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 MSN Real Estate article tackles the myths--actually, 11 of them, a bonus top ten!--about CFLs and gives it to you straight.
Related posts:
- How to...clean up a broken CFL
- The best CFL? The winner is...
- Danny Seo's recommendation for the best CFL
- Wal-Mart's House Brand of CFL
-The great photo at the top of the post is called Environmental Treat, and was taken by j / f / Photos.
Originally posted by Kate on Unplggd.
Ashley & Kyle's Personality Packed Home 
How To: Upgrade a Wall Outlet to USB Functionality
Like us on Facebook
RSS Feed (Atom)
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Bracken Ridge Rug 13
12 Recipes to Know By Heart
Recipe: Steamed Chocolate Pudding Cakes
Comments (2)
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.
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)