Humans are terrible at risk assessment
May. 1st, 2007 07:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsAfter the big worry yesterday over compact fluorescent bulbs, I've had myself spanked again. It turns out the story was being flogged by Steve Milloy, a well-known (at least, in the science media community) junk science advocate who also has served up some of the weirdest "there is no such thing as global warming" literature ever seen.
As PZ Meyers points out, the total environmental mercury impact from a single CFC bulb is less than that of an incadescent bulb. A CFC has 4 milligrams of mercury and uses enough electricity in its lifetime that, if your power is coal-fired (and almost all of the East Coast is coal-fired), it will generate another 2.4 milligrams. An incandescent uses enough eletricity to produce about 10 milligrams, or 3.6 milligrams more.
As it turns out, the original article goes to great lengths to emphasize that the risk of mercury poisoning from CFCs is very minimal, that there are things you can do in your own home to minimize the risk, and yes, you can dispose of the bulbs properly.
On the other hand, the human brain will turn this over and argue that you know where four grams of mercury is, in your light socket, whereas the ten grams are "just in the atmosphere, somewhere over there," and they're not about to poison you. Well, neither is the mercury in your lightbulb.
[Edited: I originally had 'grams'; it's 'milligrams of mercury'. Thanks to blaisepascal for pointing out the typo.]
As PZ Meyers points out, the total environmental mercury impact from a single CFC bulb is less than that of an incadescent bulb. A CFC has 4 milligrams of mercury and uses enough electricity in its lifetime that, if your power is coal-fired (and almost all of the East Coast is coal-fired), it will generate another 2.4 milligrams. An incandescent uses enough eletricity to produce about 10 milligrams, or 3.6 milligrams more.
As it turns out, the original article goes to great lengths to emphasize that the risk of mercury poisoning from CFCs is very minimal, that there are things you can do in your own home to minimize the risk, and yes, you can dispose of the bulbs properly.
On the other hand, the human brain will turn this over and argue that you know where four grams of mercury is, in your light socket, whereas the ten grams are "just in the atmosphere, somewhere over there," and they're not about to poison you. Well, neither is the mercury in your lightbulb.
[Edited: I originally had 'grams'; it's 'milligrams of mercury'. Thanks to blaisepascal for pointing out the typo.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 03:57 pm (UTC)About a year ago, one such story got me sufficiently riled up to seek out all the information needed to discredit it. Remember the story that broke about how Iran had allegedly passed a law that was going to require its Jewish population wear yellow stars of david? That was a canada.com story. It was also entirely wrong; *no* such proposal was ever made in Iran, nor was it every passed as a law in their Majlis (parliament).
At the time, the story made huge waves in the media (despite being entirely untrue, which would have been quite easy to verify). Reputable sources quoted Canada.com, and it took quite an effort to bring people's attention to the total foundationlessness of the story (which was verified by all people reporting from Iran and by a Jewish, Israeli, Iran-expert). It turned out that those newspapers are owned by one Conrad Black, a Candian who owns some political media worldwide and who was in trouble with the U.S. gov't over embezzlement from publicly traded corporations (or so said the allegations. I have not consulted primary sources to verify this). The rumor on the net was that he allowed his newspaper to be used for floating test balloons on matters that would roughly be considered to be in the province of the right wing.
With that background, anything that says "beware of a pro-enviroment step because it is bad for you" that comes from canada.com is extra-suspicious.
I appreciate the legwork you did on finding out why it was wrong and writing about it, though. Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 05:47 pm (UTC)The office, naturally, will remain as dark as an Ogre's cave.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 10:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 11:36 pm (UTC)Light comparison
Date: 2007-05-02 12:21 am (UTC)Did they simply rate light output or actual quality of light? Most important to me is color temperature which the fluorescents, including CFCs, do not seem to have nailed compared to an incandescent.
Also, one of my professors in college (who was a lighting specialist), said that fluorescents of all types do not oscillate their intensity like an incandescent will (due to the 60 Hz of the power cycle) since they are gas-fired. This leads to increased eye strain and fatigue.
-Michael
Re: Light comparison
Date: 2007-05-02 05:41 am (UTC)Re: Light comparison
Date: 2007-05-13 04:35 pm (UTC)