wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:20:13 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:13:19 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
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.

One thing to keep in mind:

On average, replacing incandescents with CFLs actually reduces mercury
pollution. This is because CFL-decreasable coal burning puts more mercury
into the environment than the CFLs used to replace such incandescents in
question have.
That is only true if the CFL has a reasonable fifespan. Even a dirty
coal generating station puts out less mercury than is used in a CFL
bulb if it only lasts for 100 hours.

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)
You are getting almost 4 times my (average)cfl lifespan. And I'm
using the bulbs made for the specific use (in this case PAR type
reflector floods in pot-lights)

I'm not sure why some people seem to have such poor luck with CFLs, I've
been using them at multiple locations for a decade and I've not had any
premature failures at all.