Tuesday, February 26, 2008

This was a response to a Beth Daley article on the benefits and draw backs to using florescent mercury laden energy efficient light bulbs:

I am on the side of green. I have used a few fluorescent (mercury laden) light bulbs but after reading your article, it is hard to fathom how advocates for using these bulbs think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The precautions one has to take if a florescent bulb breaks reminded me of something Homeland Security said to do if a terrorist uses poison gas. It made me think of duck and cover which we were told to do in the 1950's to safeguard ourselves from a nuclear blast. Those were ridiculous precautions that are laughable now. Now really, cutting carpet away, using rubber gloves, opening windows and using duct tape are some of the precautions one must take if a fluorescent light bulb breaks? Has anyone ever cleaned up after a glass has shattered? Cleaning up is not in slow motion. Do you think when we buy a light bulb anyone is thinking about using duct tape if it breaks? And what if a child breaks it and we do not even realize it's broken. All that time the child is inhaling mercury gas.

It's bad enough what we need to think about if there is, God forbid, another terrorist attack let alone using intense precautions cleaning up after a light bulb breaks. What if we happen not to have any rubber gloves, masks, duct tape or if we forget to open a window. My goodness it's a light bulb for God's sake.

Let me know when the geniuses who made these mercury-infused florescent light bulbs make one without mercury. Until then, sorry, no matter how green I am, it's the incandescent light bulb for me!