Arfa Daily wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
Zen83237 wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:40:45 UTC, "Zen83237"
wrote:
Sorry, please read my post again. Who said "OCCASIONAL" flicker.
This is constant flickering.

How often do you get a flicker? And of what duration?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

It is constant ie all the time it is switched off but only noticable
when it is dark or dusk. The frequency, difficult to say, but
certainly many flashes per second. It doesn't give off anything like
enough light to read by but just switched it off now and I can make
out every thing in the room and that isn't even allowing for my eyes
accustomed to the dark. I should also say that although the light
sensitive switches are new
in two rooms the hall way has had one for several years and I never
had this problem until about a year ago which suggests to me that
there is something different about the newer bulbs. The kids managed
to smash the bulb and damage the rose so my first thought was that I
rewired the new rose incorrectly as it started when a new bulb was
fitted after the accident. I wont even go into the toxicity
introduced into the house by
accidentilly breaking them.

The amount of mercury is minimal. The hype about this is truely
dreadful. Just like all the nonsense about asbestos put about by the
Elfin group and shallow minded chattering idiots.

Yes, mercury was an issue for folk who worked with it continuously
such as hatters. Asbestos was an issue for those that mined it,
manufactured products with it and sadly also wives of asbestos
workers who washed their clothes. Solid asbestos is not an issue.


However, that doesn't change the fact that you, along with all the
other advocates of this 'replacement' technology, are missing the
point. No matter how little mercury is in these things, it
never-the-less is there, and is a toxic component which wasn't
present in a conventional incandescent light bulb. This means that
however slight, they do represent a hazard, and as a result, may not
be disposed of in your regular rubbish. Also, in theory, as they are
an electronic device, they should be subject to the WEEE directive,
which means that they should be substantially dismantled, made safe,
and the materials recycled. All of which represents a significant
energy budget, and serves to further mitigate any eco advantages that
they are //claimed// to have over the soon-to-be-banned plain and
simple light bulb.

I don't disagree that there is additional exposure potential from this
source and agree with other comments you make. I do wonder however what
reduction in mercury emissions from coal fired powered stations are made by
wholesale use of CFLs.