But this is pretty reassuring -- by switching to CFLs, you will reduce the demand for coal-fired electricity -- which will CERTAINLY put mercury in the air (burning coal releases mercury into the atmosphere):

CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury emissions from entering the environment
because they help to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. A coal-fired power
plant will emit 13.6 milligrams of mercury to produce electricity required to use an
incandescent light bulb, compared to 3.3 milligrams for a CFL.

Devvy Kidd wrote and spoke a lot about PPP's.  She would get very hot under the collar about it.  I think she is NO.  Here's her site.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd223.htm

I guess it's true you can't do two things at once, which is what I was doing last night when I wrote that the above is Devvy's site.  It's not, but the link to her site is at the bottom of that page.  She's a savvy lady and worth the read.

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Antyshemanic

... & MY ELECTRIC BILL WOULD SKYROCKET

I don't get it. Why would this be so?

Hi MaterDominici,
The immediate and inflexible reductions favored by environmental activists would essentially force an overwhelming number of power plants to switch from coal to natural gas.

Natural gas prices are almost three times above their historic averages. If a final mercury rule pushes electric generators to shift from reliable and abundant domestic coal resources to potentially less reliable and higher-cost natural gas, the result will be increased electricity prices and higher costs for home heating, food, and a host of consumer and industrial products."

I got that. I just didn't understand what that had to do with CFLs and how buying them would increase your electric bill. They still need electricity--preferably affordable electricity--just less of it than the usual light bulbs.

Low-energy light bulbs can cause rashes and swelling to sensitive skin, warn experts

By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 1:41 PM on 14th March 2009

excerpts:
The phasing out of traditional light bulbs could cause misery for thousands who have light-sensitive skin disorders, medical experts warned yesterday.

Dr Robert Sarkany said some low-energy bulbs gave vulnerable people painful rashes and swelling.
He backed calls by patient groups for the Government to give medical exemptions for those at risk.

Although low-energy bulbs cut household electricity bills, the move has proved unpopular with shoppers.
Halogens are more expensive - costing around £1.99 each - while critics say the fluorescent type have an unattractive harsh light and take up to a minute to warm up to full strength.

But medical charities say the light from low-energy bulbs triggers migraines, epilepsy and rashes.
Dr Sarkany, a photodermatologist at St John's Institute of Dermatology, St Thomas' Hospital, in London, said he has treated patients for rashes caused by exposure to low-energy lamps.

Some suffer from lupus, a disease of the immune system that can cause skin to become hypersensitive to sunlight.
But Dr Sarkany said lupus sufferers were also reporting an adverse reaction to fluorescent lights.

He added: 'Patients with lupus feel strongly about this. They feel their skin deteriorates with fluorescent lights and have taken this issue to Parliament.'

A spokesman for Skin Care Campaign said: 'The main concern is over the intensity of the ultraviolet light from low-energy bulbs.
'Particularly for people with skin conditions such as lupus, eczema and psoriasis, it causes a lot of problem with burning.
'There are also more unusual conditions where people are completely light-sensitive.

'At the moment, they can use a traditional incandescent light bulb because the ultraviolet light is so dim.
'But low-energy fluorescent lights are a problem.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161899/Low-energy-light-bulbs-cause-rashes-