Cleaning up a broken CFL bulb

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Still did not answer any of the questions I posed. You were pretty glib and non-responsive here, but at least not insulting, so that is pretty good, perhaps some clarification would be in order.

"0.0 mg/m^3 or 0.12 mg/m^3? For something that maybe happens once every several years, I think it is irrelevant either way. Unless you're the kind of person who is too scared to eat tuna, swordfish, etc, once in a while, it is hard to understand why you're stressed out about CFL mercury."
If I were concerned about it, I can choose not to eat tuna or swordfish; the state chooses for me in this case. So you are saying that it is no big deal and people are over reacting. I have some old batteries I need to dispose of, but not too many. Can I just bury them in your vegetable garden?

At least half of the CFLs I have changed out had lost integrity, were no longer sealed. None have proven to be as long lived as advertised. In an environment that has some variation in temperature and humidity, say in a front porch light that faces South, they are not as long lasting as incandescent.

"As for people who can't handle fluorescent light, if they really can't handle CFLs"
So people are making up the symptoms secondary to fluorescent lights? Very insensitive and uninformed of you to imply that.

You seem to have missed the point of this thread. Just because some legislator decides how everyone should do something, or more accurately a lobbyist tells them what to decide, it is not necessarily better, and if it were, the government would not have to mandate it.

Small wonder that California will be BK soon, the lunatics are running the asylum.

Your experience with CFLs is quite different than mine. Don't know if you are buying different ones than I am, or if you bought yours some years ago, or what. E.g. my outdoor CFLs that go from >100F summer to <20F winter, are still fine after 3-4 years. To be clear, some of the first CFLs I bought were lousy, all the dimmable ones have been lousy, and I have one light fixture that is such a heat trap that it kills all high-wattage bulbs, CFL's too.

On the "sensitive" people, what I asked is whether they are sensitive to both CFL as well as traditional fluorescent tubes. If yes, then they have alternatives. Remember, CA has not banned all incandescents. The 100w bulb is banned. 75w and down incandescents are not. 70w halogens are not. Specialty incandescents are not. Plenty of ways to get light without CFLs, as outlined in one of the links. Over the next few years, fewer incandescents will be permitted, but LED bulbs will be ready for prime time by then.

So, if you are so convinced that CFLs are bad for you, don't use them. Use 75w incandescents, or halogens, or be an LED early adopter. You are not being "forced" to accept CFLs in your house. If you think you are, then that is a misconception.

On the legislation issue, the purpose is to reduce energy consumption. That means California's utilities will have less need for more multi-billion dollar power plants and transmission lines, which are usually paid for with big rate hikes, there will be less pollution from coal-fired plants, and similar benefits. There is a market alternative, which is to raise the price of the electricity used by light bulbs, to be enough to pay for the required power plants. Unfortunately, house meters can't tell what energy is used for light bulbs and what is used for other purposes. Another would be to raise the price of incandescent bulbs and direct that revenue to power plants. I'd be fine with that, you can pay $20 per 100w incandescent if you like, but for whatever reason they didn't go that route.

People do not choose to do what is better for their community, the country, the future, etc. They choose to do what is better for them personally. Most of the time those two coincide. Sometimes they don't. In those cases, we (the capital We) - sometimes - intervene with laws. If those laws take away an major, important, significant, meaningful free choice, then that is a problem. Some people apparently think the 100w incandescent bulb is an major, important, significant, meaningful freedom. I really can't get all worked up about it. Some people think every choice should be free and that no restriction on their lives, no matter how trivial, is justified. I think that's kind of romantic, and wish them luck in moving to some remote backcountry site or in finding a time machine back to a simpler time.

[Hugh R]

CFLs have their place. Without them my outdoor lighting project would have been much more expensive because I'd have had to install an electrical subpanel for the added load. Also, they are much cheaper to run. I'll bet almost no one actually recycles CFLs, they toss them in the trash. This over time will add to the mercury load in the groundwater.

I decontaminated a High School in Phoenix a few years ago where some kids had found a couple of pound bottle of mercury. They had played with it, flung it at each other and drug it home on their clothes and their shoes. It's pretty tough stuff to clean up, and the vapor pressure is so low that it will hang in a room forever, even with ventilation.

JYL if you get 0.12 mg/m^3 of mercury in the breathing zone of a room, it will stay at that concentration for a long, long time.

[Racerbvd]

Well, I have been using CFL bulbs for a while, and have had them go bad, and I'm not talking years either, so I can't say that they last as long as everyone thinks, based on my own use.. And someone stated that they don't break light bulbs, well, health issues like dizziness or having trouble holding things in your hand can cause breaks (ask me how I know) and if placing them in an over heard, if there isn'r enough clearance for the bowl, they can break while putting it back together... Well, they haven't killed me yet, but remember, the Gov banned R34 and our car AC hasn't been as cold since, plus we found out that the replacement, like CFLs are more harmful to us than what they replaced....

[Tim Hancock]

Just more gvt intervention in our lives.... Thank god I can still use whatever the f kind of bulbs I want where I live.

[red-beard]

You know, I haven't really thought about this, but what is going to happen to the Class I, Div I & II rated lighting (fire proof/explosion proof), without the incandescent bulbs? These are rated as a system, so just putting CFLs into the socket means they are no longer rated.

I have recently noticed a lot of LEDs coming on the market in this area.

[jyl]

I just thought of this. There are cfls which have a translucent globe covering the curly tube. They are meant to mimic traditional incandescents. I think sometimes those globes are plastic. That could provide additional resistance to breakage, and contain the debris if the tube does break. You might want to look at those.

[teenerted1]

where are you guys getting $5CFL's? your getting screwed!!!
i go to my local asian supermarket and get equal to 60w versions for $.50

when i break one in the garage i sweep up the bigger broken bits and toss in the garbage. then get out the air-compressor and blow the tiny bits out into the driveway.

[daepp]

I suspect the recycling rate is almost non-existent

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by teenerted1

where are you guys getting $5CFL's? your getting screwed!!!
i go to my local asian supermarket and get equal to 60w versions for $.50

when i break one in the garage i sweep up the bigger broken bits and toss in the garbage. then get out the air-compressor and blow the tiny bits out into the driveway.

I break them open on purpose and suck out the tasty marrow!!!

[Taz's Master]

People do not choose to do what is better for their community, the country, the future, etc. They choose to do what is better for them personally. Most of the time those two coincide. Sometimes they don't. In those cases, we (the capital We) - sometimes - intervene with laws. If those laws take away an major, important, significant, meaningful free choice, then that is a problem. Some people apparently think the 100w incandescent bulb is an major, important, significant, meaningful freedom. I really can't get all worked up about it. Some people think every choice should be free and that no restriction on their lives, no matter how trivial, is justified. I think that's kind of romantic, and wish them luck in moving to some remote backcountry site or in finding a time machine back to a simpler time.

This sounds rather sanctimonious. I think along the lines of cfl's I'm spending my time and financial resources to do what is better for the community, country and future, and not for me personally. I've been part of an effort to find and fund a responsible method of disposing of cfl's for my remote backcountry community. (And I extend my wishes of luck to you in your urban utopia.) You indicate that use of incandescents doesn't properly allow for the allotment of costs to pay for their energy consumption, so legislation was necessary. Cfl's present the same problem in regards to disposal. Nothing has been done to address the costs or inconveniences of disposal, and the problem will be ignored as long as possible, rather than facing the true costs of these devices. If the legislation was intended to save society's money, it is as dishonest as it is if it were meant to improve the environment.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

Just fyi, when pressed a local Home Depot representative admitted that he could not say with certainty that the mercury would be removed prior to disposal when a group I am associated with researched providing cfl disposal for our community. We are having the mercury reclaimed from burned out cfl's and it is NOT free.

I am not impressed with the willingness of the government to mandate cfl usage while ignoring the need to provide for disposal. I am skeptical that this perceived progress is the result of anything other than corporate sponsored government regulations under the guise of protecting the environment, with disregard to the actual impact other than headlines and profits.

This

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

originally posted by JYLPeople do not choose to do what is better for their community, the country, the future, etc. They choose to do what is better for them personally. Most of the time those two coincide. Sometimes they don't. In those cases, we (the capital We) - sometimes - intervene with laws. If those laws take away an major, important, significant, meaningful free choice, then that is a problem. Some people apparently think the 100w incandescent bulb is an major, important, significant, meaningful freedom. I really can't get all worked up about it. Some people think every choice should be free and that no restriction on their lives, no matter how trivial, is justified. I think that's kind of romantic, and wish them luck in moving to some remote backcountry site or in finding a time machine back to a simpler time.

This sounds rather sanctimonious. I think along the lines of cfl's I'm spending my time and financial resources to do what is better for the community, country and future, and not for me personally. I've been part of an effort to find and fund a responsible method of disposing of cfl's for my remote backcountry community. (And I extend my wishes of luck to you in your urban utopia.) You indicate that use of incandescents doesn't properly allow for the allotment of costs to pay for their energy consumption, so legislation was necessary. Cfl's present the same problem in regards to disposal. Nothing has been done to address the costs or inconveniences of disposal, and the problem will be ignored as long as possible, rather than facing the true costs of these devices. If the legislation was intended to save society's money, it is as dishonest as it is if it were meant to improve the environment.

It is because he was responding to me, he could not help but be a little sactimonious, I bring it out in people

The mandated use of CFL was poorly thought out, without adequate consideration of practical matters, like what about all that mercury in the landfills when 2% of people dispose of them properly. Yes, mandated, as the plan is to eliminate incandescent lights.

I predict there will be a disposal fee/tax connected with all CFL bulbs to help defray part of the expense of disposal that has been utterly disregarded.

Just because "liberals" think they know best, does not necessarily make it so. Sort of ironic that they call themselves liberals in the first place if you ask me, bit of a misnomer.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by Tobra

This

It is because he was responding to me, he could not help but be a little sactimonious, I bring it out in people

The mandated use of CFL was poorly thought out, without adequate consideration of practical matters, like what about all that mercury in the landfills when 2% of people dispose of them properly. Yes, mandated, as the plan is to eliminate incandescent lights.

I predict there will be a disposal fee/tax connected with all CFL bulbs to help defray part of the expense of disposal that has been utterly disregarded.

Just because "liberals" think they know best, does not necessarily make it so. Sort of ironic that they call themselves liberals in the first place if you ask me, bit of a misnomer.

Funny, people with poor sight need bright lights to see & read and I wonder if the mandated "change" has more to do with lining pockets like the banning of Freon was.. Kinda odd that the patent was about to run out and someone desides that it shouldn't, and just happened to have a new product and patent to replaced freon.....
I chose to buy CFL bulbs based on the amount of time they last & brightness. If I can get brighter bulbs that last 3 times as long, I'm willing to pay for it..

[jyl]

Suppose zero CFLs are recycled. So their mercury gets released into landfills and ultimately to groundwater. However, CFLs use about 1/4 the electricity of incandescents. Much of the electricity used in the US is from coal-fired plants. Coal-fired power is the main source of mercury pollution, first into the air and then into water. Less electricity usage via CFLs means less mercury pollution from power generation. Hmm, how might these effects compare?

EnergyRace | Commentary : More on Mercury, Coal and CFLs - Updated

They are about equal. In other words, if zero CFLs are recycled, there would be no net increase in mercury pollution. The recycling rate is not in fact zero, and can be increased with more locations and education.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

I have come to the conclusion that the #1 contributor to global warming is the hot air spewed by yammering tree-huggers telling the rest of us what to do.

[island911]

So... the same progressives who whine about lead-based house paint, or lead content power cords, find the mercury-bulbs to be better than just okay.

Alrighty.. then.

just an aside; mercury vapors caused "hatters" to quickly become "mad-hatters." hmm... I suppose this explains some of that "progressive "thinking."

[jyl]

I did some counting. I have about 75 light bulbs. 9 are incandescent, the rest are all CFL.

I switched them over in 2006 and early 2007, paid about $2 each. I've replaced about 5 so far due to burning out, well plus 8 dimmable CFLs that didn't work well at all so I took them out and put in halogens.

So, in 4 years, about 5 of 64 CFLs have burned out. I won't know average life until more burn out, but so far that seems okay to me.

The halogens and incandescents are burning out about every year or two.

I've given up looking for a good dimmable CFL. I figure those fixtures will stay incandescent or halogen until LEDs are cost effective.

[Green 912]

Originally Posted by jyl

Suppose zero CFLs are recycled. So their mercury gets released into landfills and ultimately to groundwater. However, CFLs use about 1/4 the electricity of incandescents. Much of the electricity used in the US is from coal-fired plants. Coal-fired power is the main source of mercury pollution, first into the air and then into water. Less electricity usage via CFLs means less mercury pollution from power generation. Hmm, how might these effects compare?

EnergyRace | Commentary : More on Mercury, Coal and CFLs - Updated

They are about equal. In other words, if zero CFLs are recycled, there would be no net increase in mercury pollution. The recycling rate is not in fact zero, and can be increased with more locations and education.

Thank you. You have saved me a bunch of typing. I have no comment regarding CA and mandates but I take care of a bunch of buildings for a living and know a bit about lighting. CFLs have come a long way in even the past 3 years. I purchase them in the 100s and have replaced almost all standard incandescent bulbs. The man power savings in not changing burned out bulbs in some of the harder to reach fixtures is worth it alone. The present CFL selection is good and you can get them in some good color ranges.

Some people fear change even if it is only a change of mind.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Green 912

...

Some people fear change even if it is only a change of mind.

Oh please...

And, Some people don't care that the mercury bulbs flicker, causing migraines, or, as studies have found, cause brain dysfunction a in grade-school kids.

[jyl]

Cite or link for the last claim?

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by jyl

Suppose zero CFLs are recycled. So their mercury gets released into landfills and ultimately to groundwater. However, CFLs use about 1/4 the electricity of incandescents. Much of the electricity used in the US is from coal-fired plants. Coal-fired power is the main source of mercury pollution, first into the air and then into water. Less electricity usage via CFLs means less mercury pollution from power generation. Hmm, how might these effects compare?

EnergyRace | Commentary : More on Mercury, Coal and CFLs - Updated

They are about equal. In other words, if zero CFLs are recycled, there would be no net increase in mercury pollution. The recycling rate is not in fact zero, and can be increased with more locations and education.

That math only works when you assume coal is burned to produce 100% of the electricity, and your experience with cfl's provides for a bulb that lasts considerably longer than what I have personally seen. Adding more recycling locations for mercury recovery and increasing education is not free. I don't have a problem with a mandated switch to cfl's, and certainly support saving energy/money. What really bothers me is the assinine manner in which the mandate ignores the disposal cost/factor. Releasing the mercury from cfl's is ignorant and irresponsible, not an inevitable consequence of the process like burning coal.