Recycling of low-energy bulb = cata?

[jlt22]

Nice what forum... hardly arrived, and we get beaten up !!! I must say that in eco-convinced, I'm used to it but hey, I didn't think it would happen to me here!

Hello,
I don't think you got beaten up, even if some exchanges seemed a bit lively.
Everyone finds documents on the subject disputes and exposes them according to their sensitivity.

Coming back to LFC;
Cancers developed exponentially long before their arrival.
Regarding the waves, we are submerged throughout the day, microwave, radio, TV, telephone, wifi, etc ... and, nobody forced us to buy these materials.
Regarding mercury, it is also found in batteries, computers, mercury barometers on the market also contain large quantities. Some people know that this is dangerous, others do not. CFLs are in the same category.
It is true that one can break a lamp (the tube part), but to have access to the electronic part and to the mercury, it would be necessary to break the base.
In terms of recycling, stores that sell electrical and electronic products are obliged to take back DEEs, and some have even advertised them. The recycling centers are organized.
Now about energy saving, this only concerns our lighting and the big savings are to be found elsewhere:
http://www.manicore.com/documentation/economies.html

For my part I adopted these CFLs and I do not complain, each to make their own idea.

We still live in a bizarre world,
the car causes 1 million deaths and more than 20 million invalids per year in the world, junk food 1 million also, tobacco 5 million; and, nobody worries, everything is normal.

So we have to put it into perspective.
The anti-wind forces claim that a blade by dropping out (it has already happened) could cause the death of a person (it fortunately never happened) and therefore affirms that wind turbines are hyper-dangerous devices.

The most dramatic thing about our consumption of electronic devices is that all of our DEE waste is exported, mainly to India where it is boned by hand and in shameful and unacceptable sanitary conditions.

[nonoLeRobot]

Yes you are right not very nice reception. I don't have time to cite the sources but from memory:

For electromagnetic waves, I think it's cinema, simple electric wires must do the same (should be checked). But at 50 Hz the risks are low and especially a shielding would be very easy to set up especially if as said above the electronics were incorporated in the frame of the lamps.


For mercury I do not know must see the amount, I think they are very very low but it is true that mercury is very toxic. In fact, it should be compared with dental fillings, for example. It is not to justify the evil because of another evil, but it is that we have more perspective on the effect of mercury in fillings.

[abyssin3]

Yes you are right not very nice reception.

Yes, and unfortunately, the subject we were talking about has been locked. But do not talk about it too loud otherwise, this subject may pass there too ...

The problem of recycling on these lamps has already been mentioned on the forum (by me among others), whether mercury or electronic. And it's true that by thinking of the number of bulbs that will end up in the trash anyway (even with well-established recycling chains), there is something to be concerned about.

Now at the level of carcinogenic potential, I do not know if it is intoxication or not. To tell the truth nothing has been proven. But if there is no "medico-social study that has never, ever been published", it is not because it is harmless, but only because ecology has been around for a long time. time integrated into politics and economics. And it is a sector which will prove to be particularly juicy in the years to come, and which is even already. There are many who find it profitable to sell fluorescent bulbs. They don't want to shoot themselves in the foot ...

But in a few years, when normal bulbs will be banned and fluorescent bulbs will be ubiquitous, they will be denounced to better sell Leds bulbs. And when the LED bulbs are everywhere ......

[Christophe]

Nice what forum... hardly arrived, and we get beaten up !!! I must say that in eco-convinced, I'm used to it but hey, I didn't think it would happen to me here!

I don't think the reception was so "unfriendly" that ...

Only when we tell you that you relay a bullshit by bringing you PROOF of this bullshit, for you, we are not nice ??? I bet you didn't even watch the videos I "gave" you ...

So if I follow you, to be nice, would you have to lie and accept everything you say? What is the purpose of a forum if not bring a debate?

To return to the subject ...

Fluorescent bulbs pose especially environmental problems in their manufacture and recycling!

In case of breakage, for mercury: all the bulbs of a certain "level of range" do not have any more in liquid form and their quantity is "limited" (unlike the bulbs at 2 € ...)

In fact it is exactly the same as for neon ... well fluorescent tubes ...

For example many Megaman bulbs have a double "protection": a) a silicone envelope in case of glass breakage and b) do not have liquid mercury. Details here economic and LED bulbs

So buy cheap fluorescent light bulbs with a limited lifespan (a few months) and the impact on the environment will probably be negative.

Buy quality economical light bulbs, and the impact on the environment will surely be positive.

I say surely because, in the event of a network failure (thunderstorm, undervoltage), there is a chance that the bulb will snap before (it has nothing to do with the bulb technology). The lifespan of your electrical devices. also depends on the quality of your current!

It is no more complicated than that.

You can make simulations (according to the real lifetime) with this tool: economic bulb comparison calculator

https://www.econologie.com/calculateur-ampoules.html
Debate:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/calcul-ret ... t4797.html
Le Figaro even spoke (hihiihih): https://www.econologie.com/forums/calculateu ... t6890.html

So on this subject, either we talk about recycling CFLs (which would bring something) or we redo the debate of EM waves which has already been done on this one:

https://www.econologie.com/forums/les-lampes ... t4109.html

[MadPenguin]

Yes you are right jlt22, I did not get beaten up. I was just a little shaken by the reception which was reserved for people who had contradictory remarks at the thought of the majority. I may have overreacted as our friends from across the Channel would say.
Having said that Christophe, I confirm that I found that the reception was rather "not friendly". Indeed on forums where I usually go we "welcome" new members and there is often a subject or a section where they can briefly introduce themselves, things that I did not find here. But then, everyone has their own way of welcoming people and I'm not going to take offense at that. Afterwards on the other hand I find rather "not nice" remarks of the style: "Hey cocos ..." or "And please, stop believing the canards of certain lobbies ... or sects ..." or other remarks the same kind that I have seen on other topics. It's a bit dry and it doesn't add anything to the debate.
But hey we are not going to make a cheese (except maybe if it is organic cheese ^^). I just wanted to do by my feelings so for me the incident and closed.

So I will come back to the subject that interests us: CFLs.

So to make it short regarding the supposed danger concerning EM waves because it is not the subject of this subject (well seen Christophe ;-)). What we can remember is that according to this post, the Swedish Office for Radiation Protection would have declared thata frequency around 50 Hz was harmful only from 5000 V / m. I would still like to know if this source has been verified and if someone has submitted this remark to Criirem to find out what they think.

Concerning light bulb recycling now i read here what'EPA (American environmental protection agency) had estimated that 800 million fluorescent lamps were thrown away each year, which would cause mercury contamination of 81 km² of water. I tried to verify the information but for the moment without result on the website of the EPA. So if anyone has any info on this.
Given the number of used batteries that still do not go to recycling at the present time, it is a safe bet that the phenomenon will be identical or even more extensive concerning CFLs knowing that there is probably much less of people aware of their toxicity (I myself only learned that they contained mercury very recently when I became interested in ecology).
In short, I think that a little information to the public would not be bad if we want to avoid a new source of pollution in the years to come.

In any case thank you Christophe for the link to the subject on the EM waves emitted by the LFC. This one was very useful to me. I understand a little better why you got angry when for the nth time someone brought up this argument. It might have been wise to refer me directly (and calmly) to this subject, especially since it seems that I am not the only one who has not read it. ;-)
By cons contrary to what you say I had watched the videos concerning the tests that you performed on the lamps (the blow of the mirco-waves for that matter ... ). On the other hand I am not sure that this proves anything because your device only measures the magnetic field and not the electromagnetic field. Did you test it on a simple magnet by chance?
The explanation from the Swedish office on radiation protection convinced me more. Sorry...

So finally, given the number of questions that a lot of people seem to be asking, I think it would be good to do a topic dedicated to the supposed advantages and disadvantages of CFLs. This subject can thus be completed to confirm or deny the various ideas (received ???) and we can refer to it as soon as a person arrives by saying "Bouhhh, low consumption light bulbs is nuuuuuuullll !!!".
What do you think ??? If it suits you, I propose to create it and bring it to life.

On that note, good night everyone ... yes because given the length of my post, if you are still in front of your screen, you must have fallen asleep ...