On 1/20/2011 3:04 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...


Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100
years without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury
generated by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he made
it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Can you say "cumulative toxin"?


Which relates directly to how dangerous the mercury is from a broken bulb.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007...ehugger_14.php

What airborne mercury there is dissipates rapidly, there being no long
term chronic exposure to mercury. Even so, much remains bound up in the
fragments. Don't vacuum.

My general impression is that mercury content of CFLs is falling.
NVision (HD) claims 2.2mg to 3.3mg. I imagine others are following suit.

http://www.nvisioncfl.com/mercury.as...20in%20C FLs?

Jeff