The way we get our light and the efficiency of our bulbs maybe changing. As recently as December of 2007 congress was deliberating over a ban on incandescent light bulbs. Currently incandescent light bulbs are used in many homes because they are cheaper then the newer florescent light bulbs. The thought behind banning the incandescent light bulbs is to promote efficiency and save money in the long term. Both bulbs have their benefits and drawbacks.
The US is not the only country that is proposing a ban on incandescent bulbs from the small and poorest countries in the world To Australia who was the first to “pull the Plug” on incandescent light bulbs. It is important to compare the two different types of bulbs on a variety of planes in order to understand why congress would want to ban a certain one in favor of another. According to energystar the compact florescent light bulbs are seventy-five percent more efficient and can last up to ten times the average life of incandescent bulbs. In theory if the bulbs do not break they will eventually end up saving more then they cost in initial price but the initial price of incandescent in a quarter of florescent. Currently the ban proposes that light bulbs be phased out by their efficiency with all bulbs having 30% more efficiency by 2014 and 70% by 2020. One main criticism of the florescent light bulb is that though they provides maximum efficiency and cost saving they also have potential heath effects. The florescent bulbs are made with small amounts of mercury, a neurotoxin. When these bulbs are not properly recycled or break inside of home they can lead to exposure that was not a problem with incandescent bulbs
Florescent light bulbs though more effective cost wise are potentially very high in human heath effects. A lot of these countries that have banned incandescent lights have not seen the effects yet but as more and more lights containing mercury break and seep into homes and soils the problems will come up. Before congress passes a full ban without giving us any choice but to use these dangerous chemical lights people should be fully aware what’s in the lights, how to mitigate a breaking light and most importantly how and where to recycle the lights. The EPA recommendations for dealing with broken lights should be known to anyone who purchases them.
-Brian Schmitt
As I read more about the pros and cons of CFLs vs. incandescent light bulbs I feel like there are more negative environmental issues dealing with the disposal and breakage of CFLs. In the EPA site it stated that if a light bulb breaks to place it by the normal trash for pick up. If this trash goes into a landfill it has potential to leak into groundwater and get into our waterways. When there is a complete phase out of incandescent light bulbs I believe that the quantity of mercury that must be dealt with would impact the environment greatly if we don't figure out now how to properly dispose of these items, make it convenient for people, and to educate the public. I suspect that many people don't know how or where to dispose of mercury contained items. I definitely see the connection of the theme of conflicting environmental issues more and more with the issue of incandescent vs cfl light bulbs.
ReplyDelete