So, I do both. I use regular and halogen in my home for where I primarily live and CFL bulbs in places where I am not so often there such as the laundry room, front/back porch, closets, and some lamps.

Keep government out of my bulbs. These CFL bulbs can be coordinated with a true process to reduce pollutants, including mercury, etc., but not when bulb tyranny occurs from members of the government making decisions because they have a relationship with the company that makes the buld.

We need to think out the process, allow all ideas into the process, and come up with a bulb(s) solution that include bulbs for every use, choice of bulb purchases, and reduction of pollutants.

We are on our way–let the people that actually understand the bulb industry and have the knowledge to invent more types of bulbs do his and her job.

How great to have no pollutants when we use the bulb of our choice.

Fantastic article.

You mentioned that you believe the future of lighting is in LEDs rather than CFLs. That may be. I just wanted to point out that LEDs (1-13% efficient) aren't appreciably more efficient than the best florescent technology (6-15% efficient). Admittedly, LEDs have a distinct advantage in task lighting, as the light rays are already parallel even without a lense.

The most efficient lights are low pressure sodium vapor, like those used for street lamps, (27% efficiency). Of course, like florescents, LPS lamps also contain toxic substances.

I got my efficiency statistics from WikiPedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy)

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

You know the 16 step broken CFL clean up requirements are a vast improvement over the one we currently use for incandescents.

1. Find broom and dust pan.

2. Use broom to sweep remains of bulb into dust pan.

3. Empty contents of dust pan into trash can.

4. Relax. There are no harmful residuals to worry about.

Sorry for the broad brush strokes, but if all mercury is "bad" then the source should not matter.

CT (Nice Post!)

"(methylmercury) a form that it more readily gets to via the emissions from power plants (where the mercury more often ends up in the streams and lakes where bacteria turn it into methylmercury"

So, since there are very few recycling depots, where exactly will the mercury from all the broken CFLs end up if not lakes, streams and ground water? Whether or not the pathways are quick moving or slow doesn't really matter if the effects are cumulative.

Regarding the last paragraph, what are the provable "dangerous levels of climate change" to which you refer. The apocalyptic effects of climate change are speculative at best. There are real events occuring in the world right now that should really have you freaking out.

Remember that when thinking about this matter (like many others) it’s important to take a whole-system perspective, not just look at the one little bulb in your hand.

First, it is true that the manufacture of a CFL takes more energy than the manufacture of an incandescent. However, this is quickly made up for by the increased efficiency of the CFL, and if the CFL is recycled, the difference is even smaller (because some electronic parts in the base of the CFL can be reused).

It is true that the mercury pollution that a CFL keeps from coming out of the smokestack at a power plant is much greater than the amount that would be released from the CFL itself, if broken.

Remember, mercury is only a problem when it gets inside the body and causes health problems. Not all mercury is created equal. The element mercury in its pure form is not as immediately dangerous because it does not stay in living tissue (our bodies) and cause much damage. It’s important to understand that mercury is harmful primarily when it’s in another form in the environment (methylmercury) a form that it more readily gets to via the emissions from power plants (where the mercury more often ends up in the streams and lakes where bacteria turn it into methylmercury and it can get into the food chain, into fish, and into people). CFLs can pass a test developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency called the TCLP or Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure test (one description here). Make sure to look for CFLS that are TCLP compliant, because these are certified to leak out only very small amounts of mercury (0.2mg), even if they are thrown in a landfill and broken. (Note – buying these bulbs does not make it okay to throw them in the landfill. You’ll still do everyone a favor by sending them for recycling when their life is over, so that the mercury (and other valuable parts) can be recovered and reused. If you live in a place without CFL recycling yet, that’s not a good excuse to wait to put in CFLs.

It’s true that if you turn on a CFL and never turn it off, this will extend its life. Yes, typical on/off home usage reduces the lifetime of the bulb below its theoretical maximum number of hours, but they still last a *long* time compared to incandescents. In the energy efficiency planning industry it is often assumed that CFLS in normal home use will last seven years on average – this may be less than the CFL package says, but is obviously much longer than incandescents.

It’s true that CFLs and other fluorescent lighting give off radiation… it’s called light! All visible light is a form of radiation, and it’s not necessarily harmful. The link provided above for this claim does not substantiate the claim that fluorescent lighting is dangerous.

Finally, James Miller is right, there are plenty of ways to reduce non-renewable energy-use… and we need them all! Making the emission reductions necessary to even give the world a statistical chance of avoiding dangerous levels of climate change requires us to seek out all the emission reductions we can find, as fast as we can get them. If we’re serious about protecting everyone from the negative effects of climate change, we can’t afford to leave any options on the table.

There are some studies I've come across suggesting that mercury in certain kinds of fish may come from natural sources, but the more recent research tends to support the "made-man problem" argument: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/0312…

There's no doubt that consumers need better access to fluorescent bulb recycling. Chis Baskind at EcoTech Daily gave a nice overview of ways to dispose of these bulbs. One of the most important points from his article: "Unless they’re broken or otherwise damaged, CFLs will hold their mercury indefinitely."

http://ecotechdaily.com/2008/04/14/five-ways-to-d…