Out with Fluorescent Light Bulbs...back in with Incandescent.

Reader comment on: Light Bulb Laws

Submitted by Jdcc (United States), Jun 10, 2011 01:28

Incandescent maybe inefficient, but they don't emit deadly, toxic mercury as you sit under them, and you have to get rid of them like you do oil and other toxins...PEOPLE Wake Up...This is BS about the darn incandescent lightbulb...and it doesn't emit deadly and poisonous mercury or lead as do the Fluorescent....would you rather be sitting under a lightbulb that gives a nice rosy glow and is not bad for your eyes and doesn't poison you with mercury and other toxins...or would you rather sit under a fluorescent light bulb that the darn president and the big corporations want us to sit under that will eventually make you ill...and weaken your eyesight.


Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
Answer to R Kennerly on "saving power plants" etc [116 words]lighthouseJan 30, 2012 17:05
light bulb bills [24 words]lighthouseJan 30, 2012 16:32
...and CFL Warranty not match Lifespan claims [72 words]lighthouseJan 30, 2012 16:29
Very odd stance [103 words]rick kennerlyJul 8, 2011 08:44
re "saving power plants" [111 words]lighthouseJan 30, 2012 16:42
⇒ Out with Fluorescent Light Bulbs...back in with Incandescent. [112 words]JdccJun 10, 2011 01:28
South Carolina loves nullification! [161 words]LyleJun 2, 2011 16:59

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Out with Fluorescent Light Bulbs...back in with Incandescent. by Jdcc

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.