'Green' lightbulbs poison workers and destroy the enviornment in China,

Run_to_da_hills

Hundreds of factory staff are being made ill by mercury used in bulbs destined for the European Union. When we are compelled to buy energy efficient light bulbs by 2012, they will save up to 5m tons of carbon dioxide a year from being pumped into the atmosphere. In China, however, a heavy environmental price is being paid for the production of “green” lightbulbs in cost-cutting factories.

Mercury mines are being reopened again in China that were once shut to to mercury toxins, people are now suffering from Mercury poisoning. China of course would not have a strict HSA to over see health and safety in factories and it would not surprise me if Children were employed just as in the clothing manufacturing.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6211261.ece

Nostradamus

I would like to say 'good post', but this is a sad story. Yet more victims of badly thought-out and implement so called "enviormental" government policy.

I wonder how many chinese workers have been killed by CFLs bulbs compared to Polar Bear learning to swim due to the old incandesent bulbs (one of the greatest technological, reliable and safe inventions of all time BTW).

The cat is out of the bag now with these CFL monstrosities. They are the asbestos contamination of the Green Age - a knee jerk solution to a problem which never existed in the first place and rushed onto the market for corporate greed and government sales tax revenue.

I suspect the reason why Gormley quietly put aside the lightbulb ban and passed it over the EU was because he knows just what a deadly mercury timebomb these CFL bulbs are. He did not want in 25 years time to be the minister who got the blame for forcing this mass mercury contamination on Ireland.

Mark my words, in 25 years time just like asbestos and lead paint removal today, houses and buildings in the future will be have their floorboards ripped out and plaster scrapped off the walls by specialist mercury removal technicians due to the gas having seeped out and entered into the structure of the building. Not to mention the terrible public health issues which will be affecting children the most. Diseases such as hydrargaria and mercurialism will be epidemic among the children of trendy green parents trying to save polar bears. It would be comical if not so depressing.

Even the Green Party knows (but would never admit it) that CFL lightbulbs are an ecological timebomb and major public health issue of the future. Hence why the lightbulb law was handed over to the EU to take the rap.

Judgement Day

While I agree with some of your points I think that you are being a bit simplistic on this issue. I changed over to CFL bulbs as soon as I could as I think that saving energy, the planet and, indeed, my own money is important. However, I have been worried from the outset about the disposal of the hazardous bulbs when they expire and there seems to be no plan in place to deal with the vast numbers of them that will give out about the same time! How many will/are ending up in landfill already?

I have to say that I had not even considered the safety implications of their manufacture, especially in totalitarian countries like China where safety and the environment are well down the list of concerns. I already encourage my children not to buy cheap plastic toys from China for the same reasons. How much of the World's oil resources are being frittered away to produce the 80/90% of the World's toys that come from China? Most of these toys last little longer than it takes to unpack them from the packaging.

However, back on topic, it is essential that we reduce our energy consumption and the CFL bulbs would appear to be part of the answer. The only way to stop them ending up in landfill is to put a refundable deposit on them which can be redeemed at the shop where bulbs are sold - like mineral bottles in the good old days. It follows that the returned CFL bulbs should not be exported to China or other Third World countries for recycling like so much of our present 'so-called' recycling.

Mike 1972

I have to say that I had not even considered the safety implications of their manufacture, especially in totalitarian countries like China where safety and the environment are well down the list of concerns.

This is the real issue. The problem isint so much that there is anything inherently wrong with CFL bulbs (they contain LESS mercury than the coal burned in generating the extra power for a non-CFL bulb) the problem is that we have virtually unrestricted movement in goods and services (but not people -but thats another story) from countries with far lower safety, labour, enviornmental and human rights standards than our own. :mad:

Hoagy

I'm doubtful about the accuracy of that report.
According to this report the principal uses for mercury in China are in PVC production and batteries.

Run_to_da_hills

I would be more fearful if one or several of these bulbs gets smashed in the house and they will with kids around. As it is the contents of a standard fluorescent bulbs is lethal if it gets in contact with an open wound. Mercury will also linger around for life and build up if it gets loose around the house.

SeanW

I would start by pointing out that Nuclear electricity + incandescent bulbs = no mercury :cool: (or CO2, or arsenic or Acid Rain components) so we have that option if and when we grow up.

That having been said I am a fan of CFL lightbulbs and most of the bulbs in my house are CFL, but I do see their limitations. Effectively, under the principles of natural justice, noone should be forced to use a CFL light where:

1. There is an increased risk of breakage - which can be for any number of reasons.
2. The light is only to be used for a short time, each time - such as attics, cupboards bathrooms etc.
3. The light will be subject to frequent on-off switching or use in a dimmerswitch - these are all problems for the safety and longevity of CFLs.
4. A "warmer" kind of light is required, such as high end lighting assemblies in living rooms etc.
5. Where there is no good recycling system in place - we now have WEEE regulations but I really have to wonder.

This is why - despite being a CFL fan and environmentalist - I opposed, and continue to oppose any new, incandescent lightbulb ban. Until such time as we have a lighting technology that works as well as incandescent, without serious downsides, and is more efficient, an incandescent bulb ban is just eco-craziness taken to a new level.

Judgement Day

environmentalist :pac:..........................

robtri

typical scaremongering .....

mercury poisioning in China has been going on for years and CFL bulbs are not responsible.. they play a part alright but not responsible....

if you don't want a CFL use LED.... mercury free and even way more efficient than CFL...

Nostradamus

robtri wrote: »

typical scaremongering .....

Like Al Gore's crackpot movie so.

robtri

Nostradamus wrote: »

Like Al Gore's crackpot movie so.

haven't seen his movie, or have any desire to watch rubbish like that

djpbarry

Nostradamus wrote: »

Mark my words, in 25 years time just like asbestos and lead paint removal today, houses and buildings in the future will be have their floorboards ripped out and plaster scrapped off the walls by specialist mercury removal technicians due to the gas having seeped out and entered into the structure of the building.

What gas?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would be more fearful if one or several of these bulbs gets smashed in the house and they will with kids around.

That’s a compelling argument for getting rid of most of the electrical/electronic appliances/devices in your house.

SeanW wrote: »

I would start by pointing out that Nuclear electricity + incandescent bulbs = no mercury...

So mercury is not used in the manufacture of anything other than CFLs? And let’s leave the discussion of nuclear power to the relevant threads please.

SeanW

robtri wrote: »

typical scaremongering .....

There's a lot of that going around .....

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a compelling argument for getting rid of most of the electrical/electronic appliances/devices in your house.

Right, because the kids are as likely to smash the refrigerator as one of those CFLs (particularly when not installed)?

And let’s leave the discussion of nuclear power to the relevant threads please.

I was responding to a post by Mike1972:

(they contain LESS mercury than the coal burned in generating the extra power for a non-CFL bulb)

A common defense by incandescent bashers is that even if every CFL got thrown in a landfill and smashed or whatever when spent, the mercury emissions into the ecosphere would be less than that of using coal fired power to power the incandescent lights over the CFLs lifetime.

Which may be true but it brings to mind certain obvious questions. Which is what I tried to get at with my reply. The problem is - to my mind - much more nuanced than simple comparisons like the one described above.

Judgement Day

robtri wrote: »

haven't seen his movie, or have any desire to watch rubbish like that

Nothing like having an open mind.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Right, because the kids are as likely to smash the refrigerator as one of those CFLs (particularly when not installed)?

If a kid smashed a CFL, I’d be far more concerned about them cutting their hands on the broken glass than I would be about them succumbing to mercury poisoning.

Run_to_da_hills

Energy saving bulbs 'release cancer causing chemicals', say scientists

I always had suspicion about these bulbs, just like nuclear power, they may be economical but when something goes wrong with them they can turn nasty. I was also told that if one breaks in a child's bedroom it will leave a toxic dust for months. soaking into the carpet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1378757/Energy-saving-bulbs-release-cancer-causing-chemicals-say-scientists.html

Hal Emmerich

Don't use a hoover to clean up a broken CFL, use a broom and wet cloth. That way you wont blow it all over the room.

djpbarry

The thread's two years old guys - not sure a Daily Mail article is sufficient reason to rehash the same arguments.