[Keith R]

Actually, MommC, some of what you just posted is not accurate and has been making the rounds of the internet for several months now, often citing a "reported" example case in Maine that, once researched, was found to be made up.

Yes, I've read the labels -- we have a growing number of CFLs in my home and I've always been funny about reading the entire label on nearly everything (foods, packaging, etc.). Much of that language on the CFLs frankly is overdone CYA stuff for markets like the US, where they want to ensure that they cannot be sued for not including enough warnings to consumers.

Don't get me wrong -- I am in no way downplaying the health and eco-toxic risks of mercury. I've done quite a bit of writing on batteries, lamps and mercury-containing products, so I'm pretty familiar with the studies and other literature.

CFLs have far less mercury in them than do the fluorescent tubes that have been used for decades -- about 5 milligrams. As a point of comparison, that old fashioned thermometer you may still have around the house has 500 milligrams.

Individually CFLs are not a significant health or waste risk. The "protective gear" needed to clean up a broken CFL may be little more than the Playtex gloves some ladies use when washing dishes.

And the water contamination thing is often overblown -- I've seen people claim repeatedly that that one "button" battery (such as the one in your watch) contains enough mercury to contaminate a large lake, yet no one can point to the scientific study that supports the claim. And these button batteries often contain more milligrams of mercury (up to 25 mg) than does the average CFL...

Where CFLs may pose a problem is when there is massive improper disposal of very large quantities of them, so that tiny amount of mercury will become sizable in the aggregate. With many countries, as you correctly point out, encouraging or even mandating (such as Australia) a switch to CFLs in the name of energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, at some point this is going to become a disposal headache for those nations. This is particularly true for countries like Brazil, the DR, much of the Caribbean and Central America, which do not have adequate handling and disposal infrastructure for hazardous wastes and no collection system to speak of for "universal" wastes (products with hazardous materials that we use commonly in the home and/or office in small quantities that, at end of product life and in the aggregate, become an environmental problem if not properly handled, treated and recovered or disposed.

BTW, the common argument for utilizing CFLs to reduce "carbon footprint" (lower GHG emissions) presumes an electricity generation base heavily dependent on coal and/or petroleum. The argument goes, if you use less electricity, they use less of these fuels to generate power and the attendant emissions drop. The reasoning is less valid for countries such Costa Rica, where the majority of electricity is generated from renewable alternative energy sources (hydro, geothermal, solar, wind) whose GHG emissions are low or none.

Also, unless other energy savings and energy efficiency measures are also introduced, there's always the chance that any savings gained from widespread use of CFLs will be offset by higher consumption elsewhere in the economy.