About 7 years ago, when the whole R-12 "issue" came about, there was an
article that described the MAIN reason for the banning of R-12.
Not because of the Ozone depletion, but rather to prevent some of those
drug junkies from making Cocaine and/or Crack Cocaine. (R-12 is used as a
coolant in the process.) How they do it...well, I'm no drug lord or junkie
so I really don't care.
The environmentalists are the ones that have been giving most of the
companies a hard time. So I just have a few things to say about them:
(1) I wear Leather...Boots, Jackets, and Love it on my recliner
(2) Beef...The ONLY real meat!
(3) Don't club baby seals with wooden bats (Use aluminum...it's cheaper and
more effective)
(4) Don't throw your cans into a lake...fill'em up with water so they'll
sink to the bottom
(5) Don't like my smoking...Don't breathe
Later Y'all
(Ducking like hell now) ;)
At 12:08 PM 07/29/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>Hate to burst everyone's bubble here, but R-12 was not banned because it
>depletes the ozone. There has never been any conclusive evidence that it
>does so. In fact, simple studies have actually shown that r-12 is LESS
>destructive than the "approved" R-134a. The SINGLE reason it was outlawed
>is because DuPont's patents were less than 2 years from expiration, and
>the company and the US economy stood to lose a lot of money when the
>rights to produce Freon became public domain. Therefore, a faulty study
>needed to be cooked up to declare it "unsafe" so that a new coolant (with
>a new 30+ year patent cycle) could be sold. Nevermind the fact that
>R-134a costs significantly more than R-12 did, and doesn't work half as
>well (the primary reason why my 99 dakota's air isn't anywhere near as
>cold as the air in my father's 88 Camry). Finally, just to make sure
>that every environmentalist is upset by this post <sic>, I'll let the
>last cat out of the bag. There is no "ozone depletion" taking place. The
>measured levels of upper-atmosphere ozone have been steadily increasing
>since the early 70's. CFC's (the most often maligned destroyer of ozone,
>which it is fully capable of doing--in a laboratory) are approximately
>20-400x as heavy as the gaseous molecules that make up our atmosphere, and
>therefore could not possibly reach the upper atmosphere in great enough
>quantities to make any appreciable impact. About the only thing one could
>blame on them is destroying ground-level ozone, and preventing us from
>being poisoned by it (ozone is toxic when inhaled by animals, including
>us). Finally, let's assume for a moment that ALL of the CFC's and other
>ozone-unfriendly chemicals that have ever been released have ended up in
>the ozone layer and destroyed some O3. Even assuming that (which is
>impossible), man, in his entire history, has not released nearly as much
>of these depletors as in 1 good-sized volcano eruption, of which there are
>dozens (if not hundreds) every year.
>
>Not trying to rag on everybody, but one of my big pet peeves is radical
>environmentalism. Don't get me wrong, I recycle, and wouldn't dump waste
>or harmful chemicals anywhere. I don't mind being responsible and taking
>care of what we have. What irks me is when lies are manufactured by
>corporations, the government, or "special interest groups" (greenpeace is
>a big offender here, as is the EPA) decide that a certain thing is now
>dangerous and must be stopped, for no reason other than political or
>monetary gain.
>
>Off the soapbox. Flames and comments welcome. :-)
>
>David Gloff
>Computer Technician
>Valcom Professional Computer Center; Kemper/Scudder/Zurich Funds
>aolim: dgloff
>Loaded Intense Blue '99 Dakota Sport CC 318 5-speed 3.92SG
>
>"This is a litigation-free zone. Prosecutors will be Violated."
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:15:25 EDT