Light bulb better than CFL and LED!

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Measuring exposure comes in amount/time exposure. In some toxins, exposure of a small amount over long periods of times may have no significant dangers. Depending on the toxin, the time and amount will change to such.

Something you "may" be exposed to is worse than something you "are" exposed to? Besides, how do you measure something that can happen by accident (and the possibility it WILL affect you) and compare it to something that actually does?

With radiation, we know what acceptable limits are. What is it with mercury and considering its use in a variety of items as well as presence in air, water and food?

[DCforever]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Overall that is the case and I've stated that about 20 posts ago before you came into this discussion, again what Nomander is pointing out is a different angle than total emissions. It's one I haven't considered before, I'm glad he brought it to my attention.

While there is ample evidence to show overall emissions are less that still doesn't address exposure to bulbs broken inside a home which is going to be concentrated into a confined space.

Then factor in the chance of breaking a bulb inside the house, the probability of cleanup, the likely remaining Hg after cleanup, etc etc etc. Add it all up.

The population at large is exposed to less mercury through use of CFLs than through use of incandescent bulbs. That's the bottom line. Hg in CFL is a major red herring.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Something you "may" be exposed to is worse than something you "are" exposed to? Besides, how do you measure something that can happen by accident (and the possibility it WILL affect you) and compare it to something that actually does?

With radiation, we know what acceptable limits are. What is it with mercury and considering its use in a variety of items as well as presence in air, water and food?

We also know the acceptable limits of Mercury, well in what is stated by the agencies in charge of such as I explained, which is 300ng/mⁿ, ⁿ=3 (sorry, for some reason I ASCII code 252 is showing ⁿ when it should be 3). What you are talking about is long term exposure to which will vary with study as the idea of long term exposure is that of "safe limits" under a very long period having an effect.

The issue I am speaking is known safe levels of exposure (tested with no detrimental short term effects) versus known unsafe levels. That is, 300ng/mⁿ ⁿ=3 is considered a safe exposure limit and anything above that is considered hazardous. So, when we see a spike well above that 300ng, we know it is unsafe for any period of time to be exposed to that.

As I said, much like that of radiation. We have certain limits of immediate exposure to which are considered safe and if one is ever exposed above that, they are contaminated. How much above that is a matter of how severe the contamination can be just like that of radiation poisoning. Some levels above norm may be treated, but others are untreatable.

BTW, all of the issues of safe levels of exposure and unsafe levels of exposure are explained in that research link I provided. Did you even read it?

Edit:

Just asking, but you seemed to be confused about the concept of Permissible Exposure Levels and Threshold Limit values. Are you familiar with them?

If not, basically they are what we used to determine safe exposure to that of various toxins. There are many chemicals to which we are exposed to daily and many of them are toxic, but their danger is depending on the levels to which we are exposed. This is why you can do an analysis of your drinking water and find all kinds of toxins in it, but... as long as their levels are below a certain threshold, they are considered safe as the human body can filtrate them without harm.

Depending on the toxin, those limits change. The limits are simply a means to which they have established through testing that exposure to them is safe in the appropriate levels, and harmful after a certain amount.

What I was talking about is that some toxins due to their nature are safe in very small amounts, but there may be no real solid long term evaluation on the toxins effects due to the various natures of a type of toxin (some will stay in the body for a long time while others are passed through faster). Depending on that toxin, it may have long term effects on a person and this is a much more disputed area of study depending on the toxin in question and that of the various methods used to test long term exposure.

As to the long term effects of Mercury, I believe the first link I provided deals a bit with some of that as a possibility of issue, but in the discussion I was specifically concerned, it was the immediate exposure level to which is definitive in its position if these tests were done properly. We know the safe limits, so anything past that concerning immediate exposure is a major concern.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by DCforever

Then factor in the chance of breaking a bulb inside the house, the probability of cleanup, the likely remaining Hg after cleanup, etc etc etc. Add it all up.

The population at large is exposed to less mercury through use of CFLs than through use of incandescent bulbs. That's the bottom line. Hg in CFL is a major red herring.

It doesn't work that way.

Your applying statistical factors inappropriately as well as severely misunderstanding that of PEL and TVL.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Is that more exposure to mercury from FL than from lifetime of exposure from air, water and seafood?

Certainly potential is there if you break enough of them and as Nomander has pointed out we're talking about very high an immediate levels that as opposed to long term exposure.

WHFoods: Should I be concerned about mercury in fish and what fish are safe to eat?

The average numbers for Atlantic tuna in this 2007 EPA study were: 0.47 milligrams/kilogram for albacore and 0.31 milligrams/kilogram for yellowfin (light). By comparison, Pacific albacore only contained an average of 0.17 milligrams/kilogram of mercury and Pacific yellowfin (light) only 0.06 milligrams per kilogram.

I believe the source for this is here but it gives the amount in PPM and I have no inclination to verify the numbers. I'm going to assume the figures are accurate.

.25 mg/kg as an average, sound fair to you?

For the large 4 foot bulbs I found reference to 12mg for newer ones here, up to 40mg for older ones.


48 kg or 94 pounds of tuna would have same amount of mercury as one 4 foot bulb using the 12mg number. The only big question that remains is how much exposure from one bulb that is broken, lot of variables here. Bulb type, ventilation, cleanup etc.


While on the topic half of new mercury emission are natural. This goes back to the long term low exposures not being such an issue as large doses.

Controlling Power Plant Emissions: Mercury Emissions: The Global Context | Mercury | US EPA



Not sure why they have listing for remitted mercury unless it's activity that has caused both natural and human sources to be remitted.