I think my work is done here. Thank you to all who stood against CFLs and brought the dangers of them to light
I think my work is done here. Thank you to all who stood against CFLs and brought the dangers of them to light
World powers are trying to convince us that CFL bulbs are the ‘green’ alternative and companies like GE are trying to get us to buy into their propaganda. Their goal is a CFL in every home, in every room in every country. They are not looking at what it takes to recycle and dispose of what is considered Toxic Hazardous Waste once they burn out. But that has always been GE’s MO. They have never been a company who looks at the consequences of their actions and are involved in hundreds of lawsuits for polluting waters all over the world. (Google ‘Superfund sites’ and you’ll see what they’re up to).
We’re hoping Americans will be the country to take a stand and refuse to bring these dangerous and inefficient products into their homes. Take a look at what’s needed just to cleanup a broken bulb. By the way, if one breaks on a rug, the EPA says you have to cut that part of the rug out. If it breaks on bedding or clothing, that must be discarded as washing it will pollute the runoff water and potentially poison your neighbors.
For disposal, gather the following supplies: • Disposable gloves • Flashlight • Duct tape or other sticky tape • 2 index cards or stiff pieces of paper • Zip-lock bags • Damp paper towels or rags • Portable window fan They are hazardous: CFLs contain mercury Mercury forms a damaging vapor that you can inhale. 1. Keep infants, small children, pregnant women, and pets out of the room where the bulb broke. 2. If you are pregnant, do not do the clean-up yourself. Find someone to do the clean-up for you. 3. Turn off forced hot air heat, central air conditioners, and fans. 4. Open windows to allow fresh air in. 5. Leave the room for at least 15 minutes to allow the room to air out before beginning clean-up. Vapors can cause brain damage and seizures among other things. These bulbs are bombs and having them in your home is a dangerous prospect. If you dispose of them in the trash you are potentially exposing your recycling guys to danger. If you don't have a toxic waste dump nearby you can take them to Home Depot if one is close. Having to drive these bulbs some place for disposal is about as un-green as it gets. But if you casually toss 'just one or two' into the trash, each will contaminate 6000 gallons of groundwater.
I was recently asked by a Houston energy company to write about my thoughts on the CFL bulbs, so here goes in a nutshell:
The entree of CFLs or Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs into modern culture was almost imperceptible. Globally, we’ve come to accept the curly bulbs as a ‘Green’ product. Heck, they’re practically a symbol of the cause.
But millions of us are bringing these bulbs into our homes without knowing anything about them, especially the dangers.
I know because I was one of the people who blindly accepted the bulbs as ecological. Never thought twice about them.
It wasn’t until one day when my mother was very upset about the CFL bulbs that they ever came into question. Her agitation stemmed from the upcoming ban on traditional bulbs. It seemed so absurd that I didn’t believe her. Surely we’ll always have a choice. Who would ban one of the simplest and most effective inventions of all time? Just don’t buy them if you don’t like them.
But she said no, it was a BAN, as in illegal to have a regular light bulb after 2012.
I tried to imagine a fluorescent world and the image struck me cold.
Yet my consciousness was dug in. The bulbs had to be good for the environment if government and Green leaders were touting them.
When she told me they contained Mercury, I said, well, it couldn’t be that much. Surely someone in power was making sure we’re safe.
Looking back, I see that I didn’t want to believe that CFL bulbs were anything but an improvement and advancement.
The fact that I had such a strong opinion on a subject I knew nothing about prompted me to go home that day and look into the subject.
What I discovered was astounding and surreal. It unfolded in front of me like a frightening movie with all the bells and whistles of corporate greed, wagging the dog and Big Brother.
There was so much information I felt the need to channel my findings and try to make sense of it, so I started a blog.
First I read about light bulb factories in the US. Just after the stimulus was given out, all of the US light bulb plants were shut down one by one from Ohio to Georgia. All bulbs will now be made in China.
I found articles about Asian workers getting Mercury poisoning from production lines. Information on new Mercury mines being built to keep up with production of the hundreds of millions of bulbs being mandated. Most shocking was that the new mines are in third world and undeveloped countries that have yet to be exploited. And the companies and banks behind the bulbs, the mines and the ban were partners.
It seems that big business has a goal to put a CFL bulb in every socket, in every country, in every house, in every room. It would be a brilliant, capitalist move if not for the neglect to see it through from creation to disposal.
I discovered that world’s largest polluter is responsible for the lobbying, sale and distribution of the bulbs. Their trails of devastation are known as Superfund sites; places that have been contaminated and never cleaned up.
The interest with what happens to the bulbs once they’ve been sold is not a concern.
There’s so much support for the bulbs, debates about the benefits, lifespan, theories that less coal will be used and all sorts of technical data trying to show the upside.
But despite that these bulbs must be transported across an ocean, will be our only legal option, packed in plastic and cost more than regular bulbs to make and purchase, there’s the issue of clean up and disposal.
According to the EPA’s website, for every bulb disposed of improperly in a landfill, there will be 6,000 gallons of groundwater pollution. Walmart alone has sold hundreds of millions of them already, and most consumers do not know how to handle a dead or broken bulb. The fact is that burned out CFL bulbs are considered Toxic Hazardous Waste.
But most people do not know how to dispose of them, whether in cosmopolitan cities or a rural town. Disposal instructions on the package simply say, ‘Dispose of in accordance with local laws’.
The EPA also states that if a CFL breaks indoors, you must evacuate children and pets and open windows and doors for at least 15 minutes, whatever the weather. The Mercury vapors from the break can cause neurological damage to those in its presence, whether adult or an unborn child.
If a bulb breaks on the carpet, said carpet must be cut out where the bulb broke. A vacuum cannot be used as it spreads the Mercury vapors further.
Researching this has uncovered information on everything from CFLs triggering epileptic seizures to migraines.
It’s hard to believe the world would accept these bombs into our homes with pure abandon.
Having a bulb in your car to drive it to the toxic waste dump can be harrowing so
the EPA suggests that to carry it, you use two plastic bags, duct tape, rubber gloves and put it in a glass jar. Not exactly green.
Most communities don’t have local Toxic Waste Dumps in place. Home Depot and Ikea will take back some bulbs if they’re unbroken. If they get tossed into the recycling bin at home they have the potential to break and you put your recycling fellows at risk. What if your town doesn’t have one of these stores? Where will the bulbs go?
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Some countries have completely adopted the bulbs such as Australia, Canada and England. They’ve gone as far as to have their neighbors call the police if they find an incandescent in a home.
The fact is that there is nothing wrong with incandescents. In fact, they’re extremely efficient and we have the technology to make them so they don’t burn out at all.
With all the talk of CFLs lasting longer and only needing to be replaced every year or so, I was pleasantly surprised to discover what I believe is the lynch pin in the equation.
Turns out that Thomas Edison’s first bulbhas been lit for over 100 years and still burning in California. What this means is that we have the technology to make bulbs that don’t burn out at all Yet as a society we’re told to consume these new bulbs even though from creation to disposal, there negatives outweigh any savings on coal burning.
The government is going to force us to use a product that is dangerous and actually less efficient.
Regular bulbs are easy to clean up (especially with children), and are simple and inexpensive to make. Not to mention they can warm up a room and are dimmable. Why would we give up that kind of technology or not explore it further?
A bright spot is that the debate is surging in America and states like Texas and South Carolina have decided to ban the ban. Unfortunately it’s turning into a political issue.
But with discussion and open minds, we can only hope the people of the world will soon see the light.
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
6:30AM GMT 31 Jan 2011
Abraham Haim, a professor of biology at Haifa University in Israel, said that the bluer light that compact flourescent lamps (CFLs) emitted closely mimiced daylight, disrupting the body’s production of the hormone melatonin more than older-style filament bulbs, which cast a yellower light.
Melatonin, thought to protect against some breast and prostate cancers, is produced and secreted by the brain’s pineal gland around the clock.
Highest secretion levels are at night but light depresses production, even if one’s eyes are shut.
A possible link between night time light exposure and breast cancer risk has been known for over a decade, since a study was published showing female shift workers were more likely to develop the disease.
Prof Haim explained that a recent study by himself and fellow colleagues had found a much stronger association than previous research between night-time bedroom light levels and breast cancer rates.
Their study, published in the journal Chronobiology International, found breast cancer rates were up to 22 per cent higher in women who slept with a light on, compared to those who slept in total darkness.
They thought one of the reasons for this stronger link could be that people had switched to using energy saving lightbulbs.
They wrote: “In the past decade, light bulbs emitting bluer light waves (~460 nm) have been widely introduced to save energy consumption and reduce CO2 emission.”
They quoted another study which showed that exposure to bluer, shorter wavelength light for two hours in the late evening suppressed melatonin production more than the same exposure to yellower light (~550nm), which is more typical of filament bulbs.
The bluer light also made people more alert and increased their body temperature and heart rate.
Prof Haim thought this was because the bluer light from eco-lightbulbs mimiced the stronger light of midday closer than filament bulbs did.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he said he had subsequently removed eco-friendly lightbulbs from his house, as he thought they caused “light pollution”.
He said: “Around the world the advice is to change the lights to ‘green’ bulbs – but they are not really green. They pollute much more light.”
Because people thought they were so cheap to run, they were turning on more lights at home, he explained.
He emphasised that the study did not prove that using eco-friendly light bulbs late at night or overnight resulted in higher breast cancer rates than using filament bulbs, and that it remained an unproven theory.
British cancer charities echoed that point.
Jessica Harris, senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: “As this study didn’t investigate low energy ‘eco’ light bulbs and there isn’t any other evidence that they have an effect on breast cancer risk we can’t draw any conclusions about the risk of breast cancer from low energy light bulbs.
“Although it’s far from settled, the evidence that light at night – from any source – could affect breast cancer risk is strengthening and the World Health Organisation classify shift working as a ‘probable’ cause of cancer.”
Dr Sarah Rawlings, head of policy at Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said the link was “purely speculative”.
“We know there are a number of lifestyle, genetic and environmental risk factors associated with breast cancer, which require more research,” she said.
Mercury is a neurotoxin and it bioaccumulates.
If you think that the only problem with Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) is safe disposal …. we’ve got news for you. CFL’s can also be a source of health hazard, toxic fumes and a fire hazard. Ask the Rick Jenkins family in Maryland who had their house burned to the ground because they connected a CFL to a dimmer switch.
A rather sobering article in Australia’s Investigative Magazine reveals information from entities like the US EPA and Main Department of Environmental Protection as well of other New Zealand sources on the hazards of CFLs. Should we be embracing CFLs as the salvation of our energy crisis or even as eco or human friendly products?
Government agencies have been promoting use of CFLs as a means of advancing energy conservation in countries such as the US and Australia. They have information that allows them to know the hazards involved in these products which they appear to be ignoring. Looming ahead are laws that will ban incandescent lighting and force us to chose an alternative. Should that alternative really be CFLs?
CFLs contain an average of 5 mg (range of 0.9 to 18 mg) of mercury. Breaking a single CFL bulb in a room can result in mercury vapor levels 300 times in excess of what the EPA has established as safe for prolonged exposure. Serious health effects are associated with mercury exposure. Unborn and young children, elderly and those with weakened health are particularly vulnerable. Mercury affects the nervous system. Neuro-pathways of children are still developing and exposure can result in permanent damage.
This article will certainly give readers pause the next time a CFL is dropped and broken in their home. More than a dust pan and broom will figure into the equation.
Investigate Magazine warns “The real cost is not one light bulb breakage, but how badly affected homes will be after 20 years of amateur attempts to clean up one of the deadliest neurotoxins on the planet. A generation of children crawling on mercury-infested carpets would give new meaning to the phrase, “dumbed-down”. “If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away,” warns the US EPA.”
info via wattworks.com/CFL%20Hazards.htm
Please support this bill to BAN the BAN on the innocent light bulb. The world is not ready to handle recycling 100s of millions of CFL bulbs world wide. If not recycled, each will contaminate 6000 gallons of groundwater. Please show your support here:
Light Bulb Repeal Bill Stalls in Congress
A bill to repeal the banning of ordinary incandescent light bulbs is bottled up in a congressional committee despite Americans’ apparent distaste for the more expensive bulbs that would replace them.
The 100-watt incandescent bulb is scheduled to be outlawed in January 2012, the 75-watt bulb will disappear in January 2013, and the 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
The bill banning the bulbs — which use more energy than newer bulbs — was introduced in 2007 by then Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, and Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, and signed by President George W. Bush in December 2007.
Upton is now chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and while lobbying Republicans for the post he vowed to repeal the section of the 2007 bill that bans incandescent bulbs.
“We have heard the grass roots loud and clear, and will have a hearing early next Congress,” he said in December. “The last thing we wanted to do was infringe upon personal liberties, and this has been a good lesson that Congress does not always know best.”
In January, Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton proposed the Better Use of Light Bulb (BULB) act, which would cancel the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. The bill has 62 co-sponsors, 61 of them Republicans, and a companion bill in the Senate has 28 co-sponsors.
But Upton’s committee has not yet held a hearing on the bill, and “House Republican leadership has evinced no interest in bringing the Barton bill to the floor,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes in RealClearMarkets. “Calls to repeal the incandescent light bulb ban are coming from consumers, who prefer incandescent lamps.”
“Chairman Upton,” she adds, “how about voting Mr. Barton’s bill out of committee and sending it to the House floor?”
Once incandescent bulbs vanish, Americans will have to purchase either compact fluorescent bulbs — known as CFLs — halogens, or light-emitting diodes (LEDs).
All three cost significantly more than incandescent bulbs, although they last longer. Many people don’t like the light cast by CFLs — the cheapest of the three — and they must be disposed of at special recycling centers because they contain mercury. They also pose a danger if broken in the home.
Another factor to consider: Incandescent bulbs are made in the United States, while almost all CFLs are made in China, according to Furchtgott-Roth.
She concludes: “Consumers should be free, in my opinion, to choose the light bulbs they prefer. If Congress believes that consumers should conserve energy, it can impose a tax on the model bulbs whose use it would discourage, or on electricity in general.”
Scientists claim that several carcinogenic chemicals are released when energy saving light bulbs are switched on
Their report advises that the bulbs should not be left on for extended periods, particularly near someone’s head, as they emit poisonous materials when switched on.
Peter Braun, who carried out the tests at the Berlin’s Alab Laboratory, said: “For such carcinogenic substances it is important they are kept as far away as possible from the human environment.”
The bulbs are already widely used in the UK following EU direction to phase out traditional incandescent lighting by the end of this year.
But the German scientists claimed that several carcinogenic chemicals and toxins were released when the environmentally-friendly compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) were switched on, including phenol, naphthalene and styrene.
Andreas Kirchner, of the Federation of German Engineers, said: “Electrical smog develops around these lamps.
“I, therefore, use them only very economically. They should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head.”
British experts insisted that more research was needed and urged consumers not to panic.
Dr Michelle Bloor, senior lecturer in Environmental Science at Portsmouth University, told the Daily Express: “Further independent studies would need to be undertaken to back up the presented German research.”
The Department for the Environment insists the bulbs are safe, despite the fact that they contain small amounts of mercury which would leak out if the glass was broken.
Advice on its website states: “Energy efficient light bulbs are not a danger to the public.
The latest report follows claims by Abraham Haim, a professor of biology at Haifa University in Israel, that the bulbs could result in higher breast cancer rates if used late at night.
He said that the bluer light that CFLs emitted closely mimicked daylight, disrupting the body’s production of the hormone melatonin more than older-style filament bulbs, which cast a yellower light.
The Migraine Action Association has warned that they could trigger migraines and skin care specialists have claimed that their intense light could exacerbate a range of existing skin problems.
http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf [mahy-kruh-koz-uhm] Show IPA
CFL BULBS HARM THE ENVIRONMENT AND EACH POLLUTES 6000 GALLONS OF GROUND WATER WHEN PUT IN THE TRASH ACCORDING TO THE EPA WEBSITE.
IF ONE IS BROKEN EVACULATE CHILDREN & PETS FROM THE ROOM AND OPEN ALL WINDOWS FOR 15 MINUTES. DO NOT VACCUUM AND THROW AWAY ALL FABRIC PARTICLES HAVE TOUCHED. TAKE OLD BULBS TO HOME DEPOT.
BETTER YET BOYCOTT THESE BOMBS!
Why is it that the ONLY recycling info on the packages says ‘Comply with local recycling laws?’ How is someone forced to use these in Peru or even Miami Beach (where recycling is virtually non-existent, it’s not mandatory by law for buildings or even Starbucks to recycle anything at all), going to get rid of the dead ones? When the hundreds of millions of these that are being spread equally over the planet start to make their impact we are going to pollute our water. I don’t make this stuff up, it’s on the EPA website.
Those who defend them as burning less coal, please do not comment, as that is not an issue on the table. Please stop defending them when we should not be looking for ways to reduce coal so much as to eradicate the use of it.
We know how to make bulbs that last 100 years. They can be dimmed and disposed of at home. The CFLs are just another version of planned obsolescence, keeping consumers consuming something new to keep us from looking at the truth, that these are made and lobbied for years via GE and there is a bottom line that CEO Jeffery Immelt is looking at, wringing his hands and counting the money. Like everything GE does, these will leave their trail of devastation. But in this case we’re being brainwashed into polluting our own waters under the guise of doing something good.
Immelt should be prosecuted for spending hundreds of thousands on the lobby, then receiving stimulus, moving lightbulb production overseas, destroying the world and turning his back on the environment. With GE’s record it’s easy to see where Jeff will lead the world. Google ‘GE Superfund Sites’ and see for yourself. GE is the world’s #1 polluter along with their partner, World Bank.
God I didn’t want to know all this but now that I do I have to let it out. Make your own decision, I’m tired of trying to convince, just want to point out the facts.
In 2007, Congress passed an energy bill that included new standards for lighting. The bill required roughly 25% greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This requirement effectively banned the sale of most incandescent light bulbs. But, in their enthusiasm for favoring light bulbs that use less energy they failed to consider other consequences.
Here are some of the unintended consequences:
Loss of Manufacturing Jobs in US: General Electric has closed factories in Kentucky and Ohio and recently announced that it is closing its major incandescent factory in Virginia. Take a look at your new CFL bulbs (compact fluorescent), you will see they are “Made in China“. For an article about this by the Heritage Foundation, click here.
Health Issues: claims that fluorescent light can trigger various ailments, including migraines and epilepsy. Here is an article at the DailyMail (UK) dated January 2009 about this.
Toxic Exposure: Mercury in the new compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs require special cleanup and disposal procedures. See details in this article at the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) web site.
Similar legislation was passed in Europe and Canada. In British Columbia, Canada, stores are banned from restocking incandescent light bulbs in popular 75 and 100-watt sizes beginning in Jan 2011. As a result, according to the Vancouver Sun (article dated January 20, 2011) “Readers are furious at being told that they will not be able to buy the standard bulbs”. An article at TheLocal dated Dec 3, 2010 (German’s News in English), you will find an article stating “Consumer groups call for end to EU light bulb ban”
Representative Joe Barton (TX -6) has introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R.91 – Better Use Light Bulbs Act which would repeal amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to lighting energy efficiency. We recommend you contact your Representative in Congress and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 91.
I’m over trying to change minds that have obviously been made up. I’ve been researching CFLs and incandescent light bulbs for over a year. It has nothing to do with what I’m interested in and I just wanted to stop the freight train I saw coming. But it seems like most people would rather take the government’s word and GE’s propaganda as gospel so what can I do? It’s all here if you want to read the findings.
My final thoughts are that if Thomas Edison’s bulbs have been lit for over 100 years, isn’t that the definition of sustainability? Do you really believe that the screwy light bulbs that come from China, that are considered hazardous material and have to be changed every few months are Green? If so then I can’t talk to a brick wall and really don’t care to anymore. My main concern is that there are no recycling facilities in most places and the hazards of breaking one is not on the packaging. The EPA says if not disposed of properly, they WILL pollute our groundwater, so we can’t say they didn’t warn us.
I guess every civilization has to fall sometime, I just wish we weren’t acting like lemmings running toward polluting our own water. Our parents saw the ozone happening but we don’t look to the future like they did. If you have kids, make sure you keep them far away from these bombs. That’s the last I’m going to say about it. Make your own decision for yourself and your kid’s future. I’ll be stocking up on regular bulbs and praying my neighbors don’t rat me out to the Nazis.
Story by WALT MCGINNIS
What is the real energy cost of a CFL? What does it cost to mine, manufacture, package, ship, sell, operate, dispose of CFLs on the environment? These are questions ignored by CFL promoters.
Consider this – instead of saving the environment, CFLs are actually destroying it. CFLs should be thought of as toxic technology, when mercury contamination, ultraviolet radiation, and radio frequency radiation are factored in. From cradle to grave, CFLs pose a danger to people’s health and well being, as well as adding even more toxicity to the environment. In fact, CFLs do not reduce a person’s carbon footprint and may even increase it in some situations. To make matters even worse, CFLs emit harmful levels of electromagnetic radiation.
Starting in the year 2012, regular incandescent bulbs, the ones invented by Thomas Edison over 100 years ago, will be banned in Canada in the pursuit of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet, contrary to popular belief, switching from regular bulbs to CFLs could increase global energy consumption, not reduce it. If that alone does not shake consumer confidence, perhaps the facts that CFLs contain mercury and also emit electromagnetic radiation might give people a wake-up call up to the truth about CFLs.
On the other hand, since CFL producers are being handed a monopoly in the light bulb market by some federal government and are being cheered on by corporatist environmental groups, sales are not about to drop anytime soon.
It seems like the protectors of the environment have jumped ship. Health Canada is simply not doing its job as they ignore the devastating impact of having millions of CFLs in our environment. Why are they sitting by, and allowing the Canadian government to force its citizens to use them?
To make matters even worse, groups such as the Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace, whom Canadians have come to rely on to protect them from environmental pollutants, have chosen to ignore the potential looming environmental and health risks, and blindly promote the use of CFLs.
Why have environmentalists and the government joined in an alliance with the electrical industry in promoting an undeniably dangerous product? Whose side are they on anyway?
Canadian Health and Safety officials seem to be asleep at the switch, oblivious of the hazards, and environmentalists appear to have sold out, as manufacturers and sellers of CFLs are laughing all the way to the bank. With impunity “los tres amigos”, the manufacturers, the corporatist environmentalist backers and government, are leaving misled consumers to deal with the aftermath of a potential environmental catastrophe.
Meanwhile, the New Zealand government, citing concerns about CFLs lack of efficiency and safety, has lifted its ban on incandescent bulbs. Hopefully other governments will see the wisdom in this decision and follow suit.
Corporatism is the dominant ideology in today’s western democracies. “While the corporatist society maintains a veneer of open criticism and democracy, it squelches opposition to dominant corporate interests by using propaganda and rhetoric to obscure facts and to deter communication among citizens. Corporatism creates conformists who behave like cogs in organizational hierarchies, not responsible citizens,” explains Publishers Weekly, reviewing the book Voltaire’s Bastards by John Ralston Saul. These are just some of the attributes of the ideology that has a strangle hold on our society and, it appears, on our major environmental groups as well.
The environment is too important to be left solely to the environmentalists.
Environmentalists with corporatist tendencies can cause a lot of harm when they are not properly scrutinized and held accountable by the public. They have played a huge role in keeping consumers in the dark regarding the hazards posed by CFLs. The Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace claim that CFLs are good for the environment and no one dares to challenge them.
The disinformation process begins when public awareness of a harmful product, such as a CFL, is restricted by environmental groups. Over time, with no real criticism of the product, a consensus consciousness is created in the public mind that the product is safe. Finally, in one of the oldest tricks in the book, corporations use these groups as third party endorsers to create a favourable image of a potentially dangerous product. Remember back in the sixties with doctors in TV adds smoking Camel cigarettes?
The evidence that shows that CFLs are hazardous to humans is undeniable. The question is, why are environmental groups willing to risk a safe environment and their reputations by promoting a toxic product?
It may surprise many people to know that CFLs increase a consumer’s carbon footprint in a ‘cradle to grave’ analysis. Full costs to manufacture, operate and safely dispose of a CFL have never been disclosed to the public. The reality is that residential lighting takes up only 0.8% of energy consumption in Canada.
CFLs are energy hogs to produce, operate and dispose of. Reducing a consumer’s carbon footprint is the CFL’s raison d’être. But before deciding to switch over to compact florescent lights it would be wise to first review a cradle to grave analysis of the carbon footprint of a CFL, compared to an incandescent bulb.
What is the real energy cost of a CFL? What does it cost to mine, manufacture, package, ship, sell, operate, dispose of CFLs on the environment? These are questions ignored by CFL promoters.
An International Association for Energy-Efficient Lighting (IAEEL) study conducted in Denmark, explored some carbon footprint factors, but not all, showing it took 1.8 Kwh of electricity to assemble a CFL compared to 0.11 Kwh to assemble an incandescent bulb. That means it took 16 times more energy to produce a CFL. The study did not include the fact that a CFL is much heavier and is more dangerous to handle, and will thus cost more to package, to ship, and to sell.
This research also did not calculate the energy required to safely dispose of a CFL and reclaim the mercury. The cost of removing mercury from the landfills was also not considered. More over, the potential cost in destroyed lives, illnesses, and lost human productivity due to exposure to mercury and electromagnetic radiation have not been considered.
If such a study could be done, and considered all the negative contributing factors, it would show a CFL has a massive carbon footprint, one that would dwarf a regular incandescent light bulb and it would also show that CFLs will leave behind a wake of environmental destruction.
An incandescent bulb has a power factor of 1. Most CFLs sold in Canada have a power factor of about 0.55. That means there are more energy losses in operating the CFL compared to an incandescent bulb. This does not show up on a power bill but the power company has to supply more power than what the bulb is rated for. Astonishingly, CFLs can take much more energy to operate than what is on the label and still be listed as an energy star product, something few consumers know. CFL cheerleaders seldom tell consumers that the power factor is not included in their energy consumption calculations.
Energy efficient bulbs increase greenhouse gases. Because they burn cooler, they cause home heating costs to rise. “Lighting regulations (banning incandescent lights) will increase GHG emissions in Hydro’s service territory by 45,000 tons due to cross effects of a switch to cool-burning bulbs,” explained a BC Hydro spokesperson in 2009 Vancouver Sun article.
The ‘cross effect’ referred to is the loss of heat from hotter incandescent bulbs when we switch over to cooler burning CFLs. When a 60watt regular bulb is replaced with a 15 watt CFL, 45watts of heat from inside a house is lost. If that is repeated 20 times, 900watts of lost heat now has to be provided for from another source.
To make up for the lost heat consumers have to turn up electric heating, or worse still, turning up their oil or gas furnace which will leave them consuming even more energy and creating more greenhouse gases than before they made the switch. In the summertime, because of longer natural daytime light, both lighting and heating are used much less. In the wintertime power consumption will rise as lights go on but additional substitution heat is required to compensate for less heat from the CFLs.
Considering the lower power factor as well as the heating losses, it can be concluded that using CFL will not reduce a consumer’s carbon footprint when compared to a regular light bulb. Moreover, instead of saving energy there is good evidence demonstrating that using CFLs will increase the user’s carbon footprint.
Lighting is a fraction of overall energy consumption and has a limited potential for energy savings. Nevertheless, North Americans should be conserving wherever possible. At the same time, people should not forget that switching incandescent bulbs to CFLs poses a whole range of negative environmental and health impacts with very little, if any, energy savings
An electric hot water tank consumes five times as much electricity as residential lighting.
To put lighting energy consumption into perspective, the Sector Sustainability Table listed in the Government of Canada website reports that “Homes consume 16% of all the energy used in Canada, with lighting using 5% of that figure. Residential lighting therefore represents 0.8% of the total energy consumption in Canada. This means that Canadians are spending millions of dollars on CFLs in a fruitless effort to reduce a fraction of their energy consumption.”
It would be much ‘power smarter’ to focus on residential water heating than light bulbs. An electric hot water tank consumes five times as much electricity as residential lighting. If hot water heating was made 10% more efficient by using inexpensive technology already available, Canadians would save more energy than the most wildly optimistic predictions of savings by CFL promoters. It would be cheaper, simpler, and have no detrimental environmental effects.
More than 98% of used CFLs end up in landfills each year. That is 675 million for the year 2007 according to theNational Geographic Society. Each CFL contains about 5 milligrams of elemental mercury as well as other poisonous gases. When mercury enters water sources, biological processes change the chemical form to methylmercury which is the organic, more toxic form found in fish. Methylmercury bio-accumulates through the food chain and once in the body can affect developing fetuses, children and adult nervous systems.
Methylmercury will not stay in landfills as it easily gets transported through the water table. Throwing CFLs into landfills will contaminate the soil, the water table and eventually the air.
More than 60,000 children are born each year in the United States with neurodevelopment impairments caused by exposure in the womb to methylmercury compounds, according to new estimates by an expert panel convened by the National Academy of Science’s Year 2000.
Beware of a broken CFL, as each broken lamp should be considered similar to a toxic spill and care needs to be taken cleaning them up. The manufacturing of CFLs also exposes workers to toxic levels of mercury. CFLs are manufactured mostly in China with virtually no health, safety, or environmental protection regulations. Ironically, most of the electricity used to manufacture CFLs comes from coal-fired generators. As CFLs increase in popularity, mercury exposure to workers, to electricians, to maintenance personal, to consumers, to water supplies, and to the living environment, will go ahead almost unchecked.
How many resources and pollutants does it take to make a light bulb?
“The reality is, even energy-efficient products don’t always come from energy-efficient beginnings. Consider for a second what goes into producing, powering and transporting products around the world like…energy efficient light bulbs. Until they are manufactured in a carbon-neutral way, transported on low-emission vehicles and powered in our homes by cleaner energy—green products will never be as green as they can be,” explained the World Wild Life Fund in MacLean’s Magazine.
Many environmentalists ignore these facts and instead claim that CFLs put less mercury into the environment than what would have been created via a smoke stack to generate the additional electricity needed for regular light bulbs. This is not true. Not all electricity is generated by dirty coal-fired plants. Even if it was, this would still be an irrelevant point given that coal fired power plants could operate with 80% less mercury emissions. In any event, it does not apply to BC where 90% of electrical power comes from hydroelectric dams according to BC Hydro. In Canada, 58% of electrical generation is from hydro and 19% from coal, according to Industry Canada.
CFLs emit electromagnetic radiation, a type of energy that can make people very sick. Many people have reported skin rashes and irritation due to ultra-violet (UV) radiation. Radio frequency radiation is even more of a concern. The effects of exposure to radio frequency radiation, as well as to high voltage spikes and transients, are known to cause illness, are virtually ignored by environmental groups and green building consultants alike.
There has been a ‘rash’ of health problems associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation such as that emitted by CFLs.
In Sweden, according to polls, up to 290,000 people, or more than 3% of the population, have reported suffering symptoms of EHS when exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Symptoms range from joint stiffness, chronic fatigue, headaches, tinnitus, respiratory, gastric, skin, sleep and memory problems, depressive tendencies, to Alzheimer’s disease and all classes of cancer.
Other than the World Wildlife Fund, almost all the major environmental groups have not informed the public about the dark side of CFLs. Why they behave as they do is unknown but promoting CFLs could potentially diminish these groups credibility when the facts become apparent.
Hopefully, other governments will wake up to the shortcomings of CFLs, and follow the New Zealand government’s example and change their policies on banning incandescent lights due to concerns about safety and energy efficiency of the CFLs. Germany has already restricted the use of fluorescent lighting in public places and has banned fluorescent lights in hospitals perhaps showing that this issue is too great to be shrugged off and ignored. North America appears to be headed in the opposite direction and the Canadian Federal government still plans to ban all incandescent lights before year 2012.
There are incandescent light bulbs on the market right now that last longer than CFLs and are 80% more efficient than a regular bulb. In 2010, surprisingly, just as the market gets saturated with CFLs, General Electric is coming out with a new high efficiency incandescent bulb. They claim it will be twice as efficient as a regular bulb.
If they live up to their claims these new incandescent lights will rival CFLs for energy consumption, but will not have all the other environmental problems. Then another buying craze will begin and CFLs may begin to be phased out, leaving behind a long-term problem of mercury disposal, remediation, and an untold toll on human health.
In the meantime, the best way for you to reduce your carbon footprint is to follow your mother’s advice and turn the lights off when you leave the room.
Walt McGinnis is a Licensed Electrician and an Electromagnetic Radiation Tester and a member of the EM Radiation Task Force, living on Vancouver Island, Canada. Visit: http://www.mcginniselectric.ca/
Summary: To repeal certain amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to lighting energy efficiency. (More)
Please click here to check out the Proposed Bill and show your support in repealing the ban on regular lightbulbs. www.popvox.com/bills/us/111/hr6144
I pray this doesn’t turn into a red/blue, left right/left, in/out thing. I have no political affiliation, but it looks like it’s the republicans who have at least tapped into the hypocricy that is the CFL light bulb debacle.
Below is an article from redstate. com. They berate democrats so they’ve already turned it into a political issue. The good news is they’re not environmental and even they can see CFL Lightbulbs in the hands of the public is absurd, especially being mandated where there is no toxic waste facility means it goes right into the water stream. With hundreds of millions of these being made, consumed, disposed of, the EPA says they WILL contaminate our water supply. Lightbulbs know no boundaries so please lord, don’t let them fight about this.
By Reps. Joe Barton, Marsha Blackburn and Michael Burgess
Even the AFL-CIO isn’t happy about the move to CFLs. The labor union’s Web site, Screw That Bulb, makes the valid point that there are many ways to save electricity without shifting to the mercury-filled compact florescent bulb from China, or anywhere.
Fortunately, we were already working on legislation to repeal the ban. Today we’ve introduced H.R. 6144, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, which repeals the ban on the incandescent bulb that has been turning back the night ever since Thomas Edison ended the era of a world lit only by fire in 1879. It’s as simple as that, though technically it repeals Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
The unanticipated consequence of the ’07 act – Washington-mandated layoffs in the middle of a desperate recession – is one of many examples of what happens when politicians and activists think they know better than consumers and workers. From the health insurance you’re allowed to have, to the car you can drive, to the light bulbs you can buy, Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to people who work for their own paychecks and earn their own living.
We believe that the consumer, not Washington, is capable of deciding which light bulb works best. Democrats, however, believe that you just can’t be trusted to make the right decision. If Democrats want to show the folks back home that they understand the pent-up frustration in this country, they’ll start by supporting our bill.
Whew. Please look into this bill and support those in favor of it. Thomas Edison’s first light light bulb has been lit since 1909. The CFL bulbs are created to burn out in a few, what, months? Edison’s bulb proves we don’t need bulbs that burn out at all. GE needs to look in their archives instead of trying to brainwash us with their Ecomagination campaign, forcing us to consume!
AUTHOR: Nicolas Loris
The economic theory of “creative destruction” is important when understanding the value innovation has on long-term economic growth.
Popularized by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, the theory says the short and long-term benefits of entrepreneurial activity and competition will far outweigh the short-term losses caused by a new product replacing an old one. Audiotape makers may lose their jobs to the makers of compact discs, who may lose their jobs to the digital age.
When it occurs organically, it’s a beautiful process that begets economic progress and benefits the consumer. When forced on businesses and consumers by our government, it does far more harm than good. And that’s exactly what’s occurring with the federally mandated incandescent light bulb ban.
In 2007, Congress passed an energy bill that placed stringent efficiency requirements on incandescent bulbs in an attempt to phase them out beginning in 2012 and replace them with more expensive but more energy-efficient bulbs, the most popular being compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs). Politicians used a distorted view of creative destruction mixed with global warming concerns to sell the regulation. They said it would create jobs, save consumers money, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But what’s really happened?
Politicians, as they typically do, fail to see the unintended consequences of their legislative agendas. When it comes to CFLs, for example, the exposure to mercury vapor is dangerous if the bulbs are broken. Hospitals and medical charities warn that CFL bulbs cause migraines and epilepsy attacks. Other critics also point out that CFLs do not work well in colder temperatures and thus will force Americans to use more heat. CFLs do not work well with dimmer switches, and the lifespan of the bulb diminishes when turned off and on frequently.
The latest attack on compact fluorescents is jobs. The Washington Post recently ran a story on General Electric having to close its major incandescent factory in Winchester, Virginia—a factory that employed 200 people. And the jobs that will likely be replacing those will be in China, where the United States gets much of its CFL bulbs. The process of making CFLs is labor intensive, and labor in China is comparatively much cheaper.
As a result, Representatives Joe Barton (R–TX), Michael Burgess (R–TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R–TN)introduced the BULB Act last week, which would repeal Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007—the phase-out of the incandescent bulb. Blackburn said, “Washington banned a perfectly good product and fired hard-working Americans based on little more than their own whim and the silly notion that they know better than the American consumer. Now, hundreds more Americans are looking for work while assembly lines in China are churning out fluorescent bulbs for the U.S. market.”
To be clear, this is not Schumpeter’s model of creative destruction; it’s economic ignorance. If consumers really wanted to buy fluorescents rather than cheaper incandescent light bulbs, they would purchase them without a government ban. And if China produced those fluorescents, cheap imports mean businesses will find better productive uses for labor in the U.S. That’s the organic nature of creative destruction, but in this case, a mix of special-interest politics and concern that energy use in the U.S. is producing too much greenhouse gas emissions resulted in needless regulations and mandates. Rather than an innovation valued in the marketplace, consumers are forced to accept a product they do not want.
GE and CFL manufacturers are creating dangerous new toxic waste in the name of profits. They’re lobbying to make using CFLs global LAW. Hundreds of millions are being sold and the EPA says they are not to be trusted in the public’s hands.
*With CFLs in the hands of the general public most will go to landfills & contaminate water supply acc’ding to EPA http://tinyurl.com/284285m
Meanwhile GE is villianizing the regular bulb which obviously can be made to last forever. You’d think GE would know how to produce a bulb without the ‘Planned Obsolence’ wherein nothing is made to last. Are you buying into their sales pitch?
GE CLOSES BLOOMINGTON, IL PLANT
GE announced plans to gradually phase out the facility one year ago.
At the time it employed 96 people.
Workers there say GE plans to retain ownership of the building, and keep on about ten workers from communications and other departments.
They say many others are transferring to plants in Iowa and other neighboring states.
When it opened in 1955, the Bloomington plant employed over 1,000 people.
WHY ARE WE WATCHING IT HAPPEN AND GOING ALONG WITH CFLs BEING THE ‘GREEN’ CHOICE WHEN THEY’RE DANGEROUS, KILLING JOBS AND ALL MADE OVERSEAS? WHO IS RUNNING THE ASYLUM?
WINCHESTER, VA. – The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison’s innovations in the 1870s.
BOYCOTT THE USE OF CFL BULBS THAT GE IS FORCING ON US.
They are CLOSING US FACTORIES AFTER GETTING STIMULUS money!
This transition to CFL bulbs is a deal made with GE from the George Bush era and incandescants are set to be eliminated and replaced by CFLS in the next year. If we don’t stand up to take a look at what’s in front of us, we will lose more jobs and be stuck with fluorescent light bulbs at home. CFLs are not green, GE is using them as a way to make money and has closed ALL it’s US factories as of this month. Don’t just believe something is GREEN just cause the government and big business says so.
Light bulbs certainly can heat up controversy. After reading last month’s FAQ on the coming phase-out of today’s incandescent light bulbs, many readers wrote to defend the old bulbs or ask about the finer points of the switchover. Here are some of their comments and questions about the transition to more energy-efficient lighting, which Congress has set to begin in 2012:
I have an incandescent light in my oven that withstands the extreme temperatures there. Is a compact fluorescent light bulb safe for use in an oven? How about in the refrigerator or freezer?
No, those swirly, efficient CFL bulbs will be great for most light fixtures, but they can’t withstand extreme hot or cold. However, appliance lamps up to 40 watts are exempt from the new energy law and will not be phased out.
I have incandescent spotlights outside to light up my yard. Fluorescent lights are known to work poorly in the cold. Will CFLs work in subzero conditions?
Outdoor spotlights will still be available as halogen spot or halogen floodlights. These products are on the market today. Halogen bulbs also are becoming more efficient—wasting less energy as heat—than used to be the case.
I have lighting fixtures in my home designed to show the bulb as decoration—like candle, flame-shaped, or clear decorative spheres. Are all these fixtures going to be obsolete?
Decorative lamps with small candelabra bases are exempt from the phase-out up to 60 watts. Decorative lamps with standard or medium-screw bases are exempt up to 40 watts. Large globe lights used in bathroom vanities will still be available.
I have heard that we will not be able to use our existing light sockets with these new bulbs, nor use lampshades, and that we will have to have all light sockets in our homes replaced.
The manufacturers say that CFLs are substantially shorter and smaller than they were just a few years ago. While some light bulbs had difficulty fitting certain lampshades in the past, most CFLs will fit in almost all table lamps today. Consumers are already making the switch. The federal Energy Star program says sales of CFLs, which use 75 percent less energy and last up to 10 times as long as incandescents, doubled in 2007 and now account for 20 percent of the light bulb market.
Banning incandescent light bulbs entirely would be a big mistake. Seldom mentioned is the fact (proved in my home) that CFLs cause interference in TV pictures and AM radio.
Strange, but apparently this used to be true! Some CFLs created “radio frequency interference,” but this is rare today. Manufacturers tell me you can avoid the problem if you choose bulbs with the government’s Energy Star rating, indicating that they’ve met a standard set by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC also requires CFL manufacturers to supply information (on or inside the package) that informs consumers what to do in the event that any interference is encountered (move your light bulb and your AM radio apart from each other).
As a matter of fact, many of the consumers who are worried about light quality and long life should also be sure they are using products that carry the Energy Star. The few CFLs on the market that don’t carry the star don’t meet the minimum government standards.
There are many locations where the extra cost of a fluorescent will never be repaid, such as little-used closets and attics.
The payback period may indeed be so slow as to be imperceptible in these locations. At least you won’t have to crawl up there and replace those bulbs too often. CFLs should last a long time.
Like a lot of problems, there is no “silver bullet” to solve every problem. The idea of banningincandescent bulbs needs to be re-evaluated to produce a more sensible approach.
Ah, but the United States isn’t really banning incandescent bulbs, as Australia recently did. All the major manufacturers—including General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Philips—emphasize that, very much at their urging, Congress instead set new standards for greater efficiency in lighting. It doesn’t matter what technology the light bulb makers use to get to reach the goals. The practical effect, indeed, will be to phase out most of the incandescent bulbs that we know. But in the coming years, you most likely will see manufacturers come out with next-generation, efficient incandescent bulbs. These may end up being a transitional technology that will not meet the standards in the later years of the phase-out, when light-emitting diodes become more economical, but manufacturers are confident these new standards are workable.
Sure, it’s easy (and fun) to rail against Congress. But the bright side of all those loopholes and compromises is that you will still be able to light your oven, freezer, outdoor walkway, and candelabra fixture with little upheaval, while saving kilowatts with more modern lighting in the rest of your home.
Most CFL Bulbs will go into the water supply where the EPA predicts they will contaminate local rivers and streams all over the world. Below is Blog Action Day awareness. Please help protect what we all share. Water. Please sign the petition to have a world standard for care and protection and distribution of clean water for all.
There’s a disturbing ad on tv right now directed toward kids, promoting the crusade to replace all light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs.
PLEASE take time to look into this as they are not green in the manufacturing process, they have closed all US manufacturing facilities and all of these bulbs are made in China.
There are no disposal instructions on the packaging and yet the EPA says they will contaminate local water supplies if placed in with regular garbage or recycling. You have to DRIVE them to a toxic waste facility if you happen to have one around. If not, these bad boys are yours to keep or probably toss like everyone else will.
PLEASE educate your kids not to blindly follow the masses, this is an obvious Un-Green product that should not be brought into our homes. Thanks for thinking about it. Please see below for some of the research and links to the EPA and lack of disposal options.
All you have to do with a regular bulb is toss it in a brown paper bag and be done with it. Here’s the EPA’s 2 page PDF on how to dispose of these monsters including throwing away anything they break on! This is madness and someone has to say ENOUGH before this becomes LAW next year!!
Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs have become all the rage over the past several years, touted by many as the preferable “green” way to light a home, save energy, and promote environmental responsibility. While they may use less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs, CFL bulbs are filled with toxic mercury that, when disposed of, contaminates landfills and the environment.
A report released in 2008 from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection revealed that when a CFL bulb is broken, it can release dangerously high levels of mercury into the air. Mercury-vapor standards generally allow for 300 nanograms of mercury per cubic meter of air, however a broken CFL bulb can emit upwards of 50,000 nanograms per cubic meter, or more than 166 times the safe upper threshold.
In Toronto, city officials require people to dispose of CFL bulbs at special hazardous waste facilities because they don’t want the city’s landfills to become contaminated with mercury. While used CFL bulbs are not legally recognized as hazardous waste, they are treated as such because they pose serious environmental threats when broken and released into the environment.
Waste runoff and ground seepage from landfills can contaminate rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and underground water tables. Even though landfills are generally designed to minimize this kind of contamination, the rapidly growing usage of CFL bulbs could have disastrous environmental consequences if they are not disposed of properly.
CFL bulbs also emit high levels of radiation, causing migraine headaches, sleep abnormalities, fatigue, and other health problems. Unlike traditional incandescent bulbs, CFL bulbs emit excessive “dirty energy,” or electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs), a fact that has received little attention from those on the mainstream “green” bandwagon who continue to endorse CFLs as the solution to the alleged climate change crisis.
The voltage reduction technology in CFL bulbs causes high amounts of EMF pollution to be emitted. Similar to the kind released from mobile phone antennas and food irradiation machinery, EMF radiation poses serious health threats to humans who are exposed to excessive amounts of it. CFL bulbs have been found to greatly increase EMF exposure as they are often the most significant EMF polluters in homes that use them.
Light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs, on the other hand, are a much safer alternative to CFL bulbs. Those who wish to transition from traditional incandescent bulbs to something that uses less energy would do well to investigate LED alternatives. Although they are typically more expensive than the other technologies due to limited acceptance in the mainstream, they are better for the environment than CFLs and emit far less EMF pollution.
Sources for this story include:
For only $19.95 you can purchase a kit to clean up CFLs once they break! You get rubber gloves, duct tape and glass jars ( not too much more for the landfill, right? Just a few more things can’t hurt)….multiply it by the 100 million bulbs sold and it’s incalculable, but who’s counting?
I’m no economist but wasn’t it a bit better to pay $0 for a $.50 incandescent you could put in a brown paper bag and be done with it? No Mercury, no plastic bags or gloves or glass jars (and whatever the hell else is in the kit), and no guilt if you tossed one out. If you throw out a CFL you’re endangering all of our water supply. That’s a lot of responsibility. Are most people going to do the ‘right, legal’ thing? Do you even know where your local ‘Hazardous Waste dump’ is? If it’s broken they won’t even take it anyway. Then what do you do? Sneak it into the garbage and hope you’re the only one?
Is this REALLY GREEN in your opinion?
ARE WE INSANE? WHO IS RUNNING THIS ASYLUM?
Sadly I’m here to pay homage to the coal miners who lost their lives in the recent West Virginia accident. Thank you for the service you provided and the light you’re shedding on the coal industry and practices that have been wrongly neglected.
To all the families, my heartfelt condolences.
I believe their lives and death will not be in vain.
We need to make sure President Obama follows through on his demand for accountability. Don Blankenship is in charge and people trusted him, yet he failed them. He alone is responsible for the tragedy and should step down or be removed. He is unfit to run the company and his record shows that he operates mines unsafely, believing he is above the law with no regard for fines, summons, workers’ rights and sadly, human life.
Is it constitutional for the government to force us to purchase something that can ultimately lead to our demise? It’s what the EPA admits will happen if we’re fool enough to contaminate our own water supply with these dangerous CFL bulbs that are being pushed on us, for some, under duress.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject of CFL bulbs. I may be repeating myself but the facts are still the same. In the not too distant future, the ‘government’ is going to mandate by law that we purchase CFL bulbs, and make the innocent incandescent illegal. ‘They’ proclaim these bulbs are the almighty solution when they’re actually causing more harm than good.
Light Bulbs are Dumping Mercury Directly into Landfills via Natural News: naturalnews.com/z028034_mercury_compact_fluorescent_lights.html
Many people are complaining of seizures and headaches when under these bulbs. Most studies brush these individuals off as inconsequential.
Here’s an excerpt from one study on the health effects of the CFL bulbs:
The newer compact fluorescent light bulbs generate radio frequency radiation as well as ultraviolet radiation (see Figure 1) and many still generate heat although less of it. These frequencies (RF3 and UV4) have been associated with adverse health in numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies and a growing number of people are complaining that these bulbs make them ill. Instead of promoting compact fluorescent light bulbs, governments should be insisting that manufacturers produce light bulbs that do not produce radio frequency or UV radiation and that are safe for the environment and for human health.
It’s not too late to stop what could be a worldwide tragedy. These bulbs have been subtly ingrained into our international sub-conscious as being good for the environment even though they’re ALL made in China. Companies like GE closed ALL their light bulb factories in the US and moved production overseas. These bulbs are considered toxic and hazardous (by the EPA) once they burn out or break, have excess plastic packaging, increase Mercury and coal production, have no warning labels and have to be taken to a Toxic Dump to recycle them IF they’re not broken. If they break, it’s your problem.
And we’re being convinced they’re ‘Green’.
Please educate yourself about the negative global effects these have on the planet from job losses to becoming toxic, hazardous waste once they break or burn out. The footprint and losing American jobs alone is enough for me, but the disposal and the hazards they pose to our water systems is too enormous to ignore.
We have a choice to not blindly accept that changing to these light bulbs is the right thing to do. Please look into the additional Mercury production that the hundreds of million of these has fueled. Hundreds of millions of these have already been sold with no place to dispose of them as very few town have Toxic Waste dumps and the ones that do won’t take broken bulbs. To put that number into perspective, only 200 million Frisbees were sold since they’re debut in the 50s.
PLEASE boycott these until every single town either has a pickup program or there is a Toxic Waste facility in all towns that don’t have Ikea or Home Depot (those are two places that will recycle them, if you or your neighbors bother to double bag them in plastic and drive them over…if they’re not broken…if they’re broken, it’s your problem).
Thank you for keeping this topic alive and making your own decision, not being forced to buy things through a government deal with GE and China.
The simple light bulb has become a global environmental issue. It was the perfect choice to villainize, since every room in every country no matter how large or small, needs one.
But they are ALL are made in China, and are comprised of so much additional production, mercury, packaging, and special disposal needs that they are anything BUT green.
GE closed all light bulb factories in the US and moved all China after receiving a stimulus package.
The EPA says they WILL contaminate our water supply if disposed of improperly.
It used to be so simple.
And started with just an idea.
Most of the best ideas are the simple ones.
But somewhere propaganda got the better of us.
And we’re told to believe the fluorescent bulbs are the better choice.
So many people claim that they use ‘less energy’. But the footprint alone is enormous, not to mention the packaging and disposal. For what? To save a few watts? All that is heresay anyway, no one can actually measure that, and what is it measured against if you breakdown this giant footprint? Anything can be spun and this is the most blatant case of that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. If you were to measure the pollution these bulbs leave in their wake, from the factory to the landfill, you’d find they’re not at all line with protecting the environment. In fact, they are harming it in hundreds of small ways, including adding to the demand for more coal production due to the increased need for mercury.
They’re designed to burn out whereas so many of the original bulbs are still burning bright. How did we get brainwashed?
The only way to snap out of it is to boycott before it’s too late and regular bulbs are ‘illegal’. Otherwise this ‘energy efficient’ invention could be the demise of our water system.
Boy I hope I’m wrong and these bulbs will change everything, they’re going to bring back jobs, and save the environment. That the new Toxic Waste Dumps will be pretty and efficient. That the excess packaging will be recycled and the double bags needed to dispose of them will be biodegradable. I hope that even though you have to throw away anything that they fall and break on, that it won’t be that much extra garbage in the landfill, and that everyone who has one of these knows the hazards and disposal recommendations even though it’s not printed on the package. I hope that places like Cuba or Guam or even Miami set up recycling plants that you can drive somewhere to dispose of what is now considered Hazardous Waste, responsibly.
But wishing and hoping isn’t going to make it happen. We have the warning right in front of us but we don’t see it. Why?
These bulbs have lasted decades. How long does a CFL last? Take a look at GE and see how ‘green’ they really are an what may be behind this.