CFl's vs Incadescent, which is better?

Question

How many people believe CFL's are more dangerous than standard incadescent bulbs and why?

Answer 1

In some instances, CFLs are better.  In others, incandescents are.  Places where the light is going to be on for longer periods of time on a frequent basis are good candidates for CFLs.  Places where a light is used infrequently, in cold locations, where a light will be turned on and off frequently, or where it will only be on a short period of time are better places for incandescents.

The amount of mercury in CFLs is negligible.  Most ordinary lightbulbs also contain trace amounts of it too.

Answer 2

We've used fluorescent lighting for quite some time. Why are the idiots just starting to crawl out from under their rocks now just because we have a more compact shape for the tubes?

Answer 3

They definitely have dangerous levels of lead and stuff in the ballasts and phosphors.  DO NOT EAT OLD CFLS TO DISPOSE OF THEM!

Seriously, there are only a couple milligrams of mercury in a modern CFL.  The EPA standard for mercury exposure is on the order of milligrams per cubic meter, so the amount of mercury is going to be trifling unless you break several of them in one room and don't clean them up.  The mercury in the CFL is less than the mercury released by the burning of coal to run a standard lamp, and the coal plant puts its mercury into the air and not a landfill.

Don't worry about name-brand CFLs (but STAY AWAY from cheap junk brands like Lights of America and Feit).

Answer 4

Neither.  Use LEDs because they are brighter and last a long time.

Answer 5

CFL

  Mercury, lead, Phosphor coating, fragile, and the light produced by them is hard on the eyes.

  They produce heat and if you haven’t noticed already the frequencies produced by them both in the 60Hz band and EMI affect computers and electronic equipment