[GreenYes] Re: Guidelines for CFL Giveaways

["Mark Snyder" <snyde043@no.address>]

I can see some definite merit in this.

 

It certainly would make them safer in the home and also take away the anti-CFL argument about the big mess they create if broken.

If we can have outer casings for aesthetic purposes, why not for safety purposes? Does anyone know if the outer casings create any problems as far as recycling the CFLs once they do burn out?

 

Mark Snyder

Minneapolis, MN

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Alan Muller <amuller@no.address> wrote:

I've been thinking about this for a while.  Have come to the
conclusion that all CFLs ought to have a protective outer casing--as
many already do.

I've broken, and seen broken, quite a few of the usual spiral kind,
but have never broken the tube of a covered one.

What do others think about this?

Alan

At 07:08 PM 4/18/2008 -0400, Bill Sheehan wrote:
>Giving away compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) is a popular activity -
>especially around Earth Day -- to help reduce energy use and global warming
>impacts.  But the bulbs contain mercury and there is little effective
>collection infrastructure for spent bulbs.  The attached 3 page fact sheet,
>Guidelines for Selecting, Distributing and Recycling
>Environmentally-Preferable Light Bulbs During Mass Giveaways, gives advice
>on selecting the least toxic, most energy-efficient bulbs and for developing
>the private take-back infrastructure need to recover them at end of life. It
>was produced by the Sierra Club <http://www.sierraclub.org/cfl/> , Green
>Purchasing Institute, Product Policy Institute
><http://www.productpolicy.org/>  and Mercury Policy Project
><http://www.mercurypolicy.org/> .
>
>
>*************************************
>Bill Sheehan
>Executive Director
>Product Policy Institute
>P.O. Box 48433
>Athens, GA 30604  USA
>Tel:  706-613-0710
>Email:  bill@no.address
>Web:  www.productpolicy.org <http://www.productpolicy.org/>
>*************************************
>
>
>>
>