DIYbanter - View Single Post

David Nebenzahl

On 12/31/2009 3:07 AM spake thus:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:18:55 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

4) Does it take into account the addition of mercury to
environments where most of the energy developed is from hydro or
nuclear power?

No. CFL bulbs are poised to bring significant mercury pollution
issues to areas where there isn't any mercury pollution from nearby
coal plants because there AREN'T any nearby coal plants.

Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use?
Where do you see them? How about ALL large buildings being almost
completely lit with full sized florescent's which contain FAR more
mercury than CFL's? When you flip the typical light switch in a home,
maybe 1-4 lights are powered up. When you flip a switch in a
supermarket, there may be hundreds of lights lit up. All Florescent.

Any idea why they use florescent's ?

Of course he knows this; that's implicit in his arguments. He's not stupid.

What he's saying, which I agree with, is that the use of CFLs, primarily
for *residential* lighting (not commercial, which as you point out has
already been using fluorescents for many decades) will result in a
massive upsurge in the amount of mercury in transit out there, some of
which will escape into the environment. This is the 900-pound gorilla of
CFL usage which isn't getting nearly as much attention as it should, and
makes the claims that Don K. and others have made about how much CFLs
will result in *reduced* mercury emissions dubious at best.

--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"