« Another Set of Tips on Being Greener | Home | More Disturbing Evidence of Global Warming »
Not All CFL Bulbs Are The Same
By Mark Schauss | January 19, 2009
I recently received a newsletter from the Environmental Working Group, a lobby group for the environment in Washington D.C., which had some very important information in it. There is a lot of talk about the use of compact fluorescent light-bulbs but there is a problem with some of them because of excessive mercury. Which ones are the best? This report gives you the answer.
One of the important items that EWG talks about in the link above is the need by the Obama Administration to upgrade the Energy Star rating system for electronic products as it was set aside under outgoing President Bush. Here are the main points of the proposal EWG has made and hopefully will be put into effect soon:
- Lowering the maximum mercury content in each CFL bulb to 3 milligrams (mg). This measure would save 225 pounds of mercury for every 100 million bulbs.
- Creating a tiered (“Platinum,” “Gold,” “Silver”) rating system to reward creative companies that produce the highest efficiency, longest-lived bulbs with the lowest mercury content.
- Updating minimum requirements every 2 years instead of every 5 years, to take advantage of rapidly changing technology and fierce competition among bulb makers vying for bigger shares of the green-products market.
- Adopt an independently verifiable mercury content limit for CFL bulbs. Energy Star requires only that the manufacturers file a statement about bulb mercury content with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
The sad thing about today’s Energy Star program is that many light bulbs sold in the U.S. which bear the symbol that they are energy efficient cannot be sold in Europe as they contain too much mercury. Even more frustrating is that CFLs do not need the mercury to work.
In the past, I’ve been criticized by some because they claim that any mercury is too much. The research I have done shows that by using these bulbs you actually reduce mercury in the atmosphere. Here is the reason given by the people at EWG to back up my assertion:
Coal-fired electrical plants are a major source of mercury emissions, totaling 104 tons of mercury across the U.S. annually. Energy Star calculates that each CFL bulb generates 70 percent less mercury pollution than a comparable incandescent bulb.
Not only that, but the amount of other toxins that are spewed into our atmosphere would go down as well by reducing the energy needed to light our homes. Do yourself a favor and read the report and get the bulbs that have the least amount of mercury. That way you can vote with your wallet. That is something businesses really listen to.
Topics: Environment, heavy metals, Mercury, Opinion, Our World, Research, Toxicity | 2 Comments »
January 27th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Yes, I recognize the advantages of the CFL bulb, but we need ZERO tolerance for Hg, considering the ugly situation with regards to the pandemic of autism, related disorders and gov/ind lies. This is like the “trace” amounts permitted in vaccines, it is a lie that even the smallest amount can or should be tolerated. A zero merc CFL or its equivalent can be manufactured, that’s the ONLY solution and it is imperative.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I disagree with the zero tolerance. That would cause more mercury to be put into the environment. Zero tolerance is a noble thought but it is not how change is made. A zero mercury CFL is possible but is impractible at this time as well as being too expensive. This is not acceptable.
When amounts of total mercury can be lowered we need to do it. We must demand better bulbs. This is not like vaccines though. That was intolerable as it injected it into children.
By not using them, you increase the exposure of everyone to mercury due to an increase in the use of coal to generate energy thereby releasing mercury into the atmosphere. This is not right im my opinion.
Let’s all work to getting all mercury out of all products but we have to do it intelligently.