This blog comes about because of a posting in
Media Lens - referencing an
article in the UK "Daily Express". This typical UK tabloid published an article highly critical of Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs, claiming they contained mercury powder, which isn't true, they do however contain mercury vapour. They were also blamed for causing or exacerbating skin rashes. This article was in turn criticised by a group of scientists in an
article in the Guardian who said the article was sensationalised and inaccurate.
I wrote the following.
This discussion about low energy light bulbs is fascinating. It is a microcosmic example of the problems we all face dealing with our environmental problems and how technology may or may not help us. That each item of technology that gives us hope for the future comes with its own baggage and predictable or not predictable problems of its own.
There is no doubt that low energy light bulbs save power, they use about a quarter or less power for the same level of illumination. Generally I have been keen to see old fashioned incandescent bulbs phased out.
After doing some research on the internet, I went to Wikipedia, and there's an excellent article about CFLs there, which pretty well answers most of the questions one could ask about mercury, energy saving, disposal etc.
Ordinary fluorescent strip lamps have much more mercury than CFLs, but I note that not many people have been concerned about them. I imagine they've been disposed of in land-fills for the last forty years. New CFLs are getting the mercury down to 1 mg, which is five hundred times less than the mercury in a clinical thermometer. The amount of mercury in the doctor's sphygmomanometer must be a couple of orders of magnitude higher again. It is likely they will eventually be phased out, I believe they mostly are in the UK, but they are still widely used in NZ. I have a mercury barometer at home. Perhaps that explains some of my postings here!
Mercury in amalgam fillings has been a contentious issue for years. Now more reliable substitutes are available, amalgam fillings are being used less.
Almost all LCD monitors and flat-screen TVs use mercury containing cold cathode fluorescent backlights - though some new products use LEDs instead, e.g. the new Mac iBook, and some other monitor manufacturers. LED illuminated TVs are just beginning to appear, but they are presently a lot more expensive. They also have the advantage of lasting longer, saving power and are brighter. Millions of laptops end up in landfills or are sent to poor countries for 'recycling', a reprehensible practice that should be banned.
Coal fired power stations discharge tonnes of mercury into the atmosphere, about 2,000 tonnes annually around the world. Mercury is found in high concentrations in some marine life, particularly animals at the top of the food chain, such as tuna. It is not now advisable for pregnant women to eat canned tuna and one can provides other consumers with his or her maximum 'allowance' of mercury for a week.
So mercury in CFLs is a problem, but it is likely that other sources of mercury are even more so. However any extra mercury in the environment is definitely not a good idea, and our encouragement of the use of CFLs contrasts markedly with our efforts to reduce mercury use and exposure in all other parts of our economy and society. But energy issues are set to define the first half of this new century. We cannot afford to squander our energy resources, and renewable energy resources, being so much more 'dilute' and expensive, mandate their efficient use.
So whilst there is a concern about mercury in CFLs, my thought is that this doesn't outweigh their other advantages. Hopefully within ten years, LCD technology will have advanced sufficiently to usurp CFLs, or a toxin free CFL can be developed, and CFLs will be seen in the future as a temporary expedient and technology, better than what went before, but not perfect, such as the LP record before CDs or Video tape before DVDs, or the hybrid car before the battery car.
In regard to rashes, fluorescent lights are known to have caused problems to a very few people with unduly sensitive skins, so the Express reports are not just make-believe. CFLs do indeed radiate a very small amount of UV radiation. (They work by the UV radiation generated in the tube hitting the fluorescent coating of the tube, and a small amount trickles through, the equivalent, Wiki says, of about a minute in the sun.) However I don't think CFLs are any worse than the old strip lights, and we've had these for forty or more years, again without so much fuss. So claims such as "compact fluorescent lights can burn your skin" are a bit exaggerated, and the Express article is a bit of a 'beat up'.
These problems might be really tricky for a very small number of people, and incandescent bulbs might need to remain available for them. The problem is likely to be that if incandescent bulbs still are available, a large number of people, who would otherwise be fine using CFLs, will continue to use incandescent bulbs, thereby negating the significant advantage of the general use of CFLs. Perhaps a tax on incandescent bulbs to make their price nearer that of a CFL would work, the proceeds to medical research.
You only have to read the comments that follow the Daily Express article to understand the difficulties we are going to face dealing with global warming, indeed any environmental issue at all. Typically these include:
The Gloabal Warmists would have us "sheep" believe that the planet is in imminent danger and that is the reason we should all switch to CFL's. The Global Warmists also say that anyone who does not believe in Global Warming has some kind of mental disorder.
This rubbish that continually spews out of Brussels like a carrot ridden stream of vomit day by day is purely done because someone as a reader has already said has their feet and snout in the trough
Too many little Al's bowing down to Slippery Al Gore and the IPPC liars and Politicaly correct lunatics.
We should tell the eu bastards where to shove their orders.
