Dean C. Paige wrote:
>
> Scott Kohl wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I am willing to look at any alternative to R-134a. In my
> > personal research on the ozone depletion/CFC issue, I uncovered a few
> > facts about R134-a that have been largely suppressed:
> > 1. It is less efficient than r12, requiring half again as much volume in
> > the system to do the same job. a retrofit will result in less cooling
> > than before.
> > 2. It is so highly corrosive that the entire system will be destroyed
> > and have to be completely replaced within five years (my local paper
> > recently had an article fron the AP about this very thing--after the ban
> > in 2000, a refrigerator will cost 50% more and be totally shot in five
> > years, instead of the current average of sixteen.)
> >
> > Also, my research has led me to conclude that the CFC/ozone depletion
> > theory is a complete fraud, and I will not support DuPont or the other
> > companies for their duplicity by buying r-134a.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Scott Kohl (donning Nomex)
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> As a former Environmental Regulator (Industrial Waste Control) and as a
> present regulatee (Environmental Compliance Officer, City of Santa Rosa
> - I try to make sure no one in our organization goes to jail for
> violation of enviro regs) I have followed the environmental regulations
> related threads with interest. I was trained as an Environmental
> Biologist at UC Santa Barbara and in my informed opinion the Ozone Layer
> question is far from resolved. Both sides have presented cogent
> arguments. But planetary and atmospheric sciences are fledgelings. At
> this point I'd rather err on the side of caution. I humbly submit that
> those of you who have disdain for the environmental regs in the U.S.
> might consider the alternatives.
>
> Prior to the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts (CWA, CAA) we were headed for
> real trouble. Most major rivers were unfit for recreational use including
> swimming, fishing and boating; some were so bad that there were literally
> no fish left alive, at least one would spontaneously burst into flames.
> There were no controls on auto exhast or industry air pollution
> emissions, major sections of industrialized states were choked with smog
> and the quality of everyones health suffered.
>
> In the 25 years since the enactment of these landmark regulations things
> are improved considerably. New cars, if properly maintained, emit less
> than a 50th of the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) as unequipped cars.
> Smokestack emissions have been drastically reduced. Our rivers, streams
> and lakes are cleaner than they have been since the industrial
> revolution. We and our children will lead healthier lives because of the
> efforts of U.S environmentalists.
>
> Sure, sometimes the so called environmentalists go too far (there are
> radicals and nuts in any movement). Some bogus legislation gets through,
> some junk science is held by the naive as gospel, but most of us are
> dedicated to insuring the health of ouselves, our communities and our
> planet.
>
> Want to see what happens without controls; travel in industrialized areas
> of Mexico or for the worst horrors imaginable the industrial centers of
> the former USSR where in the entire industrial age no thought was given
> to the results of environmental disregard. See a sulfuric acid factory in
> Poland where nothing grows in 10 km radius, witness Chernobel and a rich
> agricutural landscape abandoned because of radiation.
>
> The world looks to three Countries for environmental solutions - the
> U.S., Canada, and the Netherlands. Why? Because the rest of the world
> notes that we are the best at developing the technology to provide for a
> healthy environment and also that in spite of making huge expenditures in
> the area we are still the most prosperous countries in the world. The
> movement has created tens of thousands of jobs, immensely increased
> technological and scientific knowledge and most importantly provided a
> more healthful environment. And lets remember when we bash any particular
> administration that the movement has had bi-partisan support
> historically. A republican adminsitration enacted the CWA and CAA.
>
> I know smog laws are a pain in the ass. But keep in mind that most of our
> classic cars are not held to the same standard as a new vehicle. The
> standards were set for these vehicles based on the technology available
> at the time of manufacture. A well maintained pre-pollution control auto
> will pass smog. My TR-6 has every two years since I moved to CA in 1976.
> And those of us who drive LBCs are fortunate. Parts for most of our cars
> are redably available. Try getting parts for an American car thats 25
> years old. We've got Moss, Rimmer, TRV, VB and on and on.
>
> I have a long standing relationship with my TR-6 (I know that sounds a
> little strange). My part of the relationship is that I treat her with
> respect and that means doing everything I can to keep her running to the
> best of my ability and so that she has as minimal an effect on the
> environment as possible considering her design and age. Her part is that
> she provides me with a sense of accomplishment and the priveledge of
> driving a truly distinctive, personality laden machine that just makes me
> feel good and not incidentally attracts a lot of attention. It's been a
> successful relationship for 25 years. Something has to be right.
>
> I'm done now, had to get it off my chest. All I ask is that you think
> about it.
>
> Deano
My sentiments exactly. Well said!
|