Re: [asa] Fluorescent lamps and mercury - revisited

Yeh, I'm not freaking out about this. I've worked in disciplines that
brought me into "contact" with mercury in a number of contexts (neon
display devices, fluorescent lighting, manometers, etc.), including
intimate involvement in a manufacturing environment for display devices
that made use of mercury. The mercury in fluorescent and neon lamps
plays a role in extending operating life of the devices (the time before
the blackening at the end of the tubes creates shorting or reduction of
gas pressure in the devices). In all but the orange-colored neon
devices, the mercury also is the source of ultraviolet light that
stimulates the phosphors to emit the desired light.

Wiki has a diagram that illustrates the point I believe you make to the
effect that use of mercury-containing CFL still results (they argue) in
overall reductions in mercury pollution because of an accompanying
reduction in demand for coal powered electricity which itself is a
source of mercury contamination.

But the net reduction is only about 30%. At the same time, I notice that
there is a trend toward lower mercury CFLs. That is clearly in the
interest of the CFL producers because they get to sell more lamps over
time (the reduced mercury resulting in shorter lamp lifetime). For that
reason, I expect that the issue is more of a wash, but in fact puts more
mercury in the home (only an issue when lamps break, which also happens
occasionally as well with standard long fluorescent lamps). My inner
skeptic reports that the likely impetus for this rush to conversion to
CFL is an opportunistic financial one. I also doubt that the data
considers the shortened life of lamps used outdoors in cold country (and
higher replacement rates). [There is also that annoying warmup effect
that creates low initial light output!]

The operating cost picture remains positive for the change to CFLs.

As you say, we should measure the risk and make knowledgable choices.
That said, with the "freaking out" that is occurring with respect to
lead-containing paint, it seems complely inconsistent to not be freaking
out about inviting greater amounts of mercury into the households. For
example, I've only heard one voice on CNN suggest that such lamps not be
used in locations where children are more likely to break them. I would
suggest that getting mercury out of carpet is a lost cause - it's not a
good idea to suck up what you can in a vacuum cleaner either!

That said, we've had those long straight fluorescents around for a long
time, often in our kitchens. I have replaced some of my lamps with CFL

So, my comments are basically offered for awareness' sake.

Regards - JimA

j burg wrote:

>On 2/26/08, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Here's a relevant headline.
>>Mercury leaks found as new bulbs break
>>JimA [Friend of ASA]
>>
>>
>>
>
>The report goes on to say "But the reports, issued by the state of
>Maine and the Vermont-based Mercury Policy Project, urged homeowners
>to keep using compact fluorescents because their energy-saving
>benefits far outweigh the risk posed by mercury released from a broken
>lamp."
>
>IOW, ANY technology poses SOME degree of risk. One needs to carefully
>measure the risk of course.
>
>Burgy
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 27 18:04:55 2008