a google search for
“mercury compact fluorescent”
provides the following link as the number one result:
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
I’m doubting anyone here has read this.
this document scientifically compares the amount of mercury released directly to the atmosphere through coal-based power production (without hope of containment) to that contained inside of CFL bulbs.
if you assumed a disastrous 100% of all CFL bulbs used were not recycled and compared that quantity of mercury to the amount that would have been released through power production for the amount of electricity saved through using CFL bulbs then you see the truth of which is the greater threat. admittedly, one broken bulb is still a pain to cleanup but the question of large-scale math and the greater good to humanity is obvious.
oh, and if mercury contamination is the subject, then why did the government recently delay regulation of mercury for decades? see this 2004 article on the subject:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001880929_mercury17.html
i just noticed that comment 12 did quote this link but only for the cleanup information. it is too bad that the primary point of the document demonstrating the net benefit of CFLs was ignored.
shallow-minded analysis on any topic with a bent towards twisting science to support a political position doesn’t help anyone. poor math and logic skills are not a conservative viewpoint and liberals are not the sole owners of all environmental causes.
when people speak as if any kind of logical pro-environment stance is really a pro-liberal pro-democrat position then they are actually smearing the good name of many sensible conservatives.