Dear colleagues, I seem to be the only one who has some doubts. Of course, Heather has presented an excellent (brief but comprehensive) summing up of the so-called mercurialism’s signs and symptoms, and I as a toxicologist would not be worth my salt if I did not know virtually everything she wrote about (and dishonest if I tried to downplay health risks associated with Hg).

However, being also an environmental epidemiologist and an acting expert in health risks assessment, I cannot help thinking about the harvest of morbidity and mortality gathered by the ever increasing demands for electric energy – due to deforestation of our planet, due to ambient air pollution with fly ash fine and ultrafine (nano) particles and with gases, both toxic (SO2, CO) and having greenhouse effect (CO2).

The most ironic is that mercury vapours should be added to this blacklist too! In the WHO flyer “Exposure to mercury: a mayor public health concern” coal-fired power stations are listed the first amongst human activities resulting in the contamination of our environment with this toxic! More serious monographs: the IPCS Environmental Health Criteria 86 (“Mercury – environmental aspects”) and 118 (“Inorganic Mercury”) stressing that natural sources are the most important, still rank burning of fossil fuels very high amongst anthropogenic ones.

So what! So teach consumers how to be careful when handling mercury light bulbs and (especially) their remnants, so teach municipalities to organize separate gathering and utilization of the latter, so induce legislatures to make laws punishing sellers of broken bulbs and encouraging manufacturers to make them less breakable - do everything (quite practicable indeed) to manage abovementioned risks without hindering any, even small, effort for slowing down further increase in much higher risks for the present population of the Earth and for generations yet unborn associated with insatiable demands for more and more energy.

Besides, do not forget that during no less than 2 centuries millions of medical mercury-filled thermometers were been and still are broken down within human dwellings, making the mercury a really persistent toxic contaminant of our indoor environment. I’ve got no exact assessments but I am sure that it is still the most important source of not-occupational mercury exposure for common people (especially of children) . So launch a campaign for banning these dangerous things and for making electronic medical thermometers more reliable and less expensive.

Regards

Professor Boris A. Katsnelson, MD, DSc,

A Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation

A member of the ISEE

Head, Dept of Toxicology & Bioprophylaxis,

Medical Research Center for Prophylaxis and Health

Protection in Industrial Workers

Ekaterinburg , Russia

Thank you for this. My concern is that not a single step of precaution will be taken by the vast majority of consumers. Our cat knocks over lamps, bulbs break. Without ever having paid a bit of attention to this over the breakage of ordinary bulbs, the average consumer would merely pick up the pieces the best they can by hand, sweep or vacumm the rest, and that would be the end of it--almost. They would take the pieces and and put them in the trash can, which eventually goes into the residential dumpster...the sanitation workers would come along, dump the open container onto the truck, etc. etc. etc., many people getting an exposure...millions, billions, trillions of broken light bulbs later, anywhere near the landfills would become hazards to the surrounding communities and to those who work around them. Meanwhile, back at home, no windows are opened, children don't leave the room, pets lie down for hours at a time right on the spot where the mercury was spilt.

Now, my question is this: is there a hazard or is there not? Are those concerned about this being paranoid, or are they just a tad paranoid and the danger is non-existent to minimal? How will we know until millions of moms and dads sweep up and handle with their bare hands the broken lamps, millions of children and oets play around and in the areas they break, and sanitation workers are exposed to high doses of mercury in their line of work because the nearly unanimous careless handling of broken bulbs? Will it impact already skyrocketing rates of learning disorders and underdevelopment of children; will it impact the so-called tidal wave of Alzheimer's?

Who's defining the problem, testing the hypotheses? And when they get the answers in the affirmative (confirming our worst expectations), who stops the production, institutes the recalls, and takes them off the market? Do men and women from CDC come in and decontaminate the tenaments, apartments, cabins, hotel rooms, and homes of an entire nation? At what cost?

Thank you for your answer, Justyna. It will be interesting to see the replies to this question if we can stir enough interest. At some point this conversation needs to happen, seriously, in the scientific community. Either these pose a hazard to consumers or they do not. The anecdotal evidience coupled with EPA's, CDC's precautions, CPSC's labeling warnings will never ever in a thousand years avert the disaster that the evidence so far suggests. An illiterate population, which abounds worldwide; the rising substance abuse and alcohol population (grown to 62 million in our country now due to liberal welfare policies and free flow of drugs throughout the inner cities and beyond), and all that comes with that in homes and families of those affected...well, I do not see the careful handling outlined in your answer happening. Then, we stand to see potentially dire consequences for humanity in its quest to save energy. Perhaps with enough exposure and research supporting the problem, though, we will force technology to replace the mercury gas with another safer substance (we did this with mercury batteries back in the 1980s, incidentally). Thank you again for your reply.

The energy production has, as it is well known, a virtually unavoidable many- ways adverse impact on human health on the global level (for former, present and future generations). Thus each watt of spared watt of energy gives not only economic benefit but also a beneficial environmental health effect. The risk of mercury contamination of one's abode is not a myth but it can be and should be managed (by adequate information, by bettering design of lamps and so on). So make your choice!

SorryI I meant "each watt of spared energy"

I appreciate your take on the issue, Boris. I agree that we have to make some trade offs. My grave concern is the unknowing masses of people out there, children playing with spent bulbs, santitation workers breathing in the mercury gas every single day on the job, cats knocking over lamps that contaminate the rooms for hours before discovered. The public has not had the same preparation on the inherent dangers of these bulbs under myriad circumstances of exposure as they had been sold on their benefits through billions of dollars of tax dollars. Somehow, we have to alert the public and governments as a scientific community so that society can honestly make the tradeoffs mentioned in your fine comments with their pocket books and with taking the necessary precautions to ameliorate the dangers now faced. Thank you for your comments.

Thank you, Max. We always have to compare risks connected with doing something with risks connected with not doing it, considering not only dimensions of these risks but also which of them are more manageable in principle - and to implement such risk management actions in reality, of course.

Mercury Poisoning: Symptoms and Diseases

Mercury is the most poisonous, non-radioactive, naturally occurring substance on our planet. There is no safe level of mercury because even one atom of it in your body is doing some harm to it. There is no debate about the toxicity of mercury and every knowledgeable scientist and health professional understands how poisonous mercury is.

Yet even today the American Dental Association (ADA) and pro-amalgam dentist’s who support its insane, logic defying position, continue to say that these fillings are perfectly safe and are not a health hazard. The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that there is no safe level of mercury, that means that no amount of it is safe, even one atom. Even if enough mercury hasn't accumulated to manifest a symptom related to chronic mercury poisoning, that doesn't mean you are not being poisoned by it.

Amalgam fillings are made from 50% mercury and the rest is silver, zinc, copper and tin. All are handled as hazardous products until they are placed in the teeth. When the amalgam filling particles are removed from a tooth they must be placed in a hazardous waste container. In addition, because mercury is classified as a neurotoxin it can also cause of contribute to emotional and psychological issues, such as depression, anxiety, mood swings and memory loss. Symptoms that worsen over time may signal the development of a disease. But keep in mind that because mercury can indirectly cause harm by depleting the antioxidants, such as glutathione and alpha lipoic acid, needed to remove it and deal with other harmful toxins and free radicals

You shouldn't be the same house with mercury vapor, let alone having it being released from your fillings. It's a scientific fact that toxic mercury vapor is continually being released from amalgam fillings. 80% of it enters your body and accumulates in it. This accumulation occurs because the body loses its effectiveness at removing mercury over time.

Common Symptoms of Chronic Mercury Poisoning

Head; Dizziness, Faintness, Headaches (frequent), Ringing in ears, Excessive blushing, Hair loss, Vision problems, Tunnel vision.

Nose; Inflammation of the nose, Sinusitis, Excessive mucus formation, Stuffy nose, Loss of sense of smell

Skin problems; Allergies, Excessive perspiration, Skin cold and clammy

Oral/Throat; Bad breath (halitosis), Gingivitis/bleeding gums, Inflammation of the gums, Leukoplakia (white patches), Mouth inflammation, Metallic taste, Sore throats, Ulcers of oral cavity, Burning sensation.

Lungs; Asthma/bronchitis, Chest congestion, Shallow respiration, Shortness of breath, Chronic coughing

Digestive System; Colitis, Diarrhea/constipation, Loss of appetite, Weight loss, Nausea/vomiting.

Heart; Anemia, Chest pain, Heartbeat rapid or irregular

Muscles & Joints; Cramping, Joint aches, Muscle aches, Muscle weakness, Stiffness

Other; Water retention (edema), Renal failure, Bone loss, Anorexia, Genital discharge, Gland swelling, Hypoxia, Hypothyroidism, Illnesses (frequent)

Emotions; Aggressiveness, Anger (fits of), Anxiety, Confusion, Depression, Fear and nervousness, Hallucination, Lethargy, Manic depression, Mood swings, Shyness

Energy Levels; Apathy, Chronic tiredness, Restlessness, Insomnia

Neurological/Mental; Fine tremor, Lack of concentration, Learning disorders, Memory loss, short and long term, Numbness, Slurred speech, Psychosis.

Diseases Related to Chronic Mercury Poisoning

Mercury exposure has been linked to the following diseases. Because mercury has such a destructive effect on the immune and detoxification systems, the list could be much longer.

Acrodynia, Alzheimer’s, Anterior lateral sclerosis (ALS), Asthma, Arthritis, Autism,

Candida, Cardiovascular disease, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Crohn’s disease,

Depression, Developmental defects, Diabetes, Eczema, Emphysema, Fibromyalgia,

Hormonal dysfunction, Intestinal dysfunction, Immune system disorders, Kidney disease,

Learning disorders, Liver disorders, Lupus, Metabolic encephalopathy, Multiple sclerosis (MS),

Reproductive disorders, Parkinson’s disease, Senile dementia, Thyroid disease.

Best frank review on consequences of Mercury poisoning I've seen to-date. I am glad you see my concern, as most of those I've contacted on this issue have brushed it aside, saying the printed warnings on the packaging is enough...in this functionally illiterate age! Consumers, as a rule, do NOT read the labels nor follow the cautionary directions in case of breakage. What can we do now? I see as our only course to bring the issue to light in the media, before more harm is done with these products. They serve a noble purpose in saving energy, but when they break--at home, in the stores, during manufacture, when disgarded--humans are touched in serious and devastating ways with no clue as to the cause. Thank you for addressing the issue so thoroughly.

Having talked to some of the larger retail corporations that distribute these bulbs there appears to be growing concern over the safe handling of spent/broken/defective bulbs by many of these companies. The regulatory agencies, which are usually overwrought in many applications of safety on such matters are stranglely silent in alerting the public to the dangers of the mercury gas when a child knocks over a lamp, or when the bulbs break in transit from the warehouse and stocked on the shelves with mercury gas leaking out onto the employees who handle it.

I bought a package of these bulbs for our home recently and found everyone of them cracked open and wondered if the ones handling these broken bulbs might have a bad case of mercury poisoning. Would they ever associate the suddenly arising neuropathy, the debilitating ALS, the onset of mental health issues with that incident. The warnings on the box are quite muted and inconsiquential. Virtually will read the 16-page EPA warning that they are told to read on their website when these bulbs. We still hear that these bulbs help the invironment, and we must ask, "At what price?"

Hoping that someone studying this public health hazard will jump into the discussion.

Thank you all for taking up such a serious issue for discussion, must appreciate the concern and the thoroughness of it ! I hope something good comes out of it !

Dear colleagues, I seem to be the only one who has some doubts. Of course, Heather has presented an excellent (brief but comprehensive) summing up of the so-called mercurialism’s signs and symptoms, and I as a toxicologist would not be worth my salt if I did not know virtually everything she wrote about (and dishonest if I tried to downplay health risks associated with Hg).

However, being also an environmental epidemiologist and an acting expert in health risks assessment, I cannot help thinking about the harvest of morbidity and mortality gathered by the ever increasing demands for electric energy – due to deforestation of our planet, due to ambient air pollution with fly ash fine and ultrafine (nano) particles and with gases, both toxic (SO2, CO) and having greenhouse effect (CO2).

The most ironic is that mercury vapours should be added to this blacklist too! In the WHO flyer “Exposure to mercury: a mayor public health concern” coal-fired power stations are listed the first amongst human activities resulting in the contamination of our environment with this toxic! More serious monographs: the IPCS Environmental Health Criteria 86 (“Mercury – environmental aspects”) and 118 (“Inorganic Mercury”) stressing that natural sources are the most important, still rank burning of fossil fuels very high amongst anthropogenic ones.

So what! So teach consumers how to be careful when handling mercury light bulbs and (especially) their remnants, so teach municipalities to organize separate gathering and utilization of the latter, so induce legislatures to make laws punishing sellers of broken bulbs and encouraging manufacturers to make them less breakable - do everything (quite practicable indeed) to manage abovementioned risks without hindering any, even small, effort for slowing down further increase in much higher risks for the present population of the Earth and for generations yet unborn associated with insatiable demands for more and more energy.

Besides, do not forget that during no less than 2 centuries millions of medical mercury-filled thermometers were been and still are broken down within human dwellings, making the mercury a really persistent toxic contaminant of our indoor environment. I’ve got no exact assessments but I am sure that it is still the most important source of not-occupational mercury exposure for common people (especially of children) . So launch a campaign for banning these dangerous things and for making electronic medical thermometers more reliable and less expensive.

Regards

Professor Boris A. Katsnelson, MD, DSc,

A Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation

A member of the ISEE

Head, Dept of Toxicology & Bioprophylaxis,

Medical Research Center for Prophylaxis and Health

Protection in Industrial Workers

Ekaterinburg , Russia

Thank you, Boris, for an astute and most cogent statement on one of the more profound dilemmas with which modern society is faced. I, too, have no way of knowing the outcomes of millions of mercury filled thermometers breaking in households. The ever present danger of light bulbs, of course, pose a thousand-fold more risks to the public from the sheer differential in numbers bulbs to light bulbs. My objective with this question was not really so much for the purpose of taking them out of the homes so much as raising awareness first in the scientific community and secondly among the politicians who fought hard to pass statutory laws requiring their use in place of the safer, but much more wasteful, incandescent bulbs, and most certainly in presenting the alarm that I feel should be sounded to the public that unsuspectingly uses them without even a notion of the risks involved, and precautions needed in their use. I do share your concern about the larger issue of environmental harm from increased use of energy--if there was a time we need technological breakthroughs and enthusiastic innovation in that area it is now. It might even stop a few wars if we were further along in that regard.

I confess that I'm as guilty as the next person in handling a common item like a lightbulb. Just a couple of days ago one of the bulbs burned out in my office lamp. I went to the package of bulbs in the storage closet and pulled out a new one, looking carefully at the print on the packaging--there was nothing that even remotely indicated the level of potential danger in handling them. After a couple of interruptions from patients and staff with a question here and there I forgot about the precautions--and having removed the spent bulb from the socket, gently tossed it into the trash bin next to my desk. Instantly, I thought to look to see if it had broken--sure enough it had--holding my breath I gathered up the plastic bag in the trash can, closing it off and carried it out to the large dumpster across the parking lot. Washing my hands carefully afterward, I still do not know to what I might have been exposed--did the invisible gases permeate the air around me? I don't know--But adding up perhaps hundreds if not thousands of such exposure in a lifetime and I cannot help but wonder if the ache in my hands has anything to do with that incident.

Sometimes in the course of doing the equivalent of blowing against the wind, just bringing the topic to light in a rational and urgent manner might shed light to stakeholders fostering public education programs, more careful packaging cautions, even improvements in material so that they are less breakable. But the discussion among the guardians of the knowledge base has to happen first, and unless I am mistaken I missed out on that discussion. But again I appreciate your thoughtful and sobering comments and all those who comment on this question. Either we will find out the danger is less than we think it is (highly unlikely by what I know of heavy metal toxicity already dealt with) or we will hopefully start a cascade of concern and coping strategies for dealing with it in the larger society. It is always the invisible aspects of harm to the environment that are tougher in gaining notice. Thank you again.

Boris, you seem to be approaching the problem from an 'either - or' perspective, which is not particularly helpful. I can't think of any here who would NOT support your arguments for pursuing less harmful forms of energy - that is not the issue. The issue being raised is how little attention was - and is currently - paid to the known risks of mercury, and in particular, its use in a widely- and daily-utilised household and workplace product with a high propensity for damage and breakage. The important issues relate to possible risk-reduction through improved design, public education for both users and handlers, and perhaps regulatory action. I agree with all of those who believe that these issues need to be raised, especially by public health professionals.

Julie,

I: "So teach consumers how to be careful when handling mercury light bulbs and (especially) their remnants, so teach municipalities to organize separate gathering and utilization of the latter, so induce legislatures to make laws punishing sellers of broken bulbs and encouraging manufacturers to make them less breakable - do everything (quite practicable indeed) to manage above mentioned risks..."

You:"The important issues relate to possible risk-reduction through improved design, public education for both users and handlers, and perhaps regulatory action."

So where do we disagree?

Moreover, if I reminded about similar risks associated with medical thernometer filled wit mercury. you write abouot not specifically mercury ligh bulbs but in general about mercury " use in a widely- and daily-utilised household and workplace product with a high propensity for damage and breakage." Good for you! Still I do not see any controvercy with my position.

What I might criticize in yours is your writing but about "pursuing less harmful forms of energy" (good again!) and being seemingly not concerned with decreasing global energy consumption - thus neglecting the gist of my arguments.

Nevertheless, as I like almost everything in your profession de foi (bar your strange accusing me in "approaching the problem from an 'either - or' perspective" - not guilty!) I've just upvoted it.

sorry, I read and wrote in haste, and thought the risk-reduction suggestions were from another commentator! And agree that decreasing energy consumption is also necessary - I could argue that was why I left it out of my reply ;) - I was conserving energy! You leave me only one partially-valid point - that light bulbs are more widely and often used than thermometers ... and I stand corrected on the rest!

Julie,

I should be a gentleman and not insist on being 100% right when arguing with a lady but I can't help doubting whether mercury (sic!) light bulbs are really more widely and often used than mercury-filled glass thermometers. Mind you, I do not know for certain (do you?) but I have some doubts.

First, in many countries where manufacturing and sale of incadescent lamps is still not prohibited they (being much cheaper) evidently prevail, and even after such a prohibition those bought earlier will serve many years in private housholds before all of them expire and mercury light bulbs take their place.

Second, although ia family has got, as a rule, several light bulbs but only one medical thermometer if at all (and in more opulent countries even this one is prevailingly electronic) do not forget that millons of the mercury thermometers were being broken during many decades if not centuries. So in many old dwellings droplets of mercury stored in floor crevices and mercury absorbed by walls etc are emitting mercury vapours into indoor air - and present dwellers know nothing about this hidden hazard. Did anybody anywhere coduct a survey monitoring to prove or disprove it? I do not know - do you?

Anyway I believe that the sooner this kind of thermometer will vanish the better for present and future generations.

Regards

Boris

Veracity doesn't discriminate between either gender or manners, Boris - I like nothing better than a good argument - and some constructive criticism! I agree the sooner mercury thermometers disappear, the better - AND so-called energy-saving light bulbs. If the most efficient and effective risk reduction is to forgo their production and use entirely, and reduce our reliance on artificial light by modifying human behaviour, I am all for it. After all, it means modifying a relatively small number of peoples' behaviours, given the vast majority of such products are consumed by a small proportion of the worlds' inhabitants, most of whom are educated enough to be expected to respond to education and behavioural-based interventions, and living in countries with the resources (but unfortunately not the political will) to implement such interventions, and any necessary regulations... imagine the enormous reduction in energy consumption if in the United States (as one of the the greatest consumers), even if incandescent lightbulbs were retained.... TV was prohibited from broadcasting after 10pm, if bars etc were closed at midnight! If an 8-day working day were enforced, and the lighting of buildings not being used were prohibited? The trade-off is not between what the consumables are made of, but reducing the number and consumption of consumables - but that would challenge the basis of the western system of power and control - unbridled capitalism...

Nice discussion! Both parties have their pros and cons … I am not going into this discussion, but just open a new front:

I am from Slovenia where one of the three World greatest mercury mines was operated for several centuries. Mine is now closed, but mercury is still in the environment and will still be generated, as it is naturally ocuring in the environment. It is drained in the river Idrijca, then Soca (Isonzo) and finally to the Adriatic Sea. Another mercury source is in Almaden, Spain, still another are the mercury chimneys in the Mediterranean sea accompanying under sea volcanoes …

Q1: What about eating fish from the Mediterranean Sea?

Q2: How safe is life in Mediterranean compared to another parts of the world, having in mind Hg in the environment?

Q3: How to combat against these natural sources of the Hg?

Cheers! Boris (not the one from the previous discussions!)

BTW?

Seeing that medical doctors are involved in the discussion … how much people are aware that medical drugs, e.g. vaccines, are stabilized against microbial attack by mercury???

Excellent input, Boris.

Where to start...we have the same problem in portions of the US where mining was (and still occurs) and attributable neurotoxic and developmental damage to the population rages on. Yes, I recall, but do not the sources in front of me, that mercury rose in the Mediterranean during the 20th century. I am sure there are studies showing detriment to public health, but usually these are muted in the literature lest they cause consternation with the guilty parties, most of whom had no idea what they were doing to the population.

The same problem exists on an even grander, more pervasive scale relative to lead in the environment. Amazingly all of the NIH-sanctioned studies of mercury in vacinnes support the denial of any harm to the explosing of autistic spectrum kids over the past about 50 years. The studies are wrong, of course, and with biased designs, but they are what they are, more or less fabrications to convince everyone that these kids appeared out of a vaccum not by any consequence of erroneous public health policy. Having said that, we see independent studies showing significant challenge from the vaccine adjuvants to immature immunological systems--so some might say that it is the adjuvant not the mercury.

But truth be told it is the confluence of timing, mercury additive, and too strong of adjuvant. I wholeheartedly subscribe, for instance, for parents to wait until their children are mature enough to handle the vaccines (usually 3-6 months old) instead of rushing them in directly after birth at everyone's covenience but the baby's. With 37% of our children exhibiting some developmental delay and special education and remedial education the single largest expenditures in American education you'd think someone from on high would be awake on this.

But, er, no, the denial keeps the status quo profitable for vested interests. Thank you, the Other Boris, for your input. Yes, it's a big (but lonely) topic!

I understand countries like Japan have delayed the MMR vaccine till a year old and halved autism rates. A 3 month old child is still too small and is it not true that the immune system is only full formed at around 2 years old? Till then there is no system to boost as the child is relying on immunity passed on by the mother and via breast milk. Vaccines themselves are dubious when you look deeply at alternative information but mercury in vaccines is ludicrous. We used to put mercury in teething powders in the past and now that is considered bad practice, one day in the future we will do the same with all the current sources of mercury, especially around our children.

Heather, I was not aware that Japan had done that. I advocated the one year delay for many years to the absolute scorn of the media and colleagues. So, over time I shortened the recommendation to 3 months for females and 6 months for males with great anecdotal results and far less scorn from others over it. The supporters of unfettered vaccines are a vicious lot and go to incredible lengths to destroy anyone who suggests caution. I go to Japan as a keynote lecturer and have a great deal of input into some areas of health policy, so if you have something on that can you send it to me at [email protected]?

On the mercury lights I am astounded that so many who are concerned about the environment are so sanguine over the danger of these new bulbs. When I read the startlingly detailed instructions the EPA has on them I wondered if anyone realized what THEIR data shows. But generally this topic seems to get a big yawn from a lot of people that should be crying foul over the nonchalant manner in which it is being treated. It should be on the nightly new in my feeling until the public is aware of the huge tradeoff they are making in the name of environment. At some point they must decide which is more important, the environment of their family's health and safety or the larger environment where no one in modern civilization lives. Thank you , as always, for you great insights!

Thank God, the era of light bulbs on base of mercury is close to the end - as the LED (Light Emitting Diodes) are now more and more reliable and powerful.

Still, is there enough attention given how to PROPERLY get rid of these mercury fed light bulbs?!?!!? This is the problem to be urgently solved on the worldwide basis!

Yes, commercial interests have geared up with huge government subsidies and loans to bring us a lot of these mercury lightbulbs for some years to come, so the last thing they will sanction is worrying the public over their dastardly heatlh effects. But you are correct the LED approach is gaining steam and hopefully will overshadow the mercury filled ones.

The dangers are even higher in developing countries where LED products are yet to have a broad outreach. The government and citizens are not concerned.

So how best to get rid of the mercury light bulbs?

Dear Max

The use of fluorescent plus more durable, helps reduce energy expenses .

However , despite the convenience , it contains mercury, a chemical that can be quite harmful. It is because of him that the disposal of such equipment should be done very carefully - the lamp should not be broken or discarded in the trash . In the case of a heavy toxic metal , mercury poses risks to those who handle the broken and also the environment lamp in case of direct disposal in nature . To be inhaled, can cause metal poisoning and neurological problems . On environmental issues , can contaminate the water, harming animals and plants in the ecosystem.

 A federal law in brazil implemented the concept of reverse logistics for these and other post- consumer waste . Once received by the suppliers , these bulbs , which should be delivered whole , are led to calls decontamination plants

The interior of the tube fluorescent lamps is coated with a dust containing various toxic substances such as mercury vapor , oxides of heavy metals and also lead solder . Therefore , they should always be kept intact, for the disposal .

By releasing mercury, which is harmful to health and the environment , these lamps can not be disposed of in household waste . Legislation in Brazil provides a shared responsibility for the life of the product manufacturers , importers , distributors , traders , consumers and members of the public urban sanitation cycle. Determines what industry and government should design and implement a logistics system reservation by returning the products to suppliers after use by consumers , independently of the public urban cleaning service . In Brazil the consumer can directly deliver the bulbs to trade which was acquired

 If , by accident , a lamp breaks, the ideal is to remove children and animals around , and open doors and windows to ventilate the space. The gas is released should not be inhaled. Once broken , the mercury gas dissipates , so this lamp becomes a common residue. In such cases , in addition to careful not to inhale the toxic air, you must put the remains in a newspaper or in a bottle and discard in the trash

Thank you for your cogent review, Elias. What is happening in the US is bulbs are breaking in transit on the way to the stores, on store shelves, and most concerning at home where pets and children knock over lamps, and play on the carpets and in closed areas where the mercury vapors are released to the air in the homes--often tossed in the garbage cans in the kitchen or bathrooms...the public totally and utterly unaware of the severe neurological and developmental damage these cause. I bought a package recently from a local drugstore--all broken in the sealed package, open the package and immediately noticed the problem too late. The one lone bulb that was not broken I placed in the lamp, turned it on, and it shattered instantly, again releasing its mercury contents. For days afterwards my joints ached and I had near constant vertigo. I still have some residual effects from the experience. This must be a common occurrance repeating itself throughout our population. We have a cat that has knocked over lamps, breaking these bulbs. I can only imagine the public health issues emanating from this that will wreak terrible damage to the health of our nation due to the short-sightedness of our Congress and President who forced this law upon us without due consideration and education of the public. I call upon my colleagues in academia and in science to point this out in their respective nations and in the scientific circles in which they have influence. We might save the environment by reducing greenhouse gases .00001% but lose the well-being of those for whom the environmental quality exists.

Humans have a penchant for creating issues first and searching for solutions later. As Max observed in an oblique sense, commercial interests usually ignore (out-rightly) all other ethical considerations. Behind every successful commercial venture environmental and public health challenges loom. Nelson, above, has given one of the very practical approaches that countries can adopt with reference to the question under debate. I also found couple of interesting reads on the net on the subject:

https://www.doe.gov.ph/.../LWM%20Procedural%20Guideline_final.pdf

www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastetypes/universal/lamps/faqs.htm

If the debate is about public health, then government regulations must prevail to prevent the commercial sale of any harmful product. While saying this is the easiest anyone can do, getting all scientists and researchers to agree that 'x' is harmful is next to impossible. Commercial corporations and even governments utilise this divide and knowingly/unknowingly continue to endanger innocent lives.

Agreed completely

A very serious problem. Public need to be aware of this problem.

http://www.anh-usa.org/compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-a-new-cancer-risk-in-your-home/

Nageswara, thank you for bringing up the information on this site. I had forgotten the study you referred to found at http://commcgi.cc.stonybrook.edu/am2/publish/General_University_News_2/SBU_Study_Reveals_Harmful_Effects_of_CFL_Bulbs_to_Skin.shtml. If any one knows of corroborating studies related to CFL bulbs and also the practical applications of LED lights that we are seeing more of lately, please pass them onto us here. Thank you.

Dear All,

As Boris put it out it is no need to lament but to educate people how to handle CFLs bulbs and their rests. Nelson’s propositions would be beneficial to distribute.

Mercury pollution and poisoning has had a long history. Even in ancient times and in the middle age it was used as a slow poison. Alchemists also used it when “making” gold.

One should prepare a list on the mercury quantity released into environment as garbage as well as on the mercury used in present time. This documentation parallel with the analysis of environmental probes may provide data on forecasting future risk of mercury.

Mercury was used widely as an agricultural fungicide about 20-25 years ago in Hungary and other European countries.

CFL bulb recycling guidelines in US.

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/recycling-and-disposal-after-cfl-burns-out

A comprehensive environmental effects of mercury are here:

http://www.epa.gov/hg/eco.htm

http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/

How did I miss this awesome discussion for so long? Glad it showed up on my email. Max! You ought to share all your interesting questions with all your followers routinely.

My expertise is Materials Science, Medical Waste Management along with Safety & Compliance education for medical practices, hospitals, labs, pharmaceutical entities. This is an excellent discussion for me to learn about the physiological implication of the presence of Mercury (Hg, considered a "hazardous substance" and hence disallowed as "RMW or Regulated Medical Waste") in the human anatomy. Thanks for all the thoughtful, erudite, selfless contributions of all opinions.

New Jersey is among the strictest when it comes to such matters due to a long history of such pollution in our waters for sure. 90% of our "bodies of water" are no good for fishing to eat. We are doing something about it fast here in New Jersey, The Garden State still. With nearly 90% of our landmass uninhabited and a majority of it designated preserved land e.g., "Pine Lands"! The Sandy torn shoreline has been restored immaculately. You ought to come visit NJ USA! Try our phenomenal beaches! The weather just turned fantastic! Summer finally in May? Some "global cooling" going on around here.

BTW Max, the ginger program has exceeded my expectations and I have new converts in my highly skeptical but "open minded" octogenarian parents (85, 80). I bet you ginger is potentially a detoxifier for Hg in humans as well.

http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/protection/overview/

Ravi, thanks for the great contribution. Yes, a ginger extract is being and has been studied for some time by colleagues of mine searchnig for an effective cancer cure. So far, the animals studies surpass anything currently used in the US on humans--low cost, plentiful, no harm to normal cells, kills targeted cells--all the things that would likely bring pause to the conventional world of oncology. How long before anyone commits the hundreds of millions of dollars to get it through the approval process for human use is anyone's guess.

The threat of long term, build up in landfills and other "dumping grounds" is the key question. The problem is that these bulbs are inexpensive to manufacture and are out in the markets. How do you put the genie back in the bottle now that it is out.

James

I think it is a difficult proposition. We have to educate the people as to the best methods of their usage and disposal. Make sure that the utility companies which are now suggesting their usage should also undertake this task. Also they should provide the necessary recycling facilities. In the long run if the LED prices come down, then we may be able to reduce this problem. But it is going to be a long haul. All the stakeholders like GE, Government and all utility companies should take the responsibility. May be the government should enact suitable laws for the purpose since our companies notorious when it comes to environment and profit.

Yes, Nageswara, education on a grand scale is key, and that has been my deepest concern on this issue since the beginning. I suspect that public health officials are concerned about creating a stampede of lawsuits--which might occur and probably with justification in some cases--because of the terrible neurological and developmental damage that mercury exposure portends. But the main thing now is officials to "man up" and do the honest thing. Keeping the public in the dark to protect someone's "face" is not the honorable thing to do. Somehow, we must insist on our respective lawmakers who come up with these kinds of regulations to put in place safety measures to protect the public from unintended consequences.

Talking about recycling and other means of reducing its (Hg) presence in "solid waste" is important. But so is the antidote for what is already present in our environment through decades if not more of landfilling. At least two important aspects to focus on!

THE HAZARDS AND REMEDIATION OF MERCURY-CONTAINING LIGHTING

My review clearly highlights that there continue to be significant potential health hazards from mercury encased in CFL lighting (compact fluorescent lamps) and other mercury-containing lighting, despite the voluntary agreement signed in April 2007 by members of the trade group NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) which capped the amount of mercury in each bulb at 5 mg per lamp for CFLs up to 25 W, and 6 mg in CFLs with higher wattage, with verified adherence to date (in a test of multiple bulbs and brands, total amount of Hg contained in each CFL ranged from 0.1 to 3.6 [1,2]), the primary concern being leakage via breakage of CFLs - along with hazards to workers in the manufacturing plants especially in countries with insufficiently protective regulation, an issue addressed elsewhere (Note: Combustion of coal for electric power generation is generally the largest source of atmospheric mercury pollution; reduction in electricity demand from the substitution of incandescent bulbs with fluorescents leads to reduced mercury emissions during the use of the bulb).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

From a review of the data to date, we conclude:

1. The hazards posed by mercury leakage from MCL (mercury containing lamp) breakage have not been sufficiently highlighted, and are potentially more pervasive and long-term durable than previously recognized.

2. The recent demonstration of the cross-membrane (blood-brain barrier (BBB) and placenta ) capability of mercury and its long-term residency and accumulation in the brain suggests that short follow-up studies may have been insufficient to accurately capture full hazards in the long-term.

3. Initiatives by manufacturers and retailers for recycling and safe disposal have been erratic, inconsistent and to date minimal.

4. Mercury-hazard awareness initiatives at the mercury industry and retail, and local, state and federal government, levels have been inconsistent and have largely failed to adequately advise consumers on the potential dangers posed, and the optimal and safest procedures for remediation after breakage (for example, surveys have found that far too many consumers vacuum affected areas, use plastic bags for containment, and dispose of cleanup and recovered materials in normal trash, all strongly contraindicated).

5. There remains no central international authority to coordinate the many divergent and often inconsistent national initiatives.

6. There remains a backward-looking fixation on the use of MCL technology, especially CFLs, as a replacement for incandescent lighting, rather than a forward-looking exploration of safer and - in the long run - cost-effective mercury-free technologies such as LED lighting.

7. Consumer environmental action and activism on mercury hazards, unlike that on other environmental dangers, remains anemic to this day, largely due to failure to disseminate state-of-the-art scientific knowledge outside of professional communities.

THE CONCERN OF LEAKAGE FROM BREAKAGE

Emissions from mercury (Hg) vapor from CFLs result in direct physical or respiratory contact with people when the CFLs are broken, a not uncommon event during shipping, handling, retailing, and normal use, especially but not solely in households with children and pets, made worse by the fact that the breathing zone of infants and children is known to be within the lower zone (30 cm) of where mercury concentrations are relatively high making higher exposure for this age group more probable. The hazard is "silent" making it of special concern: breakage-exposed liquid mercury is virtually invisible given that a ball of mercury weighing in at the maximum capped limit of 5 mg (with density of 13.5 g/cm3) would have a miniscule diameter of just 0.9 mm, hence hard to locate, and mercury vapor is of course completely invisible. A further adverse complication is from leaching: the mercury leaching out from CFLs in dissolved forms can be transformed into methylmercury, a highly toxic form known to biomagnify up the food chain, and it should also be noted that CFLs continuously release mercury vapor after any breakage, potentially lasting weeks or even months. This vapor presents its own unique hazards mercury vapor can be readily inhaled. And although rapid/immediate removal of broken CFLs plus sufficient fresh air ventilation of affected room(s) is critical in the prevention of potential harms dramatically limiting the estimated health risk, however in real life scenarios, remediation is rarely rapid, and indeed breakage may even not be noticed for some while (hallways, closets, basements, attics), and this is aggravated by the fact that disseminated knowledge of both mercury hazards and of the most effective procedures for its safe removal is woefully minimal and largely incorrect.

Researchers at the University of Thessaloniki [3] showed that the critical period for intake covers and is concentrated within the first 4 hours after CFL breakage, and the intake rate is significantly affected by room air temperature - just a 10-degree rise in indoor air temperature can lead to 50% higher mercury vapor emission during the "mercury critical phase" which is the first 4 hours after lamp breakage - and the indoor mercury air concentration may even exceed the most demanding toxicological thresholds of concern which are the Reference Exposure Limit (REL) for mercury vapor as set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of California. And note that even ingestion intake through hand-to-mouth behavior continues to be significant for infants and toddlers (especially if mercury is disperses across rugs and carpets or wood flooring with typical seams, and it's been shown that breaking one lamp on wood, short pile or shag carpet results in almost immediate high mercury concentrations), accounting for about 20% of the overall intake [3]. If noticed, if fresh air ventilation is effected rapidly AND the broken lamp cleaned up for containment and ultimate removal, concentrations quickly fall [4].

Others factors include the type of CFL bulb: although after the breakage of a common CFL concentrations up to 8000 ng/m3 are reached in the chamber, amalgam-type lamps show much lower peak values or 414 ng/m3, with the most hazard-resistant type, namely lamps with a shatter-proof coating showing only 60 ng/m3 peak values, and ventilation alone can further dramatically reduce these concentrations within 20 minutes [5].

SAFETY/TOXICITY ISSUES

It is known that the key mercury exposure pathway to humans from broken CFLs is inhalation (80–97% being absorbed into the body through the lungs). Once the mercury is in the body, the fact that elemental mercury is lipid soluble enables it to cross biological membranes including the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and the placenta, and its accumulation in the brain and the kidneys can cause neurological and renal dysfunctions, and pharmacokinetic data finds that mercury vapor has an average half-life of two months in the body, but with a range of 30–90 days [6-9]. This cross-membrane/barrier capability is of extreme concern: just published data demonstrate a half-life of inorganic mercury in human brains of several years to several decades [8]. Nonetheless: findings indicate that acute adverse health effects from exposure to mercury after accidental breakage of a CFL are unlikely if immediate, effective, optimal protective measures are taken (which regrettably is rare; see below).

Given as noted that the dominant exposure pathway in humans from broken CFLs is inhalation, (inhaled elemental mercury), readily dispersed in the air and absorbed through the lungs [10], once a CFL breakage event occurs, mercury vapor, liquid mercury if present, and mercury adsorbed onto the phosphorous powder is released. [Note: the inside of the coiled glass of a CFL is coated with phosphorous powder so that when electricity travels along a stretch of tungsten metal, this acts as an electrode, transmitting electricity into the gas and mercury, causing mercury atoms to vibrate to produce ultraviolet light energy that interacts with the phosphorous coating causing it to glow, which is what produces the light we see]. But as the bulb ages, the elemental mercury in the lamp will be oxidized to form inorganic mercury compounds [11], with more than 80% of the mercury becoming a component of the phosphorous powder. For both a CFL or a linear fluorescent tube, there is an initial spike in air-borne mercury concentration after the breakage of as mercury vapor is released [11], followed by the slower release of mercury bound in solid and liquid forms (amalgams, liquid elemental mercury, inorganic mercury and mercury absorbed onto lamp components including the phosphorous powder). Lamp breakage is accompanied by an initial release of about 5% of the overall mercury amount, with the rest being progressively released over time [11,12;4].

And I must underline that mercury vapor emission testing has revealed that the CFLs continuously release mercury vapor once broken a process that can persist over 10 weeks, with a total mercury vapor amount released from CFL breakage often exceeding 1.0 mg, a level that can cause the aggregate mercury level in a conventional room to exceed the safe human exposure limit under inadequate ventilation conditions [10].

REMEDIATION

(1) EARLY AVOIDANCE PERIOD:

- Remove all people and pets from the affected area.

- To NOT attempt remediation immediately, but rather to leave the area/room and wait 15–30 minutes after breakage before attempting to clean up, since by the small delay mercury levels in the air by then will have fallen sharply from their highest levels.

(2) PRE-CLEANUP VENTILATION:

- Close any interior doors and turn off any internal ventilation system/close vents.

- Open all sources of ventilation - windows/doors to the outdoor (not room-to-room internal doors) in home, with rotating fans in exterior windows and allow ventilation for no less than 20 - 25 minutes, preferably at least 45 minutes.

- Turn off forced hot air heat and central air conditioners.

(3) SAFE CLEANUP:

- Wear a particulate-filtering face mask and goggles during cleanup.

- Wear disposable footwear.

- Pick up broken glass pieces and other debris using thick, preferably non-reactive disposable rubber gloves (for small glass shards thin rubber gloves and tweezers may be necessary).

- DO NOT USE A VACUUM CLEANER: vacuuming spill site will only serve to vaporize any liquid mercury present and help disseminate it through the air in the room.

- DO NOT attempt clean up with a broom, brush, dustpan or mop; instead use only disposable objects to sweep up smaller pieces.

- NEVER use household cleaning products to clean a mercury spill, especially those containing ammonia or chlorine, as these chemicals can react violently with mercury, releasing toxic gas.

- If the breakage was on a fabric area (carpet, rug or upholstered furniture), avoid subsequent vacuuming of the spill area as it is likely to retain mercury for some time. Send out, with explicit warning of mercury spillage, to a professional cleaning service.

- Pat carpet or floor with duct or masking tape (which can for convenience be wrapped around a piece of cardboard) to pick up small particles.

- An eyedropper can be used for any visible droplets or beads.

- Use a flashlight held at a low angle close to the flooring in a darkened room and look for additional glistening beads of mercury on the surface or in small cracked areas or recesses of the surface, checking the entire room when searching.

- When all visible particles have been removes and contained, wipe affected area down carefully with a moist paper towel or commercial wet-wipe, wearing rubber gloves.

- If the spillage occurred in a room commonly used by small children or infant, consider retaining the services of a contractor who has monitoring equipment to screen for mercury vapors.

(4) SAFE CONTAINMENT:

For lamp part (lamp pieces, mercury particulates and emissions, and powder) and all cleanup material containment, to use a glass container with a metal screw top lid with a lid gum seal as commonly found with a canning jar. DO NOT use double re-sealable polyethylene bags which failed in tests to retard the migration of mercury adequately to maintain room air concentrations below the stringent MAAG (Maine Ambient Air Guideline).

(5) POST-CLEANUP

- Wash hands, face, and any removal objects used thoroughly, with soap or preferably, liquid detergent.

- Continue to ventilate the room for several hours, at least 4 hours, but at least 24 hours is strongly recommended unless absolutely infeasible.

(6) SAFE DISPOSAL

- Once containerized, immediately remove the lamp breakage from the home.

- Take advantage of any recycling options offered by manufacturer or the retailer in your area.

- If state law requires it, take the contained debris to a local hazardous-household-waste collection site.

- Consider using Veolia Environmental Services which offers prepaid lamp recycling kits, called “RECYCLEPAK” that customers can order online, for the recycling and safe disposal of mercury-containing lamps.

- Do not throw CFLs down trash chutes nor put them out with other glass objects for local recycling pickups,

- If local law permits them to be put in the trash, containerize them to protect them from breakage (inside a sturdy rigid container marked clearly as to UNIVERSAL WASTE- BROKEN LAMP - CONTAINS MERCURY. DO NOT OPEN. AVOID FURTHER BREAKAGE); this includes any clothing or footwear that has come into direct contact with mercury, DO NOT WASH AND REUSE.

- ADVICE: Based on the data from the Maine DEP study, I do not believe any homeowner can adequately clean carpet and rugs contaminated with mercury; rather they should be removed from the site.

REGULATORY/LEGISLATIVE ISSUES: A CALL TO ACTION

1. Buy CFLs and fluorescents with the lowest possible mercury, nearest to 1 mg.

2. Prefer manufactures and retailers that explicitly support mercury recycling for consumers, preferably with provided special container for mail-back program.

3. Prefer bulbs that use a impact-resistant or break-resistant inner seal.

4. Prefer manufactures and retailers that provide detailed consumer-friendly information about breakage hazards and explicit recommendations for safe proper cleanup and disposal.

5. Support more stringent regulations and legislation mandating minimal mercury deployment in break-resistant inner seals for all MCL (mercury containing lamps), with mandated manufacturer-provided recycling/disposal and manufacturer-absorption of projected costs [13].

6. Support "common-good" research into high-technology safeguards such as the application of nano-selenium as a reactive barrier for the suppression of mercury release.

7. CRITICAL: SUPPORT INITIATIVES THAT WILL ACCELERATE THE USE OF LED LIGHTING DEVICES which are more durable and are mercury-free and are rapidly becoming more cost-effective.

8. Support international collaboration and consensus guidelines across the current multiple separate guidelines in effect (US EPA; and the many innovative initiatives in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia/New Zealand, the Joint U.S.–China Cooperation on Clean Energy (JUCCCE); and India's advanced mercury management program ("The Mercury Movement"), among others) centralized either under:

(1) the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), or

(2) the joint WHO/HCWH Health Care Partnership.

REFERENCES

1. Nance P, Patterson J, Willis A, Foronda N, Dourson M. Human health risks from mercury exposure from broken compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2012; 62(3):542-52.

2. Fromme H, Büscher O, Matzen W, Drasch G, Roscher E, Nitschke L. Indoor air contamination after the breakage of mercury-containing compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), Gefahrstoffe – Reinhaltung Luft 2011; 71: 215–220.

3. Sarigiannis DA, Karakitsios SP, Antonakopoulou MP, Gotti A. Exposure analysis of accidental release of mercury from compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Sci Total Environ 2012 Oct 1; 435-436:306-15.

4. Stahler, D., Ladner, S. and Jackson, H. Maine Compact Fluorescent Lamp Breakage Study Report. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Feb 2008. At: http://www.maine.gov/dep/homeowner/cflreport.html.

5. Salthammer T, Uhde E, Omelan A, Lüdecke A, Moriske HJ. Estimating human indoor exposure to elemental mercury from broken compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Indoor Air 2012; 22(4):289-98.

6. Inorganic mercury/elemental mercury. Toxicological Overview. HPA (Health Protection Agency), United Kingdom. 2006. At: http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947331729.

7. Risher JF, Nickle RA, Amler SN. Elemental mercury poisoning in occupational and residential settings. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health, 206 (2003), pp. 371–379.

8. Rooney JPK. The retention time of inorganic mercury in the brain — A systematic review of the evidence. Toxicol Applied Pharmacol 2014; 274(3): 425–435.

9. Risher JF, De Rosa CR. Inorganic: the other mercury. J. Environ. Health, 70 (4) (2007), pp. 9–16.

10. Nance P, Patterson J, Willis A, Foronda N, Dourson M. Human health risks from mercury exposure from broken compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2012; 62(3):542-52.

11. Aucott M, McLinden M, Winka M. Release of mercury from broken fluorescent bulbs. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2003; 53(2):143-51.

12. Johnson NC, Manchester S, Sarin L, Gao Y, Kulaots I, Hurt RH. Mercury vapor release from broken compact fluorescent lamps and in situ capture by new nanomaterial sorbents. Environ Sci Technol 2008; 42: 5772–5778.

13. Silveira GT, Chang SY. Fluorescent lamp recycling initiatives in the United States and a recycling proposal based on extended producer responsibility and product stewardship concepts. Waste Manag Res 2011; 29(6):656-68.

Contantine, I cannot thank you enough for this thorough and well put together exploration of a vital topic that has been of great concern to me and my colleagues. I've printed out this entire essay and with your permission intend to share it with a lot of others. I hope each of those participating in this question will do likewise. It is information like this that can effect policy and education for the heallth of the public. Thank you again for your fine work here.

Current query statistics as of 5:08AM EST 5-19-2014

18 / 0 · 44 Answers · 747 Views

I just shared this discussion with all the "Followers" on RG and also on our LinkedIn group post:

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2683600&type=member&item=5874082560140681220&qid=f11345cf-d2ea-4d99-8a22-b39ec0cadb4a&trk=groups_most_recent-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egde_2683600_member_5873399566375620609%2Egmr_2683600%2Egde_2683600_member_260830290%2Egmr_2683600%2Egde_2683600_member_5873399566375620609%2Egmr_2683600

When each of us do the same, the circulation and participation should be significantly enhanced. Please share! We'll review statistics later.

Do feel welcome to continue the discussion on LinkedIn as well.

Thanks Max, and no small amount of thanks go to you too for introducing this vital question and allowing an evidence-based examination of the facts rather than some of the emotion and speculation that too often substitutes for objective critical review and appraisal. As to permission to share and disseminate, with proper attribution I actually encourage it to help increase awareness and move both the conversation, and requisite action, forward.

First of all: yes. There is a health risk to the public, since the mercury poisoning is a well known process, as others have pointed out here. The question is: the process for producing bulbs containing mercury should have a certification review, in order to put the standard in a higher level for mitigating the risks.

Very good question. As a health professional, our role is to promote health in general.

Increase awareness related to the lamps in one of the strategies. However, this problem needs more than education, it needs more regulation and risks advertising in the product to avoid wrong manipulation and contamination of the broken light bulbs.

I agree that regulation is important, but we see so much over regulation and failure to enforce it on a grand enough scale to protect the public that we are hesitant to say more laws are needed. I think a major media campaign on the seriousness of the problem will do more good. How do you regulate whether you cat knocks over a lamp? I think informed individuals will do far more by their own volition.

I tend to agree with you Max. More than the regulation education of people as well as all other stake holders is more important to take care of this problem.

Please see following links:

2. How could mercury released from a broken CFL affect ...

ec.europa.eu/health/.../mercury-in.../mercury.../2-release-health-effects.ht...

Assess the possible health risks to consumers, from the mercury released from .... evaporation of the Hg content from a broken light bulb apparently results in a ..

CFLs & Mercury

www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/CFL_Fact_Sheet_193840_7.pdf

playrooms, where there is greater risk that a bulb may be broken, you may ... LED bulbs, or light emitting diode bulbs, do not contain mercury and offer ... standard and CFL bulbs. Michigan Department of Community Health. CFLs &. Mercury ...

When a CFL Breaks: EPA Guidelines for Cleanup of Compact

homerepair.about.com › Home › Home Repair › Electrical Repair

by Bob Formisano - in 320 Google+ circles

Compact Fluorescent Lamps contain mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin that can ... their mercury hazards and what's involved in cleaning them up if they break. ... Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program ENERGY STAR touts these lights as safe and clean. ... Mercury exposure has adverse health effects.

Shedding Light on Mercury Risks from CFL Breakage

mpp.cclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/.../final_shedding_light_all.p...

conditions, CFL breakage can pose a health risk ... rescent light tubes) raises several risk issues. Workers may ... the number of fluorescent lights in use grows,.

Are Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs Dangerous ...

www.scientificamerican.com › ... › Fact or Fiction

by John Matson - in 226 Google+ circles

Apr 10, 2008 - Energy & Sustainability · Evolution · Health · Mind & Brain · Space · Technology · More ... So why would a single broken bulb in a Maine household trigger the state's ... Mercury is essential to a fluorescent bulb's ability to emit light; no other ... (EPA) Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division, ...

Excellent comments told by links and reviews, Arun. Thank you. Already I think an inqiring individual who Googled the topic of CFL Bulbs would happen upon the many excellent and scholarly contributions to this question, yours among the best of them.

Dear Max : Thank you for your appreciation . Truly speaking mercury bulbs or anything related to mercury poison is not my topic of work but I have a habit of looking around which is interesting even if it is not related to my study.

It's interesting that this issue has struck such a chord recently, despite that long tube fluorescent bulbs which also contain mercury have been around forever. You'd think that with that long history, municipalities in developed countries would have hazardous waste protocols in place for safe disposal that could simply be adapted to what I think is the new issue, household use. That doesn't seem to be the case. Where I live, hazardous waste disposal, whether it be bulbs, paint, or petroleum products is rarely easy and usually uses remote disposal sites with limited hours making it difficult for the average homeowner to use them.

In terms of limiting the hazard of mercury in the environment, I think education is not a rate limiting step to reducing hazards. Without ready access to the means to dispose of bulbs, education is not helpful. Things like legislated "take back policies" may be helpful although this would be of limited value in the case of bulb breakage. Interestingly, a large home renovation retailer in North America, dropped their CFL return, at least in my community. I disposed of a number of bulbs at a chain drug store after speaking with three people until I found one that actually knew about the chains policy on CFL returns.

Another very different approach to limiting the hazard is the promotion of adopting safer technologies to replace fluorescent bulbs altogether. LED bulbs, which contain no mercury, are gaining in efficiencies in light production and, through better design, directionality. LEDs have excellent longevity, are less fragile, can be easily dimmed, and come in different colours which allows better natural light emulation. The price point remains the largest issue with LEDs. So rather than expend too much money and effort on regulating or controlling the use of a substandard and hazardous technology, it seems to me that these resources would be better spent promoting the use of safer and more efficient technologies to supplant it. With increased use, the economy of scale would help make the technology more affordable. This is where regulation could come into play. Once public access to LEDs is more affordable, regulation could be brought in, similar to the efforts to limit the use of incandescent bulbs. Accompanying this would be the safe disposal of existing stockpiles and regulation banning or limiting the production of mercury containing fluorescents.

It is amazing to me, that a limited risk, that the light bulbs are, are being made a villain. When other sources of mercury abound; from factories to indoor house paint. At least the bulbs seem to be the lesser of two evils, conserving energy so that less environmental toxins containing mercury can be produced

Andrew, I know it appears to be a small thing until you look at its magnitude and the fact that these are now in tens of millions of homes and apartments--closed areas, not big open spaces--involved. I personally lost a lot of lung and heart function for several months from the incident I mentioned above and after several therapies am just now getting my lung-heart function close to normal. Without my knowledge of the cause and effect, I would never have connected these effects to the invisible toxicity of mercury poisoning. The larger issue here is the vast ignorance of the general public and the politicians who keep foisting regulatons on us without adequate public discussion and education. The amount of mercury we are talking about is not small--it is very concentrated environmentally compared to the larger sphere of outdoor exposure. The amount we had already with which to contend was beyond the pale; the present concern is that concentrations up close and personal to millions more are now to be considered. Educating the public and public policy people is essential, in my opinion.

Dear Professor Max Stanley Chartrand,

You cited the problems that are quite typical since of the market  of early CFLs, It is good for public awareness because many of  commonly available and affordable CFLs may have heavy magnetic ballasts, ferchrissake. 

Yes, this problem is still out there and hoping public health agencies will start a campaign to warn consumers on the safe handling and disposal of mercury laden CFL bulbs. These are particularly toxic to small children who are more likely to be exposed to the mercury than adults. Pets, also. The danger is very real, but the media has been silent on it as have the government agencies. 

Dear All: Here is an interesting study on the topic at hand here:

Contact: · 631.632.6310

Stony Brook University, · 310 Admin · Stony Brook, NY 11794-0701

SBU Study Reveals Harmful Effects of CFL Bulbs to Skin

Research shows that energy efficient bulbs safest when placed behind additional glass cover

STONY BROOK, NY, July 18, 2012 – Inspired by a European study, a team of Stony Brook University researchers looked into the potential impact of healthy human skin tissue (in vitro) being exposed to ultraviolet rays emitted from compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. The results, “The Effects of UV Emission from CFL Exposure on Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes in Vitro,” were published in the June issue of the journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology.

The researchers, led by Miriam Rafailovich, PhD, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and the Director of the Garcia Center for Polymers at Engineered Interfaces at Stony Brook, conducted similar research to a European study on Light Sensitivity. Stony Brook researchers collected CFL bulbs purchased from different locations across Suffolk and Nassau counties, and then measured the amount of UV emissions and the integrity of each bulb’s phosphor coatings. Results revealed significant levels of UVC and UVA, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all CFL bulbs studied. 

At Stony Brook’s Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center (AERTC), the team took the same bulbs and studied the effects of exposure on healthy human skin tissue cells, including: fibroblasts, a type of cell found in connective tissue that produces collagen; and keratinocytes, an epidermal cell that produces keratin, the key structural material in the outer layer of human skin. Tests were repeated with incandescent light bulbs of the same intensity and with the introduction of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, which are found in personal care products normally used for UV absorption.

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said Professor Rafailovich. “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.” Rafailovich added that incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells, with or without the presence of TiO2.

“Despite their large energy savings, consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs,” said Professor Rafailovich. “Our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover.”

The research, funded by the National Science Foundation, was a collaboration of Stony Brook University and New York State Stem Cell Science (NYSTEM). Co-authors of the study include: Dr. Rafailovich; Dr. Tatsiana Mironava, Adjunct Faculty, Department of Chemical and Molecular Engineering, Stony Brook University and Senior Research Support Specialist, NYSTEM; Dr. Michael Hadjiargyrou, Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Stony Brook University; and Dr. Marcia Simon, Professor, Department of Oral Biology and Pathology, Stony Brook School of Dental Medicine and the Director of the Living Skin Bank at Stony Brook.

© Stony Brook University 2013

These bulbs, mandated by the politicians without adequate consent of the governed, continue to pose a serious health threat to the public. Without adequate consumer education and precautions promoted I'm afraid this will end badly. Uncountable consumers are opening sealed packages of these bulbs only to find they've broken in transit and are breathing the large amount of mercury gas from the packages before they know what hit them. This causes immediate upper respiratory distress and somewhat permanent damage to the body and mind. In young children it can cause severe brain damage. Many kids continue to play with these bulbs after they've been spent and nearly 100% of the spent bulbs are tossed casually into trash bins and on to the refuse yards to pollute the environment. Hoping my fellow scientists and scholars will join me in bringing this issue to the fore. 

Dear Wax , thank you for you presents well researched and explanation the Question , I learned a lot . 

Disposal of mercury-containing lamps

Mercury-containing lamps are the single largest category of products that contain mercury and a significant percentage of waste mercury-containing lamps end up in landfill each year. Mercury-containing lamps can be recycled to recover the mercury, as well as the glass, plastic and phosphor powder, they contain.

Mercury in lamps

Mercury-containing lamps include everything from the small compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) used mostly in homes to the fluorescent tubes commonly used in offices and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps used for street lighting and sports grounds. Small amounts of elemental mercury are essential for the operation of these lamps.

Generally, the higher the power usage, the more mercury that is required to operate the lamp. Mercury-containing lamps include:

HID lamps, such as mercury vapour lamps used for street lighting, which contain between 50 and 1000 milligrams (mg) of mercury per lamp

linear fluorescent tubes, as used in most commercial and public buildings, which are required by an Australian standard to contain less than 15 mg of mercury per tube

CFLs used mostly in homes, which are required by an Australian Standard to have a maximum of 5 mg of mercury per bulb

some neon tubes, as used in signs.