On Sep 2, 9:04*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

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!

What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the
atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury??

Non-sequitur. Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB,
so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with
the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB
contains mercury, and you're just wrong.


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.

No. You just are supporting the argument.

No. Your grey matter is failing you. Horse, water, drink. Giddyup.