DescentBB

The famously stupid lines about Freon wandering around and being
wafted into the air on rising [originally \"carried on mountain up
upwellings\"] is old news and as stupid as it was when his predecessors came
up with that appropriately nominated \"breaking wind fraud\" in response to
our using the chemical spec sheets to ridicule and humiliate the political
hacks who were advancing the theory that Freon attacks the atmosphere.

So, nothing has changed and there is nothing new here = Freon rises
a few feet [15 to 25], settles to the ground, displaces the air, rolls
around, and over time breaks down into chemical nothingness... hummmmmm, a
whole lot like Argon; but then, who gives a ★■◆● ? lying about the effects
of Argon on the atmosphere will not significantly drive up your cost of
living, wreck the American economy, or support using voodoo science to
destroy the Nation and Economy = destroy American's free enterprise system
and the individual liberty which a booming economy delivers and secures...
but wait, this has nothing to do with protecting the environment.

The fact is, we and our society are now running highly refined and
up-graded Freon in specifically created high pressure systems which are
designed and operated to be expensive = drive up your cost of living; thus
reducing the quality of your life = making a system that you can not work on
= raising the cost and reducing the quality of life in the US by
hamstringing the economy through preventing the emergence of simple and
efficient self power generation...

which is, preventing the use of plentiful, cheap, clean, low
pressure, durable, pretty much environmentally passive Freon with the very
lines of hokey bull ★■◆● that are in this article.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env256.htm

Real Cheap Freon works in low cost, low maintenance, durable heat
exchange driven processes in low pressure closed systems which allow you to
generate energy cheaply and locally in, as I recall, temperature
differentials between - 40 and + 115 degrees...

And, it was only when people started building and using those
systems, and commercially marketing such products that the Government made
Real Cheap Freon illegal... hummmm right around the time they made it a
Federal felony to bring in a natural gas well in mist or jewel, Oregon.

But then, facts never intrude in the lives of people holding degrees
issued from the University of Moscow on the Hudson American educational
system.

This is very simple stuff. Freon works. Freon works well. Real Freon
is cheap, stable, very low pressure. As well, Real Freon, because of its
nature and degradation characteristics, is very close to environmentally
neutral. Freon is safe and easy to use in durable passive heat exchange for
energy generation systems... that you can build and maintain off the shelf.

That is what collectivists do... lie to destroy productivity,
quality of life, and institute societies mired in ★■◆● picking poverty and
squalor where they boss everyone else around.

Have great day... 128,000 years ago the polar icecaps and permafrost
were melting like they are today... my plan is to locate the hydrocarbon
producing vehicles that emitted the climate destroying pollutants 128,000
years ago, recover, restore, and make a fortune selling them... the science
guy who produced the Freon article, or one of his buds, should be able to
tell you precisely where I can find my antiques.

This is just MHO... just like bungholes, everyone has got one and is entitled
to shoot it off as long as he dosent hurt anyone.

There's more sides to this than just your very limited, pretty enraged personal view.

Like 5% of the world population (the US) consume 23% (or so) of the world energy production (oil anybody? Did it ever dawn on you that oil is the stuff most of our pharmaceutical products are made of? Yeah, maybe we have clean and safe fusion reactors in 50 years, but will we still have medical treatment?)

I don't want to burst your bubble, but he is dead wrong and his equations are wrong too. I will get back to you with a better explanation tommorrow.

In the meantime, you need to calm down.

Bettina

freon is 5x as dense as air, it does nothing to the environment

Diedel wrote:There's more sides to this than just your very limited, pretty enraged personal view.

Like 5% of the world population (the US) consume 23% (or so) of the world energy production (oil anybody? Did it ever dawn on you that oil is the stuff most of our pharmaceutical products are made of? Yeah, maybe we have clean and safe fusion reactors in 50 years, but will we still have medical treatment?)

23% of the oil extracted from the ground? or do those figures also include hydroelectric output, natural gas production.. etc.

I found out today that the US buys a heck of a lot of oil from Mexico, Venisualawhateveritis, and one other southern country. It doesn't all come from the middle east.

Maintaining a healthy planet is important, but many of the folks that are advocating environmentalism are a little over the top and could stand to learn what moderation is.

Diedel wrote:Like 5% of the world population (the US) consume 23% (or so) of the world energy production

Source? Or did you arrive at these numbers via the anal extraction method?

And why does it matter that I personally use more electricity than some guy in India? I'm sure if we expanded to look at how much energy the top 15% of people use, you'd be included in that figure (after all, you ARE using a computer), but again, why does that matter? Is there some law of physics or religion or whatever that says we should all use the same amount of energy?

---

Vulcan, there are many (from all political perspectives) who believe bad science because it tells them things they want to believe. Some of them are even scientists. Carl Sagan, for example, was a strong advocate of the idea of nuclear winter, even after it became clear it was bad science.

Now, I don't think most collectivists are intentionally lying with the intent to destroy productivity or quality of life. They're just saying what they believe based on the worldview they started with before they ever looked at any science. They're gullible (just like the rest of us), not malicious. Now, I strongly oppose their goals, but I don't think they're jerks for having those goals.

Lothar wrote:
Now, I don't think most collectivists are intentionally lying with the intent to destroy productivity or quality of life.

I am sure they are.
Of course you are right in regards to the sheep in the general public.
But the real driving force of the environmental movement is to destroy
the American dream and control every aspect of our lives.
Destroy from within...

Lothar wrote: They're just saying what they believe based on the worldview they started with before they ever looked at any science. They're gullible (just like the rest of us), not malicious. Now, I strongly oppose their goals, but I don't think they're jerks for having those goals.

I'm not calling names, they're dangerous to our country and way of life.
----
Yes Diedel and Bett, it does make me very angry and I am not about to
calm down, so to speak. I mean, I don't pace back and forth gnashing my
teeth looking for environmentalists to abuse. heh, but don't tempt me.

While I agree in general with Vulcan that large companys buy up the patients and such on products that would be cheap and easy to maintain, I strongly disagree on useing freon as an example. Once freon is burned it turns into a deady fast nerve gas. I know this from being an auto mechanic and useing propane torches (20 years ago) to locate leaks. The manual only said to be careful not to breath in the fumes but never said why. It was the formation of OSHA which forced various manufacters to explain all effects of there checmicals when in use that banned the use of the torch method of leak detecting.
But back to the point - Its the American way to Capitalize on something and make a fortune - Life is not Fair and thats the way it is at this point in time. There really should be limits as to what they can do to people as far as sucking them dry goes. Kinda like freedom of the press, limits get pushed over the line and innocent people get hurt or killed.

Lothar wrote:Source? Or did you arrive at these numbers via the anal extraction method?

Lothar,

you are a disgusting person with a disgusting character. I have thought so before, but kept it for myself for the sake of peace.

Now go Google.

Btw, I think it plays quite a role where the oil goes, because it's needed for almost all pharmaceutical products we use ... I said it already: Maybe we have clean and safe fusion reactors in 50 years, but will we still have the medicine we need?

Meanwhile back at the ranch...

Those that propose the human race dosn't harm the enviroment; and therefore our existence, do you reckon we should do nothing? Do you reckon we're incapable of doing anything about it? Do you reckon there's absolutly nothing to worry about?

Flabby Chick wrote:Meanwhile back at the ranch...

Those that propose the human race dosn't harm the enviroment; and therefore our existence, do you reckon we should do nothing? Do you reckon we're incapable of doing anything about it? Do you reckon there's absolutly nothing to worry about?

I guess everything has trade-offs, and nothing happens very quickly in this world. We have a plethora of ways to decrease our impact on the natural world, so why don't we? Well, I guess it all goes back to plain old selfishness and laziness. We want to have more things, so we arn't willing to buy the more expensive products just because they are cleaner. We are often skeptic of new technologies, because while great claims can be made, it takes time for something to prove itself. We don't want to give up comforts that we take for granted, so we don't. There's a balance to it. Some environmentalists ask too much, and people completely reject them because thay arn't willing to make the sacrifices. Sure, I'm about taking care of the environment, but I'm not willing to give up my car to do so.

I went to my science forum and asked them your question. I pasted their answers here. I also gave you a few links to look at that explains the process.
Bottom line is this...

No matter what skeptical arguments you have heard, they have found manmade CFC's in the troposhere in quantitys. Thats a fact. What makes it dangerous....is that CFC's are extremely stable and virtually indestructable. They can and do take up to 15 years to make the trip to the stratosphere and they have longevity too... in the range of 100 to 200 years. I know your not going to believe me, but after I read about the process, I feel better that freon is being fazed out.

From the science forum:

CFCs are incredibly stable and they travel. Freon is virtually indestructable in the troposphere and drifts to Antartica where it hangs out on clouds of ice until special circumstances allow it to escape to the stratosphere where it is decomposed by uv radiation. It destroys the ozone layer when it decomposes into Cl- radicals, setting off a chain reaction that can destroy several thousand 03 molecules/Cl- radical via these reactions:

Step 1:
[math]
\\ce{CFCl2 ->[\\text{uv}] CF2 + Cl-}
[/math]

Step 2:
[math]
\\ce{Cl- + O3 -> ClO- + O2}
[/math]

Step 3:
[math]
\\ce{ClO- + O -> Cl- + O2}
[/math]

And the new Cl- radical in the last reaction (step 3) can proceed in a new set of reactions that destroy the ozone layer, so it doesn't take a lot of CFC in the stratosphere to do a lot of damage.

It's actually pretty well established that CFCs (Freon) are what destroy the ozone layer. Sorry to your friend.

yes it is true that the feron is very heavy to travel upwards that is why it takes around 15 years for it to travel from the ground to the stratosphere where it can stay for a 100 years degrading thousands of ozone atoms .They react with ozone and take away a oxygen moleule leaving the normal oxygen. as silkworm stated the cfc's are dissociated by uv rays forming a free cl atoms as catalysts. they destory the ozone composition.

for more information check wikipedia:ozone depletion.

Here are other links for you.....the last one really explains the process.....

http://cseligman.com/text/planets/atmos ... ucture.htm (read the bottom)

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/cfc.html

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_6_1.htm

Bettina

There is a big difference between CFC's like the old R-12 in old auto airconditioning and most refrigerators manufactered before the early 1990's, and HCFC's like R-22 in most comfort cooling systems, residential airconditioning etc.
The CFC's are something like 30 times more likely to make it up to where the chlorine molecule in the CFC (once it breaks down) can attack the ozone. The addition of the hydrogen molecule in the HCFC refrigerant makes it unlikely it will rise up to where it can cause problems.

CFC's have been outlawed for a while but I still run across a lot of commercial equipment, like old walk in coolers, freezers and ice makers that use it and although they said it was outlawed I can still buy it....HCFC's are also on their way out but the extensions and exceptions to the law are rolling in faster than you would believe.

Diedel,

you are a disgusting person with a disgusting character. I have thought so before, but kept it for myself for the sake of peace.

Fixed it for ya.

Top Wop,

I know that you 'love' me. I remember that thread where you appeared out of the blue, insulted me w/o any connection to what was said in the thread, w/o ever having had to do with me before, just pouring out the filth and stench coming from your soul.

I didn't reply, because at that time I thought \"what kind of person must that be to act like that. Pathetic.\"

That's the first and the last reaction you will ever get from me. You're not worth my time.

Diedel wrote:Btw, I think it plays quite a role where the oil goes, because it's needed for almost all pharmaceutical products we use ... I said it already: Maybe we have clean and safe fusion reactors in 50 years, but will we still have the medicine we need?

I think once we get fusion going, we'll have enough energy to spare to manufacture any petroleum products we need from their raw components. I think the real issue we need to worry about right now is getting fusion energy practical. After that, we're pretty much home free for the next billion years, or whatever

Diedel, petroleum oil is not needed for all the pharmaceutical products we use.

Medicine generally needs a lot of ENERGY, this can come from non-petroleum sources. It also needs a lot of PLASTICS, which can also come from non-petroleum sources.
I'd go as far as to say that their is nothing we use Petroleum products for, where we couldn't use Non-petroleum products instead - if the need arose.

VonVulcan wrote:Real Cheap Freon works in low cost, low maintenance, durable heat
exchange driven processes in low pressure closed systems which allow you to
generate energy cheaply and locally in, as I recall, temperature
differentials between - 40 and + 115 degrees...

And, it was only when people started building and using those [Freon]
systems, and commercially marketing such products that the Government made
Real Cheap Freon illegal... hummmm right around the time they made it a
Federal felony to bring in a natural gas well in mist or jewel, Oregon.

Do you know the story about Cannabis prohibition being linked to the sudden invention of an industrial method to turn Cannabis into plastics, which would challenge the petro-chemical industry, back in the 1930s?

eg: Popular Mechanics magazine, Feb 1938 <-- note the mention of the Narc's "new anti marijuana laws"...

www.cannabis.com wrote:Popular Mechanics Magazine predicted that hemp would rise to become the number one crop in America. In fact, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was so unexpected that Popular Mechanics had already gone to press with a cover story about hemp, published in 1938 just two months after the Tax Act took effect.

So as far as some modern environmentalist "conspiracy to destroy the economy". I've seen worse (see above)!

Ask a big polluter like the paper industry why they are not using Hemp to make paper. Then ask another big polluter like the petroleum industry about celulose plastics...
Then ask an environmentalist what they think about hemp, and then try to tell me "they want to destroy the economy!" again .

You've got it all backwards. Environmentalists do not want to destroy the economy, but big industry has a long and wellknown track record of ★■◆●ing over the economy, or anything & anyone for the sake of their OWN bottom dollar and self-interest.

roid wrote:Environmentalists do not want to destroy the economy, but big industry has a long and wellknown track record of **** over the economy, or anything & anyone for the sake of their OWN bottom dollar and self-interest.

Well that's true for sure but it's what we expect from a company. They are supposed to look out for the bottom line. It's up to the people, by way of the government we form, to look out for the common good. The problem is we let our representatives in government be funded by companies instead of restricting them to only recieving finances and material support from individual voters so now they are indebted to and reliant on big business for their very existence.

So when you see big business screwing up the environment or the economy don't blame the company, blame the people for giving up control of their government to the highest bidder.

The only time you can fault a business for screwing up something is when they break the law doing it. Otherwise, if it's bad and its legal, then it's the peoples fault.

Vote the bastards out, every one of them, and tell them why you did it!