I know an air conditioning man when a chemistry degree..don't ask. Anyway he
agrees with what you say about R-12 and has something to add about R-13a. It's
an explosive and very easy to get it to do its thing to. He told me if an air
compressor ever failed and started to heat up it blow up a car like a bomb. I
don't have any proof about this but it did give me something to think about.
BTW, if R-12 is so bad why is the auto industry the only industry that uses it
having to use something else. Youo can't tell me that all of the home and
commercial a/c systems and the factories that use and even all of the refrig's
that use it don't leak it. Just another opinion.
Jeff durling
'96 RC Sport
David Gloff 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 - 12:15:28 EDT