Mercury in Fluorescent Bulbs

Too Little, Too Late - Media Discover Mercury in Fluorescent Bulbs
Journalists' beloved 'eco-friendly' lights now considered more dangerous
than originally thought, after government mandate required their use.
By Nathan Burchfiel
Business & Media Institute
3/26/2008 2:13:04 PM


What is it about government mandates that curse innovation to failure?

Ethanol turned out to be more environmentally harmful than the fossil
fuels it was replacing via federal mandate. Now scientists understand the
"green" compact fluorescent light bulbs to be dangerous because they contain
mercury.

While scientists couldn't agree on just how beneficial compact
fluorescent light bulbs were, journalists on network news shows had widely
agreed that CFLs are a good thing.

"They last 10 times longer and they're really great for the
environment," Kris Connell of Real Simple Magazine said on "The Early Show"
March 10.

Each of the three broadcast networks has featured the bulbs and promoted
them as energy-efficient, environmentally friendly alternatives to
traditional incandescent bulbs. Journalists and others who support the bulbs
touted their benefits but rarely focused on the potential risks.

NBC's "Today" show featured the bulbs on its "Today Goes Green" series
Jan. 23, 2008, as one way average Americans can adjust their lives to be
more "environmentally friendly."

"If every American home replaced just one incandescent bulb with a CFL,
in one year it would save enough energy to light more than three million
American homes and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of
more than 800,000 cars," co-host Meredith Vieira said.

"Replace just one of your standard light bulbs with one of those curly
compact fluorescent lamps," Diane Sawyer suggested on ABC's "Good Morning
America" April 20. "If every household in the U.S. replaced just one
standard bulb with a CFL tomorrow ... it would be like taking 2 million cars
off the road."

The Sept. 28, 2007, CBS "Early Show" even said "going green," including
switching from traditional incandescent bulbs to CFLs, was "good for your
health, it's good for your pocketbook, and it's good for the environment."

The print media joined in. USA Today called them the "wave of the
future" in March 2007. The Los Angeles Times said in April 2007 the bulbs
"would be good for the environment and consumers' pocketbooks."

With this help from the media, proponents of the bulbs convinced
Congress to ban incandescent light bulbs in the energy bill President Bush
signed into law in Dec. 19, 2007. The bill increases efficiency standards
and effectively bans traditional bulbs by 2014, a timetable considered a
victory by supporters like Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who was the first to
introduce legislation that would ban the bulbs.

But what the media ignored or downplayed in the run-up to the ban was
that CFLs contain mercury, a highly toxic metal infamous for its presence in
thermometers. In the last two years, network news shows mentioned the
CFL-mercury link only seven times. Four of the reports came after the
incandescent ban had already been signed into law.

Each CFL contains about 5 milligrams of mercury. That's enough for
state environmental agencies to recommend complicated and expensive cleanups
for accidental bulb breaks in homes.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection recommended a woman
contact a hazardous waste cleanup company when a CFL broke on her child's
bedroom carpet, sending the mercury level to more than six times the "safe"
limit. The crew estimated the cleanup would cost $2,000.

The Maine DEP no longer recommends such an expensive cleanup process,
but now suggests a 14-point cleanup plan. (link doesn't work. Go to:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/fluorescent.htm. Pay particular
attention to what you need to do if the CFS breaks:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeown...eakcleanup.htm

The 5 milligrams of mercury are also enough to contaminate 6,000
gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, according to a March 19
MSNBC.com article that "extrapolated from Stanford University research on
mercury."

'The Cost of Good Intentions'

But even when the networks mentioned the mercury risk, reporters and
other proponents of the bulbs downplayed the significance, especially before
the federal law was passed to ban traditional bulbs.

Several NBC broadcasts characterized mercury in CFLs as a "small
amount." ABC's "Good Morning America" called it a "tiny amount of mercury"
on May 3, 2007. Unfortunately the "tiny amount" multiplied by the millions
of bulbs now in use could mean a lot of contaminated water.

Brian Williams wrote the risk off as "the cost of good intentions" on
the NBC "Nightly News" March 20, 2008. But "Nightly News" correspondent John
Larson put it in a more accurate context, reporting that mercury is "one of
the most poisonous substances on Earth. Break one of these in your home and
you've got a problem."

"The federal government has an 11-step do-it-yourself cleanup plan that
looks a lot like a toxic waste cleanup, because that's what it is," Larson
reported. "But it has an even larger problem: where to put the 400 million
CFLs being sold a year when they burn out. Not in the trash - too poisonous.
For the time being, take CFLs to a hazardous waste disposal center."

But even well-intentioned recycling programs apparently aren't working.
Meredith Vieira on the January 23 "Today" downplayed mercury concerns by
noting that "Home Depot will take them back." But she should have talked to
Patricia Stoll, a Ventura County, Calif., woman who wrote a letter to the
editor of The New York Times Jan. 17, 2008.

"When I tried to return the bulbs to Home Depot, I was asked to send
them directly to the manufacturer," Stoll wrote. "In frustration, I just
threw them into the trash."

Home Depot could not be reached for comment.

Even environmentalists have trouble being diligent with the bulbs. The
New York Times profiled Cynthia DuBose, a self-proclaimed "fanatical
environmentalist," on Jan. 10, 2008. DuBose started using CFLs in the late
1980s. But she just threw them in the trash until "five or six years ago"
when she finally found out they were dangerous.

"Fanatical environmentalists" and well-intentioned average Americans
already struggle to keep up with complicated and inconvenient recycling
methods. And CFLs have yet to catch on with Americans less interested in
troubling themselves with recycling.

The Solution: More Government!
The media focus on the threat of mercury has increased since the ban on
incandescents was signed into law.

But now that the media have discovered CFLs pose serious environmental
threats that will only increase as more Americans are forced to buy them,
they're not calling for a second look at the ban.

Journalists' advice to Americans concerned about the health and
environmental threat posed by CFL bulbs? "Just don't drop it," NBC's John
Larson said during his March 20 report. "Energy advocates agree your new
CFLs are still overall the right thing to do for the planet."

Now proponents of the bulbs are using the mercury danger to push for
even more government involvement. The bill that banned incandescent bulbs
also forces the Department of Energy to "find ways to minimize the amount of
mercury in compact fluorescent bulbs."

"And although one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, almost 300
million compact fluorescents were sold in the United States last year," The
New York Times wrote in a Feb. 17, 2008, editorial. "Businesses and
government recyclers need to start working on more efficient ways to deal
with that added mercury."

Other reports pointed out that a few recycling programs do exist,
including one run by a light bulb manufacturer. "For now, Osram Sylvania is
offering its customers packaging to send the compact fluorescents back for
recycling and prevent the mercury from leaking into the environment," The
Washington Post reported Jan. 20, 2008.

The reports didn't address the carbon and mercury "footprint" created
by the return programs - boxes for shipping and fuels to power the
automobiles and airplanes that carry the burned-out bulbs, on top of the
cost and environmental impact of recycling itself.

From: http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...326103035.aspx

Hmm, but we have used conventional fluorescent bulbs for many years, and
there are a lot more of those in the junk of chain stores etc. I've actually
broken several of the compacts and some ordinary ones, and am still here.

I'd imagine now we are getting into leds they will find something in those
that is dangerous.

Unfortunately, one has to go with the best we can do at the time. Nothing is
ever completely safe.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"JOHN" wrote in message
...
Too Little, Too Late - Media Discover Mercury in Fluorescent Bulbs
Journalists' beloved 'eco-friendly' lights now considered more dangerous
than originally thought, after government mandate required their use.
By Nathan Burchfiel
Business & Media Institute
3/26/2008 2:13:04 PM


What is it about government mandates that curse innovation to failure?

Ethanol turned out to be more environmentally harmful than the fossil
fuels it was replacing via federal mandate. Now scientists understand the
"green" compact fluorescent light bulbs to be dangerous because they
contain mercury.

While scientists couldn't agree on just how beneficial compact
fluorescent light bulbs were, journalists on network news shows had widely
agreed that CFLs are a good thing.

"They last 10 times longer and they're really great for the
environment," Kris Connell of Real Simple Magazine said on "The Early
Show" March 10.

Each of the three broadcast networks has featured the bulbs and promoted
them as energy-efficient, environmentally friendly alternatives to
traditional incandescent bulbs. Journalists and others who support the
bulbs touted their benefits but rarely focused on the potential risks.

NBC's "Today" show featured the bulbs on its "Today Goes Green" series
Jan. 23, 2008, as one way average Americans can adjust their lives to be
more "environmentally friendly."

"If every American home replaced just one incandescent bulb with a
CFL, in one year it would save enough energy to light more than three
million American homes and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to
those of more than 800,000 cars," co-host Meredith Vieira said.

"Replace just one of your standard light bulbs with one of those curly
compact fluorescent lamps," Diane Sawyer suggested on ABC's "Good Morning
America" April 20. "If every household in the U.S. replaced just one
standard bulb with a CFL tomorrow ... it would be like taking 2 million
cars off the road."

The Sept. 28, 2007, CBS "Early Show" even said "going green,"
including switching from traditional incandescent bulbs to CFLs, was "good
for your health, it's good for your pocketbook, and it's good for the
environment."

The print media joined in. USA Today called them the "wave of the
future" in March 2007. The Los Angeles Times said in April 2007 the bulbs
"would be good for the environment and consumers' pocketbooks."

With this help from the media, proponents of the bulbs convinced
Congress to ban incandescent light bulbs in the energy bill President Bush
signed into law in Dec. 19, 2007. The bill increases efficiency standards
and effectively bans traditional bulbs by 2014, a timetable considered a
victory by supporters like Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who was the first
to introduce legislation that would ban the bulbs.

But what the media ignored or downplayed in the run-up to the ban was
that CFLs contain mercury, a highly toxic metal infamous for its presence
in thermometers. In the last two years, network news shows mentioned the
CFL-mercury link only seven times. Four of the reports came after the
incandescent ban had already been signed into law.

Each CFL contains about 5 milligrams of mercury. That's enough for
state environmental agencies to recommend complicated and expensive
cleanups for accidental bulb breaks in homes.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection recommended a woman
contact a hazardous waste cleanup company when a CFL broke on her child's
bedroom carpet, sending the mercury level to more than six times the
"safe" limit. The crew estimated the cleanup would cost $2,000.

The Maine DEP no longer recommends such an expensive cleanup process,
but now suggests a 14-point cleanup plan. (link doesn't work. Go to:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/fluorescent.htm. Pay particular
attention to what you need to do if the CFS breaks:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeown...eakcleanup.htm

The 5 milligrams of mercury are also enough to contaminate 6,000
gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, according to a March 19
MSNBC.com article that "extrapolated from Stanford University research on
mercury."

'The Cost of Good Intentions'

But even when the networks mentioned the mercury risk, reporters and
other proponents of the bulbs downplayed the significance, especially
before the federal law was passed to ban traditional bulbs.

Several NBC broadcasts characterized mercury in CFLs as a "small
amount." ABC's "Good Morning America" called it a "tiny amount of mercury"
on May 3, 2007. Unfortunately the "tiny amount" multiplied by the millions
of bulbs now in use could mean a lot of contaminated water.

Brian Williams wrote the risk off as "the cost of good intentions" on
the NBC "Nightly News" March 20, 2008. But "Nightly News" correspondent
John Larson put it in a more accurate context, reporting that mercury is
"one of the most poisonous substances on Earth. Break one of these in your
home and you've got a problem."

"The federal government has an 11-step do-it-yourself cleanup plan
that looks a lot like a toxic waste cleanup, because that's what it is,"
Larson reported. "But it has an even larger problem: where to put the 400
million CFLs being sold a year when they burn out. Not in the trash - too
poisonous. For the time being, take CFLs to a hazardous waste disposal
center."

But even well-intentioned recycling programs apparently aren't
working. Meredith Vieira on the January 23 "Today" downplayed mercury
concerns by noting that "Home Depot will take them back." But she should
have talked to Patricia Stoll, a Ventura County, Calif., woman who wrote a
letter to the editor of The New York Times Jan. 17, 2008.

"When I tried to return the bulbs to Home Depot, I was asked to send
them directly to the manufacturer," Stoll wrote. "In frustration, I just
threw them into the trash."

Home Depot could not be reached for comment.

Even environmentalists have trouble being diligent with the bulbs. The
New York Times profiled Cynthia DuBose, a self-proclaimed "fanatical
environmentalist," on Jan. 10, 2008. DuBose started using CFLs in the late
1980s. But she just threw them in the trash until "five or six years ago"
when she finally found out they were dangerous.

"Fanatical environmentalists" and well-intentioned average Americans
already struggle to keep up with complicated and inconvenient recycling
methods. And CFLs have yet to catch on with Americans less interested in
troubling themselves with recycling.

The Solution: More Government!
The media focus on the threat of mercury has increased since the ban
on incandescents was signed into law.

But now that the media have discovered CFLs pose serious environmental
threats that will only increase as more Americans are forced to buy them,
they're not calling for a second look at the ban.

Journalists' advice to Americans concerned about the health and
environmental threat posed by CFL bulbs? "Just don't drop it," NBC's John
Larson said during his March 20 report. "Energy advocates agree your new
CFLs are still overall the right thing to do for the planet."

Now proponents of the bulbs are using the mercury danger to push for
even more government involvement. The bill that banned incandescent bulbs
also forces the Department of Energy to "find ways to minimize the amount
of mercury in compact fluorescent bulbs."

"And although one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, almost 300
million compact fluorescents were sold in the United States last year,"
The New York Times wrote in a Feb. 17, 2008, editorial. "Businesses and
government recyclers need to start working on more efficient ways to deal
with that added mercury."

Other reports pointed out that a few recycling programs do exist,
including one run by a light bulb manufacturer. "For now, Osram Sylvania
is offering its customers packaging to send the compact fluorescents back
for recycling and prevent the mercury from leaking into the environment,"
The Washington Post reported Jan. 20, 2008.

The reports didn't address the carbon and mercury "footprint" created
by the return programs - boxes for shipping and fuels to power the
automobiles and airplanes that carry the burned-out bulbs, on top of the
cost and environmental impact of recycling itself.

From: http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...326103035.aspx

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...


Unfortunately, one has to go with the best we can do at the time. Nothing
is ever completely safe.


Oh really, the usual bulbs seem safe.

that is what they say about vaccines, but breastfeeding is safe.