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

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

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]

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.

Not usually (_some_ obscure phosphors are hazzardous)

The problem with fluorescents is the mercury vapour in them.

After serious thinking Andy Dingley wrote :
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.

Not usually (_some_ obscure phosphors are hazzardous)

The problem with fluorescents is the mercury vapour in them.

Liquid mercury I believe.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:58:01 GMT, "Harry Bloomfield"
wrote:

The problem with fluorescents is the mercury vapour in them.

Liquid mercury I believe.

Depends on the pressure. There hasn't been significant liquid mercury in
them for years, since concerns over mercury hazards began.

One of the reasons why mercury is such a scare-story is that "mercury
sniffers" are a common hand-held test device for the clueless OHS bod.
With one of these you can find "mercury" traces in almost every old
industrial site.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:28:21 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

|On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:58:01 GMT, "Harry Bloomfield"
wrote:
|
| The problem with fluorescents is the mercury vapour in them.
|
|Liquid mercury I believe.
|
|Depends on the pressure. There hasn't been significant liquid mercury in
|them for years, since concerns over mercury hazards began.
|
|One of the reasons why mercury is such a scare-story is that "mercury
|sniffers" are a common hand-held test device for the clueless OHS bod.
|With one of these you can find "mercury" traces in almost every old
|industrial site.

Maybe that is why ?many? on usenet are mad as hatters ;o)
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
Freedom of Speech, Expression, Religion, and Democracy are
the keys to Civilization, together with legal acceptance of
Fundamental Human rights.

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.

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

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

T i m formulated the question :
Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was inside the actual device -usually the higher power rated
devices.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

In message , Harry Bloomfield
writes
T i m formulated the question :
Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was inside the actual device -usually the higher power rated
devices.

The main danger was from insulating heatsink washers - I've got some
somewhere. The danger being from inhaling beryllium dust if one got
broken

--
geoff

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:12:54 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Harry Bloomfield
writes
T i m formulated the question :
Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was inside the actual device -usually the higher power rated
devices.

The main danger was from insulating heatsink washers - I've got some
somewhere. The danger being from inhaling beryllium dust if one got
broken

Were they the translucent ones you found under 2N3055's ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:28:15 GMT, T i m wrote:

Umpteen years ago some fluorescent tube contained beryllium

Wasn't it also in the heatsink compound we used to use ..?

No, it was in the insulator compounds we didn't use - unless you were
fooling with '60-'70s vintage VHF power transistors. It was also
beryllium oxide, not beryllium metal, which is fragile and a dust
hazard. The metal itself is relatively stable, so nothing like so
hazardous. Old jet engines could be full of it too - watch out for
those igniter harnesses.

Beryllium also turns up as a hardening alloying ingredient in some
bronzes - particularly springs, relay contacts and spark-proof bronze
tools. It always amuses me (I'm sick like that) when I see a big
oil-refinery spanner on eBay described as "Cube brand, freshly polished
for display"

|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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
Sheesh - how many people nowadays have Hg fillings in their teeth? I
thought white fillings were "de rigeur".

Even the most expensive private treatment still uses amalgam for certain
things.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:22:19 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

It is not actually. The mercury content is very hazardous in large amounts.

When I was a kid I used to make pocket money by collecting old mercury
rectifiers and selling the metal off when I'd filled the carboy (some
tens of lbs).

Dropped one once...

--
10/6 in this size

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:34:04 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:22:19 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

It is not actually. The mercury content is very hazardous in large amounts.

When I was a kid I used to make pocket money by collecting old mercury
rectifiers and selling the metal off when I'd filled the carboy (some
tens of lbs).

Dropped one once...

Mein Gott!

How old are you?

The only mercury arc rectifier I have seen (not to say gone round and
collected, it was a a one off instance) was in Crich Transport Museum,
and I am 59 !

DG

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:54:16 +0000, Derek ^
wrote:

How old are you?

Young enough that these things were getting replaced at the time.

The only mercury arc rectifier I have seen (not to say gone round and
collected, it was a a one off instance) was in Crich Transport Museum,
and I am 59 !

I saw one on Friday - sitting in the foyer of a local cinema.

I think I'll offer to remove their dreadful hazardous device for them
8-) I wish I'd kept one of those glass octopuses.

In article ,
Derek ^ writes:

The only mercury arc rectifier I have seen (not to say gone round and
collected, it was a a one off instance) was in Crich Transport Museum,
and I am 59 !

There are still some around the London Underground (or at least
were quite recently). I believe they are for escalator and
elevator motors, rather than the trains.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Derek ^ wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote:

When I was a kid I used to make pocket money by collecting old mercury
rectifiers and selling the metal off when I'd filled the carboy (some
tens of lbs).

Dropped one once...

Mein Gott! How old are you?

The only mercury arc rectifier I have seen (not to say gone round and
collected, it was a a one off instance) was in Crich Transport Museum,
and I am 59 !

I saw one in use in Old Swan Technical college, back in oh, err ..
counts 1983. It was connected to the lab 3 phase supply. Very
impressive when in use.

Cheers

Paul.

In article ,
Derek ^ wrote:
The only mercury arc rectifier I have seen (not to say gone round and
collected, it was a a one off instance) was in Crich Transport Museum,
and I am 59 !

When BBC TV Theatre was closed for refurbishment in the late '60s, the BBC
took over the Golders Green Hippodrome as a replacment. And there was a
working one in there - probably for projectors, etc. It was a convenient
source of DC for the Mole camera crane, so remained in use for some time.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Kev wrote:

Just wondered what is so hazardous about a tube that it can't go into
landfill.

Is it not the mercury content ?

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...

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

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 ?

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

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

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.

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

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.