02-20-2007, 11:15 AM
Note the joy expressed in this article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_o...the_bulb_2
after all, they're saving the world.
So, what may be one of those pesky "unintended consequences"?
http://www.io.com/~dstroup/mercury.html
I've read 2 articles now on mandated changing to CFLs. Neither mentioned Hg. Only the latter one mentioned that many bulbs have different bases, and can't be replaced.
I do see it is being addressed:
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
But, the assumptions here are:
A CFL will last 5 years (we've lost 1 in 2 years), that you burn coal for electricity, and that the Hg escapes from the power plant.
Meanwhile, there is no doubt that w/ CFLs the Hg will be concentrated in landfills, and able to creep into the water.
Use CFLs if you want to. There are pros and cons. But this notion of how these eco-wackos are saving the planet has got to go.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_o...the_bulb_2
after all, they're saving the world.
So, what may be one of those pesky "unintended consequences"?
http://www.io.com/~dstroup/mercury.html
I've read 2 articles now on mandated changing to CFLs. Neither mentioned Hg. Only the latter one mentioned that many bulbs have different bases, and can't be replaced.
I do see it is being addressed:
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
But, the assumptions here are:
A CFL will last 5 years (we've lost 1 in 2 years), that you burn coal for electricity, and that the Hg escapes from the power plant.
Meanwhile, there is no doubt that w/ CFLs the Hg will be concentrated in landfills, and able to creep into the water.
Use CFLs if you want to. There are pros and cons. But this notion of how these eco-wackos are saving the planet has got to go.