Oh, I get it:
Ingesting large amounts of mercury- from coal burning or from seafood consumption: Not of consequence.
Significantly reducing electricity consumption amidst the possibly of inhaling trace amounts of mercury: Unconditionally bad.
Is this your point of view, Plantaganet?
Perhaps though, since you're a scientist, you can explain your position on environmental mercury a little better than this...
P.S. I'm down with you on lead paint, bro. While we're seriously digressing, what's your position on environmental depleted uranium and molybdenum?
PeakOil is You
Energy-Saving Fluorescents Are Dangerous
Re: Energy-Saving Fluorescents Are Dangerous
by Zentric » Sun 22 Apr 2007, 21:06:51
-
Zentric - Tar Sands
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Energy-Saving Fluorescents Are Dangerous
by blukatzen » Sun 22 Apr 2007, 23:38:47
Hey...just go to bed earlier... 
-
blukatzen - Expert
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Mon 11 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Chicago
Re: Energy-Saving Fluorescents Are Dangerous
by pea-jay » Mon 23 Apr 2007, 00:31:58
Leave it to the great folks at WorldNutDaily to sensationalize this non-issue
UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
-
pea-jay - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1547
- Joined: Sat 17 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: NorCal
Re: Energy-Saving Fluorescents Are Dangerous
by sysfce2 » Mon 23 Apr 2007, 01:22:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sysfce2', 'A')re you serious? .
Are you in the business of selling mercury? You think just because fluorescent bulbs are used in schools they are safe?
Oh, I'm not saying fluorescent bulbs are safe - I was taking issue with your statement that implied we are starting to put them in schools.
I agree that the mercury in them is a hazard, but the risk can be mitigated by proper handling procedures. As long as the tubes (or CFLs) are not broken, the mercury will be contained - but careful handling and appropriate protective guards are critical. In practice though, how many fluorescents are actually broken?
The cost benefit analysis of energy saved vs the slight chance of contamination has to be weighed.
Mercury does accumulate over time, but your body does eventually get rid of it - the problem is cumulative exposure. The quantity in a fluorescent tube and the risk of exposure from a broken light, while a cause for concern, is not going to pose a significant health risk.
That said, if a tube is broken, it would be wise to evacuate the room (especially when young children are involved), air the room out and clean up properly (ie, no vacuum cleaner).
Asbestos is a similar problem in that it does not pose a significant health risk in a existing, sealed installation - the problems come from disturbing it. That is (partially) why removal of it and/or construction disturbing it is done during summer, when students are out.
I guess all I'm saying is that you can take the concern too far - making mountains out molehills, etc.
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on. -- Winston Churchill
-
sysfce2 - Wood
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Fri 04 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Canada
Re: Energy-Saving Fluorescents Are Dangerous
by Plantagenet » Mon 23 Apr 2007, 01:56:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sysfce2', '
')I agree that the mercury in them is a hazard, but the risk can be mitigated by proper handling procedures. As long as the tubes (or CFLs) are not broken, the mercury will be contained -
.
')I agree that the mercury in them is a hazard, but the risk can be mitigated by proper handling procedures. As long as the tubes (or CFLs) are not broken, the mercury will be contained -
.
How many urban schools don't have any broken lights?
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
-
Plantagenet - Expert
- Posts: 26765
- Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Re: Energy-Saving Fluorescents Are Dangerous
by sysfce2 » Mon 23 Apr 2007, 23:01:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'H')ow many urban schools don't have any broken lights?
Well, that's a bit of strawman argument, but admittedly so was my original post so I'll address it.
I've been in several urban schools and haven't noticed any difference in maintenance compared to rural schools. If your talking about inner city schools or ones in poor areas - I really don't know as I don't have any personal experience with them and am unfamiliar with the issues.
Are you really saying that they really have broken lights laying around? If so, of course that is a health hazard both from the mercury and the broken glass - but if maintenance is so neglected, asbestos, lead paint, mould, etc. would also be significant problems. In such a case, the problem is not with the toxins in the environment, but the procedures in place to deal with them. I would hardly say though, that inner city schools are a relevant model for society at large.
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on. -- Winston Churchill
-
sysfce2 - Wood
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Fri 04 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Canada
