Wikipedia might not be an authority on anything, but it does link to a lot of useful articles, many of which are from organisations which are generally regarded as authorities. Such as the World Health Organization. Let’s see what they say in their Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects document from 2003.

Several studies concur that average exposure to
elemental mercury at a concentration of 20 μg/m³ (20,000ng/m³) led to
slight, but not clinically observable, central nervous
system effects among exposed workers.

They mention that the figure is lower if there is a 24/7 exposure, but let’s assume for now that their room is not a prison cell. In other words, the peak level found by this Maine study is comparable to the level required to cause problems over a long-term exposure (admittedly, in adults).

But after three months, it’s down to a level of 2μg/m³. This is certainly still not nothing, but comparable to the amount you regularly inhale if you have an amalgam filling (Berglund, 1990). So I think that this claim that NZ will start becoming a “dumbed down” nation on the back of these results is a bit far-fetched.

Note that fish sold for consumption may have up to 1mg/kg mercury (see FSA website). I don’t see any comparison of this danger in your article. It’s an even greater danger, too – the mercury in fish having a large organic component (20% according to the WHO statement). Most of the studies I came across in this brief foray have had to control fish consumption in subjects to get meaningful results, implying that eating fish is of comparable concern.

Of course if the 300ng/m³ figure wasn’t just plucked out of the air, as one of your interviewees challenges you to show, then there may be a real concern. LED-based lightbulbs are much more efficient than fluorescents, and do not have these associated risks – hopefully we’ll see this intervention help bring this technology to the commodity market, as CFLs at $3 each basically are now.

My conscience will now thankfully be clear when I dump my spent bulbs in the land-fill.

“Ontario’s Electrical Safety Authority will issue a warning later this week to notify users of the unexpected way compact fluorescent light bulbs expire at the end of their long lifespan,” reported Canada’s CBC TV network last year.9

“Ted Olechna, a provincial code engineer with the Mississauga-based authority, said he plans to post the warning on its website. The bulbs come to an end by charring around the base, producing smoke and emitting a bad smell.

“That has scared some homeowners into calling fire departments, he said. But there have been no reports of fires resulting from fluorescent bulbs in Ontario, Olechna said.

“The upcoming advisory will explain that this is the normal way for these energy-efficient bulbs, which can last up to 10,000 hours, to die.”

As for your ‘skepticism’ regarding Investigate. The magazine has published nearly 2,000 articles. Our accuracy rate is far higher than any radio or TV news service, and probably better than most if not all of the other media in NZ.

As the reports from the US have only just been released I think we shall have to wait to see what due process will produce in corroboration or refutation of the claims made. As I noted in reply to your blog some weeks ago fluorescent lamp technology has existed in its various forms for decades with very little concern so the sudden rush of blood to the head in respect of CFLs is difficult to understand or justify.

Like another correspondent I do not believe it is normal for the bulbs to “burn up” at the end of their life. I have never experienced this with any type of CFL, and that includes the more commercial types such as are often found in exterior lamp fittings on buildings which are of somewhat different design however. Also I do not believe the regulatory authorities in NZ would allow any type of electrical device to be on the market in NZ that was at a high probability (as the word “normal” implies) of “burning up”. I suspect such comments are typified by certain inferior brands of these bulbs but certainly not the ones I have used. Similarly breakage is not a concern I am aware of as I have never experienced this but it is pretty obvious to me you should not hold the bulb by the glass tube when inserting or removing it as it could easily break this way.

Samv, I’m unsure if you’ve read the Investigate article, unlike those prior who shot first and looked silly later, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Wikipedia is not the authority on CFL bulbs. The outcome of the Maine study is a recommendation that these lights not be used in areas with children or pregnant women or carpets, and that if a light breaks over a carpet the recommended course of action is to throw away the carpet. Vacuuming might make you feel better, but it won’t eradicate hazardous levels of mercury.

That recommendation is now being picked up across the US. It is the latest scientific position, based on empirical testing, not computer modelling or the idle speculation of the world’s green blog commentators.

In terms of debating this, my dog is bigger than your dog. I’m quoting numerous scientific studies with references. You are simply dismissively waving your hand saying “trust me”. It’s up to you, or Virtualmark, or Swampy, or anyone else up for the challenge, to actually refute what I wrote in that article if you want to make a substantive point.

Otherwise it’s just hot air on your part. You criticise my reading of the studies? Fine, read the studies I cited and tell me where my article strays from their conclusions.

I forgot to add in regard to burning or exploding bulbs…Google Otago Daily Times and cfl bulbs, and read some of the experiences of readers with exploding and burning bulbs.

http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/alerts/ChineseToothpaste/DGStatement.asp

Is it right or wrong that Medsafe has a policy on the quality and chemical makeup of toothpaste, or should “the market” be the sole arbiter of what goes on our shelves?

On the Mercury – if you’re in a part of the country receiving power from Huntly, then using a CFL will release less mercury into the atmosphere, because of the reduced amount of mercury released by the lower amount of power required. There’s a reference on Wikipedia’s CFL article for that one. Most of the few milligrams of mercury used in the bulbs ends up fused to the glass.

On burning up at the end of their life – I won’t put forward a position on that, other than I’ve never seen it happen and have not researched it. But it seems like it’s addressing a relatively minor concern – a lamp with an incandescent bulb can start a fire just from falling over and touching some fabric or carpet, but you won’t see that with a CFL because they don’t run so hot.

Perhaps Ian you can respond to how your article addresses these last two challenges.

According to US authorities, the burnout is part of what happens when the bulb carks it.

If you’d read the article, you’d have seen this before making yourself look foolish. The magazine article is full of photos of burnt CFL bulbs, and the Otago Daily Times has printed its own eyewitness stories on burnt out bulbs.

The Energy Safety Service told me they’d seen examples in NZ.

Stop being so vacuous.

Really, this is not scientific at all. I have been using CFLs for years and have no concerns about them. Investigate repeats huge and misleading urban legend about a situation in Maine that is not accurate. There is an awful lot of scaremongering in the whole article. The stuff about the bulbs burning out and melting is not normal at all. I have never seen any of these bulbs do any such thing. The article is way too long, I have no idea what they filled it up with as I have turned off reading it all.

Or better yet get ACT up around 15% and get the whole carbon tax/ETS/AGW bullshit thrown out the window altogether.

I didn’t just pluck the figures out of the air, or from some disgruntled scientist. The endnotes for the article reference them. The 2% savings figure, for example, is from an official government advisory written by scientists.

New Zealand doesn’t have exclusive access to the world’s best CFL maker…all of us are getting our bulbs largely from the same sources. The bulbs tested in Maine were those avail on the US market towards the end of last year…not from five years ago. Some are the same as those sold here. The ones tested by Brown University are those available this year on the US market.

Read the studies properly, not just cherry-picking to suit your argument. I interviewed members of the Lighting Council directly. They didn’t have the glib list you’ve thrown up, and I suspect they are more au fait with the issue.

You also need to read the studies more carefully. You talk of the “amalgam” lamp releasing less mercury. It was actually a specialised CFL for use in dimmers, with advanced amalgam vapour control technology. It was the only lamp with that tech. If you read the paragraph below, you’ll see most or all of the lamps in the study were common or garden variety “amalgam” lamps, just as we have here:

“The one scenario where a vapor control amalgam technology lamp was broken suggests that this type of CFL may emit less mercury vapor on breakage and may present fewer cleanup challenges than certain other CFLs. However, this study did not test enough of this type of
amalgam technology lamps to draw any significant conclusions. Researchers believe that most lamps used in the study were manufactured with either liquid dosing or solid or “pellet” dosing amalgam technology, a method for introducing a limited amount of mercury into a CFL during
manufacture. More research is needed for a meaningful assessment of amalgam technologies.

“In addition, this study cracked a lamp (Scenario J) to see if less mercury would be released than from a thoroughly broken lamp, and this study broke two lamps that had been turned on and were warm or “hot” (SD and SD duplicate) to see if there was a difference from the “cold” lamps
that were broken in the study. Although the results from those three trials did not appear to be different from other trials, more data is needed to make findings”

So thanks for your input Virtualmark…now read it more carefully.

cheers
Ian

WE NEED MORE INTELLIGENCE IN NZ, AND FAST.

The last power plant built in NZ generates 385MW, cost $520 million to build, and costs about a hundred million a year to run.

So what? Generating power is a business. People should be allowed to generate power and sell it, to others who want to buy it at a price they agree on. I don’t want the govt to run the power stations.

Governments regulate. All the time. It’s their job.

No, it is not. Their job is to do what the people of NZ elect them to do. Sadly, the govt appears to measure its own “effectiveness” by the number of bills it passes. All that does is encroach more and more into the lives of the productive, in favour of the unproductive. (No wonder so many of the productive are deciding to emigrate.)

Yep, that was and always has been the Greens’ first option. But the Labour Party caved in on it, because NZ First and United Future wouldn’t run with it. So now we’re all still pissing around with ETS options – National opposes Labour’s, but won’t reveal any detail of their own. Jeanette Fitzsimons wrote to John Key asking for some detail of what National proposed, but he declined to provide any. The Greens are sceptical about the efficacy of what both Labour and National might want to implement re an ETS, but at least Labour has something on the table for the Greens to negotiate over.

Get the Greens up around 15% of the vote at the next election, and the carbon tax option can be back on the agenda again.

I want the right to make those choices. I don’t want the government telling me what to do. If the govt subsidise the CFLs (and not some stupid voucher, but subsidise the importer so that they are all cheap everywhere all the time), I would still have put in incandescents in some spots in the house. But it would mean that 90% of the lights in 90% of people’s houses would be low power usage, and you would get that benefit in power generation. Instead of the govt forcing costs on us “for our own good” the government would be subsidising something that they think is good for the country as a whole. See the difference?