Looking for facts about fires caused by compact florescent bulbs

Page 4 of 8  


Some landfills ARE collecting the gas,not venting it. Some have private companies bid on doing the task,I believe.

the problem is,though we gain methane from the rotting refuse,what of the OTHER stuff buried with the decaying organics? That is what leaches into the surrounding soil and water.(despite the clay and plastic underlayments and dams)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote: ...

At some point when it becomes economically feasible we'll begin mining them for the materials...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You just said what I have been thinking all along. We have recycling centers for alum cans, tin cans, glass, plastic bottles, paper, etc. Why not have another slot for florescent bulbs, batteries, and other things like that. The mercury used in these bulbs should be reusable, so why not do it. Quite honestly I see that being much more important than tin cans and glass. I also believe that ALL burnable trash such as kitchen (food) garbage, paper, non-recy plastics, yard waste, wood, SHOULD be burned to generate power. This must account for the largest percentage of waste anyhow, since we have already removed the cans and glass, and lately most appliances. For example, we now have a place that takes electronics such as computers, to eliminate all the lead solder and other chemical containing capacitors and stuff from the landfills. The computer I am using right now is made from components that they offer for sale to the public. Thats a great idea to help the environment, save having to make more mines to "harvest" lead and other metals, and I like being able to have a place to buy a used (but good) video card, memory, or hard drive for a few bucks.
And since we are discussing this, part of the responsibility of trash should be placed on the SOURCE. Those assenine clamshell packages are a good place to start. Besides being a pain in the ass to open, they are just more plastic pollution, which we as consumers pay for each time we buy something inside of them. Look at these digital camera cards. The cards are an inch square, but come in 6 x 10 inch clamshells. Yes, the reason is because of retail theft. But wouldn't it make more sense for the manufacturers to just provide the stores with a locked display cabinet? Thinks about the extra gasoline that would be saved too. A semi truck could probably haul a million camera cards if they were sold without the clamshells, but now they can only get less than hundred cards in a box. Almost everything in the stores these days contain excessive packaging. If the govt. wants to control what we dispose in our trash, why dont they also start to control the sources of all the trash we as consumers have to handle. I am old enough to remember when a chocolate candy bar came wrapped in paper. If that paper was tossed on the ground, it would decompose in a year or less. If however, someone tosses the new plastic wrappers on the ground, they will stay there forever or until someone disposes of them or burns them.
Finally, it seems that few people realize that all plastics are made using crude oil. We are supposed to curtail our use of fuels, yet how many millions of barrels of oil are used each day to produce plastic packaging, which we toss in the trash the minute it leaves the store. If all plastic packaging was turned back in time to papers, (which are renewable), we would see the gas prices come down real fast.
Alvin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@notmail.com wrote:

That is already an option in some areas and mandatory in a few others. Check out www.lamprecycle.org
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How does mercury leach -into groundwater? (and what form does it take?) Doesn't it combine with other elements in the soil? ISTR that fish pick up mercury from eating bottom stuff,not from water intake.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Beats me. I've never read about the detailed mechanics of the process - just that it *has* been found in groundwater plumes which picked up the chemical from landfills where it was KNOWN that mercury was dumped. Based on this information, people sometimes lose the use of their well water.

Don't know. Doesn't matter to me at the moment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

A given point source would depend on local chemistry, but an example from some mine tailings piles is the Hg forms a highly soluble Hg-CN complex and makes it into the water in that form. There are bound to be other water-soluble salts/compounds at most any landfill if not much cyanide, specifically.
You are correct that metallic or inorganic Hg isn't much of a problem in that form because it is poorly absorbed by the digestive tract and therefore, mostly simply eliminated. But, methylmercuryan organic form is highly toxic to the nervous system. Methylmercury is produced from inorganic mercury by methylation, a microbial process enhanced by chemical and environmental variables, such as the presence of organic matter and oxygen. To compound the problem, this form of mercury biomagnifies to high concentrations at the top of food chains.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

People who try and explain away the dangers of mercury have probably never heard of this: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Minimata-Mercury-Victims.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

yup. The key issue is what quantities, concentrations, exposure, etc. When I was a kid, mercury as the metal was freely available in school science laboratories. Liquid mercury was used on a large scale as a bearing for filter arms on trickling beds at sewage works. Our exposure to mercury was much greater in the past. The uncontrolled disposal was much greater in the past. Emissions to atmosphere from incinerators and coal fired power stations was much greater. These emissions are both scrubbed and monitored now.
We do need to control its use but I would suggest that we are in danger of getting paranoid about it!
Here in the UK ( and guess similar over The Pond), during the 70's there was a legimate outcry at the exposure of workers to asbestos dust. Controls were rightly brought in. However since that outcry, society has been ripped off by contractors charging high prices for the removal of asbestos from buildings, aided and abetted by ignorant and over-zealous regulators. It is only when there is danger of certain types of asbestos creating a dust that can be inhaled that there is a risk, (and even then the exposure has to be for a significant amount of time).
There was even a concern that we should remove all asbestos cement water supply pipes from the ground! It's the sense of proportion (or lack of it) that concerns me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In some place, the emissions are scrubbed and monitored. But, some utilities have purchased the appropriate agency appointees so they could avoid installing the most modern equipment. Surely you've read about that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

Absolute and utter bullshit.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Really? Tell me why you think it's bullshit. It's either because you don't think such things could happen here, or because of other information you have.
Which is it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

20-something years w/ the fossil-generation business...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, but that's not enough information to prove that what I said is bullshit.
More, please. What was your function in the business?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Sorry, that's not enough information to prove that your allegations have any basis in fact.
But, roughly 15 years initially as engineer/senior engineer w/ major manufacturer/vendor, last 20+ as consulting engineer working mostly w/ fossil utilities, specializing in instrumentation and controls including for monitoring pulverized coal flow for eventual finer control at the individual burner to improve heat rate and lower NOx and other emissions, designing many test programs for evaluating boiler performance for NOx and other compliance, serving on design/review/ recommendation panels on best use of (always limited) capital expenditure funds for "best bang for the buck" selection of which technology/vendor for which plant at what point in time...the list could go on ad nauseum...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because of discussions like this, I wish I had a notepad next to me every single time I read something on paper, because I never know when I'll run into someone who needs a cite. I guess you missed some of what I've read about utilities claiming it would be financially unfeasible for them to clean up their emissions to modern standards.
Your job description also means you were never responsible for providing assignments to lobbyists.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

The last statement is completely different than the allegation of buying appointees. And, it definitely is true that it's financially unfeasible (and sometimes even technically infeasible as well) to retrofit all old plants to current regulations. Would you pay to update your Ford Pinto to meet current emission and other DOT standards and think that a reasonable thing to do? Many of these plants are of an equivalent age or even older, if your unaware of that fact.

I have even no clue as to what your meaning is in the above babblespeak...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'll try answering that last sentence with a question: Do you know what industry lobbyists do? What is the reason for their existence?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

What does that have to do with anything you raised before? Lobbyists are a part of the legislative process and are at least as well funded by the environmental side of the issues as the utilities. Their existence (on both sides) is a prime way in which legislators learn about the issues that affect their constituents and that is their function. That is a useful and necessary function, again on both sides.
You have addressed none of the actual points you raised in the least. If you want to discuss particulars of a particular event or decision or technology or power plant, I'll be glad to participate. If you want to simply continue to throw unsubstantiated allegations, not so much...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Two words: pollution credits
Who do you think dreamt up that cockamamie idea, and what motivated them to do so?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.