It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by XmikaX
reply to post by burntheships
and they are full of mercury. so basically if you break one in your house you need to evacuate and call a decontamination team.
I wonder what you supposed to do after an earthquake ? evacuate the city or die ?
Originally posted by flushy
reply to post by burntheships
This is just for an idea of magnitude regarding the quantity of mercury released in a disaster.
There are 53,890,900 housing units and with an average of 4.77 rooms in Japan as of 2003.
80 percent of light bulbs in Japan are CFLs.
There is 3 to 5mg mercury per CFL light.
Therefore if a quake destroys 1000 homes with one light in each room and 10% of the lights break.
1000*4.77*1*0.1*0.8*4 = 1526.4 mg mercury from just residential units
Thanks for the math, I hope to do some checking on this.
Originally posted by flushy
Imagine surviving an earthquake, seemingly unscathed, thinking "Wow, wasn't I lucky" just to find out a year later that your brain is half melted, your thyroid stopped working and have lung cancer.
You don't understand the math, because switching back to incandescent would increase mercury pollution, not decrease it.
Originally posted by burntheships
Thanks for the math, I hope to do some checking on this...
Originally posted by flushy
1000*4.77*1*0.1*0.8*4 = 1526.4 mg mercury from just residential units
I think these bulbs should be taken off the market, and the legislation overturned!
The top 50 most-polluting coal-burning power plants in the United States emitted 20 tons of toxic mercury into the air in 2007...
In April 2006, the plant's operator, Alabama Power, announced it would spend $200 million to remove nitrogen oxide emissions by 2008 and sulfur dioxide emissions by 2011, but no mercury removal technology has been announced for the Miller plant.
Originally posted by ElectricWizard
reply to post by burntheships
I HATE these new "energy" saving light bulbs.. They break after a few months of use and they have mercury in them (which is energy costly to dispose of properly and of course unhealthy). A lot of these "energy saving" things aren't energy saving at all..
Yes, LEDs are the future.. they are a bit costly to make now, but as time goes on they will get cheaper.edit on 21-4-2011 by ElectricWizard because: (no reason given)
Thus, the 1971 list indicates that patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction if the photovoltaics were more than 20% efficient.
You don't understand the math, because switching back to incandescent would increase mercury pollution, not decrease it.
No I understood the context of the example precisely. You'll notice I didn't do anything to correct your 1.5 gram calculation, and that part of the math is perfectly fine, but as you said it's not the big picture, that's the only problem I had with it.
Originally posted by flushy
You failed to read the context of the example.