Here’s a story that suggests that they can. Like any poorly manufactured or quality controlled product, failures can occur. But with CFL bulbs, there’s additional things that can go wrong over the simple and century long proven incandescent bulb. Read on and see below for some technical details on CFL bulbs. Some “explosive” video also follows. – Anthony
Via American Thinker: A compact fluorescent light (CFL) on the ceiling burst and started a fire in a home in Hornell, N.Y. December 23, 2010. “Those are the lights everybody’s been telling us to use,” said Joe Gerych, Steuben County Fire Inspector. “It blew up like a bomb. It spattered all over.” Fire Chief Mike Robbins said the blaze destroyed the room where the fire started and everything in it, and the rest of the house suffered smoke and water damage. The Arkport Village Fire Department as well as the North Hornell Fire Department required about 15 minutes to put out the fire. Link
“Bulb explodes without warning,” reported NBCactionnews.com, May 21, 2010.
“Tom and Nancy Heim were watching TV recently, when Tom decided to turn on the floor lamp next to his recliner chair. ‘I heard this loud pop…I saw what I thought was smoke, coming out of the top of the floor lamp,’ says Tom. Nancy suddenly found glass in her lap. She says, ‘I did not see it. I just heard it, and I noticed I had glass on me.'” Link to story
On February 23, 2011, TV NewsChannel 5 in Tennessee covered “a newly-released investigators’ report that blames a February 12 fatal fire in Gallatin on one of those CFL bulbs.” Ben Rose, an attorney for the rehabilitative facility in which Douglas Johnson, 45, perished, said, “This result is consistent with our own private investigation. …We have heard reports of similar fires being initiated by CFLs across the country.” Link
…
October 5, 2010 the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported: “Trisonic Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs Recalled Due to Fire Hazard” because of four incidents. It’s official notice states: “Hazard: light bulb can overheat and catch fire.” Link
Concerns about the toxic mercury in CFLs are downplayed by the bulbs’ advocates, but they shouldn’t be. According to EPA and other sources, the safe limit is 300 nanograms per cubic meter. When a broken CFL was reported in Maine, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection did the most extensive testing in the nation to evaluate the health risk. Its 160-page report is shocking:
Mercury concentration in the study room air often exceeds the…300 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) for some period of time, with short excursions over 25,000 ng/m3, sometimes over 50,000 ng/m3. Link
Full story at the American Thinker
==============================================
Some things you may not know about CFL bulbs.
1. They have a built in switching power supply, or “ballast” like full sized fluorescent tubes. But they are not encapsulated or “potted” like those ballasts. See below for an inside view of a CFL base.
2. Capacitors, like the black one shown above, can sometimes fail catastrophically
3. The standard fluorescent lamp ballast can fail. Leaving burned-out lamps in the fixture, using the wrong size lamps, incorrect wiring, incorrect line voltage, operation at temperatures below or above the rated limits, power surges, and even the age can all cause a ballast to fail.
However, not all ballasts fail and stop functioning. Many overheat. Because a failing ballast can get extremely hot, it can become a fire hazard. All modern magnetic ballast designs have an internal temperature sensor that shuts the ballast off it gets too hot. In most designs, when the ballast cools off, the sensor will allow the ballast to turn back on. A fixture where some or all of the lamps shut off by themselves and later come back on is probably a fixture with a failing ballast. However, as shown above, these sorts of ballasts are usually encapsulated, and if a component fails, is contained within.
4. CFL bulbs, being replacements to incandescents, can be closer to things that can catch fire, such as upholstery (a table lamp). Not being fully encased (many CFLs have vent holes for the power supply) they can throw sparks when they fail. They can also breach the plastic case they are enclosed in.
5. CFLS, like any lightbulb, are fragile. However most incandescant bulbs don’t do this when cracked:
This video seems a bit extreme, and I wondered if it was “helped along” like NBC did with the model rocket motors taped to gas tanks fiasco. Though, here’s a news story from Chicago about what happens if homeowners ignore the warning about dimmer switches:
LED lighting is the way to go, in my opinion and experience. See how I retrofitted the biggest power suckers in my own home here:
Swapping my lights: fantastic!
Of course, you can always use your old CFL ballast to make a Jacob’s ladder:
===================================================
h/t to Bob Ferguson at SPPI who has this section on mercury issues:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mercury/
Merrick says:
April 21, 2011 at 3:44 am
“How many CFLs do you have to use and for how long to offset the carbon footprint of burning a house down?”
None. Burning biomass is considered carbon-neutral. Wood is a type of biomass. The carbon released when biomass burns is carbon that was recently taken up by the biomass when it was alive and growing. Technically fossil fuels would be biomass (discounting hypotheses that purport oil is produced by inorganic chemistry) too but since the sequestration of carbon was millions of years ago instead of tens of years ago and the sequestration lasts an indefinitely long period of time. Wood will normally release its stored carbon within a few years of dying whether it is burned or left to decompose naturally.
Hahahaha! You are a riot. So you are saying that something MADE by man may be fallible, but something “approved” by man is infallible?
Thanks! I needed a laugh today.
Dave Springer says:
April 21, 2011 at 7:30 am
Merrick says:
April 21, 2011 at 3:44 am
“How many CFLs do you have to use and for how long to offset the carbon footprint of burning a house down?”
“None. Burning biomass is considered carbon-neutral. Wood is a type of biomass. The carbon released when biomass burns is carbon that was recently taken up by the biomass when it was alive and growing. Technically fossil fuels would be biomass (discounting hypotheses that purport oil is produced by inorganic chemistry) too but since the sequestration of carbon was millions of years ago instead of tens of years ago and the sequestration lasts an indefinitely long period of time. Wood will normally release its stored carbon within a few years of dying whether it is burned or left to decompose naturally.”
Really? So all of those synthetic materials that the EPA/State are making us put in our homes (like isocyanurate foam insulation, asphalt shingles, vinyl window materials, etc.) and all of the other plastic (wires, plug boxes and receptacles, vinyl siding etc.) that will either burn or vaporize don’t work into your calculation? What if the house has synthetic fiber carpeting or linoleum counters and floors? What about all of the plastic that might reside in all of the cheap lamps, etc. from Walmart?
I’m sure there’s a lot more non-biomass material that will eithe rburn or be vaporized in a house fire than you suggest.
Interesting comments regarding CFLs.
We purchased a plethora (ha ha) of Panasonic CFL lighting to light most of our home back in 1999. The experiment rendered an instant > 25% savings in the ever threatening power bill. My other half likes to leave all the lights on as she moves about the home. Imagine that. Those Panasonic lights have been lighting the outdoor fixtures constantly for 12 years now. A couple of indoor have since failed; however, the best and longest to last are those Panasonic lights. I do not believe the Panasonic CFLs are available now, which is unfortunate.
Other brands we purchased have failed within a year. None have exploded or burned in any way. Considering the cost of CFLs and as a consumer product it would be nice to have a break down of which brands fail sooner and which brands have yet to fail show defects.
I should point out that going to an LED household was a decision that was NOT made for any economic reasons. I really don’t care what LED bulbs cost, so long as they do last about what I have come to experience in typical LED lifetime. So all the chaff about electricity rates, and pay back times, is irrelevent to me. Now that does not mean I consider it irrelevent as a general considereation.
My wife leaves lights on; I don’t think she has ever turned a light off at any time in her life; someone else has always done it for her. I switched from incandescents ti CFLs to get some longer life; and I have used CFLs in outside fixtures, and they did work. The problem was not so much rain getting into the lamp houseing, and damaging the elctronics. The spiders building their nests all over them was more of a problem. So now, I just let her leave the lights on, and I don’t mess with them.
Then I found that the available CFLs were RFI nighmares; I don’t know how they pass FCC muster, and I didn’t like the heating characteristics, of CFL bulbs laid over sideways, in enclosed ceiling fixtures; seemed like they got too hot to me. I always thought that fluorescents ran cold; well the tubular ones may, but the CFLs run hot.
I have never in my life busted a fluorescent tube and I have never broken a CFL or had one explode. So I don’t consider the Mercury in the home to be any kind of a hazard. Maybe its a disposal problem, when they get so many of them thrown away. Hey I have had Mercury fillings inside my mouth sucking on them for over 60 years. Ho hum; if my candle goes out a bit early well I have already had a good time; and I think my memory is still better than most. So mercury is about as much threat as lead paint or global warming. I don’t eat lead paint, and I don’t mind it being warm.
So I consider my LED house, as simply an investigation; to see what it is like living with them. I’m more than happy with them; I expect they will get better; they al;ready meet my needs, and cost wasn’t even on the list of factors. They were expensive. So are cars; you can’t justify the price of owning and running a car on economic gorunds; it is still a lot cheaper to walk ; and even with all the walking I do, a $14 pair of communist red Chinese shoes from Walmart, still lasdt me about five years, until the holes in the sole let too mcuh water get in, and I have to spend another $14.
Has happened, one question is how often compared to fires from incandescent bulbs (such as fire caused by a cat knocking an incandescent lamp off a table, or ceiling pot that got covered by insulation – those are hypothetical, I do not know).
Certainly quality is something to look for.
Example: I took apart a cheap power bar for grins, and found that only one of its sockets had the third wire connected (the protected ground).
I just bought a variety of 130v rugged duty incandescents online from eBulb.com. I got 60w, 75w, 100w, a dozen 3-ways for the bedroom and some outdoor yellow bug bulbs – 140 bulbs in all. I’m stocked up. I am not buying fluorescents or leds. They are all at least 6x the cost of what I just paid and the fluorescents are garbage.
These will probably last me about 20 years. Maybe by then we will have regained our sanity.
Does anyone know if halogens will still be available?
George E. Smith says: April 21, 2011 at 10:12 am “…you can’t justify the price of owning and running a car on economic gorunds; it is still a lot cheaper to walk…”
Actually, I can George. I live 17 miles from my office, there is no way I am walking that distance back and forth every day. I am not going to bicycle either. Winter snow doesn’t allow for it and the summer heat would just have me hot and smelly at work all day. It’s not happening.
The cost of leds may not be a factor for you, but it is for most everyone else, and there is no way you are going to get a reasonable payback on a $20 led bulb to make it worth buying using current dollars versus future dollars. And the cfls don’t last any longer than the incandescents. GE is lying when they say they do, but lying and stealing is mostly what GE does anymore which is why I am boycotting them. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
Thank you for providing a classic example of purported experts using flawed hypotheses to reach an invalid conclusion while denying experimental results which tend to invalidate the hypotheses. The base of the CFL does not have to catch fire and burn with an open flame for there to have been an open flame erupting from the CFL. First hand experrience demonstrated that a blue flash followed by a yellow flame and black smoke erupts from the CFL UL has been provided with numerous anecdotal reports of these UL labeled CFL lights flaming out, but UL appears to be dismissing them when the person reporting the incident is unable to supply every detail requested by UL. I guarantee you that the building would have been destroyed by the 105W CFL and its sustained open flame if I had not been there to smother the fire in the CFL light. The smaller CFL lights may or may not have extinguished themselves, but the shattered glass and burning hot resins and/or pieces thrown from the CFL could very well have ignited nearby flammable materials.
The number of these dangerous CFL failures have been only a few in my own experien ce, but one is entirely too many. The problem is that many other people are experiencing one or more of thesee exploding, shattering, and/or burning CFL incidents. This is a a serious fire hazard, with or without a UL acknowledgement.
Doug Stanley asked: Did anybody else get the optical illusion of the picture of the bulb seeming to grow while reading the top of the article. Pretty cool.
If I look closely, I think I can see the one on my screen breathing.
Question: do CFLs contain mercury (vapour) ?
We’ve had 1 cfl bulb out of about 15 explode in 3 years. No further damage.
“”””” woodNfish says:
April 21, 2011 at 2:21 pm
George E. Smith says: April 21, 2011 at 10:12 am “…you can’t justify the price of owning and running a car on economic gorunds; it is still a lot cheaper to walk…”
Actually, I can George. I live 17 miles from my office, there is no way I am walking that distance back and forth every day. I am not going to bicycle either. Winter snow doesn’t allow for it and the summer heat would just have me hot and smelly at work all day. It’s not happening. “””””
I stand by my statement; it IS a lot cheaper to walk; evidently your excuses for not walking have nothing to do with the cost; simply the convenience.
And the cost of the LEDs was a concern to me; if they had been offered to me at half the price, I still would have bought them; it just wasn’t the reason I bought them.
I know that a lot of peopel buy a lot of stuff based simply on price. To them I commend the sage advice of the vendor, who said:- “We have no quarrel with those who sell their goods or services for less than we do; they of all people should know what their stuff is worth. ”
The world is full of junk waiting to be sold to those who buy simply on price (either low or high price).
If LEDs aren’t worth their price to you; my advice to you is “Don’t buy them”.
If and when they get a bit cheaper, or higher Lumens, I’ll probably buy some more; and I have a special box in one of the closets, containing a full set of incandescent lamps, for every socket in the house, including the one inside the frig.
The day we move out of the house, I’ll reinstall every last one of those incandescent bulbs; just in case the next owner/occupant doesn’t like LEDs either.
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
CFL lights are being sold to the public and politicians as an environmentally friendly way of reducing the use of energy and the fossil fuels used to generate that electrical energy. Unfortunately, the dirty little secret is that CFL lights do not save nearly as much energy as the publicity leads people to believe, and they may to some extent actually increase energy use and the need for more fossil fuels. How?
First, there is the problem with very slow startup of the CFL light when the power is turned on and waiting for the bulb to reach its normal brightness. There is also the consumer concern for the service life of the light being drastically reduced by turning the CFL light on and off when entering and leaving a room. Because of these two concerns, consumers tend to leave the lights on all of the time or much longer through the day than a comparable incandescent light they would otherwise turn on and off in seconds and minutes. Since consumers find a need to keep the CFL light turned on far longer than a comparable incandescent light, the CFL light may consume much more electrical energy because its is used far longer than the incandescent light in the same light fixture.
Second, defenders of the CFL may argue that the CFL lights can be used for much longer times and still save electrical energy and fossil fuels because they use dramatically less Watts of electricity than their incandescent equivalents. Unfortunately, this argument is simply not true. It is true that consumers may in many cases be able to save money on their electricity bill by using CFL lights as a replacement for the equivalent incandescent light. However, some consumers do not enjoy those savings, because they leeave the CFL lights on all of the time for the reasons previously described.
Whether or not a consumer saves money of the electric bill, they are not reducing the need for electrical energy and fossil fuels by much, or they are actually increasing the usage of electrical energy and fossil fuels. While the electric bill may be reduced, at least temporarily for the present, the usage of CFL lights is putting a greater burden on the electric power plants and their generating capacity by putting a vast new load of CFL circuits onto the power grid with low power factors. The low power factors of the CFL lights translates into a power load, where a nominal 15Watt CFL light may actually consume 29VA of power from the power plant and its electrical power distribution network. Instead of reducing the need for electrical energy production, the CFL lights may increase the need for such electrical power capacity.
Worse still, electrical power utility companies normally charge their industrial, commercial, and government customers more for their service when the customer is using electrical equipment which has lower power factors requiring more electrical power generation capacity. With the State of California now legislating the installation of smart power meters to charge consumers variable power rates, a person has to wonder how long it will be before the electric utilities will demand the use of those smart meters to claim higher prices for the customers using low power factor CFL lights that require more power generation capacity? In other words, the consumer may think they are saving money and energy, only to find in the long run that they are not saving fossil fuels and end up paying even more for the reduced Watts of electricty used.
Note how General Electric (GE) publicizes the need for Green energy saving though the usage of CFL lights they manufacture at higher costs, and they produce and sell the electric power generators and electrical equipment needed to supply electricity to those low power factor CFL lights which save little actual energy, if any, compared to the incandescent lights they helped lobby to make illegal.
Then there’s the challenge of a broken bulb. In our case, a CFL fell off a low living room table onto the carpet, and the glass shattered. Our shock that a one-foot fall onto carpet caused such a big mess, was only the beginning.
An incandescent bulb is easily cleaned up: sweep up the pieces into a trash can.
But a CFL? It’s hazardous waste. Read the cleanup procedure here. Turns out carpet is the worst thing to have anywhere near CFL lamps!
Before you begin cleaning up…
Now it’s time to scoop up the glass…
But you’re not done yet:
And that’s not all!
Bottom line:
* A CFL broken on carpet can be expensive! It will cost you several vacuum cleaner bags, plus the other materials.
* Be sure to keep duct tape and glass jars handy (large enough to hold a CFL plus misc towels.
(What I find interesting: the package label simply says you should refer to local authorities or EPA for cleanup instructions. Not a hint that this is such a big deal. Yet almost any other product requires page after page of safety warnings.
Are the warmists getting a pass because someone decided hazardous waste concerns are trivial compared to the value of saving a few Watts?
Also, CFLs will cause your hard drive to fail and your grandchildren to be born with tusks.
No, you’ve got your talking points script all backwards. It’s the Global Warming (also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, ad nauseum) which is responsible for those problems and a few more…many more…well everything imaginable, really.
back in the early eighties we were seeing rapid increases in electric rates and so as an attempt to keep the electric bill in some kind of line the wife and i replaced most of the household incandesant bulbs with flourescents. the electric bill stabilized (it had been creeping up about 4% per month.)
HOORAY!!!!
after about a year and a half we recieved a bill that was 15 times what was normal.
several telephone calls to the electric company with EXTREMELY bad language on my part ensued followed by a couple of real smoking hot letteres to the public utilities commission.
turned out that the meter reader had been sitting under a bridge “sharp penciling the readings”. he was summarily fired.
i paid off the overage at the rate of five dollars per month (i think that i am still doing it) with no interest charged.
oh, i have a pigtail type on a fixture on my garage (outside) and simply leave it on. bulbs in that fixture seem to last about six years.
C
BudFoster says:
April 22, 2011 at 2:11 pm
“Also, CFLs will cause your hard drive to fail and your grandchildren to be born with tusks.”
Close, very close. But it’s actually the wet drive that fails. They manage to choose phosphors that emit at the frequencies most likely to cause migraines, which coincidentally, can make you feel as though you’re growing tusks. In my case it can take as little as ten minutes. YMMV.
George E. Smith says: April 21, 2011 at 5:48 pm, I stand by my statement; it IS a lot cheaper to walk; evidently your excuses for not walking have nothing to do with the cost; simply the convenience.
A convenience? I want what you are drinking George. Just how fast do you think you can walk 17 miles twice a day? An average person could walk about 3 miles per hour, so that is about 12 hours per day just walking. If you think that is a convenience, well I think you may want therapy.
Well WoodN, you were the one who chose to live 17 miles from your place of work; in the good old days, people didn’t do that. So like I said, you like the convenience of being able to work miles away from where you live.
R Buckminster Fuller long ago advised people that didn’t make any economic sense at all. He designed whole city complexes, that had living quarters close to the work places. That idea has re-surfaced. San Jose’s Santana Row is a bunch of (overpriced) upscale boutique shops, with apartyments, and condominiums built over the street level shops for people to live in.
Of course today, a lot of people Telecommute, and do their business over the internet.
Remember the question was which was cheaper; meaning lower cost. If you choose a more expensive lifestyle, that’s perfectly ok with me; but don’t claim it is cheaper; and walking is much cheaper than any other form of transportation; it is just more restrictive in travel range and payload.
My 92 year old MIL, still has her driving licence; recently retested and renewed, and she has a car too, but she walks almost everywhere she wants to go. About the only place she drives to, is to the local “Indian” gaming casino, which she visits maybe once per week; but that is purely entertainment; until she loses her $20 or gets bored with it. She doesn’t do it for gain; just for recreation; so the cost of driving to it, is part of her entertainment budget.