Still on the mercury trail – Another letter to EECA

Posted on March 9, 2011 by Anthony

If you look below you’ll see I made a submission to EECA (Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority) in regard to CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps).  These units contain mercury – which is extremely bad for people, animals and the environment.

I received a reply from Carolyn at EECA.  You can see that below too.

Today, while reading my RSS feeds I came across an article by John O’Sullivan.  The information presented by John was compelling.  I decided to write another letter to Carolyn using much of what John wrote.

So with all all due recognition to John O’Sullivan, here’s my letter to Carolyn. 

Thanks Carolyn,
While looking through my RSS feeds today I came across this article about the mercury issue.  I know that we are past the submission date but I felt the issue serious enough that I should let you know what I found.  Here are a few extracts:
 
“A study by Germany’s Federal Environment Agency found that when one of them breaks, it emits levels of toxic vapour up to 20 times higher than the safe guideline limit for an indoor area.”
 
“If a bulb is smashed, the UK’s Health Protection Agency advice is for householders to evacuate the room and leave it to ventilate for 15 minutes. So worried by the dangers in industry, the U.S. government has recently introduced a whole swath of tighter new legislation to protect employees from the most serious affects of mercury poisoning on the job.”

“In Britain both the general public and waste disposal companies are realising that local civic authorities have little, if any, specialist hazardous waste disposal teams able to deal with the problem on a wide scale.”

“Smaller authorities, in particular, are increasingly being caught out having no policies in place as to how to address the domestic disposal of low energy eco light bulbs that are filled with poisonous mercury; a major hazard causing long-term and irreperable contamination of land and water.”
 
“Specialist ‘Hazmat’ ( ‘hazardous materials’) companies will charge a hefty sum to safely dispose of consumer and industrial mercury eco lightbulbs. I telephoned one UK company, Envirogreen and they advised me that their minimum call out charge for hazmat collection of mercury-filled lightbulbs is £325 (US$500) even for just one bulb!”
“Meanwhile in the U.S. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tells us that,“Recyclers generally require that the light bulbs arrive unbroken” – heaven help you if you have a mishap and bulbs break in your home.”
 
I’m sure you get the idea.  Here’s the link to the article:
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/32147.html
 
New Zealander’s live in a wonderfully healthy environment.  Let’s keep it that way – – please.

Kind regards,
Anthony

Posted in Environment, Mercury | 3 Comments

Carbon Tax Survey Result – New Zealand

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Anthony

Over the last week or so Family First (a group promoting family values in New Zealand, http://www.familyfirst.org.nz) conducted a survey of their readership.  Nearly all of the questions were around family and moral issues.  The results showed very strong support for the work they do, and the position they take.

 There was one question in the mix that was a bit different from the rest.  It was about New Zealand’s ETS, Emission Trading Scheme, or in other words our carbon tax.  The statement was “New Zealand should scrap the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).”  67% strongly agreed or agreed that it should be scrapped.  19% were neutral or unsure.  While 14% strongly disagreed or disagreed with scrapping it.  There were about 2400 responses.

‘Democracy in action’, or was that democracy ‘inaction’.  New Zealand’s politicians seem to be following the wish of the 14%.

Given Family First’s primary focus is not environmental, I suggest that the reponse to this question would represent the general feeling of New Zealanders.

Posted in Climate Science, Environment, Politics | 3 Comments

CFLs Contain Mercury. EECA promotes CFLs. IPENZ suggests a mercury label for them. And Germany wants to ban them.

Posted on March 4, 2011 by Anthony

The various approaches to CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps).

In New Zealand, March 2011:

IPENZ’s (Institution of Professional Engineers) weekly newsletter included an item about its submission to EECA.  It included a mention of the mercury issue.  The last two bullet points of the item were:

It is recommended that the packaging carry information about the mercury content of the CFLs, as this is likely to be of interest to consumers.

Regardless of what parameters are displayed on the packaging, consumer education will be required to enable the public to understand the parameters and make appropriate choices.

My preference would be to ban them altogether.  However labelling and education is a good option.  Thanks IPENZ.

However 3 months ago, in Germany this was happening: 

  In Germany, December 2010:

 Late last year I came across a couple of articles from Germany.  The articles were at P Gosselin’s site, No Tricks Zone:

 http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/22/lights-out-for-kid-killing-save-the-planet-lights-in-europe/

http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/22/trail-of-toxin-the-long-and-shocking-recycling-route-of-esls/.

Germany is having second thoughts about CFLs (referred to as ESLs = Energy Saving Lamps there).

From the first item he notes the newspaper Die Welt reports:

 Politicians in Brussels warn: No ESLs in children’s bedrooms. Because of too much mercury, the EU pols want to remove these lamps from the market.

Herbert Reul, a politician in Angela Merkl’s party said:

I will do everything in my power to roll back the ban of conventional light bulbs in the EU.

The reason for Reul’s statements are new findings from the German Federal Department of Environment (UBA). According to studies conducted by the authorities, energy saving lights…pose a serious health risk. If an energy saving light breaks, then, according to experts, a mercury level  of 0.35 micrograms per cubic meter (20 times the allowable limit) can be released in a room. For this reason, particularly children and pregnant women should stay away from energy saving lights, recommend federal authorities.

The second article is about the disposal / recycling problems of CFLs.  These are very very significant.  Check it out at No Trick Zone:

http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/22/trail-of-toxin-the-long-and-shocking-recycling-route-of-esls/

So while German politicians work to ban mercury containing ESLs/CFLs, and German TV documentaries show the hazard clearly and strongly, New Zealand continues to sell them.  And what’s more EECA promotes them with a cross subsidy.  How very, very silly.

 

Posted in Environment, Mercury, Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CFLs Contain Mercury – Response from EECA

Posted on March 3, 2011 by Anthony

Carolyn at EECA kindly acknowledged receipt of my submission.  Refer to my 28 February post for a copy of the submission.

Here is Carolyn’s response:

Dear Anthony,
 
Thank you for your submission – I have made a note of your concerns around Mercury content in CFL’s, and the use of subsidies to promote CFL’s.
 
These Standards are aiming to improve the quality of CFL’s in the marketplace – they are not designed to limit consumer choice in any way.  You may have noted that one of the quality measures we are proposing is a maximum mercury content for all CFL’s. Currently there are no maximum levels.
 
Kind regards,
Carolyn

Posted in Environment, Mercury | Leave a comment

Incredible Ignorance: EPA air chief does not know how much CO2 is in the air

Posted on March 2, 2011 by Anthony

The US Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) air cheif was asked if she had any idea of what the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is.  She admitted she didn’t.

How incredibly ignorant.  How can someone with this level of understanding hold down such an important job?

Here’s where I saw this piece of news:

http://junkscience.com/2011/03/01/shocker-epa-air-chief-ignorant-of-atmospheric-co2-levels/

Posted in Climate Science, Politics | Leave a comment

Sshh – Don’t talk about the science, Bob Carter

Posted on March 2, 2011 by Anthony

Professor Bob Carter recently had an article in Quadrant Online – commenting on Australia’s move towards a tax on carbon dioxide emmissions.

Bob is a New Zealander; a geologist with degrees from both Otago University (geology) and Cambridge University (palaeontology).  He has studied climate for over 40 years, looking at climate change over the long ages of earth’s history.  He is one the top scientists on this topic in the world.  Bob’s views are scientifically sound.  He now lives and works in Australia.

Here’s a short extract from the article:

“Despite this lack of evidence for dangerous, or potentially dangerous, warming, and despite the lack of efficacy of cutting carbon dioxide emissions as a means of preventing the trivial warming that is likely to occur (cutting all of Australia’s emissions would theoretically prevent, perhaps, around one-thousandth of a degree of warming), the political course in Canberra is now set on carbon tax autopilot, and the plane is flying squarely into the eye of a storm that is labelled “let’s spin a regressive new tax as a virtuous environmental measure”.

For instance, the Prime Minister says:

I also want to be very clear with Australians about what pricing carbon does. It has price impacts. It’s meant to. That’s the whole point.

No, Prime Minister, that is not the point at all. The point is supposed to be attaining a meaningful reduction in future warming, which a carbon dioxide taxation policy will not achieve – even were it to successfully close down the entire industrial economy of Australia”.

Here’s a link to whole article for you:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science

Posted in Climate Science, Economics, Politics | Leave a comment

Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change?

Posted on March 1, 2011 by admin

In 1964, Richard Muller, a 20-year-old graduate student with neat-cropped hair, walked into Sproul Hall at the University of California, Berkeley, and joined a mass protest of unprecedented scale. The activists, a few thousand strong, demanded that the university lift a ban on free speech and ease restrictions on academic freedom, while outside on the steps a young folk-singer called Joan Baez led supporters in a chorus of We Shall Overcome. The sit-in ended two days later when police stormed the building in the early hours and arrested hundreds of students. Muller was thrown into Oakland jail. The heavy-handedness sparked further unrest and, a month later, the university administration backed down. The protest was a pivotal moment for the civil liberties movement and marked Berkeley as a haven of free thinking and fierce independence.

Today, Muller is still on the Berkeley campus, probably the only member of the free speech movement arrested that night to end up with a faculty position there – as a professor of physics. His list of publications is testament to the free rein of tenure: he worked on the first light from the big bang, proposed a new theory of ice ages, and found evidence for an upturn in impact craters on the moon. His expertise is highly sought after. For more than 30 years, he was a member of the independent Jason group that advises the US government on defence; his college lecture series, Physics for Future Presidents was voted best class on campus, went stratospheric on YouTube and, in 2009, was turned into a bestseller.

For the past year, Muller has kept a low profile, working quietly on a new project with a team of academics hand-picked for their skills. They meet on campus regularly, to check progress, thrash out problems and hunt for oversights that might undermine their work. And for good reason. When Muller and his team go public with their findings in a few weeks, they will be muscling in on the ugliest and most hard-fought debate of modern times.

For the rest of the article visit The Guardian.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war

Posted in Climate Science | Leave a comment

The Re-Insurance Industry and Climate Hype

Posted on March 1, 2011 by admin

 

Here’s an article by Christopher Booker in London’s Telegraph.  He says the warmists have sound financial grounds for climate hype, “But no financial interest stands to make more from exaggerating the risks of climate change than the re-insurance industry, which charges retail insurers for “catastrophe cover”, paid for by all of us through our premiums.”

Here’s the article.  It’s worth the read.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8349545/Unscientific-hype-about-the-flooding-risks-from-climate-change-will-cost-us-all-dear.html

Posted in Climate Science, Economics | Leave a comment

‘Watts Up With That’ Wins Best Science Blog, 2011

Posted on February 28, 2011 by admin

Great news!  Anthony Watts’ site, ‘Watts Up With That’, has been voted Best Science Blog in the 2011 Bloggies Awards.

This is a truly amazing acheivement, and well deserved recognition.

Congratulations to Anthony and his diligent team!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/27/wuwt-voted-best-science-blog-in-the-2011-bloggies/#more-34923

Posted in Climate Science | Leave a comment

CFLs Contain Mercury – Submission to EECA

Posted on February 28, 2011 by admin

NZ’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) is reviewing the Minimum Energy Performance Standard (MEPS) for Compact Fluorescent Lamps.  They produced a discussion document and invited submissions.  Submissions closed today, 28 Feb 2011.  Here’s what I sent them.

Submission on Proposed MEPS for CFLs

28 February 2011.

My name is Anthony ——–.  I am an electrical engineer and have been involved with electricity network planning, operation and construction for 35 years.

Mercury

It is mentioned in the discussion document that CFLs contain mercury.  But I think the discussion document “brushes off” this issue far too lightly.  Mercury causes serious health effects; mainly nervous system disorders.  This, coupled with CFLs being reasonably fragile, the odds are that some units will break on installation or removal.  Some will be inadvertently knocked or bumped while in service; eg: children playing in a child’s play room.

Then there’s the end of life disposal problem.  At end of life they need to be disposed of properly.  As a country we pride ourselves on being environmentally aware.  It’s a major part of our international brand.

Most home owners (ie: the majority of CFL purchasers) would be unaware of these issues – especially the processes (which may not even be in place yet) – to properly dispose of the units and how to clean up a broken lamp (ie: safely take care of the spilt mercury).

Promoting and distributing mercury tubes throughout all New Zealand homes; while knowing full well its harmful effects is extremely irresponsible.  How could a responsible government entertain such an idea?  Consider what applied to the use of asbestos.  Will the manufacturers of CFLs be ready with their millions of dollars to pay for the health problems they have caused?  Or will that [problem] be handed back to the public through government tax, ACC, increased insurance premiums and/or healthcare costs.

I realise that even in light of the above information you [government] are STILL likely to not only distribute these little bottles of poison, you will even promote and subsidise them, using the extra money you have taken from us in our power accounts.

Given that you’ll likely promote these units anyway – I therefore recommend, as an absolute minimum, that CFL packaging be clearly labelled with information to the effect:

  • The CFL contains mercury
  • The health effects of mercury
  • The fragile nature of the lamp and how to handle it safely
  • How to clean up should there be a breakage
  • How to properly dispose after the lamp has served its useful life

At least this way you’ll give the public of New Zealand the ability to make an informed choice to protect itself.   Dangerous chemicals and products are only supposed to be sold with an up to date MSDS [Materials Safety Data Sheet].

And don’t forget there is an alternative around the corner.  Efficient, controllable, non- hazardous  LED lighting is fast approaching commercial reality, maybe 3 or 4 years.

Subsidisation

If the benefit /cost ratio was truly as high as the discussion document hypothesises (which I doubt), no (cross) subsidy would be required. The units would sell on their own merit.  Making us all pay more for our power and then transferring it to these lamps, a subsidy which is effectively from consumer to consumer, offers no net benefit.   The action serves is to blinds the purchase decision as to the real cost, an economically inefficient action to take.

If you proceed with the sale of these lamps then I recommend they be sold for their true commercial cost, and they not be (cross) subsidised at all.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony ——–

Posted in Economics, Environment, Mercury | 2 Comments