It seems like not that long ago people used to complain about how spending so much time under fluorescent bulbs weren’t healthy. They tell you that the mercury content is TRACE amounts. But do they tell you how much trace amounts will hurt you? And trace amounts in a powder or vapor like in the bulbs are way worse than much more mercury in a liquid.
This is how to clean up and dispose of these light bulbs.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/CFL_Cleanup_and_Disposal.pdf
Now I don’t know anyone who actually does any of that. So I ask you. Do you still think they are better for the environment because it saves a little energy or worse because its toxic? Keep in mind the effects to the environment when producing, using and disposing of them. Even if its done according to the guidelines.
I dont understand why they are called environmentally friendly.
I am particularly concerned about broken bulbs in my home . I think the first time I broke one I was pregnant. And now with kids and pets. . I wont be using them.
However I am interested in any resources that say one way or another about environmental effects for disposal of the new bulbs vs the effects of making the energy. Cause at this point burning coal vs chance of broken bulbs, disposal, and improper disposal,.. coal seems significantly better.
Actually its platinum, but hopefully John? Nice.
Technorati Tags: cleanup, coal, energystar, fluorescent bulbs, improper disposal, light bulbs, mercury, mercury content, pets, platinum, trace amounts