On Sep 2, 8:08*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

Then you went on to prove my point... your "bad" indeed. *You wrote
"It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new
ones." *Nothing ambiguous there... you were dead wrong.

It does take more mercury, since it's a byproduct of the process. Sorry if
that destroys an argument that original bulbs are better. Since we're
replacing old bulbs with new, we should also move toward renewable energy,
since that's clearly a problem.

My, you have a short little attention span. It does *not* take more
mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass,
metal, and plastic content. In fact, it's a near certainty that the
CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it
is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech
bulb. Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY!

Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were
"better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false,
and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it
up.

Renewable energy? Another thread.

Now you can go back to sleep, bumper sticker slogan boy.