Now we understood: the compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), commonly known as energy saving are far from friendly, that is produced by systems or materials to reduce the negative environmental impact. Remember? The linear and compact fluorescent lamps contain a very small quantity, one of the most polluting materials on the planet mercury. If you would like to further discuss this issue, I refer you to Article that a few weeks ago wrote about his friend Luxemozione G. Picard.
By now we all have a beautiful home energy saving lamp and the opposite would be strange given the imminent demise of the incandescent sources, who since September will begin to disappear from supermarket counters 
.
It 'clear that the canard of energy saving CFL and now is no longer standing, we have seen it in previous articles, as in reality there is no real "cheap" compared to traditional sources, especially when the whole cycle of CFL: from birth to death, and from production to disposal and it is in this last stage the greatest risks reside environmental impact. The problem lies not so much in the disposal process, which if executed properly should not cause any problems, but if the disposal is not done according to established or just not done.
Just to quantify the problem, this is what you can read about the rules IMPLEMENTING she 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament on the specific eco-design requirements of non-directional lamps for domestic use:
The mercury released at different stages of the life cycle of the lamps, including revenue from electricity generation in the use phase and 80% of compact fluorescent lamps containing mercury, which presumably will not be recycled at the end of life, was calculated on basis of the lamps installed, 2.9 tons in 2007. In the absence of specific measures, it is expected that emissions of mercury produced by the lamps installed will rise to 3.1 tons in 2020.
What sources of the incorrect disposal of mercury is certainly a very sensitive issue, which the European Parliament is working on for some time, but we take a step back, before the trash so to speak, but if he breaks the source-saving I put in the living room what should I do? I run the risk?
Well there is no official text that describes the real risks run and the procedures to be followed to dispose of glass, dust and various substances produced by the breakage of a CFL or fluorescent tube. There is a 'question that makes you notice problems in the European Parliament, but nothing more.
However I found the site 's EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) an interesting text that describes the risks taken in case of breakage of items containing mercury in the home (or not) and that lists the procedure to be followed in order to dispose waste produced by the rupture without consequences for the health and environmental damage.
What should we do if he falls to the ground my saving light?
1) Ventilate the area for at least 15 minutes and turn off any air conditioning systems.
2) Never use vacuum cleaners or brooms, which may cause the fragmentation and dispersion of particles of mercury.
3) Gather the material with the aid of rigid elements such as sheets of cardboard.
4) Place the material collected in airtight containers (glass jars or plastic bags.)
5) If it is necessary to use a vacuum cleaner, remember to remove the inner plastic bag and store it in an airtight plastic bag.
6) If the clothes are in contact with the powder inside escaping from the bulb is not completely washed in the washing machine, clean up any with paper towels or rags soaked, then put into sealed containers by.
7) Bring the materials sealed landfill, that are properly disposed of.
These are briefly the guidelines, based on studies made by the Department of Environmental Protection, which the EPA has issued the latest update of 25 February 2008.
I therefore recommend that if you break a CFL or fluorescent tube you look first at what was said above, with small measures can prevent further damage both to the environment to yourself.
What do you think?
23. July 2009 at 11:10
I always congratulate James for his expertise not only but primarily for the courage and the lucidity with which he faces different issues.
However, this time I have to disagree and to encourage reading what I wrote http://www.led-ison.com/cfl.asp
23. July 2009 at 12:13
Hello, I read what you write. Regarding the collection of CFL exists, as required by current legislation on WEEE do not know if he is entrusted to foreign plants (a little 'as it is for the separate collection of plastic and aluminum).
Regarding the validity of the procedure shown above .. Well I do not have the means to assess the actual validity, even if EPA is certainly not a newcomer.
Although I must say that I imagine my mother once broken CFL bulb pulls out of his survival kit cap, galoshes and a mask-style paper in CSI ...;) ... although it is probably the most correct!
You soon
23. July 2009 at 12:24
I add one thing A. Mote says, "How exactly should this be done to remove the shards of glass from a long-haired carpet without using a vacuum cleaner?" But it is recommended not to use vacuum cleaners, but if none is can do without, you should have the wisdom not to disperse the bags into
24. July 2009 at 16:30
Dear James, your (I think young) experience the world and life leads you to believe more in circulars and statements "political" institutions and administrations.
I regret to undermine that confidence in your next understandable: I have lectured with Paul Connett providing scientific evidence of irreparable harm that institutions, governments and experts bring, daily and without any conscience about the planet and humankind.
Mercury is a bioaccumulative toxin dangerous ... ...
You do.
24. July 2009 at 17:43
To be honest I thought I would be wary, perhaps in an excessive ...
Moreover, a glance at what I write 
... The blog would be full of crap, undocumented or documented otherwise, it is too easy to copy paste all over the web.
Then look what I'm not questioning your credibility, and neither the experience nor 'I have never underestimated the dangers of mercury in the CFL, even to tell the truth even in the first article I questioned the whole campaign made in favor of saving energy , good for the environment. In fact I'll tell you more about that in the spirit I feel ecosostenibile find offensive campaign that many radical environmentalists have done and doing in favor of standard compact fluorescent lamp.
a presto
James
24. July 2009 at 18:22
I already left written testimony of how much I appreciate your work and your savoir-faire, which is the politeness of your posts also argued that "burns".
Far be it from me, James, have misinterpreted your answers.
What worries me (if I may say so) is the mass of misinformation.
A warm greeting
Joseph