(revised version)
Thanks to a newly signed bill, by 2012 incandescent light bulbs will be gradually unavailable for purchase starting in 2012. Light bulbs will have to comply to new, more efficient standards, and currently the only ones that do are Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs. I'm all for saving energy, but I'd like to be able to restrict my own lighting usage without the government's interference, thank you. I do not have a deranged desire to put toxic materials in every room in my house:
According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, (Brandy) Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter’s bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.
Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges’ house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state’s “safe” level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.
The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a “low-ball” estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began “gathering finances” to pay for the $2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn’t cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.
Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in energy costs — and assuming that Bridges doesn’t break any more CFLs — it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.
Even if you don’t go for the full-scale panic of the $2,000 cleanup, the do-it-yourself approach is still somewhat intense, if not downright alarming.
Consider the procedure offered by the Maine DEP’s Web page entitled, “What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home?”
Don’t vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask.
Collect the waste material into an airtight container. Pat the area with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth. Finally, check with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be properly disposed.
The only step the Maine DEP left off was the final one: Hope that you did a good enough cleanup so that you, your family and pets aren’t poisoned by any mercury inadvertently dispersed or missed.
This, of course, assumes that people are even aware that breaking CFLs entails special cleanup procedures.
...It’s quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury.
Read the full article here.
Why not instead do something like make it a law that major businesses canNOT set their A/C temp below a 73-76 or so degree range in the summer, thus enabling me (and maybe others) to abandon my practice of taking my sweater with me when I shop in the dead of summer? I've actually seen it set in the high 60s! (Or set so that the thermometer registers 75 or thereabouts, which is most people's comfort zone. I set mine at 80, but not many people like that.)
Guess I'll have to put bug lights and candelabras in everywhere instead.
Thank you to Pith for the story (and sending me the links after repeated pestering).
13 comments:
That is crazy!
Funny... Pith gave the story and links, but no mention on his blog... :)
You don't have to replace the lights in your home - you're welcome to continue using the incandescent lights as long as you have a supply. It's just that the manufacturers will have to provide more energy efficient designs (which, at the moment, seems to favor the CFL). Also, there's a phase-in: 100w bulbs in 2012, 75w in 2013, and 40w & 60w in 2014. There's always the option of using the yellow (bug-invisible) lights, plant lights, oven or refrigerator lights, or traffic signal lights.
Or you could buy a ton of the incandescent variety over the next few years, store them in a storage facility somewhere, and continue to use those after they're no longer sold in stores. :)
By the way, I expanded on my comments some in my own blog post (also listed in the "links to this post" at your original post), including links to the text of the energy bill. Just wanted to spam your blog with a comment advertising my own... :)
I went and re-read the first article, and it's vague enough to read either way, I guess. "...will require lighting to use up to 30 percent less energy, which will basically phase out the traditional light bulb because it won't be able to meet the new efficiency standards". Ok, I guess....but I could have sworn...guess I should have read the actual bill, eh.
Don't worry; one of his new year's resolution is to actually post on his blog instead of just telling me all these things.
Based on my limited legal knowledge (gained primarily from observations and inferences made from those observations), laws can't be made retroactive. That is, if something was legal yesterday, it won't be made illegal by a new law today. Note, however, that in this case "thing" refers to an object, not an action; some action you did yesterday could very well be illegal today. Yesterday's action is done, and today's action is a new item.
Anyway, back to things. Take, for instance, my 1967 Mustang (given to me by my uncle who bought it brand new off the showroom floor; what a great uncle!). It doesn't have catalytic converters, nor do current emission laws apply to it since it was made before those laws came into effect (note: they did do away with leaded fuel, since it's no longer legal to sale such, but if I have a supply of leaded fuel or put lead additives in my fuel, there's nothing illegal about using it; that would be illegal on an emission controlled car with a catalytic converter, though). Nor does it have front shoulder belts, and current safety legislation can't require me to add them (or airbags, for that matter). As long as it complies with the regulations in effect at the time of its manufacture, it's legal.
Or take Alabama's driver license motorcycle endorsement; if you were born in Alabama before a certain date or had an Alabama license issued before a certain date, you automatically get the motorcycle endorsement. If you're from out of state or born after a certain date seeking a motorcycle license, you'll have to take the motorcycle license test.
Or Pseudophedrine hydrochloride ("sudafed") - while it's no longer legal to sell it (other than by prescription or directly from a pharmacist), if you already have a supply on hand, it's not illegal for you to use it.
Similarly with the new lighting regulations: the requirement will make sale of old-style incandescent lights illegal (there are some provisions that government offices will have to upgrade to all efficient light sources, but that's a governmental policy thing). It doesn't require that you replace your existing incandescent lights, nor does it state that you can't use any incandescent lights that you already have on hand. Furthermore, it doesn't require CFLs - it just requires a 30% improvement in energy efficiency (or maybe it's a 30% efficiency total, which would be better than the 10% efficiency of current incandescent bulbs).
Just like the "digital millennium television act" (DMTA - I think I have that right) - it made it necessary that all newly manufactured receivers (TV, VCR/tuner, etc.) be capable of receiving ATSC (digital) broadcasts. It did not prevent the sale of previously manufactured television stock, but did require that non-ATSC tuners be clearly marked as such so that the consumer could make an informed choice. Unfortunately for distributors, this likely reduced the profit margin on non-ATSC units, but that is one of the side effects of the DMTA.
Anyway, regardless, thanks for bringing the potential safety impact of CFLs to light (heh-heh, pun intended). I hadn't realized they were potential hazards, and we have a set of them waiting to replace incandescent bulbs (and plan to purchase more to replace the burnt out bulbs on the chandelier in our study/former dining room).
Ok, ok! I revised things and will stick to headless quizzes from now on.
"incandescent light bulbs will be gradually unavailable for purchase" - hee-hee... sorry, didn't mean to make you revise things... :)
I thought your post was about the dangers inherent in CFLs anyway... and (since that's all that'll likely be available for a while once incandescents can no longer be sold) it's still a very relative post. And it would still be good to let our congressmen know that we want options other than CFLs when incandescents are no longer available for sale.
It just bugs me that in 2007 the Congress achieved so little, but some of the things they do manage to press into law are mandates on something so mundane as light bulbs or something so out of touch as raising the fuel ratings on autos, when statistics show that currently there are only two cars that meet that new standard and, despite $3 gasoline, sales on trucks and SUVs have not changed although car sales are down. Nobody cares how expensive gas is, Cadillac Esplanades are still flying off of the showroom floors and are actually up over 2006 while Honda has actually discontinued two hybrid models due to lack of sales. So the auto companies have ten years to come up with a radical new technology or they’re going to cut corners on safety to make cars lighter. But the government says that they have to.
On the light bulb issue, the rest of the world won’t follow suit ‘cause incandescent bulbs are so darned cheap to make, but Phillips, Sylvania and GE will make out like bandits when we are forced to buy their products.
Here's a related link on how Alcoa and other aluminum companies lobbied on behalf of this bill so that car manufacturers would be forced to use their product in order to make cars lighter. The downside is that aluminum costs 5 times as much as steel pound for pound and lighter cars made with aluminum won’t be as safe(compare crushing a steel can with an aluminum one).
As with the case of the CFL bulbs, companies with a vested interest in the newer, more expensive technologies lobbied and contributed money to elected officials in order pass laws that mandate the use of their products, including being intmately involved with the R & D process leading up to the deadlines of the higher standards.
From the MSNBC article: "Australia, Ireland and other countries are already getting rid of the incandescent bulb." Don't know if that's true or not, but that's what they claim.
As far as making out like a bandit - yes, initially; but if the touted long life is true, then their residual sales will go down. But, yes, they'll make out like a bandit initially. They, and places like Wal-Mart or Target and so forth, the distributors.
Steel cans vs. aluminum cans... weren't the steel cans much thicker (relatively speaking)? That's part of the crush resistance. But I don't think that the bill reduces the crash worthiness standards - auto makers will still be required to meet the safety standards of today (and of tomorrow as well). Car costs will likely go up (as the aluminum processing will be more expensive), but not necessarily less safe.
But I agree - let the market make the demands of the auto makers. If people want more efficient vehicles, then great. If not, then the government shouldn't intervene. And CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) isn't necessarily directly related to emission levels, either. What if they improve the efficiency in a way that actually increases emissions per mile? (Note: I don't know all the details - I'm not a chemical engineer.) While the two (emissions and fuel economy) may be (probably are) related, they're likely not a direct relation.
But what about alternative designs? I read once about a cool-sounding engine, the tri-dyne rotary. Unlike the Wankel rotary (used by Mazda), the tri-dyne has the center rotor directly coupled to the driveshaft (instead of the geared, off-axis design of the Wankel). The design also doesn't require the sliding combustion chamber tips that the Wankel does, which are one of its weak points due to wear. I once envisioned starting a car company, and designing an engine based on the tri-dyne rotary (just to be different), but never quite got around to it (the thought does percolate up in my mind every once in a while; finances and time are the biggest deterrents at the moment).
Anyway, just home to have a guy check on my (fairly new) heat pump; he's done, have to head back to work now.
Crash resistant standards have gone steadily down in the last 40 years, while the cost of repair and/or replacement has gone up considerably. The current standard for having a safe bumper is whether or not the bumper is damaged from speeds of 2.5 mph along the main part and 1.5 mph at the corners. I wish that I could have our ’66 Olds back, were we to get in an accident!
RE: Australia and Europe following with CFLs . . . You find from reading the MSNBC article linked above that the main reason that they are being encouraged (by GE and Siemens)to change is because of global warming. Despite fact that the UK in 2007 had their coolest year since 2001. Why do I question the motives of the corporations?
But did the '66 Olds have shoulder belts in the front? That's about the only thing that I find "missing" as far as safety devices from my '67 Mustang. Airbags - now there's a great idea! "Hey, as long as you're going to be having a frontal accident anyway, let's trigger some explosives to fire something at you from the steering wheel or dash in the name of safety!"
In fact, now, I'm always afraid that the airbag is going to deploy (in an accident or simply accidentally) while I'm taking a drink from my 20 oz. plastic bottle, cramming the thing (bottle) through my throat and out the back of my skull. So now I always drink not facing the airbag... but when we had our '98 Venture (Chevy), I figured if I was drinking towards the outside, I'd manage to have an accident that deployed the side air bag, forcing the drink in front of me just before hitting something that cause the main bag to deploy, ramming the bottle through my skull. So I'd always drink to the inside of the vehicle.
Note: I do think side curtain airbags are a worthwhile investment - keeps your head away from the glass (or exiting the vehicle, resulting in dangerous extension of the neck). But regular ol' airbags scare me.
And, yeah, don't get me started on global warming... if you want, wander over to my blog and have a look at some of my November posts about global warming... :)
Post a Comment