Starting in 2012, regular incandescent bulbs, the ones invented by Thomas Edison over 100 years ago, will be banned in Canada.

Contrary to popular belief, switching from regular bulbs to compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) could increase a household's overall energy consumption instead of reducing it. If this possibility alone does not shake consumer confidence, perhaps the fact that CFLs contain mercury and emit electromagnetic radiation might make people think twice.

On the other hand, since the federal government is giving CFL producers a monopoly of the light bulb market and some environmental groups are cheering for CFLs, sales are not likely to drop any time soon.

CFL manufacturers heavily market their product as a way for consumers to reduce their carbon dioxide footprint. However, before deciding to switch over to CFLs, I recommend an overall-from cradle to grave-analysis of the actual carbon footprint of a CFL compared to an incandescent bulb.

What is the real energy cost of a CFL? What does it cost to mine, manufacture, package, ship, sell, operate, dispose of and remediate the environment after disposal? Moreover, is the cost of human health calculated and if so how?

Research conducted at the Technical University of Denmark, which explored some but not all carbon footprint factors, found it took 1.8 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity to assemble a CFL compared to 0.11 kWh to assemble an incandescent bulb. In other words, it took 16 times more energy to produce a CFL.

Assembly aside, a CFL is much heavier and more dangerous to handle and, therefore, costs more to package, ship and sell. We also need to consider the energy required to safely dispose of a CFL and reclaim the mercury content. Moreover, the potential costs in destroyed lives, illnesses and lost human potential due to exposure to mercury and electromagnetic radiation have not been factored in.

CFLs are manufactured mostly in China with virtually no health, safety or environmental protection regulations. Ironically, most of the electricity used to manufacture CFLs comes from very dirty coal-fired generators. As things stand today, mercury exposure to workers, to electricians, to maintenance personal, to consumers, to water and to the living environment goes almost unchecked.

Energy losses during operation eliminate any energy savings over an incandescent light. Such losses are not disclosed to the public.

There are 40 percent more energy losses in operating the CFL compared to an incandescent bulb. This does not show up on a power bill, but the power company has to supply 40 percent more power than what the bulb is rated for. The result is higher electrical bills for everyone as the power company spreads out their losses to recoup this lost revenue.

As a BC Hydro employee said last February to the Vancouver Sun, "Energy efficient bulbs increase greenhouse gases (GHGs). Because they burn cooler, they cause home heating to rise." BC Hydro also stated that "Lighting regulations [banning incandescent lights] will increase GHG emissions in Hydro's service territory by 45,000 tons due to cross effects of a switch to cool-burning bulbs."

The "cross effect" BC Hydro is referring to is the loss of heat from hotter incandescent bulbs when we switch over to cooler-burning CFLs. When a 60-watt regular bulb is replaced with a 15-watt CFL, 45 watts of heat from inside a house is lost. If that is repeated 20 times, 900 watts of lost heat now has to be provided from another source.

To make up for the lost heat, consumers now have to turn up electric heating, or worse still, an oil or gas furnace, which will leave them consuming even more energy and creating more greenhouse gases than before they made their lighting switch.

Considering the lower power factor as well as the heating losses, it's clear that using CFLs will not reduce a consumer's carbon footprint when compared to a regular light bulb. Moreover, instead of saving energy there are good arguments that using CFLs will increase the user's carbon footprint.

Each CFL contains about five milligrams of elemental mercury as well as other dangerous elements. When mercury enters water, biological processes change the chemical form to methylmercury, which is the organic, more-toxic form found in fish. Methylmercury bioaccumulates through the food chain and once in the body can affect fetal and adult nervous systems.

Methylmercury will not stay down in landfills as it easily gets transported through the water table. Beware if a CFL is broken. Each broken lamp is a toxic spill and much care should be taken cleaning it up. Throwing hundreds of millions of them into landfills will contaminate the soil, the water table and eventually the air.

Thousands of children are born each year with neurodevelopment impairments caused by exposure in the womb to methylmercury compounds, according to expert estimates.

The acronym CFL could also easily stand for "chronic fatigue light" since CFLs emit electromagnetic radiation, a type of energy that can make people very sick.

There has been a rash of health problems associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation such as that emitted by CFLs. Sweden polls reveal that up to 290,000 people, representing more than three percent of the population, have reported suffering symptoms of electrohypersensitivity syndrome (EHS) when exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Symptoms range from joint stiffness, chronic fatigue, headaches, tinnitus,respiratory, gastric, skin, sleep and memory problems and depression to Alzheimer's disease and all types of cancer. For a comprehensive review of the known biological effects of electromagnetic radiation exposure, go to http:// www.bioinitiative.org/.

CFLs do not reduce a person's carbon footprint and may even increase it, in some situations. From cradle to grave, CFLs pose a danger to people's health and well-being, as well as adding even more toxicity to earth's beleaguered environment.

Hopefully, governments will wake up to the shortcomings of CFLs and follow the New Zealand example of changing their policies on banning incandescent lights due to concerns about safety and energy efficiency of the CFLs. Germany has already restricted the use of fluorescent lighting in public places and has banned fluorescent lights in hospitals. So far, North America appears to be headed in the opposite direction. The Canadian government still plans to ban all incandescent lights before 2012.

There are incandescent light bulbs on the market right now that last longer than CFLs and are 80 percent more efficient
than a regular bulb. Just as the market gets saturated with CFLs, General Electric is coming out with a new high efficiency incandescent bulb that claims to be twice as efficient as a regular bulb.

If they live up to their claim, these new incandescent lights will rival CFLs for energy consumption but will not have all the other environmental problems. Then another buying craze will begin and CFLs may begin to be phased out, leaving behind long-term problems and an untold toll on our environment and our health.

In the meantime, the best way for you to reduce your carbon footprint in this area is to follow your mother's advice and turn the lights off when you leave the room.

***

Walt McGinnis is a licensed electrician, an electromagnetic radiation tester and a member of the EM Radiation Task Force. He is based on Vancouver Island. For more information visit www.mcginniselectric.ca or call (250) 652-2554.

Want to search for other articles that may interest you?

Readers of this article also enjoyed...