Low Energy lightbulbs = EVIL!?

[rynnor]

Apparently the light they shed has a different spectrum to normal incandescent light bulbs and exacerbates symptoms in people with various light sensitive ailments such as eczma.

They also trigger Migraines.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg - apparently they contain mercury - that now rather unpopular chemical whose toxic fumes gave rise to the expression 'mad as a hatter'.

The Department of the Environment has issued guidelines :

"Official advice from the Department of the Environment states that if a low-energy bulb is smashed, the room needs to be vacated for at least 15 minutes.

A vacuum cleaner should not be used to clear up the debris, and care should be taken not to inhale the dust.

Instead, rubber gloves should be used, and the broken bulb put into a sealed plastic bag - which should be taken to the local council for disposal."

Unbelivable eh - the government are planning to ban the sale of incandescents from 2009 so we'll be stuck with the toxic evil light ones...

Apparently you shouldnt put them in general waste but should take em to the local recycling centre...


Source - Low energy lights bad for skin - BBC NEWS | Health | Low-energy bulbs 'worsen rashes'

Source - Mercury in Low Energy bulbs - BBC NEWS | UK | Low-energy bulb disposal warning

Source - Low energy light bulbs trigger Migraine - BBC NEWS | Health | Low-energy bulbs 'cause migraine'

 

[Chilly]

on the other hand they do use less energy. I dont remember the last time I smashed *any* bulb (that wasnt on purpose with my bb gun) so I dont really care about the breakage stuff. As for migraines - is that to do with the frequency they switch on? If its the "flickering" problem then that's the fault of the owner for either buying cheap shit ones or not replacing flakey ones. You can't complain about the side effects from a faulty product...

 

[rynnor]

on the other hand they do use less energy. I dont remember the last time I smashed *any* bulb (that wasnt on purpose with my bb gun) so I dont really care about the breakage stuff. As for migraines - is that to do with the frequency they switch on? If its the "flickering" problem then that's the fault of the owner for either buying cheap shit ones or not replacing flakey ones. You can't complain about the side effects from a faulty product...

Sometimes they blowout when they die - the migraines and the various skin problems are caused by the light frequency of low energy bulbs - its different to normal ones.

The energy saving is good but perhaps they should be looking for a non mercury based option - that stuffs a nasty cumulative poison - still next time i need mercury for an explosive boobytrap I know where to look eh ?

 

[TdC]

er...die? I can't remember if I've ever seen a energy saving light ever die o0

 

[Fana]

I have low energy bulbs in my apartment and i cant say ive noticed any of those sympthoms, and if they blow they are encapsuled in lamp domes anyway so i should have time to get clear ^^

 

[Tom]

They should not be in encapsulated lamp domes. Energy saving light bulbs contain small circuit boards. Unlike an incandescent lamp the range of temperatures they can operate over is quite narrow. They normally are not rated for temperatures in excess of 40'C - the bulbs in your domes will be at a much higher temperature.

This is a known issue that never gets mentioned. You cannot put energy savers in enclosures designed for incandescent bulbs unless adequate ventilation is provided.

You wouldn't block the ventilation on your television for obvious reasons. Don't block the ventilation on your energy saving lamps.

Of course the other issue is one of waste - when one of these bulbs is chucked, lots of lovely poisonous chemicals are chucked with them. Who fancies cleaning that lot up then?

 

[Tom]

I found the link I was after, a very interesting read here:

Ban Incandescent Lamps?

 

[Opt1]

The mercury's only a problem if the bulb is broken or disposed of incorrectly..

.. But lets be frank, the latter is going to happen a LOT.

We bury enough crap in the ground.. =/

Ta for the link Tom.. worrying stuff :S

I wonder if anyone in Brussels actually understands these things properly or has asked someone who does understand what's going on before they make these rules? Am always suspicious of politicians going with the "pop-culture" solution and going with the mass hysteria without having a clue.

E.g. Gordon Brown's solar paneling and David Cameron's wind turbine installed on their houses.. Brown's will take ~150 years to pay off its install costs, Cameron's ~60 years, afaik.

To be honest, why the hell have people only just realised these bulbs contain mercury, which could be a big problem? :S Surely its been obvious for years?

 

[Raven]

Stick them in the dustbin, have to sort through enough crap just to get rid of rubbish as it is. Mercury is one of those things that only became dangerous in the later half of the 20th century, I remember my Great granddad playing with it in his hand when i was a kid (was an amazing trick for a 5 year old) He lived to 95...

Not saying its not dangerous, but just about everything is dangerous™ these days

 

[MYstIC G]

This post is dangerous. Grr!

 

[TdC]

you skin burning away when light shines on it is something totally different, G

 

[Chilly]

E.g. Gordon Brown's solar paneling and David Cameron's wind turbine installed on their houses.. Brown's will take ~150 years to pay off its install costs, Cameron's ~60 years, afaik.

Well thats another problem entirely. People are not willing to pay more to Do The Right Thing. Obviously not everyone can afford a one off hit for £1000 or whatever for a solar array or wind turbine, but companies could lease them out at an appropriate cost or something so that the price isnt such a shock and can be paid over an extended period - same kinda timescale as a mortgage since electricity will always be required.

 

[Opt1]

I remember my Great granddad playing with it in his hand when i was a kid (was an amazing trick for a 5 year old) He lived to 95...

Not saying its not dangerous, but just about everything is dangerous™ these days

Aye, I know what you mean.

Our A level physics teacher at school a few years back got in a lot of trouble for getting out some mercury and showing us it and letting us prod it a bit..

Bit ridiculous, seeing as people used to play with it all the time.

 

[Fana]

Our A level physics teacher at school a few years back got in a lot of trouble for getting out some mercury and showing us it and letting us prod it a bit..

We did that as well in science class when i was about 14-15 or so. Then again that is 14 years ago

 

[rynnor]

Well thats another problem entirely. People are not willing to pay more to Do The Right Thing. Obviously not everyone can afford a one off hit for £1000 or whatever for a solar array or wind turbine, but companies could lease them out at an appropriate cost or something so that the price isnt such a shock and can be paid over an extended period - same kinda timescale as a mortgage since electricity will always be required.

I think your missing a key point - those solar panels will not continue to function long enough to make back the energy it took to create them and we dont have enough platinum in the world to mass produce em - nuclear is the only practical solution if you want energy from a non CO2 source.

 

[rynnor]

We did that as well in science class when i was about 14-15 or so. Then again that is 14 years ago

Mercury is most dangerous as a vapour - if its heated by a lightbulb some of it will be present as a gas - if the bulb shatters your now in a room with mercury in gaseous form which will be absorbed through your lungs.

Thats why the official guide says to evacuate the room for 15 mins - its to allow the gas to cool so that you dont breathe it in.

 

[Will]

LED bulbs are the future. Hopefully decent ones that don't cost a small fortune will be available soon.

 

[Cyradix]

We have those (low energy) at work here and several people have already complained about headaches (including me)

 

[Chilly]

I think your missing a key point - those solar panels will not continue to function long enough to make back the energy it took to create them and we dont have enough platinum in the world to mass produce em - nuclear is the only practical solution if you want energy from a non CO2 source.

Do you think the fuel used for nuclear plants is free? The overall efficiency of nuclear power is actually very, VERY poor if you consider all steps (extraction, purification, storage, disposal, etc). You need to fill lots of trucks with diesel to get the uranium out of the ground, you might as well just burn the diesel in a plant and save yourself some hassle.

 

[Mey]

Also can cause epileptic fits, which is an issue!

 

[Tom]

Do you think the fuel used for nuclear plants is free? The overall efficiency of nuclear power is actually very, VERY poor if you consider all steps (extraction, purification, storage, disposal, etc). You need to fill lots of trucks with diesel to get the uranium out of the ground, you might as well just burn the diesel in a plant and save yourself some hassle.

Except diesel per volume contains much less energy than fissile materials, and oil-based fuels are much more prone to fluctuations in prices - effectively out of our control.

Oddly enough Australia has the most uranium around, but doesn't have any nuclear power stations.

 

[Chilly]

Perhaps they have energy planners who can do arithmetic, then. Its very expensive to enrich uranium enough to use it for anything worthwhile. Sure, fissile materials are very energy-dense but if it costs 90energies to get 120 energies worth of fissile material out the ground and processed - it's a very poor system. Unless you completely electrify all the manufacturing and extraction processes involved it will always be fossil fuels doing the in and this "free" fission energy out. We still get the CO2 (or at least a substantial slab of it).

 

[Tom]

Co2 is a meaningless argument. All I'm concerned with is the price I pay on my electricity bill.

 

[rynnor]

Perhaps they have energy planners who can do arithmetic, then. Its very expensive to enrich uranium enough to use it for anything worthwhile. Sure, fissile materials are very energy-dense but if it costs 90energies to get 120 energies worth of fissile material out the ground and processed - it's a very poor system. Unless you completely electrify all the manufacturing and extraction processes involved it will always be fossil fuels doing the in and this "free" fission energy out. We still get the CO2 (or at least a substantial slab of it).

But what alternative is there? You think solar and wind power could replace the dependable energy of nuclear/coal/oil/gas fired power plants - no way - its too unpredictable.

You think theres a net energy gain from wind and solar after all the effort in producing them (using rare metals etc), erecting them and maintaining them?

Nuclear Fission does not require enriched uranium - thats used for nuclear weapons - theres a massive gain of 'free' energy - you may not like nuclear power but its un-arguably the most effecient means of power production.

 

[xane]

it's a very poor system.

But its the least "poor" of the lot, and you will always need a backup to wind/solar/wave simply because of the availability.

Forget wind turbines and solar panels, the way to go is home nuclear !

 

[rynnor]

Forget wind turbines and solar panels, the way to go is home nuclear !

Fantastic - I'll take one! Incredibly cheap electricity

 

[Chilly]

Nuclear Fission does not require enriched uranium - thats used for nuclear weapons - theres a massive gain of 'free' energy - you may not like nuclear power but its un-arguably the most effecient means of power production.

Of course it does. You think you can just chuck in raw ore you dig up that's less than 1%? Its not AS enriched as weapons grade (the weapons use plutonium anyway) but it certainly is enriched to a degree and that process is massively expensive in terms of energy and cost.

I quite like the idea of nuclear energy, its just that the fuel is a right pain to get. Now fusion is what we need. Give it another $100bn and 20 years and we'll be somewhere. Consider: $100bn between a few western governments willing to waste $20-30bn on ridiculous IT projects is fuck all. Lets just use coal/petrol til we get fusion rockin.