CFL Facts

[Victor Roberts]

We've made a little progress on www.cflfacts.com. A very
few questions and answers have been posted, just enough to
get started on the site design, and my web designer (my
son) has taken the raw text and given it a bit of class. The
site needs a lot more work, including graphics and links to
other sites with more graphics, but I would be interested in
your opinions on the site so far.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[[email protected]]

A very few questions and answers have been posted, just enough to
get started on the site design, and my web designer (my son) has
taken the raw text and given it a bit of class.

I think it looks good so far; the opening couple of paragraphs mention a
lot of questions and answers that should be added in the future.

As it stands now, the page is quite tall. I wonder if it would help to
split it up over more pages as more questions and answers are added.
You might have categories/pages like:

Basics/About CFLs:
what's a CFL, why 'lamp', it looks funny, etc.

Choosing CFLs:
base type, color temperature, dimmable, etc

Environmental:
energy use, mercury, disposal, etc.

This might seem redundant, and I realize the site isn't strictly
commercial, but you might add a couple of "where to buy" words. CFLs
aren't exactly hard to find, though.

Copy-editing things:
In the dimmer question, the sentence

These CFLs will have a label on the lamp and/or the packaging stating
"not for use with dimmers.

is missing a close quote.

In the source code, the anchor tags are missing a right angle bracket.
They look like

<A NAME="1"</A>

but should look like

<A NAME="1"></A>

This is probably a function of whatever editing/layout tool is being
used. It doesn't cause a problem with rendering the page under Firefox,
but some browsers might not like it.

Matt Roberds

 

[TKM]

We've made a little progress on www.cflfacts.com. A very
few questions and answers have been posted, just enough to
get started on the site design, and my web designer (my
son) has taken the raw text and given it a bit of class. The
site needs a lot more work, including graphics and links to
other sites with more graphics, but I would be interested in
your opinions on the site so far.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

It's a fine beginning, Vic.

There is a growing demand, especially in the N.A. residential lighting
industry, for good CFL information and dimming is of major interest. I also
get lots of grumpy "my CFLs burn out too fast" calls. Information about how
to get a quality CFL product and how to install and operate them properly
would help.

You might want to link to http://www.18seconds.org It's a site that shows
real time U.S. CFL sales by state and locality. The data are from Nielson.
A consortium of companies including Wal-Mart and Yahoo support the site.

Terry McGowan

 

[Victor Roberts]

I think it looks good so far; the opening couple of paragraphs mention a
lot of questions and answers that should be added in the future.

As it stands now, the page is quite tall. I wonder if it would help to
split it up over more pages as more questions and answers are added.
You might have categories/pages like:

Basics/About CFLs:
what's a CFL, why 'lamp', it looks funny, etc.

Choosing CFLs:
base type, color temperature, dimmable, etc

Environmental:
energy use, mercury, disposal, etc.

Thanks Matt. We are planning to divide the questions into
"topics" like you suggest and then use
expandable/collapsible lists to make the page easier to
read.

This might seem redundant, and I realize the site isn't strictly
commercial, but you might add a couple of "where to buy" words. CFLs
aren't exactly hard to find, though.

We will mention places to buy, but only by type, not name.
I' also going to discuss Energy Star as a way to find CFLs
that meet certain quality targets.

Copy-editing things:
In the dimmer question, the sentence

These CFLs will have a label on the lamp and/or the packaging stating
"not for use with dimmers.

is missing a close quote.

In the source code, the anchor tags are missing a right angle bracket.
They look like

<A NAME="1"</A>

but should look like

<A NAME="1"></A>

This is probably a function of whatever editing/layout tool is being
used. It doesn't cause a problem with rendering the page under Firefox,
but some browsers might not like it.

Thanks. I'll fix these.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Victor Roberts]

Looks good so far, I think. I don't know how technical you intend to make it,
but maybe a good idea would be to use google to scan the newsgroup for topics
related to CFLs? That's usually what I do prior to writing a new article.

Not all articles may be immediately relevant, but I think a lot of questions
have been asked about CFLs in s.e.l. already, so you could use that as a rough
reminder.

Thanks. I have a rather long list already made (but not yet
posted) and I'm sure I will find more questions here.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Victor Roberts]

It's a fine beginning, Vic.

A very small beginning so far

There is a growing demand, especially in the N.A. residential lighting
industry, for good CFL information and dimming is of major interest. I also
get lots of grumpy "my CFLs burn out too fast" calls. Information about how
to get a quality CFL product and how to install and operate them properly
would help.

I do plan to mention Energy Star and talk about shorter life
in recessed cans and with frequent starting.

You might want to link to http://www.18seconds.org It's a site that shows
real time U.S. CFL sales by state and locality. The data are from Nielson.
A consortium of companies including Wal-Mart and Yahoo support the site.

Thanks. Good site.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Victor Roberts]

Hi Vic,

I know you are planning more for the site - my primary comment would
be that photos and illustrations of the concepts are key if the
audience is meant to be broad.

Also, I have been amazed at the attention paid to mercury content of
CFLs by my friends recently. Someone somewhere is really pushing that
idea. It would be excellent to see a good pro/con of mercury in CFLs
compared to dirty power mercury output. I truly don't know how good/
bad the tradeoff is and I think most other consumers don't either.

The mercury question has been very difficult to deal with.

Certainly CFLs reduce mercury compared to coal-fired power
plants, but what if you use hydro, like we do, or even oil?

Mercury is listed as a hazardous material by the EPA, and I
do plan to link to the excellent multi-page mercury site
maintained by the EPA. The sire even has clean-up
directions for a mercury spill, but the smallest amount they
deal with is "one thermometer" which is far more than one
CFL.

Most people are far more concerned about the very small
amounts of mercury in a single CFL than I believe they
should be. I certainly can't say that there is NO danger
from one broken CFL in a home, even if I believe the danger
is minimal.

I have found EPA-recommended Hg levels that pose an
immediate danger and EPA-recommended Hg levels that are safe
for continuous exposure, but have not yet found a
recommended safe level for a few days, as might occur if a
CFL broke in a home.

I've calculated the amount of Hg that /could/ fill a closed
and sealed room if one CFL broke and the room had /no/
ventilation. This level exceeds the recommended EPA level
for continuous exposure by about 200 times. But in any real
world situation the mercury vapor density would not be this
high due to the slow evaporation of mercury and normal room
ventilation AND the fact that most of the mercury in modern
CFLs is tied up in the amalgam.

I've also calculated the percentage of mercury that would be
added to the waste stream if 200 million CFLs were just
thrown away. This would add less than 1% to the annual
amount of mercury added to the environment from non-natural
causes.

I also wonder how much of the current concern about mercury
is being pushed by the LED industry. They have, after all,
run advertisements claiming a need for respirators if we add
CFLs to landfills.

Mercury recommendations are still a work in progress.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

We've made a little progress on www.cflfacts.com. A very
few questions and answers have been posted, just enough to
get started on the site design, and my web designer (my
son) has taken the raw text and given it a bit of class. The
site needs a lot more work, including graphics and links to
other sites with more graphics, but I would be interested in
your opinions on the site so far.

Victor,
Looks good. Some pictures would really help.
If you want to take any of the pictures from
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/lights/diy/
for your website, feel free (they were all
taken by me), but you can probably find better
elsewhere.

It feels a bit US-centric at the moment. "Screw base" won't
have such an obvious meaning in UK (and might even be read
as screw base verses BC). GU24 doesn't exist outside the
US AFAIK. There is a UK company pushing a modified GU10
for a similar purpose, but it's got no tracktion as you have
to buy their own expensive single-sourced lamps, which are
not available in retail outlets.

I've rarely heard people complaining about short life here,
and indeed there are many around which have lasted too long
and should have been changed ages ago, but just don't die.
Seven years ago, IKEA was selling very cheap Chinese CFL's
(by far the cheapest source of CFL's in the UK at the time),
and these just never die. Some have probably done 25,000 hrs
and are noticably dimmed and should be replaced, but I still
see quite a number in service.

The most common complaint is that the filament equivalancy
on the packaging is a plain lie -- in the small print, you
can find that the comparison is against a softtone (painted)
filament lamp, which are rarely used and have significantly
reduced light output compared with standard frosted lamps.
This initial bad experience puts many people off. I have
been working on the CFL wikipedia page (see discussion page)
and put togther a graph comparing light output of filament
lamps and CFLs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/bc930ca506fffe94349a8d6900ad6e7e.png
which is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Compact_fluorescent_lamp

Also, the lower initial light output can compound this; I
suspect some new CFL's get removed and discarded in dusgust
before they've even had a chance to warm up.

BTW, CFL's which look like standard filament lamps have been
around in Europe for ages. However, a CFL with equivalent
light output above about 40W incandescent is still bigger
than its incandescent equivalent, although they are getting
smaller with time.

 

[Victor Roberts]

An excellent start!

The more reason that someone knowledgeable and sensible
writes things up!


This is a good point. Probably, though, the real world case
should be brought up first, and the finer details later. My
impression is that many people read only the first few lines
("OMG 200 times more deadly!") before they make up their mind
on any given subject. Then again, my students may have made me
more cynical than I ought to be...


Again, an important point to make, and it should be backed up
by non-disputable data.

Global mercury waste data is from a UN committee report.

Last millennium a health and safety officer visited my department
and claimed that "In five years from now, all mercury will have
been *destroyed*.". Not exactly the smartest thing to say in
a chemistry department...

I take some solace from the fact that mercury is a
naturally-occurring element, not some Frankenstein compound
that was made by man and will someday destroy the world ;-)

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

Most people are far more concerned about the very small
amounts of mercury in a single CFL than I believe they
should be. I certainly can't say that there is NO danger
from one broken CFL in a home, even if I believe the danger
is minimal.

To put it in perspective, you need the mercury from over
1000 CFL's to equal the amount of mercury in the average
human body at death (about 3 grams, mostly from fillings).

 

[Victor Roberts]

Victor,
Looks good. Some pictures would really help.

On the way.

If you want to take any of the pictures from
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/lights/diy/
for your website, feel free (they were all
taken by me), but you can probably find better
elsewhere.
Thanks!

It feels a bit US-centric at the moment.

Well, probably because it is I don't know enough
about regulations and jargon of other countries, so I've
decided to focus on the US first.

"Screw base" won't
have such an obvious meaning in UK (and might even be read
as screw base verses BC). GU24 doesn't exist outside the
US AFAIK. There is a UK company pushing a modified GU10
for a similar purpose, but it's got no tracktion as you have
to buy their own expensive single-sourced lamps, which are
not available in retail outlets.

All good points. Screw base and GU24 don't even mean much
to US consumers

I've rarely heard people complaining about short life here,
and indeed there are many around which have lasted too long
and should have been changed ages ago, but just don't die.
Seven years ago, IKEA was selling very cheap Chinese CFL's
(by far the cheapest source of CFL's in the UK at the time),
and these just never die. Some have probably done 25,000 hrs
and are noticably dimmed and should be replaced, but I still
see quite a number in service.

I wish we could say the same about life. Most CFLs do have
a long life, but some don't. In less than 1 year I lost two
of four Philips reflector CFLs that I had installed in a
track light system. Doesn't say much for quality when
Philips lamps fail that fast.

The most common complaint is that the filament equivalancy
on the packaging is a plain lie -- in the small print, you
can find that the comparison is against a softtone (painted)
filament lamp, which are rarely used and have significantly
reduced light output compared with standard frosted lamps.
This initial bad experience puts many people off. I have
been working on the CFL wikipedia page (see discussion page)
and put togther a graph comparing light output of filament
lamps and CFLs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/bc930ca506fffe94349a8d6900ad6e7e.png
which is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Compact_fluorescent_lamp

I think we have become more realistic in the US than we were
when CFLs were first introduced. This is a point I will
have to address.

Also, the lower initial light output can compound this; I
suspect some new CFL's get removed and discarded in dusgust
before they've even had a chance to warm up.

Warm-up time will also be discussed. I have some CFLs that
are so dim when first started that you need to be a "true
believer" to know throw them out immediately. The same
Philips reflector lamps come to mind

BTW, CFL's which look like standard filament lamps have been
around in Europe for ages.

But I suspect they all have covers over multi-tube or spiral
lamps, as I state at CFL facts. Only an electrodeless CFL
can have the shape of a GLS or A-Line lamp without an extra
light and heat trapping cover.

However, a CFL with equivalent
light output above about 40W incandescent is still bigger
than its incandescent equivalent, although they are getting
smaller with time.

Also an issue. Thanks for your comments.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Victor Roberts]

[snip]

I take some solace from the fact that mercury is a
naturally-occurring element, not some Frankenstein compound
that was made by man and will someday destroy the world ;-)

Plus, I think, the distinction between elemental mercury versus mercury vapor
needs to be stressed more.

Elemental mercury is relatively harmless. When I was a student in the States
around 1988, I was so fascinated by it that in a bout of delusion I swallowed
about half a gram, to test it.

Although I developed kidney stones on both kidneys within two weeks after the
event, the correlation between swallowing this tiny amount and the kidney
stones is not completely established.

One is also reminded that during the 17-18-hundreds, many people were
swallowing metallic mercury by the glassfuls in attempts to cure syphilis.
Such large amounts probably did more harm than good, but still these people
didn't die from it. Can you imagine yourself swallowing a quarter kilo of the
metal and surviving?

Even the EPA mercury site states you can swallow mercury
with no serious side effects.

On the other hand, mercury *vapor* is a real killer. It is a severe
neurotoxin, probably worse than lead. I am sure everyone here is familiar with
"Mad-Hatter" disease. Hundreds of Google references exist for dementia which
settled in on mercury mine workers.

In any case, I think it is highly unlikely mercury vapor can be inhaled from
CFLs in the presence of a well-ventilated area. It's not like putting a kilo
of mercury in a sauce pan, heating it to boiling and taking deep breaths above
the pan

As one who has been exposed to the metallic form of the element for years, I
think that most of the dangers mentioned for the metallic form of the element
are just hype.

At one point in the past, I was forming open mercury arcs (in open air) as
well as open lead arcs. With proper ventilation, there was no danger, but I
surely don't recommend such practices to anyone.

Mercury should be treated with respect. It is a powerful element and if you
abuse it, you'll be headed straight for the loonybin. If you treat the element
with respect, it will give you wisdom )

I've been working around mercury and in labs with broken
lamps and probably pools of mercury under the work benches
for 30 years, and I'm still relatively sane

The issue, however, is that mercury is listed as a toxic
substance and most people don't understand the issues of "a
little" vs. "a lot." They don't think about the fact that
even drinking too much water can kill you also. I certainly
can't state on the site that mercury is "safe" as it is not
in many circumstances. So, the issue is finding the proper
balance and a way to explain what is safe and what is not.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Victor Roberts]

To put it in perspective, you need the mercury from over
1000 CFL's to equal the amount of mercury in the average
human body at death (about 3 grams, mostly from fillings).

Do you have a cite for the 3 grams. I would like to use
this fact.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Clive Mitchell]

Elemental mercury is relatively harmless. When I was a student in the
States around 1988, I was so fascinated by it that in a bout of
delusion I swallowed about half a gram, to test it.

That was an interesting experiment.

One is also reminded that during the 17-18-hundreds, many people were
swallowing metallic mercury by the glassfuls in attempts to cure
syphilis. Such large amounts probably did more harm than good, but
still these people didn't die from it. Can you imagine yourself
swallowing a quarter kilo of the metal and surviving?

It would completely redefine going to the toilet for a "dump". It's a
wonder they didn't split the pan.

I wonder if it ricocheted off the side of the rim and whirled about in a
circular motion for a while. I also wonder how long it took to flush
it.

 

[Victor Roberts]

[snip]

I've been working around mercury and in labs with broken
lamps and probably pools of mercury under the work benches
for 30 years, and I'm still relatively sane

Hehe! You look sane, anyway

The issue, however, is that mercury is listed as a toxic
substance and most people don't understand the issues of "a
little" vs. "a lot."

That's what I don't understand. It appears that most warnings on mercury's
toxicity (at least in the Wiki article on mercury for example) have come about
as a result of the toxicity of various (truly toxic) mercury compounds or
mercury vapor.

It seems that the dangers from the above forms have ballparked the metallic
form of the element as well without regard to the fact that mercury is
relatively harmless in its metallic form, probably to avoid inadvertent
inhalation of mercury vapor.

Some sites, such as the EPA mercury site do distinguish
between metallic mercury, mercury vapor and methyl mercury,
which is the toxic compound that finds its way into the food
chain. The EPA site is currently my main source, but I am
looking for additional references.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Clive Mitchell]

Don't try it, Clive. There's still a chance that because the amount was
small, it was quickly metabolized into various mercury salts, which
formed the kidney stones. Having those stones pulled out was no fun,
I'll tell you that.

<Munch, munch, gobble slurp.> What! Oh now you tell me when I'm
halfway through a bottle.

No I'm not planning on eating mercury any time soon.

I have also heard rumors that once in the intestines, it travels very
fast and it is excreted involuntarilly, i.e. after a very short period.
That is, if you swallow 100-200 grams and shake yourself a bit, you
will get it immediatelly on your pants, it exiting your butt with ease,
since the sphincter does not have enough pressure to limit its spilling
through it.

Ah, so it shares similar properties to wet farts then? I'm not sure
which emits the most harmful vapour though.

 

[Douglas G. Cummins]

It would completely redefine going to the toilet for a "dump". It's a
wonder they didn't split the pan.

I wonder if it ricocheted off the side of the rim and whirled about in a
circular motion for a while. I also wonder how long it took to flush it.

Ah, well no. This was in the days before, or at least in the very early
years, of indoor plumbing. The common method back then (at least in the
States and its Territories) was the outhouse. As a matter of fact,
today's researchers are discovering where the campsites of Lewis & Clark
were by examining the soil for high levels of mercury (the men became
*very* friendly with native women who were experienced with traders on
the left coast - and they used the only cure they knew to try to get rid
of that experience).

 

[Victor Roberts]

[snip]

Some sites, such as the EPA mercury site do distinguish
between metallic mercury, mercury vapor and methyl mercury,
which is the toxic compound that finds its way into the food
chain.

Vic, do you have a specific URL for the above? I went to the EPA site and
searched for mercury and got over 13,000 hits within the site.

This seems to be the main page:

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Victor Roberts]

The biggest problem with mercury is not the direct contact, but the
fact that it accumulates in the food chain. When released in the
environment, it is metabolized by plankton and simple organisms and
gradually accumulates up into the higher forms. Shark meat is
particularly high in mercury and various salts thereof. It's very
important that we keep mercury out of the food chain. Fishermen and
the like are already showing levels to exceed "safe" limits.

I agree. But 200 million CFLs per year would add only 1
metric ton of mercury to the 147 metric tons per year that
are currently in the waste stream.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

I agree. But 200 million CFLs per year would add only 1
metric ton of mercury to the 147 metric tons per year that
are currently in the waste stream.

Presumably naturally ocurring mercury ores, which give off
enough vapour to cause the "Mad Hatter" disease of the miners,
contribute a goodly stream of vapour to the atmosphere through
the ground? I wonder if anyone has estimated what that is?
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find it was a good deal more
than anything from fluorescent lamp disposal.