Qu: Are energy-saving bulbs the brightest idea?
Qu: What’s your stance on energy saving light bulbs? I’ve heard several reports that they contain mercury and can be dangerous.
The media had a field day at the end of last year with some serious scaremongering regarding the dangers of energy-saving bulbs (CFL’s).
It all began when The Daily Mail picked up on a report by the Environment agency calling for a public awareness campaign to explain that the packaging of energy-efficient lighting contains small amounts of potentially toxic mercury and should therefore be disposed of with care.
The Mail ran a typically hysterical piece headlined “An energy saving bulb has gone - evacuate the room now!”
The general thrust of the article being, ‘energy-saving light bulbs are so dangerous that everyone must leave the room for at least 15 minutes if one falls to the floor and breaks.’
This is, of course, an exaggeration of the facts. Toxicologist Dr. David Ray, from the University of Nottingham, told the BBC that 6-8mg of mercury is present in a typical low-energy bulb. A pretty small amount considering thermometers, which we happily stick in our mouths, contain about 3 grams of the stuff.
Dr. Ray concludes that a smashed bulb causes little danger - but warns that this increases proportionately to consistent exposure and greater numbers of smashed bulbs. DEFRA also played down the threat to health, saying; ‘No amount of mercury is good for you, but the very small amount contained in a single modern CFL is unlikely to cause any harm, even if the lamp should be broken,’
(It’s also worth noting that strip lighting has always contained mercury - yet no-one seems to be complaining about that!)
The Mail went on to finger energy-saving bulbs as a potential source of cancer following a report by British Association of Dermatologists (BAD).
In this next distortion of the facts they claim that the ‘new’ lights (they’ve actually been around for over 30 years) “can trigger migraines, as well as dizziness, loss of focus and discomfort.” However the article goes on to say that these symptoms would only affect people already suffering from certain conditions (like epilepsy and photosensitivity). Dr Colin Holden from B.A.D. explains that people suffering from photosensitive skin conditions should be allowed to continue to use daylight (tungsten) bulbs to prevent “photosensitive eruptions ranging from disabling eczema-like reactions, to light sensitivities that can lead to skin cancer.”
Fine, those with a medical condition would obviously be prescribed the old bulbs, but that shouldn’t stop everyone else switching to CFL’s.
The real concern, the one that started this debate in the first place, is the environmental impact of disposing of the energy-saving bulbs. The Environment Agency’s call for a public information campaign acknowledges a need for greater awareness before tungsten bulbs are completely phased out. Careful disposal of the energy-saving bulbs will prevent the mercury content being released into the atmosphere. Thankfully more and more places now provide the facilities for you to drop off your used bulbs to be disposed of safely, including council refuse tips and some bulb retailers (Ikea, DIY stores etc.) and this service will become more widespread as CLF bulbs become more popular.
Besides, it’s reported that, even if everyone just threw their CFL light bulbs into the main rubbish to go to landfill, the amount of mercury entering the environment would still be less than that which currently enters the environment as a result of the production of the electricity needed to power all the traditional lightbulbs. Besides, CFL bulbs last far longer than traditional ones so there will be far less of them to throw away (source). So, no excuses, off you pop to the shops to buy your new bulbs…
Bethan
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
We can try to save energy by using low-energy light bulbs. Presently
these are based on a technology that uses mercury. Traditional forecasting or planning would attempt to establish whether the energy savings are more substantial than the disadvantage of dispersing more mercury. The real answer is that it is usually not possible to answer these kinds of questions with any degree of certainty.
Ikea used The Natural Step planning methodology in developing their low-energy bulbs. As a result, they found a supplier in China that used a third as much mercury as other suppliers. The other suppliers were duly notified about the reasons for choosing Chinese low-energy bulbs. It is obvious what the effect of this announcement was, not least its virtual guarantee that funding would be put into new research. Tomorrow’s alternatives, heading towards no mercury, are under development.
the key to the whole thing is the closed technical loop idea of the recycling program put in place by Ikea. Without that it isn’t much of a step in the right direction towards sustainability. The systematic increase of mercury in natural systems is a serious problem but by looking to reduce the amount used in production and then eventually substitute it for something else along with a recycling system is a great step over the old bulbs.
thx
Neil
August 6th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your comment. It goes to show how important it is for large businesses to prioritise environmental policy, especially when it comes to being transparent in ‘greening’ their supply chain. I’ve heard a similar story to the ‘Chinese Ikea lightbulbs’; this time the business is Sky, who, in their new campaign to be CarbonNeutral, have sparked a race for optimum energy efficiency between manufacturers of digi boxes.
Suppliers will go the extra mile to improve their environmental credentials when winning business is at stake; a realistic and slightly depressing fact that should be a cue for to the government and consumers alike to put pressure on market leaders.
Bethan