It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
100 watt light bulbs are being phased out from shops in a voluntary scheme to persuade people to buy low-energy bulbs.
A European Union report has recommended banning conventional incandescent light bulbs by 2012 to save energy and cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.
Originally posted by nerbot
This isn't a case of "incandescent" V "halogen" is it?
Incandescent bulbs ARE a waste of energy and should be replaced with "Flourescent" bulbs instead.
They burn much brighter for an equivalent wattage and the "flicker" that was refered to in the video clip is rubbish imo.
There's some disinfo going on here....it is the BBC after all.
- www.wnd.com...
ENVIRONETDAILY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 16, 2007
Consumers in dark over
risks of new light bulbs
Push for energy-saving fluorescents
ignores mercury disposal hazards
With everyone from Al Gore to Wal-Mart to the Environmental Protection Agency promoting CFLs as the greatest thing since, well, the light bulb, consumers have been left in the dark about a problem they will all face eventually – how to get rid of the darn things when they burn out or, worse yet, break.
CFLs are all the rage. They are the spirally shaped, long-lasting bulbs everyone is being urged, cajoled and guilt-tripped into purchasing to replace Thomas Edison's incandescents, which are being compared to sports utility vehicles for their impracticality and energy inefficiency. However, there is no problem disposing of incandescents when their life is over. You can throw them in the trash can and they won't hurt the garbage collector. They won't leech deadly compounds into the air or water. They won't kill people working in the landfills.
The same cannot be said about the mercury-containing CFLs. They bear disposal warnings on the packaging. But with limited recycling prospects and the problems experienced by Brandy Bridges sure to be repeated millions of times, some think government, the green community and industry are putting the cart before the horse marketing the new technology so ferociously."
When the bulb she was installing in a ceiling fixture of her 7-year-old daughter's bedroom crashed to the floor and broke into the shag carpet, she wasn't sure what to do. Knowing about the danger of mercury, she called Home Depot, the retail outlet that sold her the bulbs.
According to the Ellison American, the store warned her not to vacuum the carpet and directed her to call the poison control hotline in Prospect, Maine. Poison control staffers suggested she call the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The latter sent over a specialist to test the air in her house for mercury levels. While the rest of the house was clear, the area of the accident was contaminated above the level considered safe. The specialist warned Bridges not to clean up the bulb and mercury powder by herself – recommending a local environmental cleanup firm.
That company estimated the cleanup cost, conservatively, at $2,000. And, no, her homeowners insurance won't cover the damage.
Originally posted by Niall197
I'm all for choice ... but the new bulbs last for years and will reduce my electricity bill. I'm all in favour
a voluntary scheme to persuade people to buy low-energy bulbs
Originally posted by corvin77
Just WOW!! Can you believe it lol, having to foot a bill of $2000 to just de-contaminate the immediate area of mercury caused by the broken lightbulb??
This is fishy as hell...I wonder if this is one of those "Follow the money" situations!
Originally posted by saint4God
The mercury in the tuna we buy is another story...
Originally posted by Niall197
I'm all for choice ... but the new bulbs last for years and will reduce my electricity bill. I'm all in favour
Originally posted by corvin77
Off Topic!! But yeah, what is up with that? What is the purpose of the mercury in the tuna cans?
Something im gonna start looking into for sure!!
Canned light tuna, long recommended as the safer choice because of its presumably lower mercury content, sometimes harbors at least as much of that potentially harmful heavy metal as white tuna does, our analysis of Food and Drug Administration data has shown. That finding raises new concerns about the safety of canned tuna for pregnant women.
Some canned light tuna may contain yellowfin, which tends to have much more mercury than skipjack, the type usually found in cans labeled as light.
The FDA has not warned consumers about those occasionally higher mercury levels because it believes the levels don't pose any significant threat, according to David Acheson, M.D., the chief medical officer at the agency's Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition. "If you eat a single can of something that's a little higher than the average, it's not going to do any acute harm," Acheson said when we asked him about fetal safety.
- Consumer Reports
But Consumer Reports' fish-safety experts note that some cans are much higher in mercury than average.
Mercury is a heavy metal, naturally present in rocks and soil, that gets into the environment mainly from emissions generated by coal-burning power plants and waste incinerators. Small amounts are also released as soil and rocks break down or during disposal of products that contain mercury, such as fluorescent light bulbs and certain thermometers. Mercury eventually reaches the oceans and rivers, where bacteria convert it to a more toxic form of the metal, which then accumulates in long-lived predatory fish, including tuna. Indeed, consumption of fish is the primary source of mercury in Americans' bodies.
The same weekly intake that's considered safe for women of childbearing age who are not pregnant--roughly three cans of chunk-light tuna or one can of solid-light or white--is almost surely safe for men and older women as well. They can quite likely eat more than that without harm, but the exact amounts are not known".
"