A broken 13-watt CFL bulb will only have released 30% of its mercury a full four days after it is broken—the remainder is trapped in the bulb. So picking up shards with your bare hands or leaving them in poorly ventilated room while you ponder the best disposal method is a particularly bad idea. Unfortunately, there is no good solution for cleaning up after a broken CFL bulb. Researchers at Brown are testing a cloth made with a nanomaterial (nanoselim) that can capture mercury emissions for proper disposal. But until this is commercially available, it is best to avoid CFLs altogether. And how will we dispose of the clean-up cloth? General Electric claims that CFLs don’t produce a hazardous amount of UV radiation, and that UV is far less than the amount produced by natural daylight. The truth is that all compact fluorescent lights bulbs contain mercury vapor. Once that vapor is hit with an electric current, it emits a great number of UV rays. UV rays are theoretically absorbed by the layer of phosphor that coats the bulbs—but the signature twisted spiral shape makes these bulbs more prone to cracks in the phosphor, which dramatically increases UV/mercury exposure. Researchers found cracks in almost all bulbs purchased from retail stores , indicating that it is a standard design flaw of these bulbs. CFL bulbs contains other cancer-causing chemicals as well. German scientists found that several different chemicals and toxins were released when CFLs are turned on, including naphthalene (which has been linked to cancer in animals ) and styrene (which has been declared “a likely human carcinogen ”). A sort of electrical smog develops around these lamps, which could be dangerous. CFLs are supposedly better for the environment, but according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 98% of CFLs end up in landfills—creating a mercury build-up that can escape into our soil and waterways . We’re happy that the federal government is tackling environmental problems, but this “solution” is especially short-sighted—and not unlike the national smart meter push , is creating serious health risks in the long-term. Worse, soon consumers won’t have the option to buy incandescent lights—they simply won’t be available. The government hasn’t placed an outright ban on incandescent light bulbs. Section 321 of EISA mandates higher efficiency standards for general service lamps. But these standards are high enough that most commonly used incandescent bulbs just won’t meet the new requirements. EISA will effectively eliminate 40-, 60-, 75-, and 100-watt incandescent bulbs. The new efficiency levels will be in full force by 2014 . Even the United Nations has acknowledged the problem of mercury in CFL bulbs, and has instated a ban on certain types of CFLs. We won’t know the full implications of that ban until the treaty is made publically available. The good news is that CFLs are not the only energy-efficient bulbs out there. There are also light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which are mercury-free—though LEDs emit blue light, which can be disruptive to sleep, as we noted in our 2012 article. Action Alert! Please contact your legislators immediately and call for a repeal of the ban on incandescent lights. Tell them about the cancer risks and the lack of proper disposal methods.Please take action today! Take Action 95 Responses to “Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs: A New Cancer Risk in Your Home” * Susan says:August 9, 2013 at 9:45 pm As someone with (medical) photosensitivity I hate these bulbs as they cause me actual pain as I react to them indoors. There was absolutely no thought to people with lupus and other auto immune diseases when they forced these bulbs on us. Some people even suffer seizures. How exactly are we supposed to work and live? Do I wear a beekeepers or hazmat suit to function?! How about mandating UV filters on all of these lights in public places? Or is that not goingto make anyone money? I didn’t get to vote on this. 0 likesReply * Harvey says:July 18, 2013 at 4:58 pm Your facts are a bit skewed. You state: Even more shocking, the recommended limit for children is a mere 0.2 mcg/m3. A child exposed to a broken CFL bulb will receive eight thousand times the recommended amount of mercury vapor! In response I say: if the mercury is vaporized, the child (or any other person) will only receive a tiny fraction of the mercury emitted. Then you state: A broken 13-watt CFL bulb will only have released 30% of its mercury a full four days after it is broken—the remainder is trapped in the bulb. So picking up shards with your bare hands or leaving them in poorly ventilated room while you ponder the best disposal method is a particularly bad idea. In response I inquire – does the amount of mercury you made in the first statement reflect the 30% or are you leveraging the same numbers in two incompatible ways? 2 likesReply * ACBaughman says:June 24, 2013 at 4:13 pm I’ve noticed that these bulbs become loose from the mounting. I only bought them because I thought they could save money. I find that I actually am replacing them more often. This overrides the cost advantage to me. 1 likesReply * Eli says:May 30, 2013 at 5:21 am I also have a problem thinking of using CFL light bulbs in the overhood range of my stove. I wouldn’t want one of these light bulbs breaking over the stove I cook on. Or using one in my refrigerator. I don’t want one of these bulbs near my food supply or where I cook. And what if you live in earthquake prone area? Then what? I heard that LED bulbs will probably replace CFLs in the near future as the way to go. Hope it will be safer…. 5 likesReply * Heidi says:February 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm I don’t use CFL’s. I opt for the full spectrum, daylight correct light bulbs which burn for 5000-10000 hrs. 6 likesReply * Karen says:June 27, 2013 at 10:59 am Are the ” full spectrum” bulbs you use not fluorescent?. If they are fluorescent bulbs THEY CONTAIN MERCURY 1 likesReply * Dye Diet says:February 26, 2013 at 9:34 am I understand the reasoning in the article, BUT…. People, do NOT overreact. NATURAL irradiation of sunlight contains 10% of ultraviolet (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight) . DO NOT BREAK bulbs at home to avoid being exposed to TRACES of mercury. You cannot live the life fearing every corner. But what I do tell the public: WE need avoid CHEMICALS added INTENTIONALLY (as “food” additives) to our everyday food. 10 likesReply * Jan Martin says:February 25, 2013 at 5:31 pm When they first pushed these bulbs I sounded off about the mercury risks and since that time I’ve had countless numbers of people posting for advice on what to do because one of these light bulbs shattered with their toddler in the room and now they have been exposed to mercury. The problem with these light bulbs is if they break you are will have mercury vapor emitted into the room its in and it will be there for a while. And you will be exposed to it. And now we fill landfills with the CFL’s simply because no one is following the government recommendations for taking used bulbs to the hazardous waste facility. And that’s more environmental mercury. This is a not a viable solution to conserving energy. Using less in the first place would be a start. Compare the amount of electrical appliances used in the average 1950’s home, to the home of today and you will see why there is a problem iwth energy consumption. Either way, I don’t want these bulbs around my kids. 10 likesReply * Joanne T Becker says:February 25, 2013 at 3:14 pm I am about to find out if this is merely coincidence or not when I see my dermatologist this coming Friday: My reading lamp, next to which I sit every evening for 5-6 hrs has a compact fluorescent bulb, installed over a year ago, as well as my office desk lamp. (That one is snapping and popping, so the bulb will have to be replaced). I noticed recently that I have developed 2 small black moles. One is on my face, under my eye and the other on my left arm. Both areas are exposed constantly to the lights. I am 78 and have never had a black mole, and the one on my arm is growing larger. After reading about the relationship between the bulbs and melanoma, I am suspicious and somewhat worried. Stay tuned! 5 likesReply * O S says:February 22, 2013 at 10:24 pm When the government approves it beware! When they say that the levels of X are safe beware! This is the same government that says feeding chickens arsenic is safe; that GMOs are safe despite independent studies that show rats developing tumors and sterility; that declare raw milk unsafe despite centuries upon centuries of people safely consuming raw milk (and maintaining strong teeth see Weston Price); and on and on. Every normal person everywhere is going to wake up to all of this, and there’s nothing those that spread lies and disinformation can do. 10 likesReply * Arthur Corbin says:February 22,
Posted on: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 06:45:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015