Are Energy Efficient Light bulbs Really "Green"?

I know lots of people who are jumping on the bandwagon and converting all of their light bulbs in their houses to the new energy efficient light bulbs simply because they are "Green," a term used to define environmentally friendly products.  The media is constantly bombarding us with constant images of global warming (climate change), and asking us to conserve energy.  Sure, these light bulbs use fluorescent technology which is very energy efficient.  Switching to these bulbs will greatly reduce your energy bill and of coarse, and your house will not be as bright as it use to be.  The most common complaint is that these bulbs do not generate as much light as older light bulbs and the house will appear darker, but we are saving money and the environment right?

Most people are satisfied with lower energy bills and don't stop to think about the other side of the coin.  Yes, fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury vapor.  If you break one in your house, expect to spend upwards of $2,000 dollars to have a toxic waste crew come and rid your house of mercury (which can kill you very easily).  And what happens when you throw out those bulbs?  Throwing them in the trash will eventually lead them to become broken and the landfills will now be letting mercury seep into the ground water, which everybody knows ends up in our tap water.  So let me pose this question, are Compact Fluorescent Bulbs really "Green."  I say no, yes they save you money, but they are toxic to the environment and our health.  Apparently "Green" appears to mean cheaper or low cost in reality.  Recent news reports of tap water in New York being contaminated with prescription medication that people have thrown in their trash are quite scary.  Do we really want mercury mixed in our tap water as well?  Is it really worth the risk just to save a few dollars on our electric bill? Is that really "Green"?  It's quite ironic that people feel like they are saving the environment when really they are doing just as much damage or maybe more.  For the time being, I'm sticking with good old fashioned, bright, glass and metal light bulbs.          

Ghostbusters 3?

Its been awhile since I last wrote, its probably because nothing interesting has happened in the last 6 months.  But being the new year, I decided to at least make an attempt at some sort of blog to start the year.  So I decided to write about a thought that has been passing through my mind for the last year.  

For the last few years, most of the major hits at the movies have been sequels.  Recently studios and filmmakers have been going further back in time and releasing sequels to famous films.  It all started with the pre-quels so the "Star Wars" films.  They were very successful, and caused filmmakers to look back instead of trying to come up with an original ideas.  It wasn't long before there was talk of an other "Rocky" film.  It took awhile to materialize, but "Rocky Balboa" finally was released.  It did moderately well, and it wasn't long before "Die Hard 4" , and a "Ninja Turtles" came out.  The "Rambo 4" trailer has hit the theaters, and pretty soon the long awaited "Indiana Jones 4" will be coming out.

All this got me thinking, Ok, what will be the next one?  All the successful films from the 80's and early 90's had been done or will be released shortly.  But there was one childhood favorite that hasn't been mentioned yet, "Ghostbusters 3."  Ghostbusters was one of those films that took over my childhood and I'm probably sure it did to a lot of other people my age.  All I can find is that there are rumors of it possibly being in development, and that it could turn out to be an animated film like the new Ninja Turtles.  My hope is that the Ghostbusters will return to the screen in the next year or two.  It would be perfect for all the fans, make the series a trilogy, and it would be just awesome.