You’re Either with Us, or You’re with the CFLs
So, what’s the bigger danger to the American public: Al-Qaeda, or compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)?
If you follow the conservative punditry, online or off, it’s a tough call. Today’s (April 24) “Mallard Fillmore” comic strip is just the latest example of conservatives taking aim at these energy-saving bulbs, focusing primarily on the fact that CFLs contain mercury.
So, for Mallard Fillmore author Bruce Tinsley, Thomas Sowell, Rush Limbaugh (whose content is not publicly available) and the crowd at WorldNetDaily, let’s review the facts:
- A CFL contains about 5mg of mercury (and several manufacturers are working to lower that). In comparison, a watch battery contains around 25mg, the average mercury thermometer contains about 500 mg, and older mercury thermostats can contain 6-18 grams of mercury.
- Regardless of the amount of mercury, CFLs, like other mercury-containing devices, can be disposed of safely.
- The electricity produced to power an incandescent bulb from a coal-fired power plant will create 13.3 mg of mercury emissions (which is much more likely to end up in water, Mr. Tinsley).
- Finally, there’s never been a $2000 cleanup required for a CFL breaking… ENERGY STAR has clear guidelines for cleaning up a broken CFL. There’s probably more danger of mercury poisoning from a tuna sandwich than from a broken CFL.
So, why all the fuss? You don’t have to read very far into any of the above-linked examples to realize that publications like WND, and commentators like Milloy, Sowell, and Tinsley have a political agenda partly based in a dislike/distrust of environmentalism, and partly based in reaction to legislation banning the use of incandescents. In other words, the treehuggers are trying to take away your freedom as consumers… and undermine the free market… and toss us all into the shackles of godless communism…
What I find really interesting about this whole “debate” is that concern for the average person’s economic interest tends to go out the window with these pundits. Yep, these defenders of the “common man” never seem to mention that CFLs use 75% less energy than incandescents, and last up to ten times longer. The savings can be pretty significant. Ultimately, aren’t these “conservatives” undermining the very market forces they claim to support?
When I was in Kansas City a little over a week ago, I heard Daniel Wallach, director of Greensburg GreenTown, ask a provocative question: “When did the environment become a political issue?” One could ask that about CFLs… is this really something we should be arguing about?
Use a CFL… or the terrorists win! Yeah, I like that…
See also:
Green Options: Daily Tip — Change Your Light Bulbs
Ecolocalizer: 60,000 CFLs and Counting
Green Options: Throw Another Old-Fashioned Light Bulb on the Barbie
Great comparison of the mercury levels.
I don’t use any watch batteries and I don’t own a Mercury thermometer but my house would use over one hundred CFLs. CFLs require much more energy to manufacture than the lowly incandescent bulb and in short on/off cycles as lights are used in the typical home CFLs won’t last very long. Fluorescents get their long life when they are left on for long periods of time like they used in most office and factory applications. The phosphorus coating on the inside of the tube isn’t very nice to the environment either. Incandescent bulbs are filled with Argon the third most plentiful gas in the atmosphere.
The average adult has 3.2 grams of mercury in dental fillings. http://www.mercola.com/article/mercury/no_mercury.htm
Even if you had 100 CFLs in your house, a typical adult mouth would contain six times more mercury than all of the CFLs.
CFLs are typically designed to be started thousands of times, so residential use is practical.
http://www.energymanagertraining.com/did/04/RVNesari_04_T1.pdf
Your own link tells the story.
“If CFLs are started more frequently than the standard 3-hour on/ 20-minute off
i.e. shorter cycles operation- they will have statistically shorter life than their rated life.”
Bryce, having mercury in your dental fillings does not make it OK to have mercury in your CFL’s–mercury is bad whether it’s in your teeth, or in your light fixtures. And mercury toxicity is cumulative–the more you are exposed to it, the worse your problems will get. I say: the less, the better.
I would also like to point out that fluorescent lights give off cancer-causing x-rays and other dangerous radiation.
http://www.purlife.com/sunlight.htm
The bottom line is: there are safer ways to reduce non-renewable energy-use use than to use CFLs. We can use solar power or windmills in the summer. We can install energy-efficient windows and wear sweaters instead of turning up the heat for the winter. We can carpool and use public transportation and ride our bicycles more. The list of healthy energy-saving strategies goes on and on. We don’t have to jeopardize our health to do it.
You make good points but it is undeniable that the environmentalists talk out of both sides of their mouths regarding mercury. Mercury is okay in CFL’s, but according to Earthshare not in fish, even though that process is primarily naturally. One environmentalist group even managed to get the construction of a crematorium blocked in Colorado by raising fears of mercury vapors being released from the dental fillings of the deceased. So, the question remains as to why the greens see mercury as okay in CFL’s but not okay anywhere else?
And BTW, environmentalism has always been political.
Matthew–
You bring up a few points that deserve consideration. On the energy to produce CFLs — without exact figures, I can’t speak directly to this, but how much of this extra energy is offset by CFLs’ longer life? Even if they don’t last as long as manufacturers claim, this still isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison.
“a statistically shorter life” — any idea on the actual numbers here? If it’s only 5x the life span of incandescents, don’t consumers (and the environment) still come out ahead? Again, without numbers, can’t do any actual ROI calculations…
I will say this… ultimately, I think CFLs will end up being a “transitional” technology… I think LEDs have much more potential to serve as an “ideal” lighting source. Until manufacturers can bring costs down significantly, though, CFLs still look like the best deal around…
Bobby — apples and oranges. A small amount of contained, recoverable mercury isn’t the same thing as mercury being emitted into the atmosphere…
I would like to see a more concerted effort on behalf of the CFL manufacturers to provide opportunities for the safe disposal and recovery of the CFLs and their mercury. Most of the packages clearly label that the lightbulb must be disposed of properly. However, when many people try to find where they can dispose of the CFL, discover that the nearest place to do so is 75 miles away.
This loop needs to be closed through a combination of regulatory and market mechanisms.
Tim — I agree with you here. This is something that manufacturers and local governments should probably work on together… it’s in the interest of both.