Eco-friendly bulbs loaded with lead and arsenic [Archive]

View Full Version : Eco-friendly bulbs loaded with lead and arsenic

DynamicBalance

04-26-2011, 10:24 AM

https://sciencedude.ocregister.com/2011/02/10/enviro-bulbs-loaded-with-lead-arsenic/121268/

Excerpt:

The LED bulbs sold as safe and eco-friendly can contain high levels of lead, arsenic and other hazardous substances, a new UC Irvine study shows — the same bulbs widely used in headlights, traffic lights, even holiday lights.

The toxic material could increase the risk of cancer, kidney disease and other illnesses, although the risks are more long-term than immediate; a single exposure to a broken bulb is unlikely to cause illness.

“I wouldn’t worry about an immediate release of vapor,” said UC Irvine public health and social ecology professor Oladele Ogunseitan, principal investigator and an author of the study. “But still, when these residues hang around the house, if not cleaned up properly they could constitute an eventual danger.”

The lights should be treated as hazardous materials, and should not be disposed of in regular landfill trash, he said, because of the risk of leaching into soil and groundwater.

High intensity, red bulbs contained the most arsenic, while low-intensity red lights harbored as much as eight times the amount of lead permitted by state law, the study showed.

White bulbs had low amounts of lead but higher amounts of nickel, also a potentially hazardous substance.

Braggi

05-06-2011, 10:14 PM

enviro-bulbs-loaded-with-lead-arsenic ...

Really? "loaded" with how much? Where are the numbers? And how, exactly, do you ingest these frightful toxic substances? After the bulbs burn out, in 50 years or so, you mix them with your turkey stuffing? Ever try to break an LED? Ever seen a broken one?

The photo in the article shows a string of holiday lights that contains far more lead in the green plastic wire insulation than in the bulbs. The instructions that come with them call for washing hands after handling. THAT is an issue. The toxic elements in the bulbs themselves are fairly irrelevant.

If you really want to know what's loaded with toxic materials consider the production and distribution of electrical power that lights up your bulbs. Coal, oil, "natural" gas (fracking, anyone?), nuclear? The less electricity you burn the better for the environment. Compact fluorescent and LED lighting consume far less power than the alternatives. Both also last a whole lot longer than the alternatives which means less pollution from manufacturing.

Embrace the LED lights. Use them. BTW, the lights in the photo are all white LEDs. They achieve color status due to the colored plastic covers.

And one more thing: if you're going to sound the alarm about toxic substances, let's have some science. How much toxic material are we talking about and what is the path to ingestion? How dangerous is it over what period of time? How dangerous are the alternatives? What are the other considerations?

That article was poorly written. It was intended to be sensational but lacked any backup whatsoever for its statements. Forget about it and go buy LED bulbs. The future is counting on it.

-Jeff

DynamicBalance

05-07-2011, 08:27 AM

Really? "loaded" with how much? Where are the numbers?

And one more thing: if you're going to sound the alarm about toxic substances, let's have some science.

That article was poorly written. It was intended to be sensational but lacked any backup whatsoever for its statements.

Hi Jeff,

Questions and statements like the ones you've made here make it seem like you didn't read the article carefully. If you had done so, you would have realized that there is a link to the study in the article, and that the full text is available for free. The study was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

How much toxic material are we talking about and what is the path to ingestion?You can read about specific amounts in the study. I think the purpose of the article was to inform consumers about the fact that these "eco-friendly" bulbs actually contain high levels of some heavy metals. In other words, they are not nearly as eco-friendly as the marketing would suggest. Whether or not the bulbs are ingested, they qualify as toxic waste and have to be disposed of properly. Throwing them in the landfill could leach lead and other heavy metals into the earth, and into the groundwater. The researchers crushed the bulbs (not hard to imagine that happening in a landfill) and simulated acid rain.

Compact fluorescent and LED lighting consume far less power than the alternatives. Both also last a whole lot longer than the alternatives which means less pollution from manufacturing. It's certainly true that they use less power. But the risk of contaminating our groundwater with mercury, lead, and arsenic makes them seem a lot less appealing. How many people actually dispose of their used light bulbs as toxic waste? Not to mention that the light that comes from them is not very enjoyable, to say the least.

I have been really disappointed with the LED products I have bought in the past. They claim to last for a very long time, but that was not my experience. I personally will not be wasting my money on them.

...consider the production and distribution of electrical power that lights up your bulbs. Coal, oil, "natural" gas (fracking, anyone?), nuclear?This is the real issue. Renewable energy is more available than ever before. The technology is there. I think we need to start examining how politicians stand in the way of such advancements. There's no excuse for the United States not having 100% of our energy from renewable sources.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com (https://www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com)

Hotspring 44

05-07-2011, 02:04 PM

FYI, There is scientific data, most of which is beyond my comprehension level.

The links at bottom go to much more detailed info than the article that braggi critiqued.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top"> Potential Environmental Impacts of Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs): Metallic Resources, Toxicity, and Hazardous Waste Classification (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es101052q?prevSearch=%2528LED%2529%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bad%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bacs-toc%255D&searchHistoryKey=)

Seong-Rin Lim, Daniel Kang, Oladele A. Ogunseitan, and Julie M. Schoenung
<cite>Environ. Sci. Technol.</cite>, 2011, [I]45 (1), pp 320–327
Publication Date (Web): December 7, 2010 (Article)
DOI: 10.1021/es101052q
The rapid growth in the LED industry implies that, ultimately, LEDs will contribute to the solid waste stream, and could impact resource availability, human health, and ecosystems in much the same way as generic electronic waste (e-waste) from computers and cell phones has generated concern in recent years (7). ... It should be noted here that cell phones weigh on the order of ~100−200 g, whereas bulbs for holiday lighting weigh far less (~10−50 g), and that these products, as well as other LED-based lighting and other electronic devices, are complex systems, within which the materials of concern may constitute just a small fraction of the product’s total weight. ... Since the principle of LED lighting derives from the application of group III−V semiconductors (9), LED chips can contain arsenic, gallium, indium, and/or antimony (4, 9). ...
Abstract (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es101052q?prevSearch=%2528LED%2529%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bad%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bacs-toc%255D&searchHistoryKey=) | Supporting Info (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/es101052q)

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"><td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

Full Text HTML (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es101052q?prevSearch=%2528LED%2529%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bad%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bacs-toc%255D&searchHistoryKey=)
Hi-Res PDF (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es101052q)[1756K]
PDF w/ Links (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es101052q)[308K]

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Braggi

05-08-2011, 07:45 PM

... Questions and statements like the ones you've made here make it seem like you didn't read the article carefully. If you had done so, you would have realized that there is a link to the study in the article, and that the full text is available for free. The study was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. ...

Yes, I read the crappy article CAREFULLY. There are no numbers. Got it? Nothing to compare to. No comparison of toxic elements and compounds used over the life of the product. Nothing. Nada. No facts that are relevant to ... life on planet Earth. It's sensationalism of the type I'd expect to see from Prison Planet, not from a formerly respected news source like The Register. How many Register readers are going to follow the link, which does not take you to the article directly, and read the actual science. Got it there are toxins in there. Also got it that ANY other light source now available to consumers will produce far more toxin escape into the environment over the life of the product. Does it seem like I read carefully? Does it seem like I get it? Does it seem like I've thought about it? I have. For years. This article is junk writing. The illustration shows a string of holiday lights of various colors then talks about some colors of LEDs having different levels of different toxins. However, does the author explain that string of lights is ALL WHITE bulbs? ... that the plastic covers make them appear to be different colors? No, and most readers will assume incorrectly. You can tell the ignorance of the readers by the comments they've left under the article. I'm so glad I got out of Orange County a couple decades ago. What a bunch of idiot whiners! But I digress.

The point is the article is largely incorrect in its assertions and completely off base in it's bottom line. If someone chooses incandescent lights over LED because of that flawed article it's a loss for the environment.

-Jeff

Braggi

05-08-2011, 08:03 PM

... You can read about specific amounts in the study. I think the purpose of the article was to inform consumers about the fact that these "eco-friendly" bulbs actually contain high levels of some heavy metals. In other words, they are not nearly as eco-friendly as the marketing would suggest. Whether or not the bulbs are ingested, they qualify as toxic waste and have to be disposed of properly. Throwing them in the landfill could leach lead and other heavy metals into the earth, and into the groundwater. The researchers crushed the bulbs (not hard to imagine that happening in a landfill) and simulated acid rain. ...

Have you ever seen a crushed LED? I'll guess nobody reading this ever has. I'll guess nobody registered on WACCO has ever seen one unless they took a hammer and did it themselves. It's damn hard to break an LED. They're very durable and incredibly inert. Acid rain, which we don't really have much of anymore in the US, isn't going to eat away at an LED, and modern landfills don't get a lot of rain water intrusion anyway. LEDs most certainly ARE eco friendly. Compare toxins over the life of the product if you wish to compare apples with apples.

You mention you were disappointed in the life of an LED product you owned. I also bought an early LED light that failed. That was because of the electronics that drove it, not because of the LEDs themselves. I bought another, larger LED floodlight at Costco sometime later. I'm extremely happy with it. Wish I could buy more. For some reason they stopped carrying them. I use it for a work light so it gets banged around a fair amount. A CFL would have broken for sure by now. It uses 5 watts of electricity and gives a very full range clean light. I've used it as illumination for house painting and it's quite adequate.

-Jeff

PS. You and I both want the best possible solutions to living an environmentally sound lifestyle. It's reasonable for us to discuss different approaches to getting there. I appreciate your passion and your desire for a cleaner environment.