Do florescent lights have disadvantages?

Why does it seem that no one uses florescent lighting? They cost about $5 a bulb, compared to $0.50. However the fact that they last 10,000 hours instead of 750 more than makes up for the money spent. On top of that they use only a third of the electricity that regular bulbs do.

Would anyone complain if the government banned incandescent bulbs tomorrow?

Everything has disadvantages from some perspective... they are harsh, can't be dimmed, don't work well outdoors in cold weather, ballasts burn out, etc.

Every photograph you take without a magenta filter would be green as hell!!!

disposal, if they weren't so numerous!

mostly because I hate keeping to replace bulbs all the time. I can't say I've seen much of a decrease on the electric bill, but it's under $25 in the winter and under $35 in summer, so I can't complain.

Oh, yes, and I'm a power miser. If I aint usin' it, it's OFF.

Each bulb contains about 20 mm of mercury, so when they break, they expose people to that heavy metal either directly (breathing the mercury vapor from a bulb broken while in use) or indirectly (if thrown into a landfill). Additionally, the balast used in fluorescent bulbs is considered a hazardous waste product. So the energy savings from fluorscent bulb use have to be weighed against pollution consequences. If you use fluorescent bulbs, be sure to recycle them. If you are a renter, do not leave fluorescent bulbs behind, since you can't know if the next tenant will dispose of them properly.

They are also bad for some individuals because many fluorescent bulbs flicker and the light can lead to fatigue and eyestrain. Sometimes fluorescent bulbs are also associated with "sick buildings," buildings whose indoor air quality and lighting contribute to unusually high illness/absentee rates.

although that seems like a huge (relatively speaking) amount of mercury.

20 mg.

That's according to the State of New Jersey. You can read the PDF conveniently as HTML thanks to Google here.

a few compact fluorescents around the house in closets etc., and I had assumed they were a good choice based on lifespan and energy usage. Now I'm not so sure.

then they are probably still a good choice for areas like closets. Otherwise, you can't beat a good window.

What bothers me about the fluorescent bulbs is that there is no requirement for the return of burnt out bulbs postage paid to any fluorescent bulb manufacturer. In cities, finding a recycler to take such products isn't that hard, but in rural areas, it is usually impossible.

Seems that with the number of people out of work here and elsewhere, the purchase and sale of CFL bulbs bulk AND recycling them may be a nice niiche market...

JM

from electrical generation.

I have not done the calculation, but I would expect that the Mercury output from coal fired electrical plants would exceed the mercury output from discarded fluorescent bulbs. As much as I think we should do so, coal fired plants will not be shut soon, and so the consumption of electricity (no matter how it is used) results in the release of mercury into the environment. Since an incandescent bulb consumes far more electricity during use, and since fluorescent bulbs last considerably longer than incandescent bulbs, it is entirely possible that the effect of switching to fluorescents actually results in lower mercury pollution overall. It is worth noting that municipal waste, according to the graphic in the link below, accounts for 18% of the mercury emissions to the environment whereas coal plant emissions account for 33%. Since some of the municipal emissions result from discarded thermometers, switches, electrical devices, chlor-alkali related products (such as bleach), etc, as well as florescent bulbs, this suggests that the risk associated with the conservation scheme is lower than the risk of bulb disposal. To this equation we have to note that mercury is just one pollutant associated with coal. Others are the elements Uranium, thorium, radon, radium, arsenic, cadmium, lead as well as powerfully carcinogenic organic molecules such as dioxins benzofurans, and finally that most serious of pollutants, carbon dioxide.

http://www.ems.org/mercury/mercury_sources.pdf

Even having been aware of the mercury risks of fluorescents for years, I have come down on the side of using these important conservation devices, and indeed use them in my own home. That said, I think we can and should do better. Communities should provide for the special disposal and recycling of spent florescent bulbs. I have repeatedly asked my town to provide for fluorescent bulb recycling, however they respond that there is absolutely no public will to engage this simple solution.


The fluorescent/incandescent question however is an excellent example of how energy decisions are not quite as simple as they seem on the surface. Nothing is a slam dunk. Careful benefit/risk assessments and critical thinking are important questions in our environmental choices.

and I don't disagree. I use fluorescent bulbs myself. But the question was about reasons to not use them. For some people, those are good reasons. For instance, I would think twice about using them where they could be easily broken by children, simply because the direct exposure to both mercury and the ballast would be more severe for a child than an adult. But I personally am sitting under a full-spectrum fluorescent as I type this.

Do you also happen to know the level of pollution by-product in the manufacture of fluorescents versus incandescents?

manufacturing cost for fluorescents to be lower simply because the fluorescents last longer and since they require less frequent replacement, and therefore use less matter and energy in production.

As a parent, I can say that I would be very careful to keep my kids away from any kind of light bulb, particularly when they are very young. Broken glass itself is a very dangerous material for a child under three.

The ingestion of metallic Mercury (as is found in thermometers and fluorescent bulbs) is somewhat less profound than you would think, since metallic mercury oxidizes in the hydrochloric acid in one's stomach to give the insoluble material mercurous chloride (Mercury (I) chloride). Most of the toxicity associated with mercury is associated with methyl mercury, which is formed in the environment by the action of bacteria on metallic mercury and Mercury (II) compounds, many of which are soluble. Mercuric chloride, unlike mercurous chloride is soluble. Calomel (Mercurous chloride) was once used in certain pharmaceutical preparations. Until the invention of antibiotics, calomel was the preferred treatment for sphyllis, although it is no longer used for such purposes. One of the most serious sources of mercury pollution is actually dentistry. Until recent times when rather sophisticated polymers and novel metallic alloys were developed, most dental fillings were mercury amalgams of silver. There have been serious questions about the long term safety of these amalgams, although hundreds of millions of people have them. Many dentists recommend the removal and replacement of old fillings exactly for this reason. (Maybe this accounts for the madness of people voting for a criminal like George Bush.)

Mercury toxicity is associated with the divalent oxidation state. The oxidation of metallic mercury to this state can be slow. In the divalent state Mercury forms complexes with the dimercapto compound lipoamide which is important in the Krebs cycle responsible for energetic oxidation of sugars. Since nerve cells have particularly high energetic demands that depend rather sensitively on glucose metabolism, Mercury is a neurotoxin.

from a broken fluorescent would be eaten. It is more likely that it would be inhaled as mercury vapor. How likely is it that a child would be exposed to mercury vapor from flourescents? I don't know the answer to that at all, but I do know that the ballast, which is not mercury but another hazardous product, is released into the air everytime a fluorescent burns out. Really, I'm not so sure that they are good to use around children, though I understand the other considerations. I just wish that there was more of an effort to provide natural lighting.

Mercury metal has a vapor pressure much like other liquids. It in fact evaporates, albeit very, very, very slowly. Hg pressure at room temperature is about 0.00185 torr.

I would expect, but do not know, that the vapors would behave much like the metal and be less toxic than oxidized Mercury II.

The form of Mercury released by coal plants is mercury II, generally mercury II oxide, mercury II sulfate, or mercury II nitrate. The latter two compounds are soluble and are therefore very dangerous when compared with metallic mercury.

I have a nine year old and a five year old, and my home has been lighted by florescent lighting since they were born. I never had a problem, although I was very careful with the bulbs and their proximity to places they could get to them.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know about ballast toxicity at all. If I find an answer, I'll get back to you.

My wife and kids leave the lights on all of the time, despite my being the cruel dad who wants everyone to live in the dark. We've easily cut our electric bill in half, since we don't have air conditioning or electric heat, and it's rare that I have to replace a bulb. They last at least 4-6 years.

The mercury in the bulbs is probably trivial compared to the mercury that comes out of coal fired power plants. The mercury from these bulbs goes into a modern landfill, but the mercury from a coal fired power plant is spewed straight into the air you breathe, and the water you drink.

Even the cheap bulbs have pretty nice color now. If you are lucky (or unlucky!) enough to live near an Ikea, they have some pretty small compact fluorescents now that fit in any fixture a regular incandescent bulb will fit in.

Are there any other bulbs that can almost meet florescents in terms of energy usage and life span, and have fewer hazardous materials in them?

Btw, what happens to those hazarouds materials? Are they disposed of, or do they get used again?

They were selling things like LED floodlites, with clusters of a couple dozen white LEDs, with a standard screw-in socket. Big bucks, but they last a Really Long Time, and they are very efficient.


OK, here's one, but I remember seeing others.
http://www.enluxled.com/