Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By David .J. Minnery
Can anyone assist?
Energy saving lightbulbs, just how good are they for the environment? Some packaging contains a very small, but vague, warning not to dispose of in the bin.
It is reputed that these bulbs may contain mercury or other toxic chemicals and should not be disposed of in landfill sites.
I have tried manufacturer [major brand name] who initially stated that they would respond within 4 working days, some three to four weeks and three reminders later, I have had no response.
Obviously, safe if intact but questions remain over safety if broken, concern over what they actually contain and possible exposure to individuals and the environment.
I would be grateful for any information and assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
As far as I know, fluorescents do contain trace quantities of mercury (on the internal coating of the tubes), but I cannot advise you how much.
Your question is therefore one of environmental impact assessment and life cycle analysis.
Thus you will need to compare energy consumption of each product, length of life (I think 1 flourescent is worth about 7 incandescent bulbs), but the other issues seem intangible (I'm not sure how you compare risk of groundwater pollution against increase in atmospheric CO2?)
Best getting someone from the Environment SG to make suggestions.
Or do some web research, starting with maybe The Carbon Trust or Envirowise.
Or maybe even Greenpeace or Friends of The Earth (if you can cope with the rhetoric).
Just some random thoughts to get the thread started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Hi folks,
I don't have an answer, but would be very interested in one. What I do know is that Jonathon is right, Mercury is involved which is bad, but bear in mind that Tungsten and Tungsten extraction aren't terribly benign either.
However, as to which side the lifecycle cost dice falls I have no real idea,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David .J. Minnery
Jonathon
Thanks, my concern is over breakage of these lightbulbs in the home or workplace. I had an incidence where one broke at home in the kids bedroom, only when I noticed the white powder on the bedroom floor did I take an interest.
The environment is important and the amount of mercury or other toxic chemicals is important for both personal and environmental exposure, the packaging does not state what it contains and whether or not it is harmful or potentially harmful.
It certainly makes you think, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike
Fluorescent bulbs contain about 5 milligrams of mercury. At the present time green activists are maintaining that the energy saved at coal burning power stations cause them to emit less mercury to atmosphere and on balance the overall mercury burden on the environment is less. I don't have any information to confirm the truth of that claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Glyn Atkinson
I was informed by one of our electrical department boffins of a possible change to classification for this type of light bulb in effect from July 1st.
This could affect our supply chain from supplier to manufacturer (US) to our end user (retail customers using the products until life end) so I need to look into this seriously and obtain correct relevant information of our legal obligations.
Because of the mercury content, the bulbs are being classed as hazardous waste, according to the reference article.
I am waiting for some technical research enquiry details to come back to me, as the article in question was from The News of the World - dated May 6th of this year - as usual quoted as from "a government safety expert", so I am looking for confirmation from a possibly more reputable source.
Does anyone have any more in depth and firm legally based info on this subject?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lilian McCartney
EH65/19 has loads of info on mercury and its compounds.
I don't know about the green effect of long life bulbs but if they havemercury compunds in them it will be interesting to see if something is going to come out on 1 July about disposing of these.
I expect it might get down to the best out of the available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze All, I found this graph which compares overall emissions of mercury for the two types of light: http://en.wikipedia.org/...cury_use_environment.svgDavid, I can't answer your question definitively, but if the damaged tube was cleaned away quickly using a method that didn't generate dust or aerosols, then I doubt that there would be a major issue. Sorry I can't be of more help in your circumstance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Masson
Can't help you on the LCA of energy savers and fluorescents, but they are specifically classed as Special Waste (Hazardous for our southern cousins) even though the concentration of Mercury is below what would normally be the threshold level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David .J. Minnery
Thanks to all that posted a response, the question still remains, how much of a hazard do these bulbs pose to individuals in the home, at work and to the environment if damaged or broken?
Threshhold levels of exposure cannot be monitored if you do not know exactly what you are being exposed to and the amount present, in the home this is particularly dangerous for babies, children, expectant mothers etc as well as a potential danger to those in the workplace.
Regards to all
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David .J. Minnery
I apologise for airing this again, I wonder if IOSH Technical department have any information and/or advice on this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John_Webster
There is one basic fallacy with low energy bulbs that you may wish to consider when deciding whether or not to use them, and that is the claim that you will save energy by using them in place of incandescent bulbs. In a room which is normally heated under thermostatic control, the energy saving is actually.....nil!
This is because the energy "wasted" by a normal bulb is emitted as heat. Your room does not care where its heat comes from, be it the heater, lighting, computer, TV or your own body. Once the thermostat reaches the set temperature, the main heating source will turn down.
So by all means use them for outdoor lighting, porches, passageways, garages and sheds etc. where the savings really will be evident. But they are of little energy saving benefit in sitting rooms and bedrooms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
Bearing in mind that fluorescent tubes have been around for many decades without anyone dropping dead from mercury poisoning from them, you can say that UNLESS THE INTERNAL COATING WHICH CONTAINS THE MERCURY IS INHALED there is a very low risk, as in very low.
Yes, the energy-saving lightbulbs are just compact fluorescent tubes. As in many areas of life, and industry, you should avoid inhaling dust. Even non-toxic dust will cause you problems.
A life should be got by some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David .J. Minnery
John
Fluorescent tubes are classed as hazardous waste and should be disposed of as such. flippant comments about people dropping dead, or not dropping dead, from mercury poison are unhelpful in what is a serious and potentially dangerous matter, to both the individual and the environment. The indiscrminate dumping of these lightbulbs in landfill sites has not been monitored to date, so who knows what levels of mercury could be leaching into the ground and finding its way into waterways etc, extreme? maybe, but would'nt you like to know?
What we have is a substance which if people are exposed to it, it is important to know the cumulative exposure levels, or possible exposure, affect from any and all sources.
It does'nt help anyone when manufacturers do not inform users of the possible hazards from toxic chemicals present in their products, the whole point is about knowledge and warnings on packaging.
Sorry if anyone takes offence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd Let me get this right: you need us to know, what you probably already know, but are not going to tell us, until you're satisfied we know that you know ? Well, you can probably google it. Or, you can just do what everyone else does, and just dump them in the bin. Yes, they are classed as "hazardous waste". I know this because the company that takes the waste away has already issued lists of hazardous waste, and f/tubes are in it. Unfortunately, they don't take f/tubes....because they are hazardous waste ! As for "nobody knows".....right. Lets see....the contents of one fluorescent tube will contaminate 30,000 litres of water rendering it undrinkable. Hmm...it's somewhere on the HSE website. A quick google revealed some hundreds of pages.... http://www.informinc.org...t_P3fluorescentlamps.phpEtc, etc, etc. So, if you are that worried just don't buy any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David .J. Minnery
This is supposed to be a forum for sensible discussion, fortunately for most people it is, but there are always those who wish to criticise or attempt to belittle others, which is neither helpful nor constructive.
Personal comments and/or attacks on others are unacceptable and only succeeds in highlighting the inadequacies of those who appear to take pleasure in doing so, it is unwarranted and unprofessional. I would hope that the moderating team take a particular interest in the few individuals who appear to think that they are somehow above reproach with their sarcastic remarks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd "What we have is a substance which if people are exposed to it, it is important to know the cumulative exposure levels, or possible exposure, affect from any and all sources. It does'nt help anyone when manufacturers do not inform users of the possible hazards from toxic chemicals present in their products, the whole point is about knowledge and warnings on packaging. Sorry if anyone takes offence" The effects are known and documented. The content of the tubes are known and documented and have been for years. The possible hazards that are not documented by the tube manufacturers are documented elsewhere anyway. Hands-up all those who already know that MSDS are of little use ? The tubes are classified as hazardous waste, they contain mercury. Known. You cannot dump them in the garbage. Known. It is an ABSOLUTE ENTRY in the european waste catalogue: http://www.environment-a...at/2_haz_waste_app_a.pdf [ hazardous waste regardless of any threshold] The simple situation is this: Most users are domestic. They neither know, nor care. There are few municipal facilities to process F/tubes anyway. The V A S T majority are going to be just broken and put in the bin. They are also in the HAZARDOUS WASTE (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 2005. YOU try telling people that one f/tube contains enough mercury to render 30,000 litres of water undrinkable. Struggle. Uphill. Time. Waste. Of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David .J. Minnery
If the posting/thread was about fluorescent tubes the information may well be relevant and correct, particularly in England and Wales.
Unfortunately, the posting is in relation to energy saving lightbulbs and not fluorescent tubes which are widely recognised as hazardous or special waste.
Currently, there is no definitive recognition or legislative requirements for the disposal of energy saving lightbulbs [at least not in Scotland.]
There is insufficient labelling on the packaging in relation to the materials used in the manufacture of these products, the disposal of these products, no information relating to breakage through transit, in use or disposal.
There is growing use of these products in the commercial sector, particularly in offices, and yes, the majority are used in domestic premises, but should people not be made aware of the potential risks to let them take the decision whether or not to use such products? whether they are at work or at home!
That is the point of this posting/thread, to raise awareness of potential future problems.
By all means, if you are already aware of the potential problems, feel free to add constructive comment or provide further information to assit others.
I apologise to all other forum users for one or two of the response received, it is not my intention to "joust" with anyone but it appears to be the preferred method of some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
It is a question of quantity.
The "energy saving light bulb" is another name for a "compact fluorescent light" (hint: instead of being a long tube, it's a long tube curled-up)
The "energy saving light bulb" contains about 5mg of mercury per unit. A fluorescent tube can contain up to [about] 15mg. If the unit runs its full life, most of the mercury will be contained in the coating, some in the glass and some coated onto the cathode.
Some of this info comes from memory (mine) and some from google. Yet more comes from a few books. All is discoverable at low [or no] cost except in time. I'm not naturally antagonistic. But you are being obtuse and pedantic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David .J. Minnery
I believed this forum to be for OSH discussion and would like to thank the majority of contributors for their assistance, advice and input.
Regrettably, there are some who wish to be abusive and insulting in their tone and comments, I will leave that to the moderating team to deal with.
Once again thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.