Mercury is bad for you. Very bad. And it’s equally bad for most animals and plants.
CFL light bulbs contain mercury.
That means no-one should buy or use them, right? Wrong. Read on to find out why.
Don’t get me wrong – CFL light bulbs are still hazardous waste. I just think the whole mercury issue has been blown out of proportion. Here are my reasons for thinking so:
- You won’t break them…
…as long as you handle them responsibly. Take extra care whenever you’re replacing bulbs, and don’t put a CFL in a lamp that’s exposed to investigating children, excessive vibrations, things that might fall on it etc. - They last a long time
With a typical lifespan of 10000 hours – ten times that of an incandescent – you won’t have to handle them very often. - You know how to recycle them
Or at least you will know, after reading my previous post Light bulbs are hazardous waste. As long as they’re recycled properly, the mercury in the CFLs won’t end up in the wrong places. - Coal power plants release mercury
A typical coal-fired power plant – which, regrettably, is what a significant portion of the Earth’s population get their electricity from – will release more than four times as much mercury to power an average incandescent bulb, than it will to power a comparable CFL bulb. With the typical mercury content of an un-recycled CFL added, the total release would still be well below that of an incandescent. - Incandescents are dirty, too
Incandescents contain lead. While not quite as critically toxic as mercury, lead still isn’t something you want released to the environment (see the post about hazardous waste referenced above). And since incandescents have a very short life span compared to CFLs, the potential amount of released lead is all the bigger. - CFL manufacturing can – and should – be done responsibly
CFLs in general has unfairly been blamed for the poisoning of hundreds of Chinese workers. While it’s certainly tragic that workers suffer from mercury poisoning, the technology itself can’t be held responsible. Clearly, the factory management is to blame. It’s perfectly feasible to manufacture CFLs without releasing mercury or poisoning your workers. Rather than swearing off a whole technology just because there are bad practitioners of it, one should support organisations that work to improve worker’s conditions and factories’ environmental policies.
So, do I think CFLs are a perfect solution, the be-all and end-all of indoor lighting? Not at all.
Mercury and lead free lighting would certainly be preferrable to the currently available options.
Luckily, we’ll soon have it. LED lightbulbs are steadily improving, and in a few years time they’ll be improved to the point that they’re the only sensible choice.
In the meantime, consider giving currently available LED light bulbs a test run, to show manufacturers that there’s a market for them.
Then, as they grow in quality and drop in price, we can start swapping out the old CFLs as they finally wear out (and recycle them properly, of course!)
{2 comments... read them below or add one }
This post was tagged with: cfl light bulbs, CFLs, coal fired power plant, coal power plants, electricity, hazardous waste, incandescents, light bulbs, light sources, lighting, mercury, mercury content, mercury issue, types of light bulbsRelated posts:
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
@Kara: Valid point, I guess – what I’d do is generally use common sense. For the lamps that are easily tipped over, I’d avoid CFLs. For lamps that are sturdily screwed to the walls or ceiling, CFLs might be more of a viable option.
Once LED bulbs becomes a serious alternative – and they’re getting better all the time – I’d always choose them over CFLs, though.
I live in California. What if there’s a big earthquake? I’m afraid my lamps will tip over and the lightbulbs will break.