Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

The EPA has a step-by-step procedure for cleaning up after breaking a
fluorescent.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

Scroll down to "How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?"

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>My experience has been worse but I keeping hoping the next batch of bulbs
>will be better, and so far, that's been true.  For the most part, the newer
>bulbs seem to start faster, last longer and interfere less with X-10.  But a
>bulb that emits thick (probably very toxic) smoke when it fails isn't an
>improvement, it's a serious setback.
>
>All the assumptions built into the payback equation that we can't verify
>personally bother me.  It's not a leap to assume that if the claims about
>longevity that I can personally verify are inaccurate, other claims may be
>dubious as well, particularly as to exactly where all the mercury goes and
>how much of it ends up there.  Mercury is bad stuff:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease  (look closely at that hand!)
>
>Fixing a pollution problem with a pollutant seems too similar to fixing the
>cane beetle problem in Oz by introducing the cane toad,
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_Toad
>
>which is now the far larger pest.  Catch both pollutants at the smokestacks.
>Don't depend on rosy projections of super long bulb life, reduced overall
>electrical demand and responsible recycling that may not quite happen as
>predicted.