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.
This is why we have had a rash of acute Mercury poisoning everywhere fluorescent tubes are used, of course.
Mercury poisoning has so many symptoms, you would be hard pressed to establish it as such from anecdotal evaluation. In fact, its exposure can be mistaken for many different illnesses.
So, your premise is unsound.
What we do know:
1. The EPA has tested this scenario and it was shown that the exposure was many times over the safe exposure threshold.
2. CFL's replaced a technology that was superior in performance/cost efficiency and is not hazardous.
3. A large percentage of the CFL's are being placed into normal trash fills which eventually leads to seepage into the water supply.
So, we have environmental people gunning for a inferior technology that is extremely hazardous and has long term effects within our system... and well... I am at a loss?
Why? Is it because there are "assumptions" about energy usage and the environment?
Better to poison ourselves with the known right?
I find it ironic that the same people who go on about "saving the planet" are staunch defenders of this technology when all the available facts are obvious.
Do you have a battery in your car? Do you know there is a safety concern while installing, charging or changing it? How is a battery in your car not like a mercury filled light bulb?
There is a right way and a wrong way to handle the dangerous materials we all live with and use.
Well when I need to replace my car battery I just toss the old one into my neighbors yard. I guess I'll start doing that if I ever use the mercury laced death bulbs. Until then you best just do what the government tells you and evacuate the building if on breaks.
Mercury poisoning has so many symptoms, you would be hard pressed to establish it as such from anecdotal evaluation. In fact, its exposure can be mistaken for many different illnesses.
Fascinating. It's super-duper dangerous but it doesn't show up in statistics. Sneaky, that.
Quote:
1. The EPA has tested this scenario and it was shown that the exposure was many times over the safe exposure threshold.
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.
In the hour immediately after each breakage, the team recorded mercury gas concentrations near the bulb shards between 200–800 μg/m3. For comparison, the average 8-hour occupational exposure limit allowed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is 100 μg/m3.
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.
Quote:
2. CFL's replaced a technology that was superior in performance/cost efficiency and is not hazardous.
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.
Quote:
A large percentage of the CFL's are being placed into normal trash fills which eventually leads to seepage into the water supply.
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.
Quote:
I find it ironic that the same people who go on about "saving the planet" are staunch defenders of this technology when all the available facts are obvious.
It appears you are drawing correct conclusions, but from flawed data.
To prove his case against global warming, which Beck labels a “load of socialist, communist crap,†the right-wing talk-show host announced his war against energy-efficient light bulbs. On air, he asked a staffer to write a memo that threatened to fire anyone caught using one. The YouTube video of the moment was picked up by Grist.
Regardless of your climate change position you have to laugh. But feel bad for his employees.
It's a shtick.
Nobody thought the government was "crazy" when they forced 100 watt light bulbs off the market.
I am free to use whatever light bulbs that I want.
So is Glenn Beck.
Look at it this way, he's saving landfills from millions of tons of Mercury from CFL's!
Since you're not employed by him, isn't that a rather stupid statement? You do realize you have to be employed by someone for them to give you the proverbial 'pink slip', do you not?
How so? They cost 20 x the cost of a regular bulb.
I refuse to use them.
I don't know where you are buying CFL's, but the last time I bought a pack they were about a buck per bulb. You are right if you are refering to LED's though. Anyways that is flawed logic, being that you have to replace standard bulbs so often, and they use way more power. SO that means it's cheaper to buy CFL's.
I don't know where you are buying CFL's, but the last time I bought a pack they were about a buck per bulb. You are right if you are refering to LED's though. Anyways that is flawed logic, being that you have to replace standard bulbs so often, and they use way more power. SO that means it's cheaper to buy CFL's.
I said I refuse to use them. I don't buy them, period. My landlord told me they run about $5 each. But I wouldn't and won't ever know.
And if you use 130V bulbs, you don't have to worry about replacing them often. They last for years. Simple, 130V instead of 120V. It's been so long since I've had to buy some I couldn't tell you what they cost, but a 4-pack is pretty much the same as 120V.
I said I refuse to use them. I don't buy them, period. My landlord told me they run about $5 each. But I wouldn't and won't ever know.
And if you use 130V bulbs, you don't have to worry about replacing them often. They last for years. Simple, 130V instead of 120V. It's been so long since I've had to buy some I couldn't tell you what they cost, but a 4-pack is pretty much the same as 120V.
That's all good for you, just was saying that it's cheaper. Electric rates in Texas are very high, and I just like the CFL's because they don't put out as much heat and are much easier on my pocketbook.
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.