In another thread discussing CFLs and their disposal, someone posted a
link to what seems to be the more-or-less "official" fluorescent-lamp
recycling site: http://www.lamprecycle.org.

Interesting site. But if one delves a little into the site--say on the
page describing lamp recyclers
(http://www.lamprecycle.org/lamprecyclers.shtml)--one reads this:

NEMA maintains these lists of companies in the United States and Canada
that either claim to recycle spent mercury-containing lamps or claim to
handle those lamps so that they end up at a recycling facility.
Recyclers are companies that claim to conform to the RCRA 40 CFR §273.6
definition of a "Destination facility" and operate under a state permit
or RCRA-equivalent authority to perform lamp recycling. Handlers are
either generators or third party firms that claim to collect lamps and
get them to recyclers.

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the bulbs you drop off at the
collection bin at the big-box store will actually get recycled, does it?

How do you know that those lamps won't just get ****canned (i.e.,
landfilled?) What kind of oversight is there over this whole recycling
scheme? Is this just more "greenwashing", meant to give consumers warm
fuzzy feelings that they're helping to "save the Earth" while, in
reality, doing nothing of the kind? What sort of watchdog is observing
the whole deal?

"Claim[s] to recycle"; that's the best we can come up with?

We're doomed.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
In another thread discussing CFLs and their disposal, someone posted a
link to what seems to be the more-or-less "official" fluorescent-lamp
recycling site: http://www.lamprecycle.org.

Interesting site. But if one delves a little into the site--say on the
page describing lamp recyclers
(http://www.lamprecycle.org/lamprecyclers.shtml)--one reads this:

NEMA maintains these lists of companies in the United States and Canada
that either claim to recycle spent mercury-containing lamps or claim to
handle those lamps so that they end up at a recycling facility.
Recyclers are companies that claim to conform to the RCRA 40 CFR §273.6
definition of a "Destination facility" and operate under a state permit
or RCRA-equivalent authority to perform lamp recycling. Handlers are
either generators or third party firms that claim to collect lamps and
get them to recyclers.

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the bulbs you drop off at the
collection bin at the big-box store will actually get recycled, does it?

How do you know that those lamps won't just get ****canned (i.e.,
landfilled?) What kind of oversight is there over this whole recycling
scheme? Is this just more "greenwashing", meant to give consumers warm
fuzzy feelings that they're helping to "save the Earth" while, in reality,
doing nothing of the kind? What sort of watchdog is observing the whole
deal?

"Claim[s] to recycle"; that's the best we can come up with?

We're doomed.



Not sure what the BFD is.

The amount of mercury in a CFL is very small. The EPA "encourages" recycling
them.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastet...mps/faqs.htm#6

On 8/29/2009 12:07 PM Master Betty spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

In another thread discussing CFLs and their disposal, someone posted a
link to what seems to be the more-or-less "official" fluorescent-lamp
recycling site: http://www.lamprecycle.org.

Interesting site. But if one delves a little into the site--say on the
page describing lamp recyclers
(http://www.lamprecycle.org/lamprecyclers.shtml)--one reads this:

NEMA maintains these lists of companies in the United States and Canada
that either claim to recycle spent mercury-containing lamps or claim to
handle those lamps so that they end up at a recycling facility.
Recyclers are companies that claim to conform to the RCRA 40 CFR §273.6
definition of a "Destination facility" and operate under a state permit
or RCRA-equivalent authority to perform lamp recycling. Handlers are
either generators or third party firms that claim to collect lamps and
get them to recyclers.

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the bulbs you drop off at the
collection bin at the big-box store will actually get recycled, does it?

How do you know that those lamps won't just get ****canned (i.e.,
landfilled?) What kind of oversight is there over this whole recycling
scheme? Is this just more "greenwashing", meant to give consumers warm
fuzzy feelings that they're helping to "save the Earth" while, in reality,
doing nothing of the kind? What sort of watchdog is observing the whole
deal?

"Claim[s] to recycle"; that's the best we can come up with?

We're doomed.

Not sure what the BFD is.

The amount of mercury in a CFL is very small. The EPA "encourages" recycling
them.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastet...mps/faqs.htm#6

Well, that's the other thing that bugs me about that website
(lamprecycle.org): all they talk about is the recovery of mercury from
CFLs. Nothing about the rest of the bulb. What happens to all that
glass, aluminum, plastic, phenolic, copper, tin, tantalum, etc.? Even if
one is not unduly concerned about the toxicity of those things (and that
toxicity is definitely non-zero), it's kind of outrageous from a
resource recovery point of view--especially since consumers are led to
believe that the bulbs really are being recycled, and not just thrown
away (even if that's done in a manner that keeps us safe from mercury
poisining).


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:10:32 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

....
Well, that's the other thing that bugs me about that website
(lamprecycle.org): all they talk about is the recovery of mercury from
CFLs. Nothing about the rest of the bulb. What happens to all that
glass, aluminum, plastic, phenolic, copper, tin, tantalum, etc.? ..

That is a good question, but not the sugject of this thread. I
would guess they get put in the same place as used standard tungston
lamps. Not perfect, but not really a factor being addressed at this
time, unless you are suggesting going back to candles that cause more
pollution.

On 8/29/2009 1:39 PM spake thus:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:10:32 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

...
Well, that's the other thing that bugs me about that website
(lamprecycle.org): all they talk about is the recovery of mercury from
CFLs. Nothing about the rest of the bulb. What happens to all that
glass, aluminum, plastic, phenolic, copper, tin, tantalum, etc.? ..

That is a good question, but not the sugject of this thread.

That's the subject of this thread as I envisioned it.

The question is, what happens to CFLs (and other fluorescent lamps) when
the consumer takes them to someplace that claims to recycle them? I
think the assumption here on the part of the consumer is that the
material in the lamp will actually be reclaimed and reused (to the
extent practical, of course). But it appears that, except for extracting
the mercury, the rest of the lamp could well just get landfilled without
anybody knowing.

I don't call that recycling.

I would guess they get put in the same place as used standard
tungston lamps.

That's the landfill.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 8/29/2009 1:39 PM spake thus:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:10:32 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

...
Well, that's the other thing that bugs me about that website
(lamprecycle.org): all they talk about is the recovery of mercury from
CFLs. Nothing about the rest of the bulb. What happens to all that glass,
aluminum, plastic, phenolic, copper, tin, tantalum, etc.? ..

That is a good question, but not the sugject of this thread.

That's the subject of this thread as I envisioned it.

The question is, what happens to CFLs (and other fluorescent lamps) when
the consumer takes them to someplace that claims to recycle them? I think
the assumption here on the part of the consumer is that the material in
the lamp will actually be reclaimed and reused (to the extent practical,
of course). But it appears that, except for extracting the mercury, the
rest of the lamp could well just get landfilled without anybody knowing.

I don't call that recycling.

I would guess they get put in the same place as used standard
tungston lamps.

That's the landfill.



I understand that. But with all there is to worry about......

BTW....I recycle everything possible. I take my cfls to hd, but only if I'm
going.

I have some florescent tubes in my garage I'm saving until I can figer what
to do wif em.

Seems more people are making an effort these days. I still don't give us
much hope.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
In another thread discussing CFLs and their disposal, someone posted a
link to what seems to be the more-or-less "official" fluorescent-lamp
recycling site: http://www.lamprecycle.org.

Interesting site. But if one delves a little into the site--say on the
page describing lamp recyclers
(http://www.lamprecycle.org/lamprecyclers.shtml)--one reads this:

NEMA maintains these lists of companies in the United States and Canada
that either claim to recycle spent mercury-containing lamps or claim to
handle those lamps so that they end up at a recycling facility.
Recyclers are companies that claim to conform to the RCRA 40 CFR §273.6
definition of a "Destination facility" and operate under a state permit
or RCRA-equivalent authority to perform lamp recycling. Handlers are
either generators or third party firms that claim to collect lamps and
get them to recyclers.

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the bulbs you drop off at the
collection bin at the big-box store will actually get recycled, does it?

How do you know that those lamps won't just get ****canned (i.e.,
landfilled?) What kind of oversight is there over this whole recycling
scheme? Is this just more "greenwashing", meant to give consumers warm
fuzzy feelings that they're helping to "save the Earth" while, in
reality, doing nothing of the kind? What sort of watchdog is observing
the whole deal?

"Claim[s] to recycle"; that's the best we can come up with?

We're doomed.



I've '****canned' as you say, thousands of straight fluorescent tubes
and i'd bet that before i'm over, i will have '****canned' a few hundred
CFL's. I can't believe someone or some group make such a big deal out
of this. DAMN, people, just live life, don't make it an ordeal.

s

On 8/29/2009 5:01 PM Steve Barker spake thus:

I've '****canned' as you say, thousands of straight fluorescent tubes
and i'd bet that before i'm over, i will have '****canned' a few hundred
CFL's. I can't believe someone or some group make such a big deal out
of this. DAMN, people, just live life, don't make it an ordeal.

So Don (Klipstein): how much mercury has this guy released into the
environment, based on the numbers of tubes/bulbs he gave?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/29/2009 5:01 PM Steve Barker spake thus:

I've '****canned' as you say, thousands of straight fluorescent tubes
and i'd bet that before i'm over, i will have '****canned' a few
hundred CFL's. I can't believe someone or some group make such a big
deal out of this. DAMN, people, just live life, don't make it an
ordeal.

So Don (Klipstein): how much mercury has this guy released into the
environment, based on the numbers of tubes/bulbs he gave?



Probably not as much as we lost in science class back in the '60's when
we played with it on the table.

s

Steve Barker wrote:

I've '****canned' as you say, thousands of straight fluorescent tubes
and i'd bet that before i'm over, i will have '****canned' a few
hundred CFL's. I can't believe someone or some group make such a big
deal out of this. DAMN, people, just live life, don't make it an
ordeal.

In his (small) book, "The True Beliver," which I encourage you to read, Eric
Hoffer observed: "People mind their own business when it is worth minding.
When it's not, they take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by
minding other people's business."

Though writtnen in 1950 or so, Hoffer's book explains mass movements and the
people who gravitate toward them. It has helped me tremendously in
understanding the motivations behind the agitators.

From Wikipedia:

"Hoffer argues that mass movements ... spread by promising a glorious
future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be
willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so,
mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements
appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state,
but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements
appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary
self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be
attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who
feel thwarted in their endeavors."

On Aug 29, 9:28*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Steve Barker wrote:

I've '****canned' as you say, thousands of straight fluorescent tubes
and i'd bet that before i'm over, i will have '****canned' a few
hundred CFL's. *I can't believe someone or some group make such a big
deal out of this. *DAMN, people, just live life, *don't make it an
ordeal.

In his (small) book, "The True Beliver," which I encourage you to read, Eric
Hoffer observed: "People mind their own business when it is worth minding..
When it's not, they take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by
minding other people's business."

Though writtnen in 1950 or so, Hoffer's book explains mass movements and the
people who gravitate toward them. It has helped me tremendously in
understanding the motivations behind the agitators.

From Wikipedia:

"Hoffer argues that mass movements ... spread by promising a glorious
future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be
willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so,
mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements
appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state,
but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements
appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary
self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be
attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who
feel thwarted in their endeavors."

There is more mercury released when burning coal to produce
electricity than probably released when the CFLs which use electricity
are disposed of. I believe the overall savings is less mercury
released overall

On Aug 29, 7:43*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/29/2009 5:01 PM Steve Barker spake thus:

I've '****canned' as you say, thousands of straight fluorescent tubes
and i'd bet that before i'm over, i will have '****canned' a few hundred
CFL's. *I can't believe someone or some group make such a big deal out
of this. *DAMN, people, just live life, *don't make it an ordeal.

So Don (Klipstein): how much mercury has this guy released into the
environment, based on the numbers of tubes/bulbs he gave?

--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

A wall thermostat might equal 1000 cfls, have you ever thrown away
one? Airborn mercury is what has made our fish toxic on inland
waterways in the US, coal burning does that. over the life of burning
a cfl you keep about 2.5x the mercury from entering the envirionment
as a cfl has from burning coal. Nuclear plants dont emit this poison
thats airborn, cfls-flourescents are buried, this discussion and worry
of cfls is narrow minded. The dumps these theing go to have untold
more serious unknown dangers than cfls. If you were worried about
mercury you would be looking to change the real cause of it, coal
burning. Nuclear, Solar, Wind are the only remedies. You Neb, hate
nuclear, but coal is the real problem you fail to comprehend. Buy cfls
they are better for all.

HeyBub wrote:
Steve Barker wrote:
I've '****canned' as you say, thousands of straight fluorescent tubes
and i'd bet that before i'm over, i will have '****canned' a few
hundred CFL's. I can't believe someone or some group make such a big
deal out of this. DAMN, people, just live life, don't make it an
ordeal.

In his (small) book, "The True Beliver," which I encourage you to read, Eric
Hoffer observed: "People mind their own business when it is worth minding.
When it's not, they take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by
minding other people's business."

Though writtnen in 1950 or so, Hoffer's book explains mass movements and the
people who gravitate toward them. It has helped me tremendously in
understanding the motivations behind the agitators.

From Wikipedia:

"Hoffer argues that mass movements ... spread by promising a glorious
future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be
willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so,
mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements
appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state,
but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements
appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary
self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be
attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who
feel thwarted in their endeavors."


sounds like an interesting read. I may check it out from the library.

Steve Barker wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Steve Barker wrote:
I've '****canned' as you say, thousands of straight fluorescent
tubes and i'd bet that before i'm over, i will have '****canned' a
few hundred CFL's. I can't believe someone or some group make such
a big deal out of this. DAMN, people, just live life, don't make
it an ordeal.

In his (small) book, "The True Beliver," which I encourage you to
read, Eric Hoffer observed: "People mind their own business when it
is worth minding. When it's not, they take their mind off their own
meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

Though writtnen in 1950 or so, Hoffer's book explains mass movements
and the people who gravitate toward them. It has helped me
tremendously in understanding the motivations behind the agitators.

From Wikipedia:

"Hoffer argues that mass movements ... spread by promising a glorious
future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to
be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals.
To do so, mass movements need to devalue both the past and the
present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are
dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong
belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who
want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and
joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be
attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people
who feel thwarted in their endeavors."
sounds like an interesting read. I may check it out from the library.

It's a small book, but you can't read it quickly. Seemingly, after each
paragraph you have to put the book down, stroke your chin, and say to
yourself - "Yeah, that's right."

Examples:

"The membership in mass movements is interchangeable and over-lapping.
People join mass movements at random and then adopt the goals of the
movement."

"A mass movement can exist without a god, but it will always fail without a
devil. Mass movements must have something to hate."

"People join mass movements to escape individual responsibility. By
participating in a mass movement, they are no longer responsible for their
individual actions."