Cover Image: October 2007 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

Toxic Bulbs [Preview]

Recycling rules vary for mercury-containing fluorescents















Share on Tumblr

More consumers are placing compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) in their shopping baskets. Using 25 percent the energy of standard incandescents (and lasting 10 times longer), the swirly little tubes have become a symbol of green living and a means to fight climate change. Australia will require home­owners and businesses to replace all incandescents with CFLs by 2010, ultimately reducing greenhouse gas emissions by four million metric tons a year. At least four U.S. states and Congress are considering similar legislation.

Yet CFLs have a downside: the bulbs contain mercury and cannot be tossed out with the ordinary trash. Roughly two billion will be sold in the U.S. this year (about 5 percent of the total lightbulb sales)—raising questions of how to handle 10 metric tons of mercury each year after the bulbs burn out.


This article was originally published with the title Toxic Bulbs.



Subscribe     Buy This Issue

Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.

4 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. georgelf 07:04 PM 3/27/08

    You know I'll eventually become a SciAm subscriber again, now that there is alot less trade rags to read for my industry. But you shouldn't charge for this article. Its a very very important issue because of all the mercury in the bulbs.
    GF

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. AtheistsAreTedious 11:52 AM 4/10/08

    "LED" light bulbs will ultimately be the green choice. But right now they're way too expensive.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. theparisapartment 10:22 PM 10/14/09

    I agree that LED is an option but there's nothing wrong with what we have now. Once solar really picks up we won't have to rely on the power plants as much. I've started researching the issue and can't believe what I'm finding. Please stop by:
    http://stoppingatthegreenlight.wordpress.com

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. theparisapartment 10:24 PM 10/14/09

    I agree that LED is an option but there's nothing wrong with what we have now. Once solar really picks up we won't have to rely on the power plants as much. I've started researching the issue and can't believe what I'm finding. Please stop by:
    http://stoppingatthegreenlight.wordpress.com

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital

Latest from SA Blog Network

  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Toxic Bulbs: Scientific American Magazine

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X