Energy Saving Light Bulbs 'Contain Cancer Causing Chemicals'

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I would be very interested in a more in depth calculation that could predict world earthquake mercury output per year; an obscure statistic.

However, I think the location that the mercury is released probably makes a difference as well.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
Seriously 1 million people saving 30$ a month takes a chunk out of your profit.

And 1 million extra people getting cancer puts a bigger chunk on top of some other profits.

Not to mention that they produce 75% less heat which has to be made up by burning more oil and natural gas

“BC Hydro's own figures undercut environmental value of CFLs”
communities.canada.com...

These "energy saving" bulbs are junk. I have bought cheap ones, mid-grade ones and expensive ones. Some last longer depending on brand and but on average, these things burn out faster than my old incandescent lights !
Walmart has bins full of these on sale all the time and I have replaced them so many times, in the end I wasn't getting any type of deal as far as price or how long it says it lasts.

I had the electric company come out and replace all my lights with energy saving bulbs and so far they are doing well. Not sure of the brand but they seem to be doing much better than anything I have bought at the store. I may have a box in the garage I can check to see for a name.EDIT: Here we go. This is the company that manufactures the lights.
www.tcpi.com...
I have these fictures (6) here PDF FILE

Another thing is that some of these bulbs are poor as far as lighting goes. I may as well have a lit candle in the room ! Some even take time to actually get going and are so dim my TV outshines it.

I think I am going to move over to LED lights. Bright. LONG lasting. VERY energy efficient. CHEAP !

www.instructables.com...

In our store, weve been seeling CFL's, form Round the House brand. Thie made in china, and are a weaker made bulb. i dont know how long they last, started using em few months ago, but their rated 75 watts, use 7 watts to light. Did make an impact in electric bill, saving about $12 more a month i estimated so far. we sell em for $1.19 each, ons ale usualy back to school time, 99 cents or buy one, get one free.
MY mom had gotten one of those electric company bulbs, with a plastic globe around it, god around 1990? it finaly burnt out last year, 2010. 10 year bulb , using it averagly i guess at night watching tv 4-7 hours.I do know it was UL tested, and it might have been a GE bulb* could have been a philips or sylvania for all i remember. 10 years out of it! it was a CFL bulb.
IM def goin LED< but as i posted here, the best value i found was $19.99 a bulb. 60 watt, uses 7 watts. for me, if i wanted to change the bulbs i use through the home...ide need about 12.. thats $ 140!

You could go the REALLY cheap way and do as this guy did
www.instructables.com...

With a lamp shade, who cares if it aint pretty underneath
Who says you have to buy a "Brand" or store bought ? Improvise

*Might not be practical in very environment, but in some applications it may fit the need.

Originally posted by ziggy1706
IM def goin LED< but as i posted here, the best value i found was $19.99 a bulb. 60 watt, uses 7 watts. for me, if i wanted to change the bulbs i use through the home...ide need about 12.. thats $ 140!

reply to post by SMR
I'm not against LEDs, but I AM against irrational, uninformed behavior.

Has everyone saying they're switching to LEDs researched LEDs?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e2539fc65f9e.png[/atsimg]
I've never managed to break a CFL bulb, though I can see how it could happen. I did break one of the 4' long fluorescent tubes a long time ago. The LED lights may hold the toxins in better for a while, but plastics decompose much faster than glass does.

You have to wade through the fear mongering to get to the real facts about what the best alternatives are. Few seem to get that far.

I hope your not suggesting I am in anyway shape or form, "fear mongering" because not one word in my post(s) did I talk about the toxins in any form of lighting.
I simply suggested alternatives to crap manufacturing and BS claims of energy efficiency as per packaging.

Originally posted by win 52
Led lights... if you put enough of them in a reflector, they can be very bright and economical.

second line

it's not so much a reflector but a good lens in front of it that does the trick. I have switched some of my bulbs for led in the home as well as growing coral under led lights, leds are the best technology for lighting anything in my opinion, and you cannot beat the efficiency. For me what used to require 150 watts of metal halide I can do with 30 watts of leds. A bit pricer up front but savings in the long run.

Pretty much all electrical things do. (Contain cancer causing chemicals.) There's additives to the plastics in wires and electrical cords to keep them pliable and fire resistant that aren't exactly healthy for you. Then pretty much all the "magic smoke" kept in all diodes/resistors/capacitors/etc. in electronics are not exactly pleasant either.

That computer your using when looking at this post? The stuff inside it isn't good for you.

Electronic waste actually happens to be highly toxic (albeit the toxic materials are fairly well contained unless burnt or allowed to corrode for a long time), although in many cases it's highly reusable or recyclable.

I think the best advice would be, don't go huffing lightbulbs (or the fumes from other new electrical/electronic things). But to avoid this entirely means you'd be pretty much living out in the woods and in the dark. (More often than not, most of the sick building syndrome has more to do with houses being too air-tight with insulation and such, but lacking adequate ventilation. Which allows such toxic fumes to build up. It's people in new and extra-efficient houses that'll have problems from things like vapors from lightbulbs rather than those living in older and more drafty dwellings.)

Originally posted by SMR
I hope your not suggesting I am in anyway shape or form, "fear mongering" because not one word in my post(s) did I talk about the toxins in any form of lighting.

Of course not! As I said I have no problem with LEDs.

But the article in the OP of this thread seems like fear mongering and a lot of people seem to have the idea that CFLs are evil. They like LEDs have their advaantages and disadvantages compared to other forms of lighting.

I simply suggested alternatives to crap manufacturing and BS claims of energy efficiency as per packaging.

Crap manufacturing I've seen.

But please enlighten me about BS claims of energy efficiency. That's a violation of law and I'll report it if that's true.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
a lot of people seem to have the idea that CFLs are evil.

How can a light bulb be evil? And how can helping people to avoid the real hazards when using a particular product, with some of these hazards being listed on EPA’s own website www.epa.gov... … be fear mongering?

These potentially dangerous products have no warnings or instructions on the label as to the proper measures to take in case they break. For some people who have little toddlers this information is essential.

It's only "eco-friendly" because they say it is, not because it actually is.

At risk of repeating several posts above:

* CFLs take more energy to create than they save
* CFLs take more energy to create than traditional bulbs
* CFLs contain numerous toxic chemicals that are dangerous to the environment when disposed of
* CFLs *INCREASE* CO2 emissions to the world due to the production process alone (many components are produced in other parts of the world then shipped for final assembly - parts that are otherwise not required)

So my electricity bill is lower... big deal. It could be lower without CFLs if they stopped ripping us off!!!

reply to post by SMR


SMR, thats awesome!

And thank you for the post!

Think about this...these bulbs go on clearance after the holidays...

Lots and lots of clear bulb strands left at 75% off.

Never buy another CFL bulb again in my lifetime!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There is always a first time, ask any pregnant woman...

She will tell you!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

But the article in the OP of this thread seems like fear mongering and a lot of people seem to have the idea that CFLs are evil. They like LEDs have their advaantages and disadvantages compared to other forms of lighting.

I dont know why you would underlplay the dangers of breaking a CFL bulb that contains

Mercury...as we have already discussed...when a CFL bulb IS broken...and it WILL happen...

its EVACUATION time.

Thats not fear mongering, its just the plain simple TRUTH!

WHAT other light bulb when broken do you have to EVACUATE THE ROOM!!!

Defend that will you?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


your math is not correct either: you're assuming all the power generated by the plant is used for lights bulbs only

mercury bulbs consume 2/3 times less energy, then you'll have to find out how much energy from coal only is spent on bulbs only
and you'll know how much saving of mercury from the coal by using mercury bulbs

however thanks for the info i didn't know

LEDs may have known carcinogens in them, but only dangerous if released, as in breaking.
You know how hard it is to break an LED ? A LOT harder than any CFL or any other type of glass bulb that happen to IMMEDIATELY release mercury and phosphorous.

In some of those links I see them complaining about copper. You know how much cooper wiring in in the single family home !? How much copper pipe does your house have ?
That amount could create MILLIONS of LED lights, thats how little they have. I see no caution.

Fact. The whole idea about LED being more dangerous ... BS.
There are more metals and carcinogens in your PC right now that could "harm" you than more LED your ever going put in your home, even during a Christmas decoration contest !

You ask me. I think all these "fear mongering" LED stories are a form of energy companies not liking the idea of "cheap and efficient" lighting.

Originally posted by XmikaX
your math is not correct either: you're assuming all the power generated by the plant is used for lights bulbs only

mercury bulbs consume 2/3 times less energy, then you'll have to find out how much energy from coal only is spent on bulbs only
and you'll know how much saving of mercury from the coal by using mercury bulbs

however thanks for the info i didn't know

You're welcome.

My math is correct for the example I gave, it was just an example to show that 1.5 grams of mercury released in Japan is NOTHING compared to the tons of mercury released by coal plants in the USA.

Here are some numbers from Wiki on the bigger picture if an example isn't good enough:
Coal_power_in_the_United_States

In 2006, there were 1493 coal-powered units at the electrical utilities across the US, with the total nominal capacity of 335.8 GW (compared to 1024 units at nominal 278 GW in 2000)...

U.S. coal-fired electricity-generating power plants owned by utilities emitted an estimated 48 tons of mercury in 1999, the largest source of man-made mercury pollution in the U.S.

They don't give 2006 figures for mercury released so I'll just compare the 1999 and 2000 figures assuming they are fairly close but maybe a few percent different.

so in 2000 there were 1024 coal burning plants in 2000 and 48 tons of mercury emitted by most of these same plants in 1999.

Now how much energy can CFL's save?

Compact_fluorescent_lamp

For a given light output, CFLs use 20 to 33 percent of the power of equivalent incandescent lamps.[18] Since lighting accounted for approximately 9% of household electricity usage in the United States in 2001, widespread use of CFLs could save as much as 7% of total U.S. household usage.

My earlier example used the 20% power usage figure since that's the figure for my CFL lamps. So let's use that 7% figure for households. They don't give the savings for industry but it's probably less so let's use 6% energy savings overall, or use a better figure if you have it.

6% of 48 tons of mercury is 2.88 tons of mercury, and that was after scrubbing. Compare that to the 1.5 grams of mercury someone estimated was released in the destruction of 10000 homes with CFLs in Japan. I doubt that many CFL bulbs are broken each year in the US, but even if they are, or it's double or even 10 times that, you're still comparing 15 grams to 2.88 tons of mercury when you talk about CFL versus incandescent.

If we're going to fear monger, let's give equal time to the mercury produced at the source to the mercury released when a bulb is broken. And if you do happen to break a CFL bulb, don't panic, here's what you do:

Cleaning Up a Broken CFL
www.epa.gov...

And of course there are tips for not breaking them at the end of that pdf. I've been using them for over 10 years and I've never broken one. If you follow those tips you probably won't break one either.

Originally posted by SMR
These "energy saving" bulbs are junk. I have bought cheap ones, mid-grade ones and expensive ones. Some last longer depending on brand and but on average, these things burn out faster than my old incandescent lights

I've been using them over 10 years, and just had my first one burn out after 12 years.

Mine work great, I'm not sure why you've had such bad luck. Some of mine I bought in the grocery store for $1.00 each, and I'm sure they cost more than that to make so they must have been subsidized by the power company, or been clearance items.

Originally posted by SMR
LEDs may have known carcinogens in them, but only dangerous if released, as in breaking.
You know how hard it is to break an LED ? A LOT harder than any CFL or any other type of glass bulb that happen to IMMEDIATELY release mercury and phosphorous.
You ask me. I think all these "fear mongering" LED stories are a form of energy companies not liking the idea of "cheap and efficient" lighting.

I agree it's hard to break an LED, you'd have to really try hard.

I really think it's just fear-mongering, but I'm not sure it's being done by the power companies. I don't see any problem with using LEDs. The only problem I see with CFLs is if you break them and it's not that hard to not break them if you follow the tips I just posted.

Originally posted by pauljs75
Pretty much all electrical things do. (Contain cancer causing chemicals.) There's additives to the plastics in wires and electrical cords to keep them pliable and fire resistant that aren't exactly healthy for you. Then pretty much all the "magic smoke" kept in all diodes/resistors/capacitors/etc. in electronics are not exactly pleasant either.

Great post and I agree, though it's not limited to just electronics.

Fire retardant materials are also added to flooring materials like carpeting, and some people think the material in vinyl floors and other construction materials is harmful. As you said, the tightness of the house has a lot to do with whether these chemicals are vented outside, or whether they are trapped in the house to concentration levels that might concern us. After I installed new carpets in a fairly well insulated house, I would come home and open all the windows and sit on the deck while the fumes aired out, before I went inside. I suspect a whole house of new carpet may put out more fumes than a tiny little CFL bulb. I did some things along these lines:

How to Get Rid of New Carpet Fumes

But your point is well taken that many modern materials emit such fumes.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"And of course there are tips for not breaking them at the end of that pdf. I've been using them for over 10 years and I've never broken one. If you follow those tips you probably won't break one either."

So what if you've never broken one? So what if the epa has tips in pdf format on their website? These bulbs are dangerous and they should be advertised as such on the packaging not just on some website that millions of people do not have access to.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Has everyone saying they're switching to LEDs researched LEDs?

You have to wade through the fear mongering to get to the real facts about what the best alternatives are. Few seem to get that far.

Yes, and compared to incandescent and fluorescent, they are superior. As others have said, there are carcinogens in almost any device. Just a simple transistor can put out toxic fumes. Surely it would be in the best interest as far as profit goes to keep people using incandescent bulbs. I think plasma bulbs are even more efficient than led, but when will they be "widely" available for a low cost? It will probably be like nanosolar, you know, like never..

Originally posted by Freezer
Just a simple transistor can put out toxic fumes.

ooops... I just knocked over my transistor clock radio.... "Everyone.... open all the windows and clear out of the house!!!"