Excellent overview of potential hazards when breaking a compact fluorescent lightbulb. The article provides good evidence from multiple sources that suggests that although mercury vapors and powder are toxic, the risk of poisoning is rather low -- and that compact fluorescents actually reduce mercury pollution from coal-fired plants. Highly recommended.

First ethanol, now compact fluorescents; what's next?

While seemingly banal, this is actually a well-written informative story. There are many misconceptions about CFLs, and this article clearly address the real dangers and advantages.

Probably could have explained the harm of mercury more, especially after implying that there may have been only one known case. I definitely got information from this.

This is a reasonably well balanced article: caution on mercury release from compact flourescent bulbs tempered by perspective on the low risk actually presented mixed with perspective on the relative level of mercury released from bulbs versus coal power plants.

An interseting article that covers possible problems for compact florescent lights.

Interesting topic!

This magazine seems to have jumped on the "provacative headline" bandwagon...it gets irritating after a while.

The danger of all toxic substances is greatly exaggerated. As a kid I used to play with some mercury and spilled it on the floor a few times. I'm still going strong at 66. There does exist a type of coal plant with very little pollution, mercury and otherwise. This is Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC). Mercury pollution is cut by 95% and the stack gases are well suited for sequestration because they are not contaminated with large volumes of nitrogen. The jackass Harry Reid pledged to prevent construction of these plants because he thinks we should use wind and solar.

The article is a bit misleading. Mercury is toxic, and finding the 5 mg of it that spills out of a broken bulb might be tough. In the lab we sprinkle sulfur on mercury spills - the sulfur reacts with the mercury to reduce its vapor pressure and minimize its impact. Also, the mercury released at a power plant is a long way from you, whereas the mercury released with a broken bulb is right in your home, so it is much more likely to be ingested and the danger is greater. I am not convinced it is worth the health risk to have mercury bulbs in my home.

Very good explanatory piece.

Matson does a good job presenting evidence on his topic and even providing a solution. However, his content shifts towards the end leaving the reader slightly confused on what they're reading.

In context I am in my late 70’s and a retired engineer. Some 55 years ago during lab work in college we handled mercury doing various experiments. Then its toxicity was not appreciated so we did our work bare handed and not especially well ventilated. Nevertheless a sufficient number of my brain cells survived to afford me a reasonably successful career in engineering and my health has enabled me to reach my present state of antiquity. This is not to knock the EPA or to say that mercury vapor in the atmosphere is not a bad thing. They have however set the tolerance limits very low; as they should. An occasional contact or two in a lifetime is nothing to panic about.

The article is a little sensationalist in raising several scary problems (including in the title), before providing the balancing information each time. Otherwise it works reasonably well as a brief piece. It could provide the core of a broader article giving more information.

This story ducks obvious questions, such as "How bad is it to have a bulb break in my house?" and "Will people get much more mercury because of the bulbs?" Instead it recycles the information that's been around for a while, picking one set of advice to least contradictory. It makes logic blunders, such comparing mercury released inside a house (which humans are likely to absorb) to mercury released from power plants.

While the topic is interesting, it didn't go into enough detail when specifying potential health consequences. It only presented the results of one case of accidental exposure when if it'd presented perhaps several more or maybe listed some general symptoms of exposure, it would have been more informative.

Its an eye awakening article, sometime we use stuff without knowing any pros or cons. But now it is time to look around and safe our environment.

These light blubs have a danger that I was not aware of. I know they save alot of energy but this story makes me think that we are just solving one problem with another one. Between the mercry threat to a child's health and the problem with disposing of them properly I think it is evident that there is a real need for more reasearch on an alternative light source.