Which myths listed here are true and which are, well, myths?
CFL bulbs are no better for the environment than incandescent bulbs: Mercury is still released into the environment during production. If a bulb breaks, mercury may be released and pose a health risk. CFL bulbs don't cost that much more to produce than standard bulbs; customers are simply being overcharged. Removing incandescent bulbs will make the room colder; the traditional bulbs create and use heat, which helps provide warmth.
This information is all true, but it does not take into account that CFLs use far less energy and have a much longer life. These two facts already make CFLs better for the environment, particularly if the main source of energy is non-renewable.
view mrow's profile
I wish we could get off of which bulb is best, and focus even more effort to producing 100% clean energy. Here is a blog post I wrote about CFLs: http://thefeltmouse.blogspot.com/2008/01/environmental-myth-1-open-letter-to.html
(Note: I work in the waste management industry in California, and just to say - CFLs are a nightmare on our end)
view thefeltmouse's profile