David, that was beautiful. I think I'll print your post out and hang it on
the wall!!It's funny I had something written out but deleted it. My post
stated everything you said, even the volcano analogy!! I was in HVAC school
a few years back and had to take the FED EPA test (40 CFR 82) in order to
purchase refrigerants. The teacher who gave the test basically told us that
he knew a lot of the statements made in the test about CFC's were not true,
but we had to use the government's (EPA's) answers to pass the test!!!
John McKinney
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Gloff [SMTP:dgloff@xnet.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 10:09 AM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: Re: DML: emission laws and stupid crap!
>
> 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