 |
|
| UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Green Long Life lamps and fluorescents
dave wrote:
Do LL lamps (as sold in many diy stores) contain Hg vapour? If so, how should they be properly disposed of? Same question of fluorescent lamps - or is there some other element/risk with them? Fluorescent lamps contain mercury - as such they are classed as 'Hazardous waste' under European regulations. You are best off asking your local council for the options available in your area. In most cases, these lamps should be accepted at the local tip - although they will probably have to go in a special skip. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
dave writes: Do LL lamps (as sold in many diy stores) contain Hg vapour? If so, how should they be properly disposed of? If you mean compact fluorescents, then yes. Same question of fluorescent lamps - or is there some other element/risk with them? Yes. If you are a business unit chucking out sizable quantities, there are various hazardous waste schemes. For a home, the quantites of mercury are too small for anyone to worry about it yet. There's more mercury in the fillings in your teeth (3g on average goes up the crematorium chimney per person) than the amount you will chuck out in fluorescent lamps. -- Andrew Gabriel |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Mark
writes dave wrote: Do LL lamps (as sold in many diy stores) contain Hg vapour? If so, how should they be properly disposed of? Same question of fluorescent lamps - or is there some other element/risk with them? Fluorescent lamps contain mercury - as such they are classed as 'Hazardous waste' under European regulations. You are best off asking your local council for the options available in your area. In most cases, these lamps should be accepted at the local tip - although they will probably have to go in a special skip. I never seen a special skip for these. Or seen special instructions anywhere. -- Chris French |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:58:46 +0000 (UTC), Mark wrote:
Fluorescent lamps contain mercury - as such they are classed as 'Hazardous waste' under European regulations. Almost anything is classed as "Hazardous Waste" these days. You are best off asking your local council for the options available in your area. If you can find the right person, in the right department, who knows what the sub-sub-contractors actualy do. In most cases, these lamps should be accepted at the local tip... If you have a local "amenity center". Our nearest is 30+ miles away, then the council restrict what they will take (they used to take *anything* on the normal round), then they charge for the bulky items service. Though if you are in the big city and only a few miles from the tip the bulky items service is free. Grrrr.... - although they will probably have to go in a special skip. Went to the "amenity center" near Birmingham Airport the other week with loads of ancient garden chemicals, after a shed/garage clear out, expecting to find a special place for them. Nope, spoke to the operatives, oh put them over there by the "old paint" skip and we'll deal with 'em. I wonder what did happen to them? Probably ended up in the "general waste" skip... -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave wrote:
No, I'm not a business - just wondered about the domestic side of it. My personal guess is that even though the amounts are small, the increasing use of LL (didn't know they were called compact fluorescents) may make this a green issue. They are compact fluorescents, but they are not the only compact fluorescents. "Retrofit compact fluorescents" is a more correct term which is sometimes used, implying they are designed for retrofitting in place of older lamps. There's no definition of exactly what "compact fluorescent" means, but it is generally applied to all modern tubular fluorescents that use a mercury amalgam pelet for accurate control of the mercury vapour pressure. This encompasses most fluorescent tube types which have appeared in the last 30 years. The most obvious effect of this is the run-up time such lamps require to reach full brightness. A less obvious effect is that they contain very much less mercury than the older tubes, such as the T12 (1.5" diameter) ones. Another common property of compact fluorescents are thinner tubes, which means less phosphor required so more expensive phosphors can be used. -- Andrew Gabriel |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:33:17 GMT, dave wrote: | On 03 Oct 2005 00:15:41 GMT, (Andrew Gabriel) | wrote: | | Do LL lamps (as sold in many diy stores) contain Hg vapour? If so, how should | | they be properly disposed of? | | | | If you mean compact fluorescents, then yes. | | | | Same question of fluorescent lamps - or is there some other element/risk with | | them? | | | | Yes. | | | | If you are a business unit chucking out sizable quantities, | | there are various hazardous waste schemes. For a home, the | | quantites of mercury are too small for anyone to worry about | | it yet. There's more mercury in the fillings in your teeth | | (3g on average goes up the crematorium chimney per person) | | than the amount you will chuck out in fluorescent lamps. | | And *considerably* less than the mercury clinical thermometer in my First | Aid cupboard. This Health and Safety obsession is IMO going mad :-( | | And considerably less than that in a Hg switch I have. But that's kind of | irrelevant isn't it. Can't see what mad about trying to avoid a poison risk. Ok | it's not exactly plutonium I know. "Mad" and "Hg" in the same sentence is very | appropriate  So all according to you all risks are to be avoided at *any* cost. So you do not travel on the roads to avoid the risk of being one of the ten people who die in traffic accidents each day in the UK. Maybe I understand it... lets see what you think. When people are facing a big threat they dont think they have any control over, they yearn for control over danger, and act this out on any adnger they can control. At the same time they do _not_ want to think about the real big danger, and denial rules in that area. How this applies here is this: Our big danger is that 50% of us will die from haert disease or cancer. Thats a huge risk, one that shows all the part p malarkey for what it is. Around 50% of this mass death is easily preventable, but nanny isnt preventing it, and the general population isnt doing anything to save their collective asses either. Theyre walking right into mass death because theyre in denial. Theyre controlling the trivia because of the urge to control the present danger, plus the fact that they really dont want to think about it, and that not looking leads to acting on trivia while ignoring the real issue, lik rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. And because people refuse to face it, they dont notce that 50% of that 50% death rate is really not hard to prevent. Imagine if all these daft laws about not being able to sell veg in pounds and ounces, part p and so on were replaced by an equally funded effort to do soething about our real killer. The difference in death rate would be enormous. The saving in misery would be gargantuan. But people dont want to look at this because it scares them, they see no solution, so lets pretend its a non issue and worry solely about silly trivia. When it comes to safety this society is completely missing the boat. NT |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
