Are compact fluorescent bulbs still a bright idea?

Amessica wrote:

It's a scam. There is NOTHING wrong with that 99c 4-pack of basic light bulbs. The greedies just want to bilk us out of even more money. I am stocking up on these cheap bulbs so I will have plenty for a long time! hee hee

BCD wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't see what is so green about a lightbuld that contains mercury, a poison. I really doubt people are gonna drive these to a special recycling center and pay a $1/bulb to throw them away. 99.9% are gonna get thrown in the trash. Plus, flourescents still throw a weird light that makes everything look like crap.
Instead of eating less to lose weight, people in this county try to find ways to eat more (fat free, reduced carb, etc.)
Instead of reducing consumption and packaging to help the environment, we try to find better ways to throw all the crap away we buy (recycling).

rawdibob wrote:

Compact Flourscent Lights - just another Liberal bad idea
But no where as harmful as welfare or restorative justice.

Mike wrote:

First, it would do the writer of this story well to read up on recycling CFL bulbs before sending a story like this off for publishing. A simple Google search asking how or where to recycle CFL bulbs would reveal to you that there is in fact a great way to recycle CFL bulbs at Home Depot. And since you're in the news business, and this has been in the news (happened a few weeks ago -- somehow the NY Times managed to find this out and report on it) you should have known.
It's extremely misleading to say, "However, there aren't many recycling centers available. At some county hazardous waste collection sites you have to pay about $1 per bulb to recycle CFLs," when in fact, there are around a thousand Home Depot Stores nationwide that will accept CFL bulbs for recycling for free.
The omission basically renders the writer's statements that there are not many recycling centers available and that it is as costly as $1 each, when Home Depot is offering this for free at all of its stores completely false.
Where were you and your editors on this? You have probably hundreds of blogs out there covering this story, and the Tribune can't get its facts straight? If you're going to write about the environment and deride a method of improving one's environmental impact, perhaps by using CFLs, you had better read up on the news happening around you!
Another regrettable omission is that while CFLs can release toxic mercury over their life span, they reduce the amount of mercury that otherwise would have been spewed from coal-burning power plants because of the larger amount of electricity the incandescent bulbs that the CFLs replace would have demanded more coal being burned.
Furthermore, it's as if the writer has never tried CFLs and is writing about the very first ones put on the market many years ago. The current day CFL bulbs produce a much warmer light and sometimes have a second or two delay -- hardly enough time to make a bed. Let us not be sensational in our reporting, please -- I use CFLs throughout my home and the quality of light produced is hardly different from the incandescent bulbs I replaced. Please do your research before writing another such story.
If you did not know it, we're facing energy source shortages, energy price increases, and global warming -- if a reader had been considering purchasing CFLs and read your story, that's a shame, because you failed to give the whole story on the topic. You omitted details that rendered some of your "facts" false. Be ashamed for your low-quality reporting and do better next time -- people look to the Tribune for quality guidance on such issues, and in this case, your reporting is frankly irresponsible.

Amessica wrote:

It's a scam. There is NOTHING wrong with that 99c 4-pack of basic light bulbs. The greedies just want to bilk us out of even more money. I am stocking up on these cheap bulbs so I will have plenty for a long time! hee hee

Amessica wrote:

It's a scam. There is NOTHING wrong with that 99c 4-pack of basic light bulbs. The greedies just want to bilk us out of even more money. I am stocking up on these cheap bulbs so I will have plenty for a long time! hee hee

Mike wrote:

First, it would do the writer of this story well to read up on recycling CFL bulbs before sending a story like this off for publishing. A simple Google search asking how or where to recycle CFL bulbs would reveal to you that there is in fact a great way to recycle CFL bulbs at Home Depot. And since you're in the news business, and this has been in the news (happened a few weeks ago -- somehow the NY Times managed to find this out and report on it) you should have known.
It's extremely misleading to say, "However, there aren't many recycling centers available. At some county hazardous waste collection sites you have to pay about $1 per bulb to recycle CFLs," when in fact, there are around a thousand Home Depot Stores nationwide that will accept CFL bulbs for recycling for free.
The omission basically renders the writer's statements that there are not many recycling centers available and that it is as costly as $1 each, when Home Depot is offering this for free at all of its stores completely false.
Where were you and your editors on this? You have probably hundreds of blogs out there covering this story, and the Tribune can't get its facts straight? If you're going to write about the environment and deride a method of improving one's environmental impact, perhaps by using CFLs, you had better read up on the news happening around you!
Another regrettable omission is that while CFLs can release toxic mercury over their life span, they reduce the amount of mercury that otherwise would have been spewed from coal-burning power plants because of the larger amount of electricity the incandescent bulbs that the CFLs replace would have demanded more coal being burned.
Furthermore, it's as if the writer has never tried CFLs and is writing about the very first ones put on the market many years ago. The current day CFL bulbs produce a much warmer light and sometimes have a second or two delay -- hardly enough time to make a bed. Let us not be sensational in our reporting, please -- I use CFLs throughout my home and the quality of light produced is hardly different from the incandescent bulbs I replaced. Please do your research before writing another such story.
If you did not know it, we're facing energy source shortages, energy price increases, and global warming -- if a reader had been considering purchasing CFLs and read your story, that's a shame, because you failed to give the whole story on the topic. You omitted details that rendered some of your "facts" false. Be ashamed for your low-quality reporting and do better next time -- people look to the Tribune for quality guidance on such issues, and in this case, your reporting is frankly irresponsible.