From what I've read up on this no, they don't pose any particular problems, it's more common for people to be affected by the hum and high frequency flicker which can cause those susceptible to it audio/visual related problems (migraines and so on). The UV that's part of full-spectrum bulbs (which are more expensive that standard CFLs) is an essential part of the light therapy that's used to sort out various
Seasonal Affective Disorder (SADs) related issues.
And yes, the Wiki page is correct, 'technically' they are supposed to undergo specialist handling because of their designation as containing hazardous materials. As you would expect pretty much anyone that 'profits' from the forced use of CFLs underplays the potential dangers involved (typically by saying the amount of mercury is equivalent to the top of a ballpoint pen and therefor of negligible concern), the public face of the UK Government is no exception, both
Direct.gov and
DEFRA suggest letting the room air for 15 minutes of so and (to paraphrase) being careful picking up broken glass (what they don't say is "broken glass contaminated with mercury"). Contrast that with what the
EPA has to say about mercury spills over the pond in the USA.
In both instances it's somewhat surprising the see nothing about the fact that Mercury bio-accumulates. Nor is there anything on wearing (latex) gloves or any other protective gear when cleaning up breakages or spills; the talking points used contextually refer to the effects of individual light bulbs and not the dozens that a typical household has in it at any given time, the tens of dozens or even hundreds that may be used over the lifetime of residential occupancy and the number of breakages that would mean on average, especially in a house with rambunctious kids knocking about, banging into things (this add credence to the report by Alab, individual bulbs may be a little concern, but cumulatively their effects may be more noticeable or prominent).
The interesting reason why the UK Governments at least appear to allow the use of CFLs is to do with the way hazardous materials are assessed; they do it based on whether the materials contained are greater than the sum of the parts relative to known toxicological limits. For example, the back light in a laptop screen is considered hazardous waste by itself, but the moment that screen gets put together with other components, the toxic material,
by volume, is considered inconsequential
relative to the overall volume of the item so it can be deemed 'safe'[
ref. Sec.4.2.1, pp31 (study didn't test CFLs but the company behind this study is responsible for the recommendation made to DEFRA and then on to GCHQ which filter back down to local municipal waste facilities [council and privately run] on the handling of hazardous materials in the UK)].