QUOTING (NOT AGREEING) here:
“Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures. Should government (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of the world) impose on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill?” -- Steven Milloy, editor of Junk Science, 4/30/07
Wow. Environmentalists AND Wal-Mart? Not often you see those two things lumped together as part of a right-wing consiracy about government control. This has been discussed many places before, but seems to be coming up more often. There was a high-profile case in Maine about someone being told to hire a contractor for $2000 to clean up a broken bulb. Not necessary, but it is important to be careful with these bulbs.
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but to me the answer is clear:
USE CFLs. (Indeed, they are the ONLY type of bulb we use at our house; solar power requires low loads). They also reduce emissions from coal-burning power plants in an important, significant way.
BE CAREFUL WHEN HANDLING THEM. They do contain a small amount of mercury. Use care when cleaning up a broken bulb.
RECYCLE THEM WHEN THEY BURN OUT. We're lucky in MN that there are lots of options for doing so; hope it will get easier all over the country soon.
It's as simple as that. It's NOT a governmental conspiracy for "denial of lighting choices". Sheesh!