Compact Fluorescent Bulbs -- some are unreliable

[Xenophon]

On the subject of CFLs, mercury, saving energy, pollution, etc.

If you are concerned about the amount of mercury in a CFL bulb (or many CFL bulbs, for that matter) there are a few things you should be aware of:

• Businesses are required to recycle CFLs (in most states). And the recyclers are required to scavenge the mercury -- which they do quite effectively, because they can sell the mercury for significant $$. This approach alleviates most of the concern about mercury in CFLs (for businesses, subject to compliance issues).
• Although consumers are generally not required to recycle CFLs, there are easy options for doing so. For example, all local Sierra Club offices accept CFLs for free (er... no cost to you) recycling. There are probably other free options in your area as well -- call your local environmental organization and they'll be happy to give you advice.
• Newer designs of CFLs use less (and less, and less) mercury. They're getting darned close to the point where they can legitimately claim to be mercury-free. That point will be reached within a few more years.
• Do you buy (ocean) fish? Each low-mercury CFL contains less mercury than a typical fish fillet. I'm less sure about the no-name-brand CFLs from the big box store, but those labeled as having extremely low mercury fit this description.

But even with all those things, I'd be dead-set against any legal requirement to switch away from incandescent bulbs. Or to switch to any particular technology. My issue on this is that the politicos can't possibly know what issues are most important to any particular household or business. And they almost always blow it on technological issues anyway. (Did you know, for example, that catalytic convertors are not necessarily the best way to reduce emissions? There are better choices (that is, as effective or more effective for lower cost) for some combinations of engine type and usage pattern. But we have a legally-required one-size-fits-some solution. And the politicians don't ever seem to get the idea that requiring results is a better choice than mandating a particular method. Assuming, that is, that the mandate is even a good idea at all. But I digress...)

Anyway, I'm all in favor of each of you making your own choice based on your own circumstances. For my uses in my situation, CFLs make sense for any light that is frequently used. And they've made a noticeable difference in my electric bill, saving me money overall.

As always, your mileage may vary. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Disclaimers may not be effective...

Xenophon

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So... your answer is to just let the planet go straight to Hell, since everybody's too LAZY to do things right? Since it would be simply and literally impossible to remove every gram of chemicals that are considered poison from our lives (including most processed and some non-processed foods, clothing, cleaning products, PAPER, electronics, your car, your phone, etc, etc), how do you propose supporting almost 7 billion people in a way that is environmentally beneficial?

I suppose we could quite literally bomb ourselves back to the stone age...hang in there....its coming..

(I apologize for leaving off there, as it came out just sounding crass... but I was hurrying to catch a train...)

The reasons you list for this being a difficult proposition is not, in themselves, reasons not to do them. Instead, it's an excellent reason to step up our efforts to recycle and properly dispose of things.

Sure, most people will have to go out of their way to more reliably recycle and dispose of things in a safe way, and a lot of lazy people won't like the extra work. A lot of non-lazy people won't like it either, because it is sure to cost more. But we can't afford to not do it because it will inconvenience us... it needs to be done, and the longer we delay, the worse the problem will become, and the more inconvenient it will be later.

We wern't talking about removing EVERYTHING with poison, were we? We were talking about CFL bulbs......thats all.

No......regardless of the "feel good" mentality out there, I am looking a little further than just using a bulb to save some energy.........I'm looking at the end result, ie, those same bulbs in the landfills.

How you propose to insure these bulbs get re-cycled is not clear. Again, you are preaching to the choir here. I recycle, but what about the majority who don't? Those are the ones you have to worry about, and who will continue to throw these things into the trash.

You can rant until the cows come home. This won't change human behavior. And this is something no one is talking about.

All these "wonderful, energy saving bulbs", most being made in the wonderfully environmentally conscious country of China.....being tossed into landfills, the mercury to eventually seep into the earth......lovely.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

[snip]
But even with all those things, I'd be dead-set against any legal requirement to switch away from incandescent bulbs. [/snip]

Xenophon

unfortunately that is happening in the UK .... banned by 2012.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

We wern't talking about removing EVERYTHING with poison, were we? We were talking about CFL bulbs......thats all.

Sure... but the amounts of mercury being landfilled through bulbs is a small portion of the poisoned chemicals we're already landfilling. No point talking about one and ignoring the rest... they all need to be dealt with. But okay, back to the subject at hand...

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

How you propose to insure these bulbs get re-cycled is not clear. Again, you are preaching to the choir here. I recycle, but what about the majority who don't? Those are the ones you have to worry about, and who will continue to throw these things into the trash.

You can rant until the cows come home. This won't change human behavior. And this is something no one is talking about.

Actually, I've been clear... it's just that no one ever wants to hear what I have to say on this matter, so it tends to get tuned out. Let me be a bit more clear, then, by using the "F" bomb:

Fees.

Simply put, charging people according to the trash they throw out, to encourage people to limit the amount of trash they landfill. Lower fees, or even credit, for recycled goods will ensure there will be less waste, and more goods will be recycled.

Then, I can use the "F" bomb again:

Fines.

Anyone caught landfilling improper materials is fined. That will make people responsible for properly disposing of their trash.

All of that means... of course... more tax money spent to manage all of this trash sorting, fees and fines. Again, I know that's why people don't like to hear my responses. But in the clear absence of a populace whose majority wants to do the right thing, I don't see any alternative, other than watching it all go to hell, and hoping you die before someone gets around to shooting you for doing it. And I choose not to wait for my firing squad.

Anyone who's got a better idea, I'd love to hear it. But that's what I got.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Sure... but the amounts of mercury being landfilled through bulbs is a small portion of the poisoned chemicals we're already landfilling. No point talking about one and ignoring the rest... they all need to be dealt with. But okay, back to the subject at hand...

And my point was simply why add to the poisons out there? You are telling me that we must accept this particular type of bulb because its the only one available that saves energy. I say throw it back in their faces and say "come up with something better" But it seem no one wants to do that. Instead, we should be grateful for any crap thrown at us.

Actually, I've been clear... it's just that no one ever wants to hear what I have to say on this matter, so it tends to get tuned out. Let me be a bit more clear, then, by using the "F" bomb:

Fees.

Simply put, charging people according to the trash they throw out, to encourage people to limit the amount of trash they landfill. Lower fees, or even credit, for recycled goods will ensure there will be less waste, and more goods will be recycled.

Then, I can use the "F" bomb again:

Fines.

Anyone caught landfilling improper materials is fined. That will make people responsible for properly disposing of their trash.

All of that means... of course... more tax money spent to manage all of this trash sorting, fees and fines. Again, I know that's why people don't like to hear my responses. But in the clear absence of a populace whose majority wants to do the right thing, I don't see any alternative, other than watching it all go to hell, and hoping you die before someone gets around to shooting you for doing it. And I choose not to wait for my firing squad.

Anyone who's got a better idea, I'd love to hear it. But that's what I got.

The thought of a bunch of little nazis sorting thru my trash
(and how else would they find out if I"m being a good girl??) has about as much appeal as the HOA's telling me I MUST repaint my house the exact color it was, not one shade different, or what color security door I can have.

Pretty soon, with this mentality, we'll have a bunch of little people with big power cravings running everything.

Oh. Wait. Never mind. We're already there, aren't we?

More governmental intervention isn't the answer. I'll be honest and say I don't know what is, but I'm pretty darned sure it isn't that.

Its been fun, Steve. Have a good day. I'm done with this subject.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

unfortunately that is happening in the UK .... banned by 2012.

It is here in the US, as well. I don't remember the exact date and am too lazy to look it up.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

On the subject of CFLs, mercury, saving energy, pollution, etc.

If you are concerned about the amount of mercury in a CFL bulb (or many CFL bulbs, for that matter) there are a few things you should be aware of:

• Businesses are required to recycle CFLs (in most states). And the recyclers are required to scavenge the mercury -- which they do quite effectively, because they can sell the mercury for significant $$. This approach alleviates most of the concern about mercury in CFLs (for businesses, subject to compliance issues).
• Although consumers are generally not required to recycle CFLs, there are easy options for doing so. For example, all local Sierra Club offices accept CFLs for free (er... no cost to you) recycling. There are probably other free options in your area as well -- call your local environmental organization and they'll be happy to give you advice.
• Newer designs of CFLs use less (and less, and less) mercury. They're getting darned close to the point where they can legitimately claim to be mercury-free. That point will be reached within a few more years.
• Do you buy (ocean) fish? Each low-mercury CFL contains less mercury than a typical fish fillet. I'm less sure about the no-name-brand CFLs from the big box store, but those labeled as having extremely low mercury fit this description.

But even with all those things, I'd be dead-set against any legal requirement to switch away from incandescent bulbs. Or to switch to any particular technology. My issue on this is that the politicos can't possibly know what issues are most important to any particular household or business. And they almost always blow it on technological issues anyway. (Did you know, for example, that catalytic convertors are not necessarily the best way to reduce emissions? There are better choices (that is, as effective or more effective for lower cost) for some combinations of engine type and usage pattern. But we have a legally-required one-size-fits-some solution. And the politicians don't ever seem to get the idea that requiring results is a better choice than mandating a particular method. Assuming, that is, that the mandate is even a good idea at all. But I digress...)

Anyway, I'm all in favor of each of you making your own choice based on your own circumstances. For my uses in my situation, CFLs make sense for any light that is frequently used. And they've made a noticeable difference in my electric bill, saving me money overall.

As always, your mileage may vary. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Disclaimers may not be effective...

Xenophon

It's not actually the amount of mercury involved that concerns me, it is the government making the requirement that I use something that could potentially be harmful to my family. Yes, it might save some energy, but is that energy significant enough to justify banning another product, one that was manufactured in our own country and supplied jobs here. I would just like them to take more time and do more research before making mandates to the types of technology I am forced to use in my home. The greatest freedom our country has given us is the freedom of choice. It's a shame the politicians have forgotten that in their zeal to prove that they are environmentalists.

I'm a techno geek. I am all for improvements to old technology and have no problem implementing those changes if they are proven effective. I am not convinced it is a better solution to the incandescent light bulb. There are certainly benefits to CFL's and I will be happy to use them when the technology has been thoroughly debugged and it is proven to be the best solution.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Speaking of bombs: The "Nazi" card is seriously over-the-top. The information agencies already get about us from legitimate channels means sorting through our trash is redundant... it doesn't put us in any more risk. All it means is money and effort spent to clean things up, with the understanding that the longer we wait, the more it's going to cost us later.

You guys sound like you won't budge until the magic fairy comes down, waves her wand, and makes everything clean, green, free, easy and perfect, without our having to lift a finger.

I think we're well past waiting for "magic wand" solutions, myself. Sitting around and expecting some imagined agency to come along and magically clean up after us has gotten us... right here. And now we know that here doesn't work. But continuing to expect that unknown but miraculous agency to show up "any minute now" and fix it doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

"Well, I don't like it" is just being counter-productive. Who's got a counter-solution?

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Speaking of bombs: The "Nazi" card is seriously over-the-top. The information agencies already get about us from legitimate channels means sorting through our trash is redundant... it doesn't put us in any more risk. All it means is money and effort spent to clean things up, with the understanding that the longer we wait, the more it's going to cost us later.

You guys sound like you won't budge until the magic fairy comes down, waves her wand, and makes everything clean, green, free, easy and perfect, without our having to lift a finger.

I think we're well past waiting for "magic wand" solutions, myself. Sitting around and expecting some imagined agency to come along and magically clean up after us has gotten us... right here. And now we know that here doesn't work. But continuing to expect that unknown but miraculous agency to show up "any minute now" and fix it doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

"Well, I don't like it" is just being counter-productive. Who's got a counter-solution?

I wish I had a solution for you, but I'm just a school teacher. I don't have the scientific background or resources needed to develop a better solution to the incandescent light bulb. I do teach reuse and recycling in the classroom and discuss the steps we should (and can) take to take better care of our planet. If the scientists who are working on a better solution actually came up with a better solution and not just an expedient one, I would be the first one at the hardware store buying whatever it was, not even worrying about the price. Frankly, the price isn't even an issue for me. Having said that, I do think that if the government is going to demand we purchase a product that is more expensive than what is commonly in use, then the consumers should receive some type of subsidy. Our tax dollars go for subsidies in all kinds of places, why not there.

I don't want any agency coming down from above and cleaning up my messes. That is my point. I do what I can with the best technology made available to me. I just don't think CFLs are the BEST or even that much better of a technology than what I am already using.

Referring to Nazi's might have been over the top, but so was inferring that we are all delusional or are wearing blinders (the magic fairy reference) because we don't agree with your statements about CFL's. I am very committed to my planet, it is actually my children's planet and therefor extremely important to me. Just because I'm not convinced CFL's are the answer to our energy problems, doesn't make me any less of a conservationist.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Speaking of bombs: The "Nazi" card is seriously over-the-top. The information agencies already get about us from legitimate channels means sorting through our trash is redundant... it doesn't put us in any more risk. All it means is money and effort spent to clean things up, with the understanding that the longer we wait, the more it's going to cost us later.

You guys sound like you won't budge until the magic fairy comes down, waves her wand, and makes everything clean, green, free, easy and perfect, without our having to lift a finger.

I think we're well past waiting for "magic wand" solutions, myself. Sitting around and expecting some imagined agency to come along and magically clean up after us has gotten us... right here. And now we know that here doesn't work. But continuing to expect that unknown but miraculous agency to show up "any minute now" and fix it doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

"Well, I don't like it" is just being counter-productive. Who's got a counter-solution?

I sincerely apologize if I have in any way besmirched the good name of nazi's anywhere. (insert gag reflex here)

What else do you call those who monitor your personal information and trash?

If refusing to drink the kool-aid you offer as solutions puts me in the category of those who "sit around waiting"........so be it.

People have got to start paying attention to long term effects of what is offered.....not just the band-aid solutions.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Referring to Nazi's might have been over the top, but so was inferring that we are all delusional or are wearing blinders (the magic fairy reference) because we don't agree with your statements about CFL's.

I wasn't inferring that, actually. I was inferring that taking no action at all, because the solutions don't suit, is unwise. And I wasn't actually directing that at your statements, but the general attitude (incredibly common in the U.S. of A.) that "since the solution isn't perfect, it can't be any better than what I'm doing, so I'm not going to change anything."

I mean, I'm not saying CFLs are 100% safe, or that you shouldn't be concerned about the mercury inside. I'm just saying that, in the bigger picture, you've got much more dangerous and toxic things all around you than CFLs... that mercury issue is small potatoes compared to those others. Your car is more of a threat to your life than a houseful of CFLs.

Here's something else to think about: American businesspeople have been spending an average of 2000 hours a year around standard fluorescents (which have far more mercury in them than CFLs), where they have been handled... replaced... broken... shattered in order to fit into small trash containers... for the past 50 years. In that time, we have not seen an epidemic of mercury-poisoning deaths (we probably would have noticed). This is why I think the concern about mercury in CFLs is simply being taken out of proportion. You're more likely to be accidentally electrocuted by your power strip, frankly.

And most importantly, CFLs will save a lot of energy... well worth the extra care needed to handle them, in my opinion (and in my house).

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I sincerely apologize if I have in any way besmirched the good name of nazi's anywhere. (insert gag reflex here)

What else do you call those who monitor your personal information and trash?

The same thing I call the people who keep my grocery purchases, DVD purchases, web site visitations, medical history, credit scores, suit size, bank history, employment history, passport records, cell phone records and MP3 purchases in their little triple-backed-up databases in mysterious foreign lands. (I just refer to 'em in general as "Them," for expedience and to avoid the obvious political references.)

If "Them" actually thinks they can learn anything else about me by collecting my trash, too... girl, they're welcome to it.

[kazbates]

[QUOTE=Steve Jordan;484718]I wasn't inferring that, actually. I was inferring that taking no action at all, because the solutions don't suit, is delusional. And I wasn't actually directing that at your statements, but the general attitude (incredibly common in the U.S. of A.) that "since the solution isn't perfect, it can't be any better than what I'm doing, so I'm not going to change anything."

I mean, I'm not saying CFLs are 100% safe, or that you shouldn't be concerned about the mercury inside. I'm just saying that, in the bigger picture, you've got much more dangerous and toxic things all around you than CFLs... that mercury issue is small potatoes compared to those others. Your car is more of a threat to your life than a houseful of CFLs.

And most importantly, CFLs will save a lot of energy... well worth the extra care needed to handle them, in my opinion (and in my house).
[\QUOTE]


Okay, then. I agree that we should make some attempts to fix things, even if they are only "stop gap" methods. We do need to stop the gap from getting bigger before we can start filling it in. I'm afraid I can't agree about the light bulb, though. But, hey, that's one of the best things about MR, we can agree to disagree and still get along!

As for the following quote:

The same thing I call the people who keep my grocery purchases, DVD purchases, web site visitations, medical history, credit scores, suit size, bank history, employment history, passport records, cell phone records and MP3 purchases in their little triple-backed-up databases in mysterious foreign lands. (I just refer to 'em in general as "Them," for expedience and to avoid the obvious political references.)

If "Them" actually thinks they can learn anything else about me by collecting my trash, too... girl, they're welcome to it.

Who are the "Them" you think are gathering all this data? I am just curious. I didn't know anyone was keeping all that information about me and I certainly don't want anyone knowing my "suit" size.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Who are the "Them" you think are gathering all this data? I am just curious. I didn't know anyone was keeping all that information about me and I certainly don't want anyone knowing my "suit" size.

Ask Desertgrandma. She knows. (I think she's related to the Shadow.)

Seriously: I recently found out the last time I visited The Men's Wearhouse that they've kept my purchases on file for years. I wanted a longer size of a shirt I'd bought from them a year previously, and they were able to find the info on that exact shirt style and color in their computers in 5 minutes. I bought my suit and three sportcoats from them, over the years. They've got all of 'em.

Sears knows what brand of underwear I buy.

Giant (and whatever foreign grocery conglomerate owns them this year) can tell you what cereal I prefer.

Carefirst Blue Cross Blue Shield has my entire medical history.

Wachovia could tell you exactly what I use my credit card to buy.

Starbucks can tell you what flavor frapps I prefer.

Amazon.com can tell you what kind of music I prefer.

The state of Maryland knows the last time I drove through the toll booth on my way to Rehoboth.

Every item I listed is being stored by somebody, right now... retailers... government agencies... telemarketers. To be retrieved, by somebody (besides me), on demand. Right. Now.

So, am I afraid of someone going through my trash? Ha! Bring it, Sunshine.

(Hmm... ramble much, Stevie?)

What were we talking... oh, yeah. CFLs. I still think they don't pose as serious a risk as you think they do... but hey: There are alternatives even to CFLs. Like low-wattage halogens and LEDs... maybe you should try those, and worry about CFLs when they effectively get the mercury out of them.

I personally think applying subsidies to lighting research (to get mercury out of CFLs, or to improve LEDs and lower costs, etc) is a great idea. We've needed to reapply the subsidies we give to wasteful and polluting companies for a while now, and giving us better lightbulbs (and batteries, and solar cells, etc) is a worthy direction to send that money. And if those subsidies can put some Americans to work making quality bulbs, so much the better.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Yes, it might save some energy, but is that energy significant enough to justify banning another product, one that was manufactured in our own country and supplied jobs here.

I don't follow your argument there, I'm afraid. If incandescent lightbulbs are manufactured in your country, why can't fluorescent lightbulbs also be? Is there something inherent in the manufacturing process which prevents it?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't follow your argument there, I'm afraid. If incandescent lightbulbs are manufactured in your country, why can't fluorescent lightbulbs also be? Is there something inherent in the manufacturing process which prevents it?

No reason they can't be... in fact, fluorescents for offices had been manufactured in the U.S. for years... before those manufacturing jobs were largely shipped overseas. As usual, cheap labor was the culprit. (If you check, most I-bulb manufacture also goes on overseas today.)

Considering how badly the U.S. needs to provide jobs, you'd think someone would jump at the opportunity to create new manufacturing jobs here. But again, cheap labor (and fewer safety- and health-related regulations) will likely send those jobs elsewhere. That's the effect of a global economy (unfortunately for U.S. workers... not so much for everyone else).

But that effect also keeps costs down, which is obviously a concern for many people. And when given the choice, a majority of Americans will accept cheaper goods, even if it means local jobs go away (someday they'll probably coin that the "K-Mart Effect," if they haven't already).

So the trick is to convince Americans to buy local--in this case, national--and accept higher costs, in support of their fellow Americans (and in this case, their environment). So far, that's been a really hard sell. American patriotism can't hold a candle to American capitalism.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Ask Desertgrandma.
Every item I listed is being stored by somebody, right now... retailers... government agencies... telemarketers. To be retrieved, by somebody (besides me), on demand. Right. Now.

So, am I afraid of someone going through my trash? Ha! Bring it, Sunshine.

Most people, at least those who pay the least bit of attention, realize that when you use a 'preferred shopper card', or fill out an application anywhere, that information is stored and used to track your purchases.
Its a marketing tool. Yes, banks and your health insurance know all about you, even down to the last pimple on your butt.

What I'm objecting to, would be the even more intrusive, searching thru the trash crap. Can't wait to see the people who line up for THAT job.

Doesn't that seem just a little bit.............oh, I don't know.........authoritarian?