Don't miss the giveaway going on for a bunch of eco-friendly goods, so be sure you are subscribed by RSS or Email to get the entry code!
A Response To Mercury Levels In CFL’s And An Angry Comment.
I was going to respond to a comment on my earlier post regarding the spread of disinformation about mercury levels in CFL light bulbs, but it was going to be a long answer so I figured I would just write a new post about. Here is the comment from the original post, in all of it’s angry glory:
“So - please to confirm or deny (with references please. No references = no facts) what the safe levels of mercury mandated by the WHO are - and what those levels might be like in a 4-metre x 4-metre bedroom where a CFL has been dropped and has exploded.
TFA quotes “11 times greater” than WHO levels.
Are you saying that’s a lie?
Once again - please quote references.
Simply saying “a tiny amount” does not mean there are no health risks to growing children. Mercury is a heavy metal, and once in your body it can not leave, and has some very bad effects - especially on young people.
See, I could say that I’m only going to put “a tiny amount” of plutonium in your soup - but it only takes 1/000th of a microgram of plutonium to kill you in a rather nasty, and painful way. So “tiny amount” is entirely relative to the toxicity of the compound in question.
Don’t duck out on this one - I want to see the FACTS. And I’ll be back in 48 hours to check.”
And my response:
Dear Whoever you are,
Even though I should not even bother answering your question because of your tone and your threat to “be back in 48 hours to check”, I am a glutton for punishment. First off, if you could explain why we already use incandescent bulbs which contain mercury as well and no one has complained about THEM, that would be great. But anyways…
That being said, here are some facts: Helen Suh MacIntosh is a professor in environmental health at Harvard University and you can read her response as to the dangers of CFL’s right here. This is what she says:
“A CFL containing 5 mg of mercury breaks in your child’s bedroom that has a volume of about 25 m3 (which corresponds to a medium sized bedroom). The entire 5 mg of mercury vaporizes immediately (an unlikely occurrence), resulting in an airborne mercury concentration in this room of 0.2 mg/m3. This concentration will decrease with time, as air in the room leaves and is replaced by air from outside or from a different room. As a result, concentrations of mercury in the room will likely approach zero after about an hour or so. Under these relatively conservative assumptions, this level and duration of mercury exposure is not likely to be dangerous, as it is lower than the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard of 0.05 mg/m3 of metallic mercury vapor averaged over eight hours. [To equate these values, we could estimate the average indoor airborne mercury concentration for 8 hours, beginning post-spill at an estimated starting value of 0.2 mg/m3 and decreasing from there. If one assumes the the air exchanges completely in one hour (a fairly standard assumption), then the 8-hour average concentration would be 0.025 mg/m3.]”
I know that’s not your exact size sample room, but it is close…So…..what is an “acceptable” amount of mercury to ingest? Well, none, of course. We would all be better off without ingesting any of it. But we do, whether it is in the fish we eat, the air we breathe, or the old fashioned thermometer that your mom broke by accident when you were 5. It happens. In 1998, the EPA wanted to set the “safe” amount to 6 micrograms per day, which was the amount recommended both by the World Health Organization and the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. It is now set at 38.5 micrograms per week.
And here is a FACT sheet that says using CFL’s will result in LESS mercury emissions from coal plants because of how much energy they save.
And here is a pretty diagram outlining that fact:
And here are the EPA’s guidelines for cleaning up a small mercury spill, and nowhere in there does it say “call a haz-mat team” right away. It talks about plastic bags, paper towels, rubber gloves and shaving cream. So the article by your hero was a little bit alarmist, no? Last time I checked, plastic bags and paper towels did not run me $2,000 to clean up a mess.
Oh, and funny how your guy says that mercury from coal plants is not dangerous, but mercury from CFL’s is…please don’t bother with a threat to come back in another 48 because I really don’t care. I am not a scientist nor a researcher, but the information is readily available to anyone looking for it, just like the information about how the gas, oil, drug, and cigarette companies are paying your friend there to write that CFL’s are bad for everyone. I don’t see the AMA, the EPA, or WHO paying writers to debunk CFL’s…
technorati: CFL, mercury, danger
Share with others:
StumbleUpon |
Reddit
|
Digg |
Del.icio.us
Like this post? If so, please consider subscribing to my full feed RSS. Or, if you would prefer, you can subscribe by Email and have new posts sent directly to your inbox:
I'm a relatively new subscriber, but, from my experinec so far, I think you are accomplishing your goal.
"The ...
I have one and buying another for a gift. This is a really cool hat, easy to throw on and ...
dinsky, I wish Canada could be included. But because the companies are shipping and not me, that's the rules. But ...
Darn! I'm in Canada, so not eligible :(
Just wanted to drop a comment saying that I recently bought an ...
Thanks for re-posting these, they're such oldies-but-goodies! It's funny that people still have to be reminded of these things, even ...
This is just terrifying! 
I have no idea if the schools in my area are involved in that program, but they do garden at ...
Comment by Sara on 3 May 2007:
Wow, are they aggressive much? You did yourself proud. Emotion vs. facts/reason - good work.
Comment by Kellie on 3 May 2007:
You are amazing! That’s a great comeback (full of facts) in a very short amount of time. *applauds*
Comment by david on 3 May 2007:
Thanks guys, I appreciate it. It takes a little work, but debunking these people is always worth it!
Comment by Phil on 22 May 2007:
Good info…. However, I think you do yourself a disservice with your own hostile tone. These sorts of questions are legitmate to ask so that all the information gets out there. You end up being as ‘bad’ as you say ‘whomever’ is being…These are issues related to health… though we already are ingesting who knows what already, that doesnt mean we should not question where other sources may come at us…
Comment by david on 22 May 2007:
Believe me Phil it was almost a lot worse. When someone comes on my site, attacks my information, and then threatens to return in 48 hours to see if I answered him, its hard not to be slightly hostile.
Comment by Mandy on 25 May 2007:
Mercury from coal plants in the US is trapped by scrubbers as required by state and federal laws. No such law is required in China which is the only place on earth where this product is produce en mass in coal powered plants.
http://www3.lehigh.edu/News/V2.....yType%3D15
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=13509
Comment by Sheri on 24 June 2007:
Thanks. That was one of the most informative and well-worded responses on the matter I’ve read on the subject. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Energy Saver on 6 August 2007:
I wrote on the same topic on my blog, there is a link to a PDF reference which states the evaporation rates of long tubular fluorescent bulbs found that over a two week period, only 17 (0.85mg) to 40 (2mg) percent of the mercury in the bulb evaporated. The rest remained stuck in the bulb. Roughly one-third of the mercury that evaporated did so in the first eight hours after the breakage; the rest seeped out slowly over the remainder of the study period.
http://howtosaveenergy.blogspo.....myths.html
Comment by David Deak on 26 August 2007:
Links edited, advertisement. - David
You quote OSHA specs for safety, an organization gone awry over the years since its inception.
This is my comment to your Harvard source:
Have you ever stopped to consider how mercury is made?
Dissipation into the air and the air is moved away: Where? Into another dimension? So if CO2 can be dissipated into the air and cause global warming, why can’t mercury being dissipated into the air have environmental consequences?
Coal burning furnaces sans scrubbers or not and wherever is wrong as well. So I gather that if the level is small enough, then two wrongs don’t make a right.
The world has enough crazy people , so why sweeten the pot by saying in effect: “A little bit of mercury helps make life better, if we use it in CFL and incandescents.”
Saying it’s OK to use it in CFLs because it is in very small quantities is ridiculous, have you no sense of responsibility. Have you ever heard of saturation points? No matter what the amount, producing more mercury in Spain and Italy, where 50% of the world’s supply comes from, serves no real useful purpose for the environment. Then one has to consider the increased labour and millions of units of BTUs required to produce this poison as well. I’m afraid that saying it dissipates into the air is doing the ostrich thing.
Mercury vapor and salts of Mercury are poisonous–Never INHALE or SWALLOW Mercury! In fact, don’t ever leave Mercury exposed in an open container at room temperature–it will slowly evaporate placing a toxic gas into the atmosphere. Mercury can be absorbed through the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems and even through unbroken skin, further, it is a cumulative poison. It doesn’t easily flush out and levels can accumulate over time until it becomes toxic and deadly.
Give it a second thought.
I assume that being from Harvard this is supposed to be treated as The Gospel Truth. Do you realize how many erroneous things that have come out of Harvard? This being one of them!
Standing on the shoulders of ignorance that has come before thee is no brass ring.
An alternative to the incandescent and CFL is our new light using quantum dot technology, esoteric as it may be presently remains the future of lighting systems in this century.
You don’t have to get angry, it’s only commentary. Isn’t it nice for you to have a blog or site to place your comments, ideas, and opinions on? Well then, if you don’t like the kitchen, then get out of the heat.
Comment by david on 26 August 2007:
David
Thanks for your comment, but since your main point was to push your own product, I removed the links. The comment can remain as it is valuable, but not the advertisement for your own product.
Also, I never said “A little bit of mercury helps make life better, if we use it in CFL and incandescents….so please don’t quote me on something I did not say.
And If I am not to believe Harvard or anyone else on this matter, I am supposed to believe you? I know mercury is bad, I would think everyone does. The issue is not “is mercury bad” but rather “are CFL’s bad compared to incandescent bulbs”.
Comment by Kathryn White on 12 September 2007:
I think that this is a very tough debate and there are no right answers, as it is a very complex issue. I think the better argument than ‘ban the bulb’ as many are trying to do for incandescents (including the govt., which I do not believe has the right to), is ‘use lower wattage’ whenever possible. I am not convinced that putting mercury in our bulbs is the answer, and know that we will come out with more energy saving incandescents.
I am a manufacturer of lights, and will be very careful about swtiching my manufacturing process until I am sure that CFL’s are the way to go - and with the billions of lites in landfills (I have read that for each 1 bulb not disposed of properly, it pollutes 1,000 gallons of water). And with our water sources contaminated already, I have a problem with the potential damage and ramifications of putting that much new mercury into the enviornment.
I am also concerend about children, as there has been research that flourescent bulbs (not CFL’s that I have seen, still studying) have been shown linked to autism and hyperactivity in children. If anyone has information on that I would appreciate hearing more.
I just think making an industry wide shift like we are with CFL’s is very, very dangerous, no matter how you look at it and will have consequences, both good and bad. I am concerned that it is propelled by big industries. The warning labels on the packaging is TINY, on the back, and most people I have talked to in conversation do not even know they are considered hazardous waste (and, sad to say, many people don’t know that the lower wattage is a key element in saving the environment).
Thanks for educating me with al of the comments and thoughts.
Comment by david on 12 September 2007:
Kathryn - I appreciate you taking the time to leave a detailed comment, but I am curious about the research showing that fluorescent bulbs lead to autism. Where can I find that research?
Comment by Kathryn White on 12 September 2007:
Sorry - I e-mailed you back but realize I have to use this post. There is a link to autism (does not lead to autism). If you search the internet, you can find that autistic children react poorly / can’t tolerate flourescent light from a multiude of sources and studies. I won’t give you any here - because Iinvariably it can be critisized - so you all can see for yourself. Let me know if you can’t find anything and thanks for helping clarify that point - certainly don’t want to suggest it causes autism (because that we don’t really know). I have also been told there are theories that flourescent lights can harm developing eyes, but was not able to find hard data / research either for / against. I am assuming that would be hard to prove either way.
Just something to consider.
Comment by david on 13 September 2007:
Kathryn - It’s all something to consider, for sure. We never know. But we do know that A. CFL’s last longer, so there is less trash in landfills. B. The amount of mercury in them is a trace amount compared to the amount emitted by coal plants, which we need more of because of our energy use, C. they use less energy, so this goes along with B too.
At this point, I think we need to do everything we can to try to contain our energy use, and by making everyone use these bulbs, it would make a difference. Whether or not it affects children or not, I have not seen or heard of a single study saying that today’s CFL’s have any affect on them, but would be interested in seeing one. As for autism, these bulbs might have an affect on them, but if we build more coal plants because we cannot contain our energy use (using CFL’s, etc), we will emit more mercury into the environment, leading to more cases of autism.
There is no golden rule!
Comment by Douglas Cliff on 23 September 2007:
These toxic time bombs are going to create a problem that we are not going to be able to clean up and will pollute all the water on our planet.
I am told that the mercury they are using is less than the amount saved by using less power, i.e. less coal burnt.
This is not a valid argument as we could be using Light emitting diodes (LED’s) that have no harmful effects and use much less energy than Cfl’s.
Thanks
Douglas Cliff
Comment by david on 23 September 2007:
Yes Douglas, we could be…but the prices are still too much for the regular consumer. I am working on an article about LED lighting I hope to have ready in the next month, so be on the lookout for it.
As for CFL’s, it is a valid argument that they “emit” less mercury than coal powered plants would if they had to continue to power all incandescents. But LED is the future, for sure, when the prices become more reasonable for the average person.
Thanks for the comment!