134a Refrigerant
#401
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a5e26a$0$14977$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> > "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> > news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> >
> >>Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >>
> >>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting .com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>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've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
> >>>NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
> >>>__
> >>>Steve
> >>>believes in Science
> >>>.
> >>
> >>That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
> >>every time I start it.
> >>
> >>Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
> >>at the south pole.
> >
> >
> > Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
> > *certainly* have bigger issues...
>
> Did I say I can't open a pdf? You display a "bigger issue" here..
"the reader binds up my computer" seems pretty plain
to me... unless you were exaggerating. No matter, the info
is out there in many other forms, if you'd care to read
it.
> >
> >
> >>If we are to give up everything that works well but
> >>may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
> >>that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
> >>never get anywhere.
> >
> >
> > Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
> > saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
> > that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
> > 'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.
>
> Yes, 'everything'. What does not have an impact on the world around us?
The large pink unicorn that's not looking over your
shoulder!
> Can you think of many things?
Was that *any*? Or *many*? Make up your mind!
> And the people who are compelled to jump
> on these bandwagons- the ozone hole, global warming, etc. seem to take
> the view that I've accused them of; do something, anything, do make it
> look like something is being done. It makes 'em feel warm/fuzzy, and
> they don't give a hoot for the consequences. I never said I would give
> up "nothing" that works "at all", I want what works best, what is most
> efficient.
Then use ammonia! Cheapest, most efficient, no
doubt about it! Unless you care about health issues...
you *did* mention toxicity, didn't you? Well, don't
you think that UV is 'toxic'? Try some and see!
> You've got that habit of putting words into other people's
> statements and then arguing with them, you should knock it off..
Make me! You need to learn how to form a proper
premise and support it... your lack of skill in this
matter is hardly my concern...
>
> What about the fact that 134, due to its lower efficiency, will
> contribute more to the global warming "problem" than 12? This doesn't
> keep you awake at night?
Cite, please.... (sigh...) we're not arguing about
GW... this is what is known as a 'red herring',
something to distract when one is losing an
argument.
> >
> >
> >>As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
> >>more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
> >>hogwash was perpetrated.
> >
> >
> > "Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
> > HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
> > to make it one with scientific evidence.
>
> Go look up a few on 134 toxicity, see what you find out.
Well, it certainly didn't mention anything about
ozone, now, did it? We're not here to debate
the virtues of R134... that's another red herring.
Let me help you... you assert that R12 does not
damage the ozone layer.... you called it 'hogwash'.
I posted links supporting my assertion that it
does... links written by NASA, the organization
that took us to the Moon. Go ahead, attack NASA!
> >
> >
> >>And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
> >>developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
> >>than we ever have.
> >>And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
> >>efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.
> >
> >
> > As long as Bush does what he does best...
> > the head in the sand thing, I mean...
>
> If you suppose I'm a Bushie, you suppose wrong.
I don't see that assertion anywhere... nope, I didn't make
it. It relates to the link below... our President is foot-
dragging on the third world issue you cite. Take it up
with him, if you like.
> >
> > Here's an interesting link:
> >
> >
http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
> >
> > and quote:
> > <>
> > It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap,
and
> > the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be
more
> > expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
> > replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
> > World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
> > maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
> > The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
> > opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
> > promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be
$15-$20
> > million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
> > ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or
alternatively
> > two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has
imposed
> > on the CFC industry.
> > </>
>
> There's some truth in that quote, and some tripe too. If you suppose
> you're going to wade into China and convince them to change things,
> you're wrong. Mexico too. You can throw all the money you want at an
> issue, but if economics give an advantage in the other direction then
> it's likely to be futile. You consider international social programs to
> be the answer? Why not go the other route, why not seek a better
> refrigerant? That would solve the problem, that's the solution. Bribing
> third-world countries is not what will bring them to not use R12, just
> as it has not brought them to do any of the other things for which they
> have been bribed.
China and Mexico want to do business here... they'll toe
the line, *especially* with some subsidies. Hey, it's their
cancer too!
> >
> >
> >>When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
> >>a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
> >>Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
> >>('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
> >>disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
> >>of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
> >>value of new cars- so the effect is still there.
> >
> >
> > The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
> > *alone* will drive R12 away.
>
> --------. What about the developing countries? Lots of sales available
> there, and we'll be at a disadvantage.
Yeah, they'll be buying Chevies.... riiiight.
> What about the fact that all it takes is a small change to the law to
> allow countries where the production of 12 is legal to sell cars here
> with it? Wouldn't be fair to make them play by the same rules, now would
> it.. That's the sort of law the liberals would pass..
Your assgenda is showing... cite, please.
> >
> >
> >>Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
> >>that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
> >>it's not.
> >
> >
> > Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
> > world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
> > you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
> > the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
> > you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
>
> Yeah, that "why don't you go somewhere else" argument really shows some
> intelligence.
The 'go somewhere else' was not an argument, it
was a suggestion... the 'civilized, developed world'
thing was the argument. Pay attention!
>
> Here, an interesting page;
>
>
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,...___CFC_n5.html
Nice site... here's a quote:
<>
CFCs are meanwhile banned on a global scale (Montreal Protocol on
substances that deplete the Ozone layer-1987 and further amendments). Due
to their long lifetime it will take about another 50 years until the CFCs
released so far are removed again in the stratosphere and the ozone
equilibrium is hopefully stable again. It is assumed that around 2000 the
maximum has been reached and the ozone hole during the last years was rather
stable in its size. However, exceptions are always possible. In 2002 there
has been no significant ozone hole observed. The reason was simple: It was
too warm and the polar vortex has not been formed in the usual way. Once
again an example that atmospheric processes sometimes ignore any prediction.
But in 2003 the hole was back to its former size, the second largest ever
observed.
</>
I fail to see how this supports your argument...
>
> Gives a breakdown of the uses to which R12 was put (ac&refrigeration,
> under half). Perhaps if it had been banned only for those uses where it
> would be definitely releases (foam blowing, solvent in open air) the
> situation might be different- but those who you would follow insist
> *everything* that uses it is bad and it must *never* be used.
Do you assert that R12 refrigerant will *never* be released?
Hubris..... alternatives are available.... plenty of them.
Here's a scary link:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...zone_layer.htm
and quote:
<>
The amount of UV reaching the earth's surface has been shown to correlate
with the extent of ozone depletion. In 1997 UV-B levels continued to rise at
a rate of 2% per annum. Increased UV levels at the earth's surface are
damaging to human health, air quality, biological life, and certain
materials such as plastics. Human health effects include increases in the
incidence of certain types of skin cancers, cataracts and immune deficiency
disorders. Increased penetration of UV results in additional production of
ground level ozone, which causes respiratory illnesses. Biologically, UV
affects terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, altering growth, food chains and
biochemical cycles. In particular, aquatic life occurring just below the
surface of the water, where plant species forming the basis of the food
chain are most abundant, are adversely affected by elevated levels of UV
radiation. The tensile properties of certain plastics can be affected by
exposure to UV radiation. Depletion of stratospheric ozone also alters the
temperature distribution in the atmosphere, resulting in indeterminate
environmental and climatic impacts.
</>
>
> Now what was it you said about those two words..
What two words? "Jeff Gannon"?
__
Steve
..
#402
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
An Introduction to Physical Science:
http://college.hmco.com/physicalscie...udygoals/ch19/
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> I'm not going to try and educate you, that's for our schools, but
> then Liberals can't be bothered with facts, it be just another waste of
> tax payer's money.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
http://college.hmco.com/physicalscie...udygoals/ch19/
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> I'm not going to try and educate you, that's for our schools, but
> then Liberals can't be bothered with facts, it be just another waste of
> tax payer's money.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
#403
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
An Introduction to Physical Science:
http://college.hmco.com/physicalscie...udygoals/ch19/
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> I'm not going to try and educate you, that's for our schools, but
> then Liberals can't be bothered with facts, it be just another waste of
> tax payer's money.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
http://college.hmco.com/physicalscie...udygoals/ch19/
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> I'm not going to try and educate you, that's for our schools, but
> then Liberals can't be bothered with facts, it be just another waste of
> tax payer's money.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
#404
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
An Introduction to Physical Science:
http://college.hmco.com/physicalscie...udygoals/ch19/
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> I'm not going to try and educate you, that's for our schools, but
> then Liberals can't be bothered with facts, it be just another waste of
> tax payer's money.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
http://college.hmco.com/physicalscie...udygoals/ch19/
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> I'm not going to try and educate you, that's for our schools, but
> then Liberals can't be bothered with facts, it be just another waste of
> tax payer's money.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
#405
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
An Introduction to Physical Science:
http://college.hmco.com/physicalscie...udygoals/ch19/
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> I'm not going to try and educate you, that's for our schools, but
> then Liberals can't be bothered with facts, it be just another waste of
> tax payer's money.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
http://college.hmco.com/physicalscie...udygoals/ch19/
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> I'm not going to try and educate you, that's for our schools, but
> then Liberals can't be bothered with facts, it be just another waste of
> tax payer's money.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
#406
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11abpo593u4a13a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Snhpe.629$%j7.235@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > As long as Bush does what he does best...
> > the head in the sand thing, I mean...
>
> you got something specific to justify such a statement
Nate, Nate, Nate... lend me your eyes!
http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
and quote:
<>
It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
The international fund for these purposes, ******which the Bush
administration
opposes*******, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be
paid
promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
on the CFC industry.
</>
Notice the '*****' part... that's the 'head in the sand'
I was referring to. Or you can take the current debacle
in Iraq as 'head in the sand'... that would be appropriate
too.
__
Steve
..
#407
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11abpo593u4a13a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Snhpe.629$%j7.235@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > As long as Bush does what he does best...
> > the head in the sand thing, I mean...
>
> you got something specific to justify such a statement
Nate, Nate, Nate... lend me your eyes!
http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
and quote:
<>
It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
The international fund for these purposes, ******which the Bush
administration
opposes*******, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be
paid
promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
on the CFC industry.
</>
Notice the '*****' part... that's the 'head in the sand'
I was referring to. Or you can take the current debacle
in Iraq as 'head in the sand'... that would be appropriate
too.
__
Steve
..
#408
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11abpo593u4a13a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Snhpe.629$%j7.235@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > As long as Bush does what he does best...
> > the head in the sand thing, I mean...
>
> you got something specific to justify such a statement
Nate, Nate, Nate... lend me your eyes!
http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
and quote:
<>
It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
The international fund for these purposes, ******which the Bush
administration
opposes*******, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be
paid
promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
on the CFC industry.
</>
Notice the '*****' part... that's the 'head in the sand'
I was referring to. Or you can take the current debacle
in Iraq as 'head in the sand'... that would be appropriate
too.
__
Steve
..
#409
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11abpo593u4a13a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Snhpe.629$%j7.235@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > As long as Bush does what he does best...
> > the head in the sand thing, I mean...
>
> you got something specific to justify such a statement
Nate, Nate, Nate... lend me your eyes!
http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
and quote:
<>
It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
The international fund for these purposes, ******which the Bush
administration
opposes*******, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be
paid
promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
on the CFC industry.
</>
Notice the '*****' part... that's the 'head in the sand'
I was referring to. Or you can take the current debacle
in Iraq as 'head in the sand'... that would be appropriate
too.
__
Steve
..
#410
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A5F91F.C228C682@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Exactly... the CFC's didn't cause the vortex, but the vortex
> > exacerbates the CFC problem. Glad to see you're finally
> > coming around... :)
> It's the way you liberals harp about it, as if we could change
> anything, delusions of grander.
I agree, Bill... you can't change.... : )
BTW, didn't you get Dominion? Why aren't
you using your Dominion (with a capital 'D'!)?
__
Steve
..