|
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
My council have always taken tubes before but they are classed as
hazardous waste and can't go in landfill so I will have to burn petrol, putting CO2 into the atmosphere taking one 4ft tube to the council dump to be diposed of. There again I could put the tube back in the bin and hit it on the side with a hammer. Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Also bearing in mind that there has been debate this week about fining people for using a filament bulb and encougaging the use of compact fluorescent bulbs whether the CO2 saved by using the more efficient bulbs is going to be more than offset by the extra CO2 used in disposing of Fluorescent tubes and bulbs. Kevin |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On 10 Feb 2006 01:20:49 -0800, "Kev" wrote:
My council have always taken tubes before but they are classed as hazardous waste and can't go in landfill so I will have to burn petrol, putting CO2 into the atmosphere taking one 4ft tube to the council dump to be diposed of. There again I could put the tube back in the bin and hit it on the side with a hammer. Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. It's the phosphor powder on the inside of the tube that is the problem. Personally, I just smash them up into little bits and flush 'em down the toilet. (Only joking before anyone starts) sponix |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On 10 Feb 2006 01:20:49 -0800, "Kev" wrote:
|My council have always taken tubes before but they are classed as |hazardous waste and can't go in landfill so I will have to burn petrol, |putting CO2 into the atmosphere taking one 4ft tube to the council dump |to be diposed of. There again I could put the tube back in the bin and |hit it on the side with a hammer. Health and safety gone mad. Wrap/twist them in several layers of newspaper to stop the glass flying everywhere. Tap them with a hammer. Put everything in a cereal packet *Then* put that in the bin, they will never notice. |Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into |landfill. Umpteen years ago some fluorescent tube contained beryllium http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/beryllium/ but that generation of tubes will have gone into landfill long ago. -- Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Please quote, with quote character, previous post sniped to only the bit you are replying to. Threads often contain 100s of posts dozens layers deep. Other people use different newsreaders, they do not see or do what you see and do. |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Kev wrote: Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Is it not the mercury content ? |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Kev wrote: My council have always taken tubes before but they are classed as hazardous waste and can't go in landfill so I will have to burn petrol, putting CO2 into the atmosphere taking one 4ft tube to the council dump to be diposed of. There again I could put the tube back in the bin and hit it on the side with a hammer. Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Also bearing in mind that there has been debate this week about fining people for using a filament bulb and encougaging the use of compact fluorescent bulbs whether the CO2 saved by using the more efficient bulbs is going to be more than offset by the extra CO2 used in disposing of Fluorescent tubes and bulbs. Kevin The place where I buy my tubes in Leamington Spa has a skip at the back for old ones. So the fuel I burn in fetching a new one also serves to dispose of the old one. -- Cheers, Roger ______ Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address IS valid, but is disposable in the event of excessive spam. |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Kev wrote:
My council have always taken tubes before but they are classed as hazardous waste and can't go in landfill so I will have to burn petrol, putting CO2 into the atmosphere taking one 4ft tube to the council dump to be diposed of. There again I could put the tube back in the bin and hit it on the side with a hammer. Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. where else is it going to go? Also bearing in mind that there has been debate this week about fining people for using a filament bulb taxing them would make most sense, then people are still free to use what they want. Perhaps 50p per filament bulb. and encougaging the use of compact fluorescent bulbs whether the CO2 saved by using the more efficient bulbs is going to be more than offset by the extra CO2 used in disposing of Fluorescent tubes and bulbs. the reality is dead linears and CFLs can all be run happily on the right type of gear. It works by passing the power into the tube capacitively through the glass wall. Condition of the electrodes is then irrelevant. Old halophosphate tubes output decreases over the life of the tube, but the modern triphosphors are much better in this respect. NT |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
|
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Kev wrote:
My council have always taken tubes before but they are classed as hazardous waste and can't go in landfill so I will have to burn petrol, putting CO2 into the atmosphere taking one 4ft tube to the council dump to be diposed of. There again I could put the tube back in the bin and hit it on the side with a hammer. Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Also bearing in mind that there has been debate this week about fining people for using a filament bulb and encougaging the use of compact fluorescent bulbs whether the CO2 saved by using the more efficient bulbs is going to be more than offset by the extra CO2 used in disposing of Fluorescent tubes and bulbs. Kevin Damn! now I need a new tube after accidently hitting it with a broom pole. Get real and smash the darn thing and shovel remains in a cardboard box then put it in the bin. -- Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Mark Carver wrote:
Kev wrote: Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Is it not the mercury content ? that was my undertstanding. The phosphors are relatively harmless. No doubt there will be issues with CFLs in due course... |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:58:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Mark Carver wrote: Kev wrote: Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Is it not the mercury content ? that was my undertstanding. The phosphors are relatively harmless. So where is the mercury, if it's not in the phosphor powder? sponix |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Sponix wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:58:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Mark Carver wrote: Kev wrote: Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Is it not the mercury content ? that was my undertstanding. The phosphors are relatively harmless. So where is the mercury, if it's not in the phosphor powder? It's in vapour form AIUI ? isn't it 'solidified' mercury that cause the ends of the tube to go black eventually ? |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Sponix wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:58:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Mark Carver wrote: Kev wrote: Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Is it not the mercury content ? that was my undertstanding. The phosphors are relatively harmless. So where is the mercury, if it's not in the phosphor powder? sponix Usually lying around in the tube. You can actually pour he odd blob of mercury out of a broken tube. Fluorescents are mercury vapour lamps. The plasma discharge is primarily through mercury vapour, which then generates a complex spectrum of lines, some in the visible spectrum, but a lot in the UV spectrum. The job of the *phosphor coated tube* is to take those UV emissions and re-emit them as visible light. The two processes are completely distinct and separate. As are the chemicals involved. I believe that to get the mercury there, a small blob of mercury is placed in the tube, its taken down to a very low pressure, and the mercury 'boils' off and fills the tube as vapour. |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:04:06 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
wrote: Umpteen years ago some fluorescent tube contained beryllium Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..? All the best .. T i m |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:29:29 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote: |http://www.remade.org.uk/Glass/fluor..._recycling.htm DEFRA currently advises that there should be a distinction between volumes of tubes disposed. Large quantities should be treated as hazardous (but non-special) waste, whilst small quantities can be disposed of as non-hazardous household or commercial waste. It is currently the responsibility of individual Local Authorities to determine what qualifies as a large quantity; however it has been suggested this may be anything in excess of 20 to 30 tubes. OP council has gone mad :-( -- Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Please quote, with quote character, previous post sniped to only the bit you are replying to. Threads often contain 100s of posts dozens layers deep. Other people use different newsreaders, they do not see or do what you see and do. |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On 10 Feb 2006 03:12:16 -0800, "Mark Carver"
wrote: So where is the mercury, if it's not in the phosphor powder? It's in vapour form AIUI ? isn't it 'solidified' mercury that cause the ends of the tube to go black eventually ? So once the tube is broken then the mercury vapour presumably disperses. sponix |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Sponix wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:58:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Mark Carver wrote: Kev wrote: Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Is it not the mercury content ? that was my undertstanding. The phosphors are relatively harmless. So where is the mercury, if it's not in the phosphor powder? sponix Usually lying around in the tube. You can actually pour he odd blob of mercury out of a broken tube. Fluorescents are mercury vapour lamps. The plasma discharge is primarily through mercury vapour, which then generates a complex spectrum of lines, some in the visible spectrum, but a lot in the UV spectrum. The job of the *phosphor coated tube* is to take those UV emissions and re-emit them as visible light. The two processes are completely distinct and separate. As are the chemicals involved. I believe that to get the mercury there, a small blob of mercury is placed in the tube, its taken down to a very low pressure, and the mercury 'boils' off and fills the tube as vapour. Given the number of old household tubes going to landfill, the volume of mecury as a total of the of the landfill volume must be in the same order as the background mecury content. So the energy inefficient filament bulb is not quite the villain that all the greens make it ou to be. Kevin |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Sponix wrote:
On 10 Feb 2006 03:12:16 -0800, "Mark Carver" wrote: So where is the mercury, if it's not in the phosphor powder? It's in vapour form AIUI ? isn't it 'solidified' mercury that cause the ends of the tube to go black eventually ? So once the tube is broken then the mercury vapour presumably disperses. sponix No, it condenses into liquid mercury. A fairly toxic, but not totally hazardous element. |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Kev wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Sponix wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:58:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Mark Carver wrote: Kev wrote: Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Is it not the mercury content ? that was my undertstanding. The phosphors are relatively harmless. So where is the mercury, if it's not in the phosphor powder? sponix Usually lying around in the tube. You can actually pour he odd blob of mercury out of a broken tube. Fluorescents are mercury vapour lamps. The plasma discharge is primarily through mercury vapour, which then generates a complex spectrum of lines, some in the visible spectrum, but a lot in the UV spectrum. The job of the *phosphor coated tube* is to take those UV emissions and re-emit them as visible light. The two processes are completely distinct and separate. As are the chemicals involved. I believe that to get the mercury there, a small blob of mercury is placed in the tube, its taken down to a very low pressure, and the mercury 'boils' off and fills the tube as vapour. Given the number of old household tubes going to landfill, the volume of mecury as a total of the of the landfill volume must be in the same order as the background mecury content. So the energy inefficient filament bulb is not quite the villain that all the greens make it ou to be. he trouble is that the green movement has relied on sloppy thinking for years. Full pollution analysis probably makes nuclear power amongst the greenest thing there is... the amount of energy in recycling stuff probably makes most of it counter productive. Kevin |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:58:33 GMT Sponix wrote :
It's the phosphor powder on the inside of the tube that is the problem. Once it escapes and reacts with air is it any different to the phosphorus in garden fertiliser? -- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm [Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005] |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
|My council have always taken tubes before but they are classed as
|hazardous waste and can't go in landfill so I will have to burn petrol, |putting CO2 into the atmosphere taking one 4ft tube to the council dump |to be diposed of. There again I could put the tube back in the bin and |hit it on the side with a hammer. Health and safety gone mad. It is not actually. The mercury content is very hazardous in large amounts. The problem is,as with so many things, a questions of scale. The odd tube here and there discarded into landfill is not in itself likely to be a hazard. Scale that up the millions of tubes discarded each year and it amounts to significant amount of a very toxic material that does not decompose. Peter Crosland |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Peter Crosland wrote: |My council have always taken tubes before but they are classed as |hazardous waste and can't go in landfill so I will have to burn petrol, |putting CO2 into the atmosphere taking one 4ft tube to the council dump |to be diposed of. There again I could put the tube back in the bin and |hit it on the side with a hammer. Health and safety gone mad. It is not actually. The mercury content is very hazardous in large amounts. The problem is,as with so many things, a questions of scale. The odd tube here and there discarded into landfill is not in itself likely to be a hazard. Scale that up the millions of tubes discarded each year and it amounts to significant amount of a very toxic material that does not decompose. Peter Crosland Like everything with the green issue, the whole thing is scewed up. Scale up the millions of tubes discarded every amounts to significant amounts of toxic material has to considered in the context of the thousands of gallons of petrol that will now be burnt by householders taking their old tubes and compact bulbs to the fuse tip. I probabley dispose of one, possibley two tubes a year. I think that I have only had to replace one compact bulb over a period of ten years. Considering the amount of hazardous waste that would generate as a percentage of just the tons of useless packaging I get through in a year verses the trips to the tip that I am now expected to make doesn't make sense. But it is like the criticism levelled this week on the amount of water used by households. With 30% of water lost before it even reaches the tap the environmentalists are levelling their anger at the wrong people. Kevin |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Kev wrote:
.. But it is like the criticism levelled this week on the amount of water used by households. With 30% of water lost before it even reaches the tap the environmentalists are levelling their anger at the wrong people. The answer is to use more water: Then the relatively fixed losses of the pipelines will drop to less in proportion :-) This is the sort of inspired thinking that any government department is expert at. |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
How many uk.d-i-yers does it take to dispose of a fluorescent tube? Total so far...: 1 to jokingly suggest flushing it down the loo 3 to suggest smashing it and putting it in the bin in a box 3 to enquire about the toxic nature of the tube and it's materials 3 to discuss the properties and alterative uses of the toxic materials 3 to discuss how the toxic materials enable to tube to work 3 to discuss what happens to the toxic materials when the tube is broken 2 to complain about excessive health and safety 2 to complain about the CO2 generated by driving to the tip 1 to complain about the toxic materials being landfilled 1 to propose that the tubes being landfilled isn't a problem 2 to disagree about tubes being landfilled and discuss tube recyling to be continued...? On 10 Feb 2006 01:20:49 -0800, "Kev" wrote: My council have always taken tubes before but they are classed as hazardous waste and can't go in landfill so I will have to burn petrol, putting CO2 into the atmosphere taking one 4ft tube to the council dump to be diposed of. There again I could put the tube back in the bin and hit it on the side with a hammer. Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into landfill. Also bearing in mind that there has been debate this week about fining people for using a filament bulb and encougaging the use of compact fluorescent bulbs whether the CO2 saved by using the more efficient bulbs is going to be more than offset by the extra CO2 used in disposing of Fluorescent tubes and bulbs. Kevin |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
|
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On 10 Feb 2006 06:14:17 -0800, "Kev" wrote:
Like everything with the green issue, the whole thing is scewed up. Scale up the millions of tubes discarded every amounts to significant amounts of toxic material has to considered in the context of the thousands of gallons of petrol that will now be burnt by householders taking their old tubes and compact bulbs to the fuse tip. I probabley dispose of one, possibley two tubes a year. I think that I have only had to replace one compact bulb over a period of ten years. Considering the amount of hazardous waste that would generate as a percentage of just the tons of useless packaging I get through in a year verses the trips to the tip that I am now expected to make doesn't make sense. This is a common market thing hyped up by the tube disposal "industry". I've seen an advert that just one fluorescent tube contains enough mercury to contaminate 30,000 Cubic Metres of groundwater. What the ad avoided saying is that it the Mercury doesn't actually end up in groundwater most of it gets sequestered by chemicals (Sulphur ?) in the environment. DG |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Kev wrote: But it is like the criticism levelled this week on the amount of water used by households. With 30% of water lost before it even reaches the tap the environmentalists are levelling their anger at the wrong people. The answer is to use more water: Then the relatively fixed losses of the pipelines will drop to less in proportion :-) Not far from where I live there's a quite substantial amount of water emerging from a bleb in the middle of a road - obviously a broken water main - where it runs down the hill and down a drain; the road is always wet. Last week I decided to report it to United Utilities - I couldn't believe that somebody hadn't already done so as it had been going for ages, but anyway... (In my defence, had it been in my road I'd have phoned UU straight away, but as there must several hundred homes between me and the leak, I didn't think it was really down to me!). So, I got through on the phone, and the nice lady said, "Ah yes, we already know about that leak, thanks. Somebody reported it in.... er, August". David |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On 10 Feb 2006 03:12:16 -0800, "Mark Carver"
wrote: So where is the mercury, if it's not in the phosphor powder? It's in vapour form AIUI ? In cool conditions it condenses to liquid Mercury. When the tube is running the Mercury vapourises. It is this that is responsible for the warm up delay that cheap compact fluorescents exhibit. isn't it 'solidified' mercury that cause the ends of the tube to go black eventually ? No it's the actual metal of the filaments which gets ripped off the filament surface by the discharge, especially if the filaments aren't hot enough, at start-up for instance, or if the ballast &/or starter doesn't provide enough pre-heat. Eventually this leaves the filaments thin and weak and they break. Probably the origin of stories that it's cheaper to leave fluorescents on than switch them off. DG |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
In message , T i m
writes On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:04:06 +0000, Dave Fawthrop wrote: Umpteen years ago some fluorescent tube contained beryllium Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..? Heat conductive washers etc -- geoff |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
"Derek ^" wrote in message ... On 10 Feb 2006 03:12:16 -0800, "Mark Carver" wrote: So where is the mercury, if it's not in the phosphor powder? It's in vapour form AIUI ? In cool conditions it condenses to liquid Mercury. When the tube is running the Mercury vapourises. It is this that is responsible for the warm up delay that cheap compact fluorescents exhibit. isn't it 'solidified' mercury that cause the ends of the tube to go black eventually ? No it's the actual metal of the filaments which gets ripped off the filament surface by the discharge, especially if the filaments aren't hot enough, at start-up for instance, or if the ballast &/or starter doesn't provide enough pre-heat. Eventually this leaves the filaments thin and weak and they break. Probably the origin of stories that it's cheaper to leave fluorescents on than switch them off. DG We get very hung up over such issues but consider the environmental damage that arson creates. |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Kev wrote:
But it is like the criticism levelled this week on the amount of water used by households. With 30% of water lost before it even reaches the tap the environmentalists are levelling their anger at the wrong people. Lavatory cisterns with flap valves waste lost of water. |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
"Lobster" wrote in message
... So, I got through on the phone, and the nice lady said, "Ah yes, we already know about that leak, thanks. Somebody reported it in.... er, August". David I hesitate to jump to their defence, but it can be quite difficult to get permission to close a road for roadworks. Lots of rules about how many times a year and how many different services club together to share the inconvenience, etc. Having said that, they don't really seem to care a great deal if it's a cost to them to do something (you can bet your life if a customer was benefiting from something they'd jump to it!). a |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
In article ,
"Peter Crosland" writes: It is not actually. The mercury content is very hazardous in large amounts. The problem is,as with so many things, a questions of scale. The odd tube here and there discarded into landfill is not in itself likely to be a hazard. Scale that up the millions of tubes discarded each year and it amounts to significant amount of a very toxic material that does not decompose. In modern tubes, it's tiny though. I saw a discussion of this relating to the World Trade Center collapse. Some of those nearby were concerned they might have got mercury poisoning from the tubes in the building breaking. They might have a small valid concern about mercury poison, but not from the tubes. The mercury released from the teeth fillings of the people who died is orders of magnitude higher. In the UK, it averages 3g per person at the crematorium. -- Andrew Gabriel |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
In article ,
Derek ^ writes: No it's the actual metal of the filaments which gets ripped off the filament surface by the discharge, especially if the filaments aren't Actually, it's the emission coating on the filaments, not the metal. Once the emission coating is all sputtered off, the filaments can't transfer enough current into the gas to maintain the discharge, unless the control gear has enough voltage headroom to make the tube operate as a cold cathode tube. hot enough, at start-up for instance, or if the ballast &/or starter doesn't provide enough pre-heat. Eventually this leaves the filaments thin and weak and they break. This will happen if the tube continues running in cold cathode mode after the emission coating is all gone. This is dangerous as it will overheat the tube ends, with the possibility of melting the lampholder, igniting something nearby, or causing the glass to crack or melt and the tube falling out. Control gear should ensure a tube which has lost it's emission coating (and is strictly dead) is not allowed to continue operating at higher tube voltages until catastophic failure, although I've certainly got some examples which don't. -- Andrew Gabriel |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On 10 Feb 2006 22:36:04 GMT, andrew@a17 (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
In article , "Peter Crosland" writes: It is not actually. The mercury content is very hazardous in large amounts. The problem is,as with so many things, a questions of scale. The odd tube here and there discarded into landfill is not in itself likely to be a hazard. Scale that up the millions of tubes discarded each year and it amounts to significant amount of a very toxic material that does not decompose. In modern tubes, it's tiny though. I saw a discussion of this relating to the World Trade Center collapse. Some of those nearby were concerned they might have got mercury poisoning from the tubes in the building breaking. They might have a small valid concern about mercury poison, but not from the tubes. The mercury released from the teeth fillings of the people who died is orders of magnitude higher. In the UK, it averages 3g per person at the crematorium. I'd heard this. Some years ago the dentist showed me a container where he collected left over amalgam filling material recovered from utensils and a filter under the drain of the little spitoon. It wasn't a large box but weighed several kilos. I gradually had old childhood fillings replaced until they were all gone. I would have liked to have lost more weight but every little helps. -- ..andy |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On 10 Feb 2006 22:36:04 GMT, andrew@a17 (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
In article , "Peter Crosland" writes: It is not actually. The mercury content is very hazardous in large amounts. The problem is,as with so many things, a questions of scale. The odd tube here and there discarded into landfill is not in itself likely to be a hazard. Scale that up the millions of tubes discarded each year and it amounts to significant amount of a very toxic material that does not decompose. In modern tubes, it's tiny though. I saw a discussion of this relating to the World Trade Center collapse. Some of those nearby were concerned they might have got mercury poisoning from the tubes in the building breaking. They might have a small valid concern about mercury poison, but not from the tubes. The mercury released from the teeth fillings of the people who died is orders of magnitude higher. In the UK, it averages 3g per person at the crematorium. Sheesh - how many people nowadays have Hg fillings in their teeth? I thought white fillings were "de rigeur". Or crowns. -- Frank Erskine Sunderland |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:39:40 +0000, Pete C wrote:
to be continued...? The tubes (unbroken) never fail, only the heaters. So either build yourself a Tesla coil, or go and live under a Grid powerline and light them up again just with the external field. |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Andy Dingley wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:39:40 +0000, Pete C wrote: to be continued...? The tubes (unbroken) never fail, only the heaters. So either build yourself a Tesla coil, or go and live under a Grid powerline and light them up again just with the external field. I saw that (too?) on Tomorrow's World :) But would you be charged with stealing electricity? Must try it sometime - there's a set of lines just down the road, 'twill amuse the local chavs. Tim |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:39:40 +0000, Pete C
wrote: How many uk.d-i-yers does it take to dispose of a fluorescent tube? Total so far...: 1 to jokingly suggest flushing it down the loo 3 to suggest smashing it and putting it in the bin in a box 3 to enquire about the toxic nature of the tube and it's materials 3 to discuss the properties and alterative uses of the toxic materials 3 to discuss how the toxic materials enable to tube to work 3 to discuss what happens to the toxic materials when the tube is broken 2 to complain about excessive health and safety 2 to complain about the CO2 generated by driving to the tip 1 to complain about the toxic materials being landfilled 1 to propose that the tubes being landfilled isn't a problem 2 to disagree about tubes being landfilled and discuss tube recyling to be continued...? And 1 to comment on the different things people have gone off tangent on. Or have I made that 2 now? -- Get money off vouchers for everything http://www.moneyoffvouchers.co.uk |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
Frank Erskine wrote: (Andrew Gabriel) wrote: "Peter Crosland" writes: The mercury released from the teeth fillings of the people who died is orders of magnitude higher. In the UK, it averages 3g per person at the crematorium. Sheesh - how many people nowadays have Hg fillings in their teeth? I do. I've still got all my childhood fillings in there. They've done me for 30 years, why would I change them now ? Or am I going to die soon ;-) Paul (who doesn't eat toffees ;) |
Disposing of Fluorescent Tubes
In message , Andy Hall
writes On 11 Feb 2006 09:00:14 -0800, wrote: The mercury released from the teeth fillings of the people who died is orders of magnitude higher. In the UK, it averages 3g per person at the crematorium. Sheesh - how many people nowadays have Hg fillings in their teeth? I'm not sure about that, but modern filling materials are stronger and adhere better than amalgam filling material so when it comes to replacement I can't agree there I've had problems with ceramic fillings falling out my molar fillings are Hg amalgam -- geoff |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter