Bachman (R-MN) Wants To Block Switch To CFLs - She's All Concerned About Mercury, You See . . .

[hatrack]

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Michele Bachmann wants to put the brake on a national conversion from conventional incandescent light bulbs to energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, has sponsored the "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act," which would repeal the national phase-out of the old bulbs. "This is about freedom, this is about consumer rights," she said.

President Bush signed an energy bill last December that mandates phasing in energy-saving light bulbs starting in 2012.

Under Bachmann's legislation, the phase-out would be repealed unless Congress' Government Accountability Office can demonstrate that it would lead to real savings in energy costs, lead to significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and not cause a health risk to people. Bachmann said she's concerned that the mercury content in fluorescent light bulbs could pose a danger.

EDIT

http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=16&a=334771

[theredpen]

1. Mercury is dangerous

And a lot of disposed mercury vapor bulbs in land fills could result in a lot of mercury in the ground water.

I'm not saying that Rep. Bachmann isn't a full-of-shit Republican, but mercury pollution is nothing to be laughed at.

[Warpy]

3. What is worse, a small amount of mercury vapor in a CFL

or the extra mercury pumped into the air by coal fired power plants used to keep energy hog incandescent bulbs burning?

Eventually, there needs to be a yearly recycling program for dead CFLs. That would take care of the pollution problem by salvaging and reusing the mercury vapor.

That's the solution, not allowing head up the butt conservatives to avoid change in their narrow little lives.

[Nihil]

4. Yeah right ...

Read some of the past threads on this subject and you will see that
a CFL *reduces* the amount of mercury put into the groundwater.

This is just FUD from a Republican bullshitter.

"Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act"? :wtf:

[theredpen]

7. Didn't know that.

I'll have to look those up, thanks.

[Nihil]

20. Good luck.

I sympathise with those who are genuinely susceptible to the small
amount of UV produced by (any) fluorescent tubes (CFL or standard tubes).

On the other hand, you will have to try to reach beyond the standard
RW response of "*eek* mercury in CFLs" and recognise the real issues.

As I said above, good luck!

:toast:

[Viking12]

9. She's no ordinary Republican bullshitter

She's certified batshit crazy.

[depakid]

10. She is quite literally delusional

Nothing the woman ever says or does surprises me. It's actually to the point of being embarrassing to her district.

On the mercury point, "too bad" that Richard Pombo's not still around- then we could really have an entertaining debate about Mercury!

[TreasonousBastard]

11. ALL fluorescents contain mercury, including...

the four and eight footers universally installed in every kitchen, office, factory, and store in the country. And millions of those have in the past been dumped into landfills. Sodium, mercury vapor, high intensity discharge and other commercial lamps also contain mercury.

CFLs contain less mercury than other fluroescent tubes, and we now have recylcing programs for them. Even if they do get dumped into landfills, modern ones are lined to contain contaminents. All told, converting to CFLs shouldn't increase the risk of mercury contamination at all.

I'm still trying to figure out where this backlash against CFLs is really coming from, but, while waiting to figure that out, I'm also waiting for that particular antipollution crowd to hurry up and clean up the existing messes, like mercury contamination, from past mistakes.

[theredpen]

12. I have to admit I have an anti-CFL bias.

My wife has Lupus and can't tolerate the UV produced by CFLs. I'd like to try LED lighting, but it's prohibitively expensive right now. We conserve energy however we can, but CFLs are right out. The proliferation of this technology has forced her to go out covered up, including what appears to be a hijab, so she's learning all about anti-Muslim bigotry in this country. Fun. She just bought a "burkini" (full-covering bathing suit) so she can swim at our health club (pool lit by mercury vapor lamps). The health club is attached to the Baptist General Convention headquarters, so we'll have to see how that goes. :scared:

Other than that, I support energy-saving bulbs (incandescent bulbs are appallingly inefficient). The OP seemed to be trivializing mercury pollution, although now I understand it was just mockery of the wingnut Representative.

Thanks for the info.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. I didn't realize that some people are that sensitive to UV, but...

years ago I had UV shields for 4 and 8 foot tubes in my catalogues. I also had a the same size tubes with filters built in. These were for galleries and other places where it was thought UV could cause damage.

I would assume that there are similar filtered CFLs avaiable now, somewhere, but it might take a while to find them. A few minutes with Google didn't help at all.

(Good luck with the Baptists)

[theredpen]

14. We know all about the UV filters...

My wife was a collections manager. A UV filter sleeve for a fluorescent are $6-$10 a piece and need to be replaced at least every two years. You could construct your own filters from laminate thats about $5-$7 a square foot. Of course, that doesn't help if you're out and about under unfiltered light.

This sort of stuff is available at gaylord.com, among other places.

"Good luck with the Baptists"

Thanks, we'll need it.

[eppur_se_muova]

19. Do you know if your wife is sensitive to both UVA and UVB ?

Most sunscreens *sold in the USA* have SPF ratings that apply only to UVB whereas those sold in Europe and Canada have PPD ratings for UVA as well (thanks, FDA!).

(I'm sure you've already heard a lot about this through lupus.org etc, but I keep hearing about problems that some people have with CFL's and so am trying to learn more about potential solutions.)

[philb]

15. CFLs have large amounts of mercury cumulatively, and potential to cause major problems if not recycl

ed

only 1/2 gram is required to contaminate the ecosystem and fish of a 10 acre lake to the extent that a health warning would be issued by the government to not eat the fish. CFLs actually contribute large amounts of mercury, enough to contaminate large areas, and should only be used if there is a serious, effective recycling program. I think most places now there is not. Don't we need such programs now?
They can also be problematic in home if broken.

The amount of mercury contributed by the difference in electricity depends on the generation source- only coal plants or incinerators have much mercury emissions.

Mercury is the most common cause of many chronic health conditions, such as CFS, MS, Lupus, Depression, many oral conditions, etc.
www.flcv.com/indexa.html

and there is worldwide mercury proliferation with dangerous levels of mercury in the fish in over 30% of U.S. water bodies.
www.flcv.com/damspr2f.html

LED lighting doesn't have mercury and appears to be progressing cost wise.

[Nihil]

21. The word "bullshit" springs to mind ...

Most people who could be bothered to buy CFLs rather than standard
cheap & nasty incandescents are more than capable of finding the
correct bin in their local disposal/recycle site.

> CFLs actually contribute large amounts of mercury, enough to contaminate
> large areas, and should only be used if there is a serious, effective
> recycling program

This is nothing but bullshit. Absolute and utter bullshit.

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this crap here.
You might get away with it in GD (depending on how fast things are
moving) and I'm sure you would get away with it in the Lounge
(given how much attention is paid to the environment there)
but here, this is just bullshit and you are being called on it.

> LED lighting doesn't have mercury and appears to be progressing cost wise.

This is all well and good (I'm doing it in several rooms myself) but your
approach to CFLs is overly negative - even LEDs have their problems (in terms
of environmental cost) but your slag off of CFLs is totally unsupportable.

[Viking12]

22. Not just bullshit. Anti-vax woo bullshit.

While environmental methyl mercury is a ongoing problem, we need to talk about it rationally.

[philb]

23. CFLs have enough mercury to contaminate all fish to dangerous levels in over 5 million acres of lake

s, according to the Electric Power Research Institute.

Each CFL has approx. 5 milligrams of mercury, and if we only consider homes, which is a big underestimate that would give at least 2.5 million milligrams of mercury being disposed of per year. According to EPRI it only takes 1/2 gram of mercury to contaminate all fish in in a 10 acre lake. So this estimate of 2.5 million milligrams per year is an extremely conservative estimate of total per year.

Already over 30% of U.S. lakes, rivers, and bays have dangerous levels of mercury from emissions, and this would add greatly to that total if there was no recycling program.

EPA says that there are currently few recycling programs for CFLs nor major programs by the stores that sell them. This is potentially a very big problem that will affect everyone significantly if a program isn't implemented.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't use CFLs, just that if they are going to be used, recycling programs need to be implemented now; since there are already CFLs starting to be disposed of. And we already have a major mercury problem, with much of the salt water and fresh water fish having dangerous levels of mercury,
and a national survey of people finding that over 22% of all Americans already have dangerous levels of mercury,

and mercury being the most common cause of many chronic degenerative health conditions like MS, Lupus, CFS, depression, etc.

[Nihil]

26. How do you think it got there?

> Already over 30% of U.S. lakes, rivers, and bays have dangerous levels
> of mercury from emissions, and this would add greatly to that total if
> there was no recycling program.

Wrong. The reduction in power used is REDUCING the mercury from "emissions"
more than it could possibly add if every CFL bulb was deliberately broken
into a lake once it had failed.


> EPA says that there are currently few recycling programs for CFLs
> nor major programs by the stores that sell them. This is potentially
> a very big problem that will affect everyone significantly if a program
> isn't implemented.

Did you ask EPA what they currently do with all of the standard tube
fluorescents that are used in practically every office, shop & warehouse
in the land (not to mention some homes)? If not, after all the decades
of such tube use and the relative volumes of each, would it not be a far
better idea to address the oldest problem first? (There's a hidden bonus
in this approach: once you have the ability to safely process tube
fluorescents, you also have the ability to safely process CFLs using
exactly the same mechanism.)

> I'm not saying that people shouldn't use CFLs, just that if they are
> going to be used, recycling programs need to be implemented now;
> since there are already CFLs starting to be disposed of.

FWIW, I've had to dispose of two CFLs in 13 years and two 4' tubes in
the same timescale. The savings from having those lights instead of the
equivalent incandescent bulbs were not only in cash (my pocket) but in
reduced power station emissions (everyone's lungs, water and food).

Suitable disposal programs exist in the UK and the US - the challenge is
to get people to use them - but even if they didn't, the mercury from a
CFL is contained in the land-fill, not evenly spread across the atmosphere
and the water supply ... where your "22% of all Americans" have been acting
as mercury absorbers for the coal industry.

[philb]

31. You appear to be a PolyAnna on this. Things aren't always the way you would like in reality.

If millions of bulbs are used, millions will be disposed of, and most don't currently go to recycling. Virtually all bulbs that go to the landfill will be broken when the garbage is compacted, and the ORNL studies have documented that mercury in landfills is a significant source of air emissions. You saw the numbers that I calculated related to CFLs- that were very conservative. The problem is that this adds to the other sources that also aren't being reduced much. And we already have a serious problem.
I'm not aware of any serious recycling programs that are set up to recover significant portions of CFLs. And I follow such to some extent. EPA doesn't seem to be aware of any or many. You can assume that there will be some if you like, but such only happens if there is someone to make it happen. I'm not aware of any major effort in this regard currently.

While coal plant mercury is a problem, emissions related to dental amalgam (largest source of mercury in sewers and thus in sludge where its outgased) and from other sources in landfills are also siginficant sources. As I noted, these sources alone are enough to contaminate all fish in large numbers of water bodies to dangerous levels. Unless we start controlling all mercury sources, it is becoming dangerous to eat fish in general, and its hard to find a good source of some of the omega-3s to replace fish. Currently most fish from the Gulf coast and freshwater fish like bass are contaminated with dangerous levels of mercury. In states like Florida and New York, over 30% of people surveyed had dangerous levels of mercury. And the test used is known to greatly understate the real body burden. And the fact that large numbers of people are having serious adverse health effects already from mercury is well documented. We need to reduce mercury levels drastically, not increase it or keep it about the same. Most people are currently adversely affected by mercury already.

The utility that provides my power has no coal plants, the largest utility in Florida gets only 16% of its power from coal plants currently, and less in the future. But China and India are adding coal plants and emmissions rapidly, so I see no indication that mercury levels will be reduced unless this issue is taken more seriously, and serious measures implemented. Both global and local sources are important for local areas and both need to be dealth with.
I agree that emissions from coal plants need to be controlled, but adding more to the already huge amount of mercury circulating in the ecosystem is a bad idea. Thats why people need to take the mercury issue seriously, and insure that recycle programs for CFLs are implemented that the majority will participate in before mandating widespread use of them. And I agree that more needs to be done about the global prolieration of mercury from coal plants as well.
There does not appear to be a serious program to control any of the 3 sources we are discussing here to me- coal plants,dental amalgam (30 tons per year contaminates a lot of fish), or CFLs.

[Nihil]

34. I apologise - I didn't realise the US was that far behind.

As I mentioned, I was going from the UK experience but after reading
a bit more, I see that your pessimism is more deserved in the US than
I originally thought.

Basically, in the UK, all of the Household Waste Recycling Centres have
facilities for recycling fluorescent tubes and low energy light bulbs.
Ask the operator where to put them. Alternatively, contact your local
council environmental services department - you can find their details
at http://www.direct.gov.uk

If you need to dispose of a CFL bulb in the USA, the EPA advise you to
visit http://www.earth911.org but if details for your area are unavailable
please contact your local authority for more information. Again, there
*are* places (even in Florida :P ) that will take fluorescent bulbs but
it does sound more patchy coverage and I have no idea how close they are
to you.

If you live near an IKEA store (http://www.ikea.com), why not give them
a call as they offer CFL recycling bins in stores across the world.
In their fiscal 2006 year, IKEA recycled 156,301 pounds of CFLs.
Connecticut even gave them an award for being the good guys in this.

As of 1 July last year, business owners across the UK could now find
themselves fined or prosecuted if they continue to put old fluorescent
lamps and tubes out for rubbish collection because of the WEEE directive.

We2 – a free collection and lighting recycling advice service – is launched
to help organisations avoid fines for not recycling. (London only at first
but hoping to roll out nationwide.)
http://www.worksmanagement.co.uk/article/12975/Help-to-recycle-fluorescent-tubes.aspx

And there are the specific companies themselves:
http://www.mercuryrecycling.co.uk/mercury.htm

This one even mentions your pet topic: dental amalgam!
(BTW, I am not associated in any way with the above companies; just wanted
to put the links there for any UK readers who may be interested.)

Again, sorry for being a bit abrupt: I am just fed up with the "Let's keep
using incandescents because CFLs contain *MERCURY*" arguments. I suspect
it will devolve to the same state as the "Let's keep driving 16mpg heaps
of shit because most sensible cars are *FOREIGN*" threads where, again,
it is the US vs. the world.

:hi:

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Wonderful. Let Bush's team of top-notch scientister guys

do some studies. That oughtta clear it up.

[hatrack]

5. It all comes down to where you'd like your mercury - in your groundwater, or in your surface water

Everything else is just more AEI-style bullshit.

[philb]

16. If you bury mercury, it doesn't stay buried. Landfills and sludge are major mercury emissions source

DEP/Oak Ridge National Laboratory studies document that soil bacteria in land fills or where sewer sludge with mercury is spread convert the mercury to methyl mercury and also mercury has high vapor pressure and vaporizes continuously to mercury vapor, which are both outgased from land spread areas or landfills when the sun shines.

www.flcv.com/damspr2f.html

[eppur_se_muova]

6. I'm sure a State Representative can't spare the time to Google "compact bulb recycle"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+compact+bulb+recycle&btnG=Google+Search

Oops, too many hits. Lets make that

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+compact+bulb+recycle+minnesota&btnG=Search

Oh, the local power company will help you recycle them --

http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,2914,1-1-2_737_3758_3563-2898-5_406_651-0,00.html

but how much do they charge?

Either take your used fluorescents to your county recycling center and we’ll cover the cost or take a trip to a participating area retailer and we’ll help you pay their recycling fee with 50¢ off coupons.

Gosh, maybe the state gov't is unaware of the danger presented by mercury! Shouldn't they do something?

Fluorescent bulbs and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps contain a small amount of mercury, and Minnesota law requires special handling of their disposal.

Well, gee I don't know, maybe ... um ... give me time, I'll come up with some stupid reason to make doing Business As Usual the law.








edit: stupid alphabet.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Republicans can't spell "recycle"

Every time they try, it comes out as "toxic death"

[philb]

17. I checked your URLs and the ones I saw seem rather expensive. How many do you think use them?

Are you saying that there are convenient, cost effective ways to recycle CFLs in some areas?
Which areas have them?
I'm not aware of any where I am, and not aware that any are being recycled.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. IKEA recycles them for free, thought it's not clear if you have to have ...

bought your bulb/lamp there.

My impression is that it is best to check with your local municipality first. If it is not too small a town they will at least collect bulbs, which they then have recycled by a commercial recycler.

A somewhat spotty list can be found at http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/support_files/list.html . Ironically, MN seems to have more than its share of options. But again, many of the companies on this list appear to be in the business of collecting from municipilaties and corporate customers, not from individuals, so local municipal recycling centers are the place to start. You can search for the nearest one at http://earth911.org/ . Be warned -- I had some problems with the search tool (at the top -- enter 'fluorescent' and your location) not properly registering the distance if I tried to change it from the default. I ended up editing the URL directly, and that worked. Once I found the nearest county recycling center (I'm out in the boonies) I just search for the county web page and it had more info than any of the dedicated recycling pages. It turns out you can drop off any form of fluorescent bulbs if you are a county resident. (They also list recycling centers for NiCads!)

And finally ...

Some environmental advocates advise to simply store old bulbs until recycling becomes more widespread.

Don't bury yourself with guilt

If you really must dispose of your bulbs, think about this: the small amount of mercury you're "putting into play" with each bulb is offset by the amounts of mercury not put into play by coal-fired power plants. So, while it's not good to throw these away, net-net, you come out ahead in doing good for the environment.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/industries/retail/article/15minute-tip-recycle-compact-fluorescents_518276_7.html

Foxbusiness?? Oh, the irony ...

[philb]

24. I don't think many are within distance of an existing recycle center that they will travel there to

dispose of their CFLs. Unless a more serious and publicized program is promoted, I would guess most are going to the landfill and will continue to do so. EPA says there aren't many serious programs currently and that more needs to be done to implement them, and that most big stores like Wall-Mart that sell them don't have recycle programs implemented.

So since the CFLs have enough mercury to contaminate millions of acres of lakes (per year), this is a big problem that is not being seriously adressed so far. And over 22% of Americans already have dangerous levels of mercury according to a national survey,and millions with health problems caused by mercury already.
I don't understand why the disposal problem isn't being taken more seriously.

[eppur_se_muova]

27. Worth noting that the problem has ALWAYS existed with standard fluorescent lamps...

it's just that no one worried so much about them.

Yes, more should be done; I saved the package my bulbs came in, so when they burn out I can safely store them until that one day every N months when I happen to be heading close to a recycling center anyway. I haven't had even one burn out yet, so it's still a hypothetical.

It appears that my nearest recycling center is in the next county. At my previoius address, there was one reasonably close by, despite the fact it was a much more sparsely populated county. Here I'm in an actual city, and no municipal recycling center for fluorescents. :shrug:

And remember, if your electric company burns coal, the amount of Hg NOT released into the atmosphere because you saved electricity with CFLs is much greater than the amount in the CFLs.

[diane in sf]

25. I have a vision problem with CFLs, so I don't use them where I have to read.

I have very middle-aged eyes from too much computer and reading time, and sun exposure. I think cheap LEDs are where we have to go.

[kestrel91316]

29. Sadly, LEDs are piss-poor at actually ILLUMINATING anything.

They are good at being very bright to look directly at.

So they are great for stop lights and signage, but horrible as a source of useful illumination.

[Zachstar]

30. Only the cheapo ones are used as spotlights.

The better bulbs that I have seen are constructed to evenly space the light out.

Also research continues at better LEDs for use in home light situations. Remember that LED technology even these days is CONSTANTLY improving!

It was not all that long ago where all you can get were red and yellow LEDs for a reasonable price.

[NNadir]

33. Why am I not surprised?

This sort of reminds me of when the Rock star Sting, who expends brazillions of watts of power for endless hours at each concert, and who is infinitely proud of how much he can consume - making movies that say, "I am Sting, and I have more money than you!" and how many consumer children he can breed, sings all about his "concern" over nuclear power.

The moral idiot actually had the balls to sing about his opposition to nuclear power in Paris. Under brazillion watt incandescent flood lights designed to light up his asinine face.

I hear these bizarre renditions about how the light from CFLs is no good and I wonder about the extent to which this would take place if CFLs were replacing say, candles.

I've been reading using CFL light for more than a decade now. My vision isn't great, but I can't say that I've been stumbling like a blind man because I can't have my wasteful incandescent. I read thousands of pages a week.

Invariably when you push against a yuppie anti-nuke, you hear excuses and rationalizations galore.

Incandescents suck, because they kill people. OK?

[kestrel91316]

28. Worst example of IGNORANT nimbyism I've ever seen.....

She wants the vast amounts of mercury released by all that wasted coal burned for electricity to wind up in anyone else's back yard, rather than having to be a responsible person every 8-10 years and not shatter her used CFLs (with their TINY amounts of mercury)all over her home. And she DEFINITELY wants to be able to continue to throw her used lightbulbs "away" rather than proper hazmat disposal.

What a useless waste of oxygen she is......

[marmar]

32. That woman takes The Crazy to a whole new level....

:crazy: