Michael Arthur Williams, St Paul’s Bay
Hazard in handling energy saving bulbs
How does one, safely, dispose of used energy saving light bulbs? The bulbs are known to contain mercury, a poison more deadly than arsenic or lead!
I read that if a bulb is broken, the immediate area should be sealed off and evacuated for at least 15 minutes before clearing up the resulting debris. It is further advised that on no account should a vacuum cleaner be used for the purpose, due to the added danger of spreading the mercury particles.
Equally frightening is the certain infection which would result if accidentally cutting oneself with a broken bulb.
The bulbs are a boon when it comes to saving energy, which results in lower electricity costs, but at what cost to our health?
It is a rather dubious progression from the old type of light bulb.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr John Micallef
Sep 22nd 2011, 17:25
Of course, all those using a tiny bit of their grey matter to question what is stuffed down our throats start giving much appreciated titles. Thank you very much.
My experience with energy saving lamps started around 25 years ago when I started working with a major local Lighting equipment agent, so I know a thing or two about them. In fact, up till a few years ago, I still had a few around in my house of the old ones, they lost some of their shine, but still worked. Quite unlike the cheper stuff being sold these days which do not make the the claimed number of hours working. Perhaps this is the fault of our poor electricity stability.
The (sceptical) argument about theses lamps (Dr Debono, Mr. Gatt) etc is: what will happen to these lamps when they are disposed off? Are you guys going to dismantle them, separating the different components and materials? Do you believe that recycling them is somehting easy, cheap and does not take energy? Or are they going to end up in some super-secure landfill? Can you imagine the amount of waste we would have in ten year's time when these become more and more popular? Of course they save energy, damn well they do, otherwise it would be just a business exercise!!!
80% of my lamps at home are all energy savings - they've been like that for decades, even when these cost something like € 23 each, but I also note that now I tend to keep more lights on at home...so the claimed 10,000 hours will expire much earlier than before. For example, I have a lampshade in the corridor which is on for at least 5 hours a day (often more), that's 1825 hours a year (approx). In the past 10 years, I've had to change the bulb 3 times. And always used (the best) branded lamps (in the market). So, on average, they lasted just 6,000 hours each, maybe 8,000 if you stretch it.
I never doubted the benefit of energy saving bulbs, for heaven's sake let's not just hail it as the saviour of our world and pockets and think realistically about things.
Mr James Tyrrell
Sep 22nd 2011, 20:33
I can go one better than you John as 100% of my bulbs are energy savers and have been for years. I had the good fortune at the time to walk into a shop which was selling Philips 11 watt energy saving bulbs for 10p each! I thought they had made a mistake and checked with the manager but he assured me that the price was right. I bought them for every lamp in the house as well as for my mother's house and my uncle's house. Plus I have about 4 dozen spares so I should be okay for life!
Carmel Aquilina
Sep 22nd 2011, 15:59
I think that the outlets selling these bulbs should be obliged to accept them back for proper disposal once they are spent. The same should in the case of used print ink cartridges.
Mr leo attard
Sep 22nd 2011, 14:52
I am glad the question was raised because recently i had an energy saving bulb to dispose. i thought the local council collected them and disposed of them properly but they said no. I askeed and asked and no one could inform me what to do with it. in the end i put it in a container, sealed it and dumped it. Can someone tell me what the procedure is or do we wait until people start getting sick and have investigations carried out discovering that it's fromm all the discarded bulbs in our landfills! (or conveniently coming to no conclusion like the ''black dust'' mystery!!!!
Mr James Tyrrell
Sep 22nd 2011, 14:28
Energy saving bulbs contain only tiny traces of mercury - imagine a pellet smaller than the tip of a biro. What's more, in the long term, CFL technology will actually contribute to less mercury in the air. This is because burning fossil fuels like coal is the biggest source of mercury in the air. And as energy saving bulbs use 80% less electricity than a traditional bulb, they mean far less mercury overall.
Energy saving light bulbs are part of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) initiative which means that those who sell these products must provide information to the public on how they can be recycled. You could speak to the retailer you purchased your energy saving light bulb from about how to recycle it or alternatively you could contact your local authority to see if they will recycle energy saving light bulbs.
Mr Peter Murray
Sep 22nd 2011, 15:49
Mr Tyrrell,
I think you are well enough versed in the ,Maltese psychie to realise how futile your last statement is along with providers of these bulbs in Malta bering constrained to conform with the standard provisons as laid down in the WEEE initiative(sounds more like a game) and who will enforce such compliance here in MALTA?(read my previous comment input please )and many light bulbs make a great many "tiny traces" of mercury and, in any event, I would challenge your claim as to only tiny traces being contained within energy saving bulbs.Also your claim that mercury content in the atmosphere or eslewhere would be reduced is only a valid point if these bulbs are disposed of in a professional and authoriative manner.Sadly,this is a subjunctive aim and objective here.
Mrs Janet Bayes
Sep 22nd 2011, 10:54
So how does everyone dispose of their dead light bulbs?
Why would bulbs break if not dropped?
Mr Peter Murray
Sep 22nd 2011, 10:00
I brought this very disconcerting safety issue up quite sometime ago Michael to all the relevant authorities.If you have been here for a while it will come as no surprise for you to learn that as yet I have not even received an acknowledgment to my concerns of the safe provison for disposal of these mercury -containing bulbs
Mr John Micallef
Sep 22nd 2011, 09:51
Dear Mr Williams,
It appear that you have obviously been very alarmed with the emial that's been circulating recently. Th email, although not untrue, does make some exaggerated claims.
Threre's probably more mercury contianed in your average Lampuka than in an energy saving lightbulb.
Still...
It was good to raise the subject though.
The traditional 'filament' (incandescent) lightbulbs weight a few grams and contianed glass, tin, a tiny bit of lead and the sealing 'ceramic', plus a harmless, inert gas, usually nitrogen or neon.
The so called energy saving bulbs, which to start with, take up much more energy to be produced (ironically) contianed:
More glass
More gas
Electronic chips
Tin
Lead
Small transformer
A small PCB contianing silica
and of course mercury.
So, can someone please explain to me how these are going to save our environment?
Mr Wally Vella-Zarb
Sep 22nd 2011, 10:35
"So, can someone please explain to me how these are going to save our environment?"
And while they're at it, perhaps they could also explain why the old-style fluorescent tubes are taxed extra when they are merely a larger version of the same 'energy-saving bulbs', using very similar technology but at a fraction of the price that we have to pay for the new ones.
G G Debono
Sep 22nd 2011, 13:53
RE "So, can someone please explain to me how these are going to save our environment?"
They use about one-sixth of the energy of a normal light bub...
Mr John Baldacchino
Sep 22nd 2011, 14:20
You are absolutely right these so called economy lams will have already caused enough damage to produce before being lit not to mention the colour disastrous rendering spectrum they emit, it is all business trends.... the other alternative LED are kept so expensive that you will never recover their cost if they survive their declared life time.
Mr Chris Gatt
Sep 22nd 2011, 15:59
Oh dear, it seems the luddites are out in arms.
At Mr Micallef, the energy saving comes from the fact that an 11w bulb has the equivalent light of a 50 w light . More of the energy is converted to light, as opposed to the filament light which converts large amounts to heat. The savings in using less wattage and,in large buildings, less need to keep them cool because of heat dispersal makes for adequate reasons to call them energy saving.
At Mr Wally Ceila Zarb, the technology in CFL's are nowhere near the old fluorescent tubes. In fact even these old flourescent tubes are now being changed and are now even more efficient
Re LED lamps although still expensive you can now buy them for approximately 14 euro each. Whilst they may still be expensive for households, think about the hotels which use them in conference rooms. Each 3.8 w LED bulb is the equivalent of a 40 w halogen. That's 10% of the original! with a 90% saving on say 100 bulbs on for 12 hours a day, i reckon you will recoup the cost in about six months. after that you should have at least 2000 days of saving (assuming 30,000 hours lifetime - most claim 50,0000, but let's be conservative) . That should more than cover the initial 1,400 euro expense.
Mr John Baldacchino
Sep 22nd 2011, 22:24
@ Mr C. Gatt your numeric arguments are correct, however do you have any technical data sheets available that support the light output in lux against the burning hours, on/off switching (cold starts) since the claimed light output is at 0 burning hours and 0 cold starts, and in domestic use one expect frequent switching. Not to mention the colour rendering which leaves a lot to desire? One need to ensure to install the right type of light bulb for the particular application and not all lamps are economically suitable for every location. I concede that the way forward in today’s economy is the LED system and the extra tax imposed on the old incandescent lamps should be saved from the LEDS and make good to lower their inflated price.
Mr Chris Gatt
Sep 23rd 2011, 09:09
At Mr Baldacchino. Re the cold start and regular switching on and off. You are right with regards to fluorescent tubes, but less so with regards to CFL's. The new fluorescent tuibes however are also more efficient when switching on ad off. With regards to frequent switching in a domestic environment, surely thisis a question of changing habits. For years we were told to switch off becuase that was the sensible thing to do. With regards to LED lighting, having seen the lux emitted and the quality of the light ( warm white as opposed to the greenish or bluish hue) I am confidant that they will soon be the norm. In fact the indicatiosn arethat even CFL's areon teh way out. With regards to technical details, to behonets there is a lot of stuff on the internet which is where I first got my infomration.