Doing the best thing for the environment is never easy. There never seems to be a black and white book to tell us what to do. A choice equals a consequence, and what seems like an easy decision looks complex upon further research. This is the case with the Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL); is it truly the best option?
The media and governments worldwide seem to be falling over themselves to promote the virtues of the CFL and how much energy it will save. The bulb does use less energy than an incandescent light bulb, but it also contains mercury.
The amount of Mercury concentrations in the environment is a worldwide problem and is considered a global issue. Mercury is often emitted through the air and deposited far from its source. Mercury is a toxic chemical that causes environmental and health problems. The toxin enters the human system mainly through the consumption of fish. For a sound bite chemistry lesson, please check out: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/MDN/why.aspx Chronic low level exposure to mercury can build up and affect the nervous system; it is especially harmful to fetuses. Countries worldwide have taken action to reduce mercury emissions and are working together with United Nations Environment Programme.
To demonstrate the impact of mercury emissions on locations far from the source, consider Florida in the United States. It is land with pristine Everglades and barely any coal power plants, yet the mercury level is so high in the rivers that citizens are taking a risk if they eat any fresh water fish. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/sas/mercury/index.htm
“Coal fired power plants is the single largest emitter globally of mercury to the atmosphere,” according to United Nations Environment Programme. It is important to decrease the output of plants, but CFLs are not the answer. In a perfect world where everyone recycled, the CFL would be a good alternative. But let’s be realistic – many people and companies sneak their fluorescent lights into the trash. Check out your local landfill and incinerator and see what standards they have in place to prevent hazard material from entering the environment. This is a challenge since I came across a lot of fluff and “we save the world mantras”, but it was difficult to gather hard-core evidence.
CFL is not necessarily the answer for everyone. What if home owner’s receive power from nuclear plants, or other sources of energy? Incandescent lights do not sound like such a bad idea when doing energy consumption risk assessment. LED light are on the market and sell for about $17 http://www.amazon.com/Dimmable-Household-Incandescent-Replacement-LED/dp/B002ZBJ25G/ref=pd_sim_hi_1. The price is not out of the stratosphere, and the few widely used lights in the house should be replaced with LED. Governments should push for the mass production of this product and champion lowering the prices. It’s safer to use and make.
The media and governments worldwide seem to be falling over themselves to promote the virtues of the CFL and how much energy it will save. The bulb does use less energy than an incandescent light bulb, but it also contains mercury.
The amount of Mercury concentrations in the environment is a worldwide problem and is considered a global issue. Mercury is often emitted through the air and deposited far from its source. Mercury is a toxic chemical that causes environmental and health problems. The toxin enters the human system mainly through the consumption of fish. For a sound bite chemistry lesson, please check out: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/MDN/why.aspx Chronic low level exposure to mercury can build up and affect the nervous system; it is especially harmful to fetuses. Countries worldwide have taken action to reduce mercury emissions and are working together with United Nations Environment Programme.
To demonstrate the impact of mercury emissions on locations far from the source, consider Florida in the United States. It is land with pristine Everglades and barely any coal power plants, yet the mercury level is so high in the rivers that citizens are taking a risk if they eat any fresh water fish. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/sas/mercury/index.htm
“Coal fired power plants is the single largest emitter globally of mercury to the atmosphere,” according to United Nations Environment Programme. It is important to decrease the output of plants, but CFLs are not the answer. In a perfect world where everyone recycled, the CFL would be a good alternative. But let’s be realistic – many people and companies sneak their fluorescent lights into the trash. Check out your local landfill and incinerator and see what standards they have in place to prevent hazard material from entering the environment. This is a challenge since I came across a lot of fluff and “we save the world mantras”, but it was difficult to gather hard-core evidence.
CFL is not necessarily the answer for everyone. What if home owner’s receive power from nuclear plants, or other sources of energy? Incandescent lights do not sound like such a bad idea when doing energy consumption risk assessment. LED light are on the market and sell for about $17 http://www.amazon.com/Dimmable-Household-Incandescent-Replacement-LED/dp/B002ZBJ25G/ref=pd_sim_hi_1. The price is not out of the stratosphere, and the few widely used lights in the house should be replaced with LED. Governments should push for the mass production of this product and champion lowering the prices. It’s safer to use and make.
No comments:
Post a Comment