Evidence exists that the polar vortex is a natural phenomenon and existed
before cfc's were widely used. Has to do with the large temperature
variation between the Antarctic continent and the surrounding ocean...the
land mass is supercooled during the Antarctic winter, and the increased
temperature varaiation causes massive upper-level winds that disperse the
atmospheric ozone over the Antarctic.

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:gFLoe.45991$G8.39387@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> well, I have no idea. However, to quote NASA:
>
> "but the link between CFC's and Ozone depletion, and the major factors
> creating the antarctic ozone hole, are considered by most researchers to
> be
> well established facts"
>
> Consequently, until I can be bothered to get a Chemistry degree, I'll err
> on
> the side of caution and do my best to tread lightly.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:11a6vrk2n9nho1f@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
>> news:TfEoe.45712$G8.29587@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>> > I'm sure volcanoes will feel responsible and penitent if we start
>> > starving...
>> > It's like throwing litter - just because a place is untidy, that
>> > doesn't
>> > give us an excuse to make it worse. It's part of treading lightly in my
>> > book.
>>
>> but there is _no_ scientific evidence of refrigerant causing the
>> depletion
>> of the ozone. in fact, the atomic weight of chlorine is heavier than air
>> making it nearly impossible for it to ever reach the ozone anyway. it
>> all
>> boils down to money. when duponts patent expired on 12, suddenly it was
>> deemed "bad" for the environment.
>>
>> --
>> Nathan W. Collier
>> http://7SlotGrille.com
>> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
>>
>>
>
>

 

You're the kind of liberal that gives the rest of us a bad name. Rush is a
pompous ***, so I didn't even know he had agreed with it.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s50.htm

The theory is the cfc's break down spontaneously (some of the most
chemically stable compounds known) and release free clorine that "eat away"
ozone.


"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9WGoe.70$%j7.32@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:DImdnaVmn6KtkT7fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>> Don't forget that the single biggest source of atmospheric fluorocarbons
> are
>> volcanoes.
>
> You are ignorant, or confused, or both.... or
> just evil :)
>
> Volcanos don't spew flourocarbons... you're
> thinking of Rush Limbaugh, aren't you? Well,
> megadittoes to you! Anyway, volcanos spew
> HCl, or hydrochloric acid. This stuff is very
> reactive and water-soluble and is purged
> from the atmosphere readily. *Chlorinated*
> fluorocarbons like R12, R22, Freon(tm) et al
> have an atmospheric half-life of around 100
> years... this is how they get up to the stratosphere
> and are broken down by UV, releasing the chlorine
> where it can do the most damage to the ozone
> layer.
>
> In other words, I urge everyone to *forget* that
> volcanos are the 'single biggest source of
> atmospheric fluorocarbons'... utter nonsense.
> Don't be a ditto head... educate yourself.
>
> http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs...nt98/faq3.html
> __
> Steve
> .
>
>

 

You're the kind of liberal that gives the rest of us a bad name. Rush is a
pompous ***, so I didn't even know he had agreed with it.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s50.htm

The theory is the cfc's break down spontaneously (some of the most
chemically stable compounds known) and release free clorine that "eat away"
ozone.


"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9WGoe.70$%j7.32@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:DImdnaVmn6KtkT7fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>> Don't forget that the single biggest source of atmospheric fluorocarbons
> are
>> volcanoes.
>
> You are ignorant, or confused, or both.... or
> just evil :)
>
> Volcanos don't spew flourocarbons... you're
> thinking of Rush Limbaugh, aren't you? Well,
> megadittoes to you! Anyway, volcanos spew
> HCl, or hydrochloric acid. This stuff is very
> reactive and water-soluble and is purged
> from the atmosphere readily. *Chlorinated*
> fluorocarbons like R12, R22, Freon(tm) et al
> have an atmospheric half-life of around 100
> years... this is how they get up to the stratosphere
> and are broken down by UV, releasing the chlorine
> where it can do the most damage to the ozone
> layer.
>
> In other words, I urge everyone to *forget* that
> volcanos are the 'single biggest source of
> atmospheric fluorocarbons'... utter nonsense.
> Don't be a ditto head... educate yourself.
>
> http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs...nt98/faq3.html
> __
> Steve
> .
>
>

 

You're the kind of liberal that gives the rest of us a bad name. Rush is a
pompous ***, so I didn't even know he had agreed with it.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s50.htm

The theory is the cfc's break down spontaneously (some of the most
chemically stable compounds known) and release free clorine that "eat away"
ozone.


"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9WGoe.70$%j7.32@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:DImdnaVmn6KtkT7fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>> Don't forget that the single biggest source of atmospheric fluorocarbons
> are
>> volcanoes.
>
> You are ignorant, or confused, or both.... or
> just evil :)
>
> Volcanos don't spew flourocarbons... you're
> thinking of Rush Limbaugh, aren't you? Well,
> megadittoes to you! Anyway, volcanos spew
> HCl, or hydrochloric acid. This stuff is very
> reactive and water-soluble and is purged
> from the atmosphere readily. *Chlorinated*
> fluorocarbons like R12, R22, Freon(tm) et al
> have an atmospheric half-life of around 100
> years... this is how they get up to the stratosphere
> and are broken down by UV, releasing the chlorine
> where it can do the most damage to the ozone
> layer.
>
> In other words, I urge everyone to *forget* that
> volcanos are the 'single biggest source of
> atmospheric fluorocarbons'... utter nonsense.
> Don't be a ditto head... educate yourself.
>
> http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs...nt98/faq3.html
> __
> Steve
> .
>
>

 

You're the kind of liberal that gives the rest of us a bad name. Rush is a
pompous ***, so I didn't even know he had agreed with it.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s50.htm

The theory is the cfc's break down spontaneously (some of the most
chemically stable compounds known) and release free clorine that "eat away"
ozone.


"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9WGoe.70$%j7.32@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:DImdnaVmn6KtkT7fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>> Don't forget that the single biggest source of atmospheric fluorocarbons
> are
>> volcanoes.
>
> You are ignorant, or confused, or both.... or
> just evil :)
>
> Volcanos don't spew flourocarbons... you're
> thinking of Rush Limbaugh, aren't you? Well,
> megadittoes to you! Anyway, volcanos spew
> HCl, or hydrochloric acid. This stuff is very
> reactive and water-soluble and is purged
> from the atmosphere readily. *Chlorinated*
> fluorocarbons like R12, R22, Freon(tm) et al
> have an atmospheric half-life of around 100
> years... this is how they get up to the stratosphere
> and are broken down by UV, releasing the chlorine
> where it can do the most damage to the ozone
> layer.
>
> In other words, I urge everyone to *forget* that
> volcanos are the 'single biggest source of
> atmospheric fluorocarbons'... utter nonsense.
> Don't be a ditto head... educate yourself.
>
> http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs...nt98/faq3.html
> __
> Steve
> .
>
>

 

What's the cfc emission rate over the Antarctic land mass?

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BGMoe.176$%j7.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com.. .
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:11a6vtiqbdhhr5a@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:9WGoe.70$%j7.32@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> > this is how they get up to the stratosphere
>> > and are broken down by UV
>>
>> please explain how they get to the stratoshpere.
>
> Everyone knows... it's the Polar Vortex! Unless you
> don't trust NASA...
>
> http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HALOE-Ozone.html
> __
> Steve
> .
>
>

 

What's the cfc emission rate over the Antarctic land mass?

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BGMoe.176$%j7.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com.. .
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:11a6vtiqbdhhr5a@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:9WGoe.70$%j7.32@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> > this is how they get up to the stratosphere
>> > and are broken down by UV
>>
>> please explain how they get to the stratoshpere.
>
> Everyone knows... it's the Polar Vortex! Unless you
> don't trust NASA...
>
> http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HALOE-Ozone.html
> __
> Steve
> .
>
>

 

What's the cfc emission rate over the Antarctic land mass?

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BGMoe.176$%j7.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com.. .
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:11a6vtiqbdhhr5a@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:9WGoe.70$%j7.32@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> > this is how they get up to the stratosphere
>> > and are broken down by UV
>>
>> please explain how they get to the stratoshpere.
>
> Everyone knows... it's the Polar Vortex! Unless you
> don't trust NASA...
>
> http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HALOE-Ozone.html
> __
> Steve
> .
>
>

 

What's the cfc emission rate over the Antarctic land mass?

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BGMoe.176$%j7.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com.. .
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:11a6vtiqbdhhr5a@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:9WGoe.70$%j7.32@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> > this is how they get up to the stratosphere
>> > and are broken down by UV
>>
>> please explain how they get to the stratoshpere.
>
> Everyone knows... it's the Polar Vortex! Unless you
> don't trust NASA...
>
> http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HALOE-Ozone.html
> __
> Steve
> .
>
>

 

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42a29c52$0$14983$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting .com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I hadn't heard that there was any problem with making R134, and I am
>>>>>surprised that anybody is reporting trouble finding it.
>>>>>
>>>>>And, I agree, going back to R12 isn't gonna happen. It's very
>>>>>expensive, and there are seriouis compatibility issues that add to
>>>>>the cost. I think one is going to spend the summer with the windows
>>>>>rolled down before one goes back to R12.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>R12 is cheaper to produce than 134. It's pretty non-toxic too, which
>>>>can't be said for 134. Political creatures have made 12 expensive.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter that it is cheaper to make, it is essentially illegal
>>>to use in the USA. R12 eats the ozone layer, or whatever, and is a
>>>banned substance. It also does not play well with others in the
>>>neighborhood, R134 for example. If your system is designed to run on
>>>R134, it won't work right on R12 anyway, and if you want to convert your
>>>factory R12 system back to R12 after retrofitting it to R134, then it
>>>will be costly. You can't buy R12 on the open market, so you'll have to
>>>find a crook that will sell it to you, or pay to evacuate your system
>>>and refill it. You are not going to top off a low R134 system with R12,
>>>if for no other reason than the fittings are different sizes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Top off a 134 system with 12 and it's life will be measured in weeks, at
>>best.
>>
>
>
> Top off a 134 system with 12 and measure the life in hours - which is pretty
> much what I said earlier.
>

Not to be disputatious, but that's not at all what you said earlier. I'm
not going to quote you, just go back and look.
>
>
>
>
>>It does matter if it's cheaper to make, and it also matters if it's more
>>efficient (which it is). Laws being passed in the name of doing
>>something, anything, just to be seen to be doing something do not remove
>>the "mattering" of a subject which they address. The fact that
>>refrigeration now costs more, from every angle, for everyone, does matter.
>>
>>As another poster pointed out, it's not at all illegal to use.
>>
>
>
> It isn't illegal to use, but you can't simply open the valve and let it out,
> like was once the practice. It has to be captured now, and they make sure it
> is captured by raising the price. If they raise the price of the new
> refrigerant, then buy back the captured refrigerant, then the new
> refrigerant becomes reasonably priced.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Market pressure does not always affect
price- when the circle of producers is small enough market pressure can
simply affect production; if the supply is high, sometimes it's more
profitable to decrease production and allow the price to remain high.
Eventually it'll sell. I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, I'm
saying that there are exceptions to the supply/demand law and it's
never safe to assume otherwise.

>When we were kids, we could buy a set
> of guages and a can or two of R12 and go home and service the A/C system in
> the driveway. We can't do that anymore because the R12 has gone up in price.
> If we could capture the R12 that we used to release, then the cost of
> self-service would come way down. We can't capture the R12, so the cost of
> self-service is very high. The equipment needed to capture and recycle the
> R12 is expensive, and the only way to justify the cost is to ammortize it
> over many operations.

The reason why the recovery equipment is expensive is due to government
regulation. The cheapest recovery device I've heard of was a R12 tank,
with a line to the system, in a bucket; fill the bucket with liquid
nitrogen and give it a few minutes.. the refrigerant will not only
condense in the tank, it'll freeze. You won't get any more out with any
pump, no matter what. Pretty cheap, but not approved.

>
>
>
>
>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere? I won't get
>>into politics here, I'll just say that there's some subjects which get a
>>lot of attention that I put little stock in. Global warming is another.
>>I don't want to argue about it, if someone wants to argue I suggest they
>>do some open-minded googling.
>>
>>John
>
>
>
> It doesn't really matter what you think of the ozone depletion issue. There
> are rules that have been developed, and they arise out of the ozone
> depletion issue, and we have to live by the rules whether we agree with them
> or not. Personally, I think I suould be able to go into the vault and haul
> off a wheel barrel full of money, but there are bank robbing laws that I
> have to live by whether I agree with them or not.

Of course it matters what I think about the issue. You would surrender
your opinions for a rulemaker who would tell you what to do, and how?
Not me.

I disagree that the "rules that have been developed" have much at all to
do with the ozone issue. Perhaps that's just my natural skeptcism, but
that's my opinion.

Now, don't go telling me that what I think doesn't matter, and then go
on to tell me what you think, which, based on your reasoning, doesn't
matter? Leave the bank's money alone..

>
> So, we are back to Square One. Somebody is looking for R134 that he is
> having trouble sourcing. He didn't say, but I gathered from post that he
> has a system that once took R12, but has been retrofitted to R134, and he
> wanted to know about switching back to R12. I do not think he CAN switch
> back, 1.) because the laws will not allow a conversion in that direction,
> and 2.) because there are serious chemical reaction issues that arise if a
> full evacuation is not accomplished.
>
> None of the pollitical issues make a bit of difference. We have a reality
> that says R134 is required.

Yes.. but that reality is not my fault- I'm willing to have opinions
that aren't exactly politically correct. Join me, enough of us might be
able to restore some sanity to the world..

Think naughty thoughts;-)

John
>
>