free market) decide.

Oh yeah, need to make this thread legit…anyone like beer?
 
I for one am going back to candles. They're plenty safer, so what do i have to worry about? And if i leave the house with them on i don't have to feel guilty, they'll turn themselves off....


Now if i could only find those really bright mercury wicks. :mug:
 
The problem with saying that the mercury won't end up in the landfill if the 'CFL's are properly handled and recycled', is that most people will handle them the way they have been used to handling incandescents, they will throw them in the trash.

Mercury has been in every fluorescent bulb ever made. That has not been a problem in the past because the vast majority of bulbs used by Americans have been incandescent. If that continues to change, mercury will become a problem just due to the shear volume of CFL's that WILL be improperly disposed of.

Same thing with lead in batteries. It's not a problem when every auto only has one, but what about when our 'green' vehicles have 20+ batteries. I know, I know, we'll just use some other poisonous substances for the cathodes, anodes and electrolytes instead of lead and hydrochloric acid!
 
I'm so sure that everyone here is interested in what I have to say on the matter :drunk: that here is a link to a response given to a thread back on April 21st, before the mercury story hit the press. Gee, how did I know? Because it's not rocket science! It's another knee jerk reaction to another perceived 'crisis' that will, if implemented, create its own crisis a few years from now. The people who are making the switch to CFL's are well meaning people with a sincere desire to 'do something' to help, but are not being told the whole story.

I know I'm probably wasting my time, but who else am I going to rant to? :D

My Illustrious Post!
 
johnsma22 said:
...Same thing with lead in batteries. It's not a problem when every auto only has one, but what about when our 'green' vehicles have 20+ batteries. I know, I know, we'll just use some other poisonous substances for the cathodes, anodes and electrolytes instead of lead and hydrochloric acid!
I have another article that compares a Prius to a Hummer to own. Over the life cycle, cradle to grave, the Hummer is cheaper. The unexpected cost comes from disposing of the batteries and their replacements.
 
homebrewer_99 said:
I have another article that compares a Prius to a Hummer to own. Over the life cycle, cradle to grave, the Hummer is cheaper. The unexpected cost comes from disposing of the batteries and their replacements.

I'm not surprised at all. As long as people feel better about themselves, then screw the details!
 
You can create all kinds of interesting (and not necessarily useful) factoids with selective data.

For example...
It is less harmful to the environment to drive 2 miles than it is to walk IF you replenish the calories burned by walking with a glass of milk.

A glass of milk represents more carbon consumption in terms of growth production, transportation, packaging, etc than driving a car.

So... stop walking? don't drink milk? drive more???
 
I personally don't like Prius' because the VW Golf TDI is made of more recycled material, has incredibly low emissions, and gets the same if not better gas mileage. Just because celebrities haven't endorsed it and it isn't heavily advertised it's not acknowledged as being one of the cleanest cars around.
 
I broke a CFL on my carpet last month and didn't do anything but vacuum it up. I'm still alive.
 
homebrewer_99 said:
with a slight dose of heavy metal poisoning...:eek:

I needed to gain some weight anyways.
 
MetalUpYourAss.jpg


:rockin: :rockin: :rockin:
 
I still don't buy that mercury is that bad for you. My parents in grade school used to play with the stuff. My little sister was given a vial of it by one of her science teachers, and I played with it. (Let it roll around in my hand to feel the weight, let it scatter across the table and scoop it all back up. Pretty remarkable stuff actually) We're all still here.
 
Mercury is a rather toxic heavy metal, and most of its compounds are toxic as well. It's just that it takes prolonged exposure to show any effects. From Wikipedia:

Case study has shown that acute exposure (4-8 hours) to calculated elemental mercury levels of 1.1 to 44 mg/m3 resulted in chest pain, dyspnea, cough, hemoptysis, impairment of pulmonary function, and evidence of interstitial pneumonitis.

Acute exposure to mercury vapor has been shown to result in profound central nervous system effects, including psychotic reactions characterized by delirium, hallucinations, and suicidal tendency. Occupational exposure has resulted in broad-ranging functional disturbance, including erethism, irritability, excitability, excessive shyness, and insomnia. With continuing exposure, a fine tremor develops and may escalate to violent muscular spasms. Tremor initially involves the hands and later spreads to the eyelids, lips, and tongue.
Long-term, low-level exposure has been associated with more subtle symptoms of erethism, including fatigue, irritability, loss of memory, vivid dreams, and depression.
 
Back
Top