To: Brumar89 who wrote (602196 ) 3/2/2011 10:47:22 AM From: Alighieri Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575093 Those CFL bulbs are a future asbestos-like environmental problem. I hope Rebublicans can nip it in the bud. Here nincompoop...read and expand your horizons, assuming that's possible. ========================================================== How much mercury do power plants emit to light a CFL? About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air—the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled). Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime. popularmechanics.com ============================================================== Of course with proper disposal, the comparison is even more skewed in favor of CFLs. By the way, what should we do with the ever ubiquitous flourescent tubes in use since I can remember? Ban them? Al