Don Klipstein wrote:
In m, 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"?
SNIP from here

I am sick-and-tired of how much some people say whatever this-or-that
which is not widely considered to have existed in the Garden of Eden
being some poison that requires zero tolerance.

As much interest as there is in mercury toxicity, if mercury was so
bad, would there not be some big number count of diagnoses of mercury
poisoning after the days when 4-foot fluorescents had 10-11 times as
much mercury as CFLs on average have, after the days when such
4-footers were allowed to be dumped into regular trash by commercial
and industrial users?

Even in the 1980's, 4-foot fluorescents had 40 milligrams of mercury
IIRC, and schools, offices, hospitals and retail stores were allowed
to dump those into "regular trash". 4-foot fluorescents were the
main light source used in such places at least since sometime in the
1960's, more likely 1950's.

So even now with lawyers looking for opportunity like that of
asbestos, how many diagnoses of mercury poisoning do we have nowadays?

And how much mercury pollution is attributed to fluorescent lamps,
and how much is attributed to coal burning? The way I hear it, coal
burning is the mercury problem, and even was back in the bad old days
of 1960's-1980's when fluorescent lamps had a lot more mercury than
they have now, let alone the even smaller amount of mercury that CFLs
have.

Several years ago I recall some groups getting all exercised about the
alarming levels of mercury in Chesapeake Bay fish. "We're all gonna die!"
was the concerted uproar.

Then somebody wrangled a fish from the Smithsonian that was caught in
Chesapeake Bay in the 1860's.

Guess what?

Yep. The museum fish had higher mercury levels than the most recent fish.