A CFL appears to have 4-5 mg of mercury, or 2.24×10^-5 mol (using 4.5 mg), or 1.3×10^18 molecules of Hg. That’s 13 followed by 17 zeros. For the Hg vapor in a CFL bulb to be bellow the 2 ppb it would need to be diffused in ~10^4 or 10,000 moles of air. At sea level one mole of air takes up about 25 Liters. So we need 250,000 Liters. Or about 1/4 a cubic decameter (10m x 10m x 10m, or 1000m^3, a 1500 sq. ft. home would have a volume of about 139m3). So, if you are anywhere near a CFL bulb and the time it breaks, you are almost certainly being over-exposed to Hg. Not to mention if you are the one doing the breaking you’re being exposed to this mercury possibly on your skin, and in a volume less than 1m^3.

So, given the choice between having a coal burning plant add some Hg to the atmosphere or water and have it diluted down to “safe” standards or have the coal burning plant release less Hg and risk a high concentration dose of Hg in my home, I choose the former.

Oh, and your last bit is a painfully stupid argument. I’m not sure people don’t want nuclear power because they are worried about a poorly built ex-soviet nuclear plant going into meltdown. I’m pretty sure the main reason is because no one knows what to do with the radio active waste (much like the mercury). However, I actually support nuclear power. And the difference between the two situations is simple: 1) I can’t tell the difference between nuclear and coal power. I can tell the difference between the two bulbs and don’t like the CFLs color. 2) The waste from a nuclear plant is not generated in my house. The radio active waste can be disposed of in an underground buncker until we finally decide to shoot it at the sun or something (not like there will be a lot of it anyway, sense nuclear power is so effecient). However, the toxic mercury is in my house. And I don’t really need my pregnant wife breaking a bulb one day.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of the government making choices for me. This is a FREE country, and I want it to remain as such.

Yes, many CFLs are junk, and fail quickly. However, energystar rating requirements include mercury content limits, minimum startup times (1 sec to light, 8 sec to 90% brigthness, if I recall correctly), and life expectancy minimums, as well as the expected efficiency requirements.

CFLs come in several light “temperatures” resulting in reddish to bluish tints (Our high temperature (bluish) floodlight makes it seem almost like moonlight in our yard.), so the color issue shouldn’t be a big one. Additionally, some CFLs work with dimming, although you have to look a bit to find them.

I do not in any way support the move to ban incandescents any more than a move to require airbags for everyone, especially the 5′-1″ woman who couldn’t have hers removed professionally even when pregnant and having already had a fetus killed by an airbag.

However, the mercury issue is a bit overblown, and the use of references to obsolete and poorly built CFLs to damage the performance image of CFLs overall is the same method presently being used to discredit the construction of nuclear plants.