Mercury in bulbs poses little risk

EDITOR—This is in reference to the article about energy-saving bulbs published on May 13. While respecting the writer’s concern on public health and environmental issues, I would like to make the following observations:

EDITOR—This is in reference to the article about energy-saving bulbs published on May 13. While respecting the writer’s concern on public health and environmental issues, I would like to make the following observations:

As a leader in electrical lamps and particularly in CFLi lamps, I wish to state that CFLi are safe and good alternative to the incandescent lamps.

CFLis are safe to use in your home. No mercury is released when the bulbs are in use and they pose no danger to you or your family when used properly. However, CFLis are made of glass tubing and can break if dropped or roughly handled. Care should be taken when removing the lamp from its packaging, installing it, or replacing it. Used CFLis should be disposed of properly.

Breaking an energy saver is unlikely to threaten your health. Proper clean-up and adequate ventilation minimise the risks even further. The effects of the exposure to mercury from a broken energy saver to the human body are, so to speak, not measurable.

Only in the worst conditions can the concentration of mercury in a room approach the concentration which is allowed for workers in the industry to be exposed to of an 8-hour working day on a continuous basis. Only if several lamps would break every day, and you would be exposed to all of the mercury, there could be a health concern that needs to be assessed. CFLis are not dangerous.

The EU Reduction of Hazardous Substances Directive (2002/95/EC) allows for the use of mercury in lamps. Below is the approved exemptions, which have undergone expert analysis by the Commission and is outlined in the Annex of the Directive: Mercury in compact fluorescent lamps not exceeding 5 mg per lamp.

It is widely known that electricity generation causes mercury emissions due to the mercury content of fossil fuel. When using an incandescent GLS lamp, the total mercury emission caused by electricity generation is up to twice as high compared to the combined mercury content and emission from electricity generation of using a CFLi. It takes approximately five times more energy to produce one CFL compared to one energy inefficient incandescent GLS lamp.

However, as CFLi lamps last on average between six to 15 times longer than energy inefficient incandescent GLS lamps, the amount of energy needed for the production of one CFLi is comparable to the production of between 6 to 15 GLS lamps – hence the saving over the lifecycle of the product is much higher.

Therefore, an energy saving CFL has a much lower overall environmental impact than an energy inefficient incandescent lamp throughout its lifecycle. More than 90% of energy consumed during the lifecycle of a lamp is in the use phase and as CFLis are up to 80% more efficient than an average inefficient incandescent lamp, the savings are evident.

I fully support the views of Dr. Izael Pereira Da Silva, Director, CREEC, Makerere University on comparison of efficiency of CFLs with that of incandescent lamps in terms of lumen output per watt. Surely the energy saved is equivalent to the energy produced.

Suresh Babu Kota
General Manager KIBOKO Enterprises