Mercury In Florescent Light Bulbs
Estimates are that as much as 25% of the average home energy budget is spent on electric lighting¹. Compact florescent lights have made a huge impact into the environmental scene in recent years because of their energy efficiency. They are extremely energy efficient. Some manufacturers claim things such as: compact florescent lamps are 4 times as efficient as regular light bulbs, they last 10 times as long as regular light bulbs, replacing a single light bulb with a compact florescent bulb will keep a half ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, and if everyone in the U.S. used energy-efficient lighting, we could retire 90 average size power plants. In truth, there is little reason to doubt these claims. They are certainly much more efficient. There has been much recent debate however on the actual environmental impact of compact florescent lights after the public became aware of the amount of mercury that was in the bulbs.
Of course, it should not come as a surprise that Mercury is found in compact florescent bulbs. Compact florescent bulbs are basically tiny versions of the full sized florescent bulbs we are more familiar with which contain mercury.
Mercury is a very harmful environmental contaminant. It is not beneficial to the body in any amount3, is a potent neurotoxin6, 7, and has been linked to autism5. Recently, much news has been on mercury poisoning in fish especially sushi.
Manufacturers claim that there is very little mercury in the bulbs. Some sight that there is less mercury in some than in a common watch batteries. One article stated that there is more mercury in some tooth fillings than in the average compact florescent light bulb. Of course, the consumer should not be taken in by this last statement. The mercury in amalgam fillings is a different chemical species and is not toxic to the human body. For a more complete discussion of mercury in amalgam fillings see this post.
The real issue is the fragility of the light bulbs. If a florescent bulb breaks the mercury is released. This is a major problem because it is much easier for a watch battery to reach the landfill unharmed than it is for a glass bulb. Not only does this mercury get released to the environment (which can eventually find its way into fish believe it or not), but it also exposes city workers to high levels of a potent neurotoxin. Some cities have placed ordinances on putting compact florescent bulbs in the trash. Most major cities offer recycling options for florescent bulbs.
Therefore, the major question becomes: what is the actual environmental impact of compact florescent bulbs? Does the mercury pose a greater threat to the environment than the increased carbon emissions of less efficient traditional bulbs, or is the mercury of much smaller environmental impact?
In a recent paper entitled, “Release of mercury from broken fluorescent bulbs11” Aucott, McLinden, and Winka develop a method for measuring mercury released from broken bulbs. They found that between 17 and 40% of the mercury in broken low-mercury fluorescent bulbs is released to the air during a two-week period immediately following breakage which is approximately between 3 and 8 mg of elemental mercury vapor11. Approximately 620 million fluorescent bulbs are discarded annually in the United States, and many are broken during disposal. Based on the estimated release rate of 3-8 mg per broken bulb developed in this study, discarded bulbs release approximately 2-4 tons of mercury per year in the United States11.
That is certainly a significant amount of mercury being released to the environment every year in the United States. However, it should be recognized that our total carbon footprint is also reduced quite a bit from their use. My personal opinion is that use of compact florescent bulbs should be encouraged as long as recycling technologies are easily accessible and the public becomes aware of the proper disposal process.
1. http://www.eartheasy.com/live_energyeff_lighting.htm
2. Importance of wetlands as sources of methyl mercury to boreal forest ecosystems
St. Louis, VL; Rudd, JWM; Kelly, CA; Beaty, KG; Bloom, NS; Flett, RJ
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences [CAN. J. FISH. AQUAT. SCI.]. Vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1065-1076. 1994.
3. http://dcnutrition.com/minerals/minerals.cfm
4. Mercury methylation in aquatic systems affected by acid deposition; Gilmour CC, Henry EA, Environ Pollut. 1991; 71(2-4):131-69
5. Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning; S. Bernard, A. Enayati, L. Redwood, H. Roger and T. Binstock; ARC Research, Cranford, New Jersey, USA
6. Methylmercury poisoning: long-term clinical, radiological, toxicological, and pathological studies of an affected family; Davis LE, Kornfeld M, Mooney HS, Fiedler KJ, Haaland KY, Orrison WW, Cernichiari E, Clarkson TW; Ann Neurol. 1994 Jun;35(6):680-8
7. Iatrogenic exposure to mercury after hepatitis B vaccination in preterm infants;
Stajich GV, Lopez GP, Harry SW, Sexson WR; J Pediatr. 2000 May;136(5):679-81
8. Personal Presentations in Biogeochemistry; Texas A&M University; Dr. McGuire
9. People with high mercury uptake from their own dental amalgam fillings; L Barregard, G Sallsten and B Jarvholm; Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol 52, 124-128
10. Regional differences in worldwide emissions of mercury to the atmosphere; Nicola Pirrone, Gerald J. Keeler and Jerome O. Nriagu; Atmospheric Environment Vol. 30, No. 17, pp. 2981 2987, 1996; Copyright © 1996 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
11. Release of mercury from broken fluorescent bulbs; Aucott M, McLinden M, Winka M.; Journal of Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2003 Feb;53(2):143-51
12. The Materials Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the United States and the World; John L. Sznopek, Thomas G. Goonan; U.S. Geological Survey CIrcular 1197
13. Airborne Emission of Mercury from Municipal Solid Waste. I: New Measurements from Six Operating Landfills in Florida; Steven E. Lindberg, George R. Southworth, Mary Anna Bogle, T.J. Blasing, Jim Owens, and Kelly Roy; Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
5 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
stella nikoloudi on The World’s 10 Worst Env… Jane Sitze on Medications in Drinking W… Alyssa on What is a Superfund Site? P. Barnes on Who I am stella nikoloudi on Is Al Gore’s $300 millio…
Your article left out the extremely important fact the the inefficiency of incandescent bulbs causes more mercury to invade the atmosphere through the emissions of coal-fired power plants, still the most common kind, at least in my state. And that mercury is uncontained and freely dispersed, meaning that every lake in my state now has a mercury warning. We can’t eat the fish God provided us with, except with warnings, especially for pregnant women. I was going to write that you shouldn’t tell half the story, but you didn’t even tell that much. If mercury matters, as you make very plain, ALL mercury matters.
Rebecca,
The sixth paragraph states, “Therefore, the major question becomes: what is the actual environmental impact of compact florescent bulbs? Does the mercury pose a greater threat to the environment than the increased carbon emissions of less efficient traditional bulbs, or is the mercury of much smaller environmental impact?”
and the last paragraph states,
“However, it should be recognized that our total carbon footprint is also reduced quite a bit from their use. My personal opinion is that use of compact florescent bulbs should be encouraged as long as recycling technologies are easily accessible and the public becomes aware of the proper disposal process.”
I am not sure if you actually read the article or not, but I will say that the reason I wont state unequivocably that, “inefficiency of incandescent bulbs causes more mercury to invade the atmosphere through the emissions of coal-fired power plants” as you stated, is that this statement is yet unproven.
Despite what you may read on websites or hear on the news this may or may not be the case. I would encourage you to read scholarly articles on the subject such as the ones I site in my article.
In a nutshell here is the problem:
CFB’s will certainly release mercury if they are used because they will break. Therefore, we need to know:
A. How much mercury is released when they break
B. What would be the total amount if CFB’s replaced all the bulbs for the country
This is not an easy question to answer. I know of at least 3 papers that attempt to tackle the issue. The best, in my opinion, is the Aucott, McLinden, and Winka article.
It may be that if all of the bulbs in America were replaced with CFB’s then our actual mercury flux would be even higher.
In the end, I probably agree with you that we should replace the bulbs if we are able to employ proper disposal. I state this at the end of my article. It is an opinion though, not a fact.
All Home Depot stores in the US will accept spent/unused CFLs for reccling, no matter where they were purchased. No questions asked. All non-private enterprises are required by law to recyle mercury-containing equipment. Alas, individual residences are not yet required to recylce MCE. If CFLs or fluorescent tubes are broken, clean up the spilled contents and place in a plastic receptacle and take it to the next community hazardous waste pick up. These 2 steps alone will contribute to a healthier environment, if people will actually take the time to do it.
As for spent incandescents bulbs, many are characterized as hazardous for the lead content they possess. Simply think before you toss.
Oops. That should have read “All businesses are required by law to recycle mercury-containin equipment.” Also, land fills are increasing intolerant of accepting fluorescent lamps. Soon, they will not pick up these items from your curb at all.
I belive that more studies are needed and national laws on mercury are required. The miss use of fluorescent lighting and it’s maintenance is the main problem. Few of us in the industray of caring for building be they schools, officies, or industrial type to make the lamps last as long as oppissble because we do not know that we could case a health hazard to ourselfs and others by allowing the lamps to remain installed beyound their safe limit. And the lamp companies do not tell the public when the lamp should be removed before it causes a health hazard clearly. Fluorescent lamps users should know the installation date, the required date of removal, and the date of removal to keep us safe and maintain a record of it from 5 to 10 years.
If 3 Fluorescent lamps F-96 T12 can contain as much as 1.5 tablespoons of mercury the amount for a hazardous waste control, handling and reporting in some states. Now if you have hunderds of these lamp in one room and 50 percent are pass the removal date they could be relessing 14 percent of their mercury how many of them would it take to make you sick from mercury poisoning. Now if you are in there every day for years isn’t it possible that we could gate sick. You do the math. Yet it is know that possible rise in ADD and other mential dessies are on the rise with about the same as with the use of fluorescent fixture through out the world. Boy! what a medical question?