Green but Toxic: CFL Bulbs

Does it really save 75% more energy? While researching a new PC that got canned. I bought a meter to measure usage and found that CFL bulbs use only 13 watts less then a incandescent. EG a 60 watt CFL used 47 watts and not the 13 claimed on the package. I know the meter is correct since a 25 watt Inc measured 24 watts of usage and a 75 watt bulb used 75. BTW pc that got canned used only 100 watts, 24 inch display and duo core process in one with an aluminun case, that once the mbd needs to be replace with hard another mbd could placed inside of it and the display panel can also be replaced. FYI average pc and lcd monitor uses 200 or more watts. True savings in energy are led bulbs and have 5 and love them.

Who knew? I think I'm doing well to change my burned out bulbs over to CFL's -- then I read this. Thanks for sharing the 'dirty little secret'.
10 years from now this will be a big problem because people will just toss them out with the trash.

I did some research into this because I was concerned. The most reputable green advocates are pretty clear that the benefits of using CFLs outweigh the risks.

It's a cost benefit analysis. Regular light bulbs probably ultimately add more mercury to the environment because they use more energy, energy that is created by mercury spewing power plants. It seems that CFL's are better for the environment, especially if we dispose of them properly and not in the normal trash. It would be cool if big stores like WalMart and Home Depot had places where people could drop off used CFL's. Right now it's up to people to take them to a hazardous waste drop-off.

Agreed, Amanda. Every time we discover something good, it seems like we find out three bad things about it too. I had no idea - thanks for sharing this with us.

Wow...I'm totally looking into this. Thanks for the tip. Why is it that one new product is never the true fix to the other? It seems like there is always something bad to balance out its good qualities.