Comments on: Energy-Efficient Lightbulbs Poison Hundreds of Chinese Workers

By: robert

robert — Tue, 04 May 2010 23:43:57 +0000

over reaction b/s to a minor problem…..
recycle the bulbs,GREAT INVENTION!!!!!

By: yvette

yvette — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:22:17 +0000

Had headaches, swollen temple,eye irritations before realizing I had an energy efficient lightbulb in the garbage near my bed. When I removed it everything healed.
Makes you wonder!

By: John

John — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:55:40 +0000

I agree, that the whole myth surrounding these energy saver bulds is flawed. Can anyone point me to a site that might show what the carbon cost to produce one of these bulds is? It must be so much higher than the old incandescant. Think of all the components that goes inot making the energy saver, when comparing the two. I think they call it “cutting off your nose to spite your face”.

By: 10 ways to make your refrigerator use less energy | Renewables At Home

10 ways to make your refrigerator use less energy | Renewables At Home — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:06:12 +0000

[...] manufacturing can – and should – be done responsibly CFLs in general has unfairly been blamed for the poisoning of hundreds of Chinese workers. While it’s certainly tragic that workers suffer from mercury poisoning, the technology [...]

By: Steynian 357 « Free Canuckistan!

Steynian 357 « Free Canuckistan! — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:25:44 +0000

[...] – ITEM: Energy-Efficient Lightbulbs Poison Hundreds of Chinese Workers [...]

By: Patrick T. Flinn

Patrick T. Flinn — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:28:15 +0000

I think we are only looking at the potential for energy savings and not the total environmental and human damage that will be caused by using these light bulbs. Not only is there mercury used in the bulbs the coal burning power plants supplying the electricity emit mercury into the environment at an untold rate. You must also consider the carbon cost of shipping and packaging, CFL’s are not the environmental panacea they were promised to be. We must not be fooled by those who put a green label on their products when they only look at their bottom line of their financials.

By: Dean

Dean — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:44:59 +0000

I agree with you Spuzz. We need to fix the source of our power, not just the lightbulbs and appliances. Though fixing the power consuming products helps, we need to focus on better sources; such as solar and wind power. If everyone had solar panels on the roof of there home, we would cut coal power demand in half. savings thousands of tons of carbon from going into the atmosphere.

By: Mary K. Gilbert

Mary K. Gilbert — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:36:05 +0000

This is scary! We’re using so many more of these litebulbs now in the US and I suspect most will be disposed of in the regular trash! I had mercury poisoning (Pink Disease) as a child which still adversely affects me over 50 yrs later! It causes permanent damage resulting in emotional and physical problems which only seem to worsen over time. This is a serious problem!

By: Perry Eyster

Perry Eyster — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:14:39 +0000

As usual, the concern for the environment rarely extends beyond our borders. The ‘environmentalists’ here often leave the ugly messes to the brown people of the world. We will utilize oil and coal as long as it is recovered and processed where the brown people live so they can produce the goods we desire. If there is an environmental cost to production let the brown people suffer with it. Such devotion to the environment extends only as far as our comfort, whether physical or psychological. This is very reminiscent of the MTBE that was deemed so necessary as a fuel additive. Am I supposed to now agree to allow these same people to start working to blot out the allegedly offending sun.

By: spuzzdawg

spuzzdawg — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:08:04 +0000

CFL bulbs only save carbon emissions if coal power stations are replaced. As most light bulbs are run at night and power consumption levels at this time should not exceed base load, turning off every single electronic appliance in the country at this time makes no difference to carbon output, baseload power stations will continue to run at the same speed.

Figures suggesting that CFL bulbs save huge amounts of carbon emissions are flawed. They assume that less power consumption = less carbon emissions which in the case of base load power just isn’t true. Claims that air conditioning requirements will also be reduced are more than counteracted by an increase in heating requirements in cooler countries.

Leo Simpson wrote an article in Silicon Chip magazine about all the negative side effects of CFLs that no one usually hears about. A summary of the article is available at http://blog.spuzzdawg.net/?p=4