here we go have another read when you get the time, maybe you will find this interesting.
http://www.predictweather.com/ozone%...tion/index.asp

 

I gave it a read, and there is nothing backed up with any facts, just opinions from a web site that is sponsered by ski resorts. Heres some verifible facts and resources. You can look at any chemical information data sheet and take a look at all of these things Ive mentioned regarding, chemical formula, toxicity, atmospheric lifetime, etc. All of these facts and more are compiled for all chemical compounds. Also, check out the United States Environmental Protection Agency site for information regarding the Myths surrounding the facts that pertain to CFC's, with links and resources regarding the Ozone depletion and its correlation to higher UV levels, again these are verifiable facts as opposed to an opinion listed on an anonomous website.

 

the link didn't come through try that again, but in reading also please not that active volcanos which are natural spew out more ozone depleting chlorine gases in one day, than all of the cfc's that are man made do in 10yrs, and a jet taking off produces more than all of the cars combined yet they aren't restricting jet emissions, and this is my point from the beginning this is about money not the enviorment, oh and yes I have read the epa's web site, and the second link I sent refutes it and states that all of the scare tactics are to attract money it is a very good read

 

oh one last thing is a little back ground I was married to a researcher (she was an animal research but the principle of what I am saying are the same), and I watched as the data was crunched and crunched until it supported your "facts" to justify getting yet another grant to further research it. in other words if they came out, and said "welll we were wrong" then they would all be out of a job, so they have to keep finding things to research. And on other thing that was found out is methane gas is a "greenhouse gas", and one of the major contibutors to it in this country is cows when they belch, so maybe we should kill all the cows

 

OK, your right, all of that mainstram stuff is just to pull the wool over our eyes, we should all believe the obscure website in New Zealand funded by ski resorts, thats pretty rock solid evidence there, one lone professor and his thories, wow
I tend to believe the scietific facts that exist as to what those chemical coumpounds are and their toxicity data as scietifically listed and proven. You can find unbiased common listings as to these chemicals, like on a msds sheet, not from one whacked out professor that doesnt believe the rest of the world. You think that all scientific data and EPA data is wrong and rubbish, humm, sorry, thats not too believable to most.
You know, I ran into someone that thought the elimination of DDT was all a scam too. It truely is one thing at a time, and everything we do works to help establish a safer place with much longer life spans for my children, but I would guess you dont believe our longer life spans are attributed to all those who believe in making a difference. Like I said before, I live here in the Bay and have seen the difference of the efforts you try to say dont exist, sorry your wrong. Maybe its hard to tell the differnce in iowa, but not here!

 

Ya know boys, there's an A/C forum a few up from this one.

 

I have to go with monsterbaby on this one. If you think for one minute the whole thing is not driven by money, you are fooling yourself. Let some dingbat liberal researcher come out with a paper condemning paper plates, and the soccer moms go nuts about it. Case in point, a few years back, there was a big to-do about Alar (a fungicide) used on apples, to keep them from rotting. Enviro-tech/nuts went ballistic. The government held hearings. Who did they bring before a senate subcommittee to testify? Meryl Streep. Meryl Streep?!? What in god's creation does she know about anything? Now she's an expert on chemistry and food safety? She sat there crying in front of the cameras (an acting job, possibly?) wringing her hands and telling everyone about how this was going to kill 'the children'. My point is, it doesn't matter what the subject, people respond with a knee jerk reaction. CFC's are no different. Are they completely harmless? Probably not. Is the government's reaction correct? Probably not.

 

Well, theres been no change in the chemical formula on these two refrigerants,so to make an educated statement regarding this, look at the two formulas for these and then provide scientific proof that R12 does not possess the phisical data and ozone depletion associated with this chemical compound, you cant because it doesnt exist. Your putting your faith in some far reaching idea that its all about money, kinda a knee jerk reaction.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................... ...........................

 

Well I guess you are absolutly right, and the several hundred web site that say other wise are also wrong, I mean you ended all discussion when you pointed to the epa web site after all we know the goverment would never ever lie to us for political or monetary gain, and those people that work at epa would never try, and hide facts that dispute thier findings to keep their $60k-$150k per year jobs, and infact I am quit sure that they would gladly give up those jobs, and the tens of billions of dollars they control if there was any evidence that what they say wasn't absolutly true, and we know that no big company like dupont exxon, or shell have ever donated any money to politicians to get them to put in laws that would benifit them. and of coarse sierra club hasn't taken several million dollars from corperations, and green peace wasn't funded by a KGB sponsered shell co. so I guess I was just wrong in all my thinking, and of coarse you are right we have no emissions laws in Iowa, and we can't hardly breath half the year expetially in comparison the the great clean air you have in calif.

 

94F150-408, I think you would have more fun on the sierra club website. Or, greenpeace. Maybe even ELF.

 

monsterbaby, maybe you wouldent be able to breath in iowa if there was enough people that lived there to create any smog. We live here and like it, theres more to look at than corn here too.

I'm waiting for you guys to show me verifiable proof, not some cheesy website in New Zealand as to R12's chemical compound being different to what I have said and that the coumpound does not have the properties and data assosiated with it as stated?? Try looking at a refrigerant supply house web site, even they have all of the associated safety data listed for the refrigerants and guess what? The safety data there even lists these same things! So your information comes from what sources?

 

ok first off I am not saying that the compound of R12 is any different than what you say I am saying that it is not affecting the ozone layer, now prove to me that R134a is not deadly compound.
next this started over you saying that I must be nuts (or something to that affect) when I stated that money is the main factor in the laws not enviro benifits, and appearently my post have confused you so I will make this short
The laws are written because of monetary considerations, not enviro benifits, if there is a benifit it is by accident. If this was not the case then explain the following
Big corparations can buy pollution credits by crushing cars that don't even run, and never polluted nearly as much as the plant does.
The goverment has a exemption for thier equipment.
Airplanes are not required to met any emissions laws even though they pollute much more than several hundred cars do in a year on every flight, and fly much closer to the ozone layer, and still use R12.
And why isn't urban sprawl banned, they are tearing out trees, grass, crops, and shrubs that help to clean up the air, just so some yuppie can have his fancy house instead of rebuilding parts of the city that are vacated because it is not a fashionable idea to live there, instead of tearing down the old buildings, and starting over.

and lastly if you really believe this why do you have a truck, and why are you on the computor do you have any idea what kinda chemicals were used to produce that thing some of the most dangerous chemicals known to man, and I didn't get that from some web site but from 3yrs of working in a silicon wafer production facility in WA state so I have lived on the west coast for about 27yrs.

 

Please, get real, if nothing is done then everything gets worse. Your always going to find someone like yourself that only sees the bad in anything, not the good. Good luck.

 

94F150, I get it now, this is a joke. I can see how much you care for the environment, because you don't use electricity. I'll bet you own a truck and don't drive it, because of the fear of polluting the air? You know, your viewpoints are moot. Claiming everything from clear-cutting trees on private land, to who knows what is ruining the earth. Here are some irrefutable facts: You obviously burn hydrocarbon fuels. You obviously use electricity, probably generated by fossil fuels or (gasp!) nuclear power. You use paper products and wood. Is there anything I'm missing here? Now, I don't fault you for using the same things I do, but your ilk, (enviro-whako, I'll have to expect) point the finger at everyone and everything you don't like. If all modern conveniences are so bad, why do you go on using/polluting if you KNOW what the consequenses are? Like I said, I'm on to you, and I know it's a joke. C'mon over for a big hug.