Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:08:59 +0000
ian field wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
On another point, on channel 4 in St. Louis last night, they had a
news feature where they got all exercised about the mercury in CFLs
and the danger of breaking them. There's mercury in flourescent tubes
too, and they've been around a long time. I think it's worth being
careful of them too.
The amount is minute, 4mg typically amd mostly bound up in the other internal
materials. As kids we 'played' with mercury in the school labs. Nobody keeled
over.
There is apparently mercury in coal (along with numerous other toxic heavy
metals) so its claimed that in any countries with a significant number of
coal fired power stations, the mercury in CFLs is easily offset by mercury
not dispersed by coal fired power due to the total energy savings.
By a considerable margin AIUI.
Graham
.
- References:
- 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Robert Blass
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: z
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: John O'Flaherty
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: z
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: John O'Flaherty
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: ian field
- 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- Prev by Date: Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- Next by Date: Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- Previous by thread: Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- Next by thread: Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|