026
DETAILS letters
MERCURY? THERMOMETERS NO! LIGHT BULBS YES! A plea to the lighting design community from Howard Brandston.
On December 16th 2011, just days before a national ban on the incandescent was to take effect, the United States congress postponed the onset of a law that threat- ens to alter the very contours of our lives. Starting with a phase-out of the 100-watt bulb in 2012, the Energy Independence and Security Act, signed by George W. Bush in 2007, finishes off the 40-watt lamp by 2014. How do the legislators behind the Act intend to replace Thomas Edison’s time-tested in- vention? With the squiggly compact fluores- cent, which has been touted as a panacea for an ailing planet, even as questions about its energy efficiency and environmental viability abound. The outcry in the U.S. against this proposed ban, however, has been vociferous—loud enough, it seems, to have put at least a momentary halt to legislation that is not dissimilar to bans that are in the process of being enacted all over the world.
In the years leading up to the planned im- plementation of the Act, American lighting manufacturing giants raced to replace the incandescent light bulb with the compact fluorescent to the tune of 400 million lamps sold each year, sacrificing quality and, ironically, the environment in exchange for what was widely heralded as affordability and energy efficiency—CFLs are said to use up to 75 percent less energy than conven- tional tungsten bulbs (the figures vary). Meanwhile, compact fluorescents have been flooding landfills around the world, frequently breaking along the way, releasing about 5 milligrams of mercury into the soil, water, and air with every shattered bulb. A naturally occurring heavy metal, mercury is a potent neurotoxin that causes dam- age to the central nervous system, the endocrine system, the kidneys and other organs. Mercury poisoning can be fatal; exposure to mercury is especially danger- ous for fetuses and children. Yet despite the imminent phase out of the incandescent bulb, the lion’s share of municipalities in the United States have failed to implement safe, accessible recycling solutions for the toxic compact fluorescent. Five years after the signing of the Act, cities and towns with curbside recycling services still do not have the facilities to deal with such bulbs, which must be taken to hazardous waste centers, many of which are open to the public a total of one day a month.
And what happens when one of these fragile glass corkscrews breaks within the safety of the home? The U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency recommends evacuation of the site for the first 15 minutes after the breakage in order to avoid exposure to harmful mercury vapors. After an elaborate initial cleanup (instructions available on the internet are confounding in their contradic- tions), the room should be aired out, the EPA advises, with all HVAC systems turned off, for several hours. Theories as to the health risks posed by any remaining traces of mercury vary wildly depending on who is doing the talking. Consumers can, for the moment, breathe a huge sigh of relief. They have not yet lost the freedom to decide for themselves what kind of bulbs they are will- ing to risk bringing into their homes. Now, at the 11th hour, Congress has post- poned the bill—which was planned to go into effect on January 1—until September 2012, giving those in support of the incan- descent nine more months to harness the momentum necessary to make their voices heard. Vigilance is key. This small victory must not be seen as a mere momentary roadblock to the boondoggle that has been looming over the U.S. lighting industry and how it is that we illuminate the commercial workplace, as well as the sanctity of our homes, for the past five years. Constitu- ents around the world need to make their opposition to the ban known, in the face of the considerable lobbying power of lamp manufacturers, who, no doubt, will con- tinue to put pressure on Congress, fervently politicking for their interests to be served. The devastating paradox of the supposedly green solution to the global energy crisis proffered by the compact fluorescent is that the mercury contained within these bulbs is poised to invade our homes even as we are promised a reduction in mercury- laced carbon emissions—a reduction that is negligible at best. It is an energy saving that can easily be accomplished by legisla- tion on any number of measures, including wind and solar power and alternative fuels, higher building standards, and HVAC and water heating systems, to name a few. And what about other lighting alternatives? High-performance energy-efficient incan- descents that meet proposed energy effi- ciency guidelines are in the works. Halogen lamps are everywhere. But unfortunately,
the high-performance bulbs currently avail- able or in the pipeline are no competition for the conventional tungsten lamp when it comes to cost. Which means that if a ban on the incandescent does go into effect, the only affordable option for the vast major- ity of homes will be the noxious compact fluorescent.
Action must be taken to ensure that the repeal is not simply a postponement. It is imperative that we succeed in averting the impending environmental crisis we are so very close to legislating into being. For if just one gram of mercury will pollute a 2-acre pond, imagine the havoc mil- lions of compact fluorescents tossed into our garbage dumps threatens to wreak on the world at large, let alone the sanita- tion workers who come in constant direct contact with high volumes of these trouble- some bulbs. Allowing so much mercury to invade our homes and workplaces, not to mention our already endangered forests and plains, our rivers and oceans, would be not just foolhardy but downright destructive. And mercury is not the only problem when it comes to the compact fluorescent. Myriad questions remain regarding the negative im- pact of CFLs on our health and well-being. The flicker rate of the bulb has improved over time, but the jury is still out on CFLs as a trigger for migraines and, in some cases, epileptic seizures. The long-term effects of electro-magnetic fields and the gaps in the colour spectrum peculiar to CFLs have not yet been adequately studied. In addition, the ultra-violet radiation emitted by CFLs poses dangers to those with light- sensitive diseases such as lupus. And the list of downsides continues: many existing light fixtures are incompatible with CFLs and will need to be replaced. The fact that the bulbs require a different kind of dimmer than those installed in most homes poses yet another challenge. CFLs boast a longevity equal to 3 to 25 (or 8 to 15, again, the figures vary) times that of the incan- descent; but these claims are substantially undercut by the rapid reduction in lifespan that occurs when the lights are switched on and off with any sort of frequency. And then there is the CFL delay: when a compact flu- orescent is switched on, it does not light up immediately, but takes up to three minutes to reach full intensity. Component parts fail frequently, due to compromises in quality in
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164