Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can understand your concern, I commend that. However I think overall keeping it out of the air we breath and water we drink is a payoff. I'd rather keep from having to add more power plants just to keep the old bulbs around. Besides I can't even remember the last time I broke a bulb. Besides you can't go anywhere without being around CFL's or standard flourescent tube lights.
They run about 20% more than standard 120v. Most of the time I saw commercial customers (schools, factories) buy them. However even they mostly have switched to CFL's. No matter the organization, they all move over to CFL's due to the cheaper costs. I am not sure how anyone could argue with saving money, unless it's just to stick their finger in the opposing political parties eye, lol. Kind of silly if you ask me.
I'm thinking you haven't been on this site very often many of he posters on here would eat with styrofoam utensils while drinking the cheapest nastiest stuff possible all the while listening to fox "news" and throwing food at the tv anytime someone says liberal or democrat. So I could see how petty some might get funny enough though it is not liberals or dems that pay there electric bill it's them so they can give the finger all they like but in the end they give themselves a much bigger one.
Yes... I get what you are trying to say, but you seem to be glossing over the absurdity of the problem here.
We already had a light source that was cheaper, and better than what we replaced it with AND it was not toxic.
We also do not live around a car battery, it is a valid point if you are going to make such comparisons. A light bulb exists in our homes everywhere. It is next to our beds, in our bathrooms, in our closets... it is everywhere. A car battery is in a car, usually in non-living space (garage or outside). There is no comparison, no reasonable argument to be made as you were trying to make.
You are avoiding the entire issue that these bulbs are anti-environment all the way around. The only "positive" they have is that they use less energy and that one is mired in an assumptive position that can not even be quantified to its benefits as the "problem" it attempts to remedy can not even be properly established either.
So what we have is another "green" solution that does more harm than it does good.
Actually the newer bulbs are much brighter than the older one's unless you bought metal hallide spot lights your bulbs were of the "yellower" type of light now you actually have different choices of brightness. Many professional photographers prefer the cfl to the regular type of bulbs because they give off a much nicer brighter light. Also it's weird when you switch to cfl's/led lights because than you see the true color of things. If you don't believe me try it sometime go and buy one cfl "daylight" or "sunlight" type bulb and put it in and let us know how different everything looks, and how do you know that the older bulbs are not toxic ? You are aware that the cheaper "dollar store" type bulbs that are made in china are in fact poorly made. You are also aware that it's not just the filament in a bulb that gives it light correct ? While cfl's may not be the best the technology is getting better and soon enough the cfl will go the way of the regular bulb and we will end up using led's once it gets cheaper to produce.
And exactly how are cfl's anti-enviroment when they last longer and use less power ? What is more cost effective by the way a bulb you change every few months or a bulb you change every few years ?
Recycle CFLs? Whooda thought? When mine burn out, I throw them at the squirrels in the back yard. You can kill a squirrel if you hit him just right with one! The ones that miss usually land in the creek and are carried downstream off my property and onto the nearby park wetlands, so no worries there.
Seriously, I've gathered enough conventional bulbs to last many years. I have 100s, 75s, and just finished stocking up on 60s which go out of production at the end of this year. I just need a supply of heavy duty 60s for the garage door openers.
Fascinating. It's super-duper dangerous but it doesn't show up in statistics. Sneaky, that.
I said it is toxic, I explained its symptoms are wide and can be mistaken for many things. I guess, in your world if there isn't a study, it doesn't exist? /boggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I wasn't aware of this research, do you have a link? The only hard research I've seen is the Brown University study, and they certainly didn't find that.
Of course, "average occupational exposure limit" isn't the "safe exposure threshold" by a long shot, it's the permissible limit for daily exposure - in other words, OSHA is hunky-dory with you working in 100 μg/m3 day in and day out. So unless you break a CFL bulb every 8 days and then breathe "near the bulb shards", you're not going to approach the permissible exposure level, much less the safe exposure level.
Mercury concentration in the study room air often exceeds the Maine Ambient Air Guideline (MAAG) of 300 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) for some period of time, with short excursions over 25,000 ng/m3, sometimes over 50,000 ng/m3, and possibly over 100,000 ng/m3 from the breakage of a single compact fluorescent lamp. A short period of venting can, in most cases, significantly reduce the mercury air concentrations after breakage. Concentrations can sometimes rebound when rooms are no longer vented, particularly with certain types of lamps and during/after vacuuming. Mercury readings at the one foot height tend to be greater than at the five foot height in non vacuumed situations
As you can see, there are problems and spikes are varied and do hit well above the safe exposure level. Not to mention, as it notes, cleanup is not always guaranteed to produce safe results. They say the suggested clean up methods are sound, but not a guarantee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Superior? The CFLs consume less power. Why do you think every factory floor and office building is using fluorescent lights? It saves money, that's why.
Yes, superior. Lets see. Light quality (incandescent), Cost (incandescent), Energy usage (CFL). So, you are saying 1 out of 3 is better? Umm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Whereas traditional light bulbs consume more power, leading to higher coal consumption, leading to a higher amount of mercury being released into the atmosphere. Where, I might add, it doesn't stay. But I agree, we should take measures to keep CFLs out of landfills.
Power is all you have, but now you go down that slippery slope. As for the Mercury release with coal? I think thecoalman has severely debunked that claim multiple times on this forum. Do a search for the topic, the levels of exposure through coal plants can't even touch the levels I showed you in the above research. The coal plants release are insignificant to a broken bulb exposure.
Incandescents are cheaper and the claim that CFL's last longer is more of a marketing scheme than a consistent factual note. They may last some bit longer (depends on use), but the costs differences are not even comparable. I can buy incandescents pennies on the dollar, CFL's are expensive comparatively speaking.
Then there is the issue of light quality. They are terrible. No contest here.
Lastly, CFLs have problems in their design. They contain no ballast encapsulation, so... fire danger (there is a reason the ballasts are encapsulated with florescent lights). There was even a story a while back of a CFL causing a house fire because of this very issue. Tests have also shown there is a danger, especially with poor lines, spikes, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
It appears you are drawing correct conclusions, but from flawed data.
It appears you are drawing a conclusion from your desire to promote your environmental agenda.
It is insulting to see people like you go on about how you care about the environment and because of your arrogant devotion to your position, you will cause harm to the environment and endanger people to continue your agenda.
Actually the newer bulbs are much brighter than the older one's unless you bought metal hallide spot lights your bulbs were of the "yellower" type of light now you actually have different choices of brightness. Many professional photographers prefer the cfl to the regular type of bulbs because they give off a much nicer brighter light. Also it's weird when you switch to cfl's/led lights because than you see the true color of things. If you don't believe me try it sometime go and buy one cfl "daylight" or "sunlight" type bulb and put it in and let us know how different everything looks, and how do you know that the older bulbs are not toxic ? You are aware that the cheaper "dollar store" type bulbs that are made in china are in fact poorly made. You are also aware that it's not just the filament in a bulb that gives it light correct ? While cfl's may not be the best the technology is getting better and soon enough the cfl will go the way of the regular bulb and we will end up using led's once it gets cheaper to produce.
And exactly how are cfl's anti-enviroment when they last longer and use less power ? What is more cost effective by the way a bulb you change every few months or a bulb you change every few years ?
You are going to cause some people's minds to have a meltdown! LOL. Some just can't see the whole picture: life of bulb, costs of manufacturing, power use and where that power comes from. I could go on and on, but I suppose a percentage of the population just will never get it.
And exactly how are cfl's anti-enviroment when they last longer and use less power ? What is more cost effective by the way a bulb you change every few months or a bulb you change every few years ?
Read the discussion. Mercury exposure (which is well above safe levels in tests), and a mass market of bulbs that usually get thrown into the trash. What does that mean? It means that over time, we now have dumps filled with bulbs and mercury content seeping into the soil.
So tell me, how is that not anti-environment?
Oh, and just so you know... I am not evading your comment about brightness. I just absolutely disagree. I have before I started reading into the issue tried numerous bulbs and they just can not compete with traditional bulbs. No way at all. I can not see with them, they are terrible. /shrug
I can understand your concern, I commend that. However I think overall keeping it out of the air we breath and water we drink is a payoff. I'd rather keep from having to add more power plants just to keep the old bulbs around. Besides I can't even remember the last time I broke a bulb. Besides you can't go anywhere without being around CFL's or standard flourescent tube lights.
/Facepalm
Yep, because none of those bulbs are going to be put into the trash. Nope, they are all going to go in special recycling bins, because... we know that everyone is very tidy and cares about the environment.
We also know that none of them bulbs will break in that trash and slowly seep into the soil!!
Read the discussion. Mercury exposure (which is well above safe levels in tests), and a mass market of bulbs that usually get thrown into the trash. What does that mean? It means that over time, we now have dumps filled with bulbs and mercury content seeping into the soil.
So tell me, how is that not anti-environment?
Oh, and just so you know... I am not evading your comment about brightness. I just absolutely disagree. I have before I started reading into the issue tried numerous bulbs and they just can not compete with traditional bulbs. No way at all. I can not see with them, they are terrible. /shrug
hate to tell you this but this is something that has been happening for a very long time now, ever see what happens when you throw an "old school" flourescent bulb into the trash and watch it explode on impact with the white stuff coming out? The simple fact is that with the use of cfl's/led's there is less bulbs being thrown in the trash so that it actually cuts down on the amount of dead bulbs being thrown away. Plus it is more energy efficient and does save you money. Ever wonder why many companies now are using cfl's ? It's not because they care about being green it's because they care about saving money and while the bulbs may cost more in the end they cost you less for your electric bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
/Facepalm
Yep, because none of those bulbs are going to be put into the trash. Nope, they are all going to go in special recycling bins, because... we know that everyone is very tidy and cares about the environment.
We also know that none of them bulbs will break in that trash and slowly seep into the soil!!
/boggle
they are doing that now, and with the way technology is getting better eventually even the cfl will go, right now the company I work for are finishing up a hotel where all the power in the rooms are low voltage and the lighting is led's imagine how much money the will save by using them ? Cfl's like led's last a tremendously longer amount of time as compared to regular bulbs also believe it or not but the heat that comes off a regular bulb can be sufficient enough to slightly alter the temp in the immediate area. Where I am currently living I have no AC so when its hot out I feel it I feel it worse though when the lights are on which is why I generally don't have them on.
Yep, because none of those bulbs are going to be put into the trash. Nope, they are all going to go in special recycling bins, because... we know that everyone is very tidy and cares about the environment.
We also know that none of them bulbs will break in that trash and slowly seep into the soil!!
/boggle
Even if a large portion of the population throws their CFL's into the trash, it's still a trade off. Sure that tiny amount of mercury vapor would escape. But nothing compared to the amount coming from a coal power plant. So I think the most environmental thing is to use the CFL bulbs. You could probably take just about any electrical item a person owns and find a huge list of toxic items it has. The key is to know how to be reasonable and learn how to balance and weigh the options. I'm just not the type that runs around and starts screaming that the sky is falling just because some nut like Glenn Beck is over CFL's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
