"You have to assume that out of the massed hundreds of billions of 'Made in China' crap CFL's that Wal*Mart has self-righteously pumped into the America market that probably on the order of 85% will end up in the garbage. Well, looking at only Wal*Mart sales, that's a hell of a lot of mercury being dumped into the environment."

Not really. There are only a few milligrams - thousandths of a gram - of mercury in a CFL.

"the long term effect of that much contamination is unknown but sure to have an effect over time."

What about conventional flourescents? They've been around for decades, and have as much of more mercury in them as CFLs.

In fact, the reason for the CFL push being aimed at the home use is that most non-residential lighting is already high-efficiency: conventional flourescent, sodium vapor, etc.

"and we are to trust them on the mercury content in CFL products? Why?"

Because the bulbs need only a few milligrams each to work.

"To wrap yourself in a green flag over them is heresy."

You're wrong. Here's why:

Much of the electricity produced in the US comes from burning coal. Coal has trace amounts of mercury in it, so a small amount of mercury is released into the environment for every kilowatt-hour of coal-produced electricity.

By using less electricity, CFLs can reduce the amount of mercury released by reducing the demand on coal-fired generating plants. The reduction is greater than the amount of mercury in a CFL, so the end result in most cases is *less* mercury release, not more.

And while CFLs can be recycled, mercury from coal-fired plants cannot.

"It would seem that the mercury industry is greenwashed like the coal industry is disparately trying to do..."

Nope. Not when you look at all the facts.

--

The real problem is that too many folks want a simple, cheap, no-downside, no-tough-decisions replacement light. It's not that simple.

There are applications where each of the available technologies is the best solution. For example, in a closet that gets opened a few times a day for a few minutes each time, or for a desk lamp meant for close work, a plain old incandescent is usually the best. For general lighting, particularly lights that are on a lot of the time, CFLs and conventional flourescents. For spotlights and special purposes like traffic signals, LEDs (look carefully - many traffic signals are already LEDs. Couldn't tell, could ya?).

On top of that is the need for better application design and common sense. One LW wants to know about the lamp on his kid's nightstand falling over and busting the bulb. Why is a lamp on a shaky table in a kids room in the first place? A wall-mounted fixture is a much better choice, and can't be knocked over.

Many of the lamp designs we use today are adaptations of designs from the days when whale oil and kerosene were the lighting technologies of choice. We can do better than that!

The Big Problem is that too many folks don't really understand how science works. Ideas like "correlation does not prove causation" and "you cannot prove a negative assertion except in certain specific cases" are simply foreign to them.

There's also the problem of assuming things that aren't necessarily true. For example, do we *really* have "a skyrocketing autism rate", or are we just getting better at diagnosing autism? How many of those now being diagnosed would have gotten the same diagnosis 20 years ago for the exact same symptoms?

There's also the squeaky-wheel effect. Under current laws, a child with a certain diagnosis can be eligible for a lot more programs and funding than one without the diagnosis. So it can be in the child's best interest to err on the side of caution and get the "worst" possible diagnosis in order to get the "best" therapy.

"A few light fixtures in my house just don't seem to be able to handle CFL's- they burn out in 6 months to a year, and have to be replaced. But then, these same fixtures tend to burn out incandescents as well."

Sounds like those fixtures get higher-than-normal voltage. Or maybe they are poorly ventilated, so the lamps operate at very high temperature.

"And then there is my bedside lamp- one incandescent bulb for 4+ years."

Lower-than-normal voltage will do that.

"So I don't really buy the longevity thing. I think under normal use (lots of on and off), the light fixture is much more important than the type bulb."

Some factors in lamp longevity:

1) Voltage (the lower the volts, the longer an incandescent lasts - and the lower its efficiency. CFLs need voltage to be within specification unless they are meant for use with dimmers).

2) Heat (the hotter they run, the shorter their life, for both CFLs and incandescents.)

3) Shock and vibration (bad for all types, but particularly incandescents not meant for rugged service).

4) On-off cycles (the more cycles, the shorter the life, particularly for CFLs. This is why CFLs are a poor choice for some applications.)

--

What I do whenever a bulb of any type is replaced is to write the date on the base with a felt-tip pen. Then I *know* how long they really last.

A true experiment would be to replace half the lamps in a multilamp fixture (any setup where multiple lamps are all on the same fixture) with CFLs and the other with incandescents and see which burns out first.