Comments on: How toxic is a busted compact florescent bulb?

By: Myth

Myth — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:43:36 +0000

Yes,I agree Lan it's true that Compact Fluorescent Lights contain tiny amounts of mercury. If a bulb breaks you will be exposed to the toxin that effects nerves.

By: jaapps

jaapps — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:57:34 +0000

The disposal of Hg into landfills may not be as hazardous to the environment as it is perceived to be. The interiors of most landfills are quite strongly reducing, leading to the immobilization of Hg on thio functional groups on organic matter and precipitation as a highly insoluble sulfide. Some Hg might be vented to the atmosphere as methyl mercury, but I am unaware of any studies that have identified this process or established its environmental significance. I would welcome feedback.

By: Chip

Chip — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:47:53 +0000

I agree with Ian in that the biggest threat to the environment from CFL's is in the disposal of them. Granted there are appliances and thermostats out there but how often do you throw out an appliance or a thermostat? BTW most landfills will not accept appliances as "normal" landfill anyway. The problem is quantity. In CA alone PG&E sponsored a program that involved something like 14 million CFL's. As a guess 90% of those will end up in landfills and even if the amount per CFL is small that amount times 12+ million becomes not so trivial.

By: Aimee

Aimee — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:17:46 +0000

Thank you, Ian, for saying exactly what is on my mind. I have heard reports that the elemental mercury from improperly-disposed CFLs will accumulate in the environment, eventually as methyl- or dimethyl mercury.

While people may know of the proper disposal methods, I believe that many people are lazy or do not think that their one bulb will make a difference.

It is important that people are educated as to the cumulative risk of these kinds of substances in the environment.

While I am grateful that the media is pushing an "environmentally-beneficial" agenda by touting the energy benefits of CFLs, it seems prudent to also make it common knowledge that the use of these bulbs carries a risk.

By: Rafael

Rafael — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:02:40 +0000

All old, non-digital home thermostats have a switch filled with quite a bit of mercury (about two or three droplets), and those ones have been consistently disposed of in the trash for decades. There are other appliances that have had mercury-based switches, and those ones probably end up in landfills in large numbers as well. By comparison, a CFL has less than a tenth of the mercury that a thermostat has. The influx of mercury to landfills from CFLs is negligible compared to the amounts coming from old appliances, thermometers, and thermostats.

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:40:13 +0000

I've never been concerned about the direct health effects of breaking a CFL bulb due to the relatively low contained mercury concentrations (though perhaps I should have considered the potential danger).

My concern with respect to CFL bulbs has always had more to do with improper disposal: With the production of a few billion bulbs and the illegal disposal of a large fraction of these bulbs in traditional landfills, the tiny amount of mercury from a single bulb builds up to a significant amount. This can lead to major environmental damage due to leeching into wetlands or the water table.

In my experience, a surprisingly large number of CFL consumers are unaware of the required methods for proper disposal of used bulbs. As we are nearing the predicted failure age of many old bulbs (based qualitatively on my memory of when CFL use became popular) and due to the continuingly increasing popularity of the bulbs, I expect the influx of mercury to traditional landfills to increase dramatically in the near future.

Am I mistaken in thinking that this issue represents a major hazard to the environment?