CFC's And HCFC's

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Tristan, Mar 9, 2002.

  1. Tristan Leave your World Behind Valued Senior Member

    Hmmmm.. I got to a very interesting part in Billions And Billions By Carl Sagan. He talked about how damaging CFC's are to the OZone. Now Dupont, the original manufatures, have phased out of using this stuff and instead started using HCFC's which is of their creation. now this stuff still is not perfect. It is still damaging to the Ozone layer. But not as damaging.

    I believe a fund should be made. If I grow up to have the money, ill make it myself. This fund should offer a certain sum of money to whoever can come up with a better substitue for CFC's. What do you think.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. kmguru Staff Member


    Dont believe everything you read. CFC only damaged the ozone layer after its patents expired. HCFC will do the same. So as long as we keep the patent in force, we are safe. Get it?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tristan Leave your World Behind Valued Senior Member

    I dont believe everything i read but I do put alot of trust into Carl Sagan. And I can even see why HCFC's could be less damaging to the ozone. So its a start in the right direction to completely elemenating these chemicals from being used in the industry. But you bring up a valid point.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. kmguru Staff Member


    I understand your wishes to completely eliminate these chemicals which may include anything that causes global warming such as methane. The unintended consequence of that action is as follows:

    No more energy efficient refrigeration systems such as cooling the house in summer or preserving food or producing modern day chemicals, petrochemicals or manageing chlorine so that they are not dumped to the atmosphere.

    Eliminate all bovine and other animals who produce lots of bovine gas.

    While at it, eliminate humans too or eat food such a way as to not cause gas

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    On the serious side, CFC or HCFC release to atmosphere is miniscule compared to release of chlorine gas from swimming pool, laundry and industrial operations. The other part no body talks about is that any accidental release of CFC and HCFC can be measured in few hundred to few thousand pounds per year (total earth) where as the total amount of ozone around earth is in mega billion tons. It is like sprinkling your salt packet from your picnic basket into a lake to make it salty. On top of that, humans produce a lot of ozone too via mercury vapor lamps (UV radiation interacts with moisture in the air to produce ozone)

    I like Carl Sagan too. But he was not a Chemical Engineer (I am).
  8. Tristan Leave your World Behind Valued Senior Member

    Ok well I think i will use his knowledge in his book to argue his point. Then I will know the truth because you can help me since your a chemical engineer. Now when i said "elimating" those chemicals, I knew that we can never get rid of them or ever stop using Some of them. Carl Sagan also said that "up There" Ozone is good, keeping those ugly UV rays out. But Down here O3 is considered a pollutant. And O3 doesnt float upwards. So is this statement correct?

    Another thing is that CFC's havent caused that much damage so far. The problem is that they will "Continually" deplete the OZone layer for another hundered years. They will last a long time.

    Global Warming is a real problem because once we start the reaction it will become a chain reaction and will be hard if not impossible to stop. The enviroment can not adapt to us. We have to adapt to it.

    Example. By putting C02 into the air we absorb more infrared light from the sun (CO2 absorbs infrared). This in turn melts the (KeyWord here) Shiny snow at the poles. This Shiny snow no longer reflects the light it used to thus the earth absorbs more heat thus melting more thus having a run-away greenhouse effect.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. kmguru Staff Member

    <p><CENTER><H2>Ozone Production and Destruction</H2></CENTER>

    Stratospheric ozone is <a> created </a> (1 MB Quicktime)and <a> destroyed </a> (1 MB Quicktime) primarily by ultraviolet radiation.
    The air in the stratosphere is bombarded continuously with ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. When
    high energy ultraviolet rays strike molecules of ordinary oxygen (O2), they split the molecule into two
    single oxygen atoms. The free oxygen atoms can then combine with oxygen molecules (O2) to form
    ozone (O3) molecules. <p>

    O<sub>2</sub> + UV light -&gt; 2 O <br>
    O + O<sub>2</sub> + M -&gt; O<sub>3</sub> + M (where M indicates conservation of energy and
    momentum) <p>

    The same characteristic of ozone that makes it so valuable, its ability to absorb a range of ultraviolet
    radiation, also causes its destruction. When an ozone molecule is exposed to ultraviolet energy it may
    break back into O<sub>2</sub> and O. During dissociation the atomic and molecular oxygens gain
    kinetic energy,
    which produces heat and causes an increase in atmospheric temperature. <p>

    Ozone production is driven by UV radiation of wavelengths less than 240 nm. Ozone dissociation
    typically produces atomic oxygen that is stable when exposed to longer wavelengths, up to 320 nm,
    and shorter wavelenghts of 400 to 700 nm. Longer wavelength photons penetrate deeper into the
    atmosphere, creating regions of ozone production and destruction. When an ozone molecule absorbs
    even low energy ultraviolet, it splits into an ordinary oxygen molecule and a free oxygen atom. <p>
    O<sub>3</sub> + UV, visible light -&gt; O + O<sub>2</sub> <p>

    The free oxygen atom may then combine with an oxygen molecule, creating another ozone molecule,
    or it may take an oxygen atom from an existing ozone molecule to create two ordinary oxygen
    molecules. <p>

    O + O<sub>2</sub> -&gt; O<sub>3</sub> or O<sub>3</sub> + O -&gt; O<sub>2</sub> +
    O<sub>2</sub> <p>

    Processes of ozone production and destruction, initiated by ultraviolet radiation, are often referred to as
    "Chapman Reactions." <p>

    Most O<sub>3</sub> destruction takes place through catalytic processes rather than Chapman
    Reactions. Ozone is
    a highly unstable molecule that readily donates its extra oxygen molecule to free radical species such as
    nitrogen, hydrogen, bromine, and chlorine. These compounds naturally occur in the stratosphere,
    released from sources such as soil, water vapor, and the oceans. <p>

    O<sub>3</sub> + X -&gt; XO + O<sub>2</sub> ( where X may be O, NO, OH, Br or Cl) <p>

    <B> Anthropogenic Destruction </B>

    Manufactured compounds are also capable of altering atmospheric ozone levels.
    Chlorine, released from <a href=cfcs.html> CFCs, </a> (15k jpeg) and bromine (Br), released from
    halons, are two of the most important chemicals associated with ozone depletion. Halons are primarily
    used in fire extinguishers. CFCs are used extensively in aerosols, air conditioners, refrigerators, and
    cleaning solvents. Two major types of CFCs are trichlorofluorocarbon (CFCl3), or CFC-11, and
    dichlorodifluoromethane (CF2Cl2), or CFC-12. Trichlorofluorocarbon is used in aerosols, while
    dichlorodifluoromethane is typically used as a coolant. <p>

    CFCs were originally created to provide a substitute for toxic refrigerant gases and reduce the
    occupational hazard of compressor explosions. Near Earth's surface, chloroflourocarbons are relatively
    harmless and do not react with any material, including human skin. For 50 years they appeared to be
    the perfect example of a benign technical solution to environmental and engineering problems, with no
    negative side effects. While CFCs remain in the troposphere they are virtually indestructible. They are
    not water soluble and cannot even be washed out of the atmosphere by rain. We now understand that
    the very quality that made them seem so safe, their stability, is what makes them so dangerous. CFCs
    remain in the troposhere for more than 40 years before their slow migration to the stratosphere is
    complete. Even if we were to end their production and use at this very moment, they would continue
    to contribute to ozone destruction far into the future. <p>

    In the stratosphere, high energy ultraviolet radiation causes the CFC molecules to break down through
    photodissociation. Atomic chlorine, a true catalyst for ozone destruction, is released in the process.
    Chlorine initiates and takes part in a series of ozone destroying chemical reactions and emerges from
    the process unchanged. The free chlorine atom initially reacts with an unstable oxygen containing
    compound, such as ozone, to form chlorine monoxide (ClO). <p>
    Cl + O<SUB>3</SUB> -&gt; ClO + O<SUB>2</SUB> <p>
    The chlorine monoxide then reacts with atomic oxygen to produce molecular oxygen and atomic
    chlorine. The regenerated chlorine atom is then free to initiate a new cycle. <p>
    ClO + O -&gt; Cl + O<SUB>2</SUB> <p>
    This destructive chain of reactions will continue over and over again, limited only by the amount of
    chlorine available to fuel the process. <p>

    Chlorine occurs naturally in the oceans. However, the majority of chlorine in the atmosphere has
    originated with man-made chemicals. Without the breakdown of manufactured chlorofluorocarbons,
    there would be almost no chlorine in the stratosphere. CFC-12 concentrations were less than 100 parts
    per trillion by volume when they were first measured in the 1960s. Between 1975 and 1987,
    concentrations more than doubled from less than 200 parts per trillion by volume to more than 400
    parts per trillion by volume. The amount of chlorine in the stratosphere increased by a factor of 2 to 3.
    Scientists believe that continued buildup of CFCs could lead to <a href =chlorine.html> severe ozone
    loss </a> (61k jpeg) worldwide. Ongoing studies are essential to provide the necessary understanding
    of the causes of ozone depletion. The history of CFCs demonstrates that human activities can have an
    unexpected long-term effect on the environment. <p>
  10. kmguru Staff Member

    Above is the argument given by scientists that are scared that the CFC will cause the end of our civilization. They are partially right. The big picture is slightly different, otherwise we would not be here to talk about it.

    Consider this:
    This destructive chain reactions will continue over and over again, limited only by the amount of chorine available to fuel the process.

    Suppose we have a pound of atomic chlorine. According to the equation, that pound will react say 3 pounds of ozone to produce 2 pounds of chlorine monoxide and 2 pounds of oxygen. Now, that 2 pounds of ClO will react with 1 pound of atomic oxygen to produce 1 pound of the atomic chlorine and 2 pound of oxygen. Which means from only one pound of atomic chlorine, you lost 3 pounds of ozone. But you get back your one pound that will seek out destroy another 3 pounds of ozone. So if the reaction takes 1 second to happen, you will destroy 31,536,000 pounds of ozone per year. It will continue till there is no more ozone. Pretty scary? right?

    Just a quick glance, I see a few problems here.

    1. CFCl [sub]3[/sub] is a heavier molecule than base Chlorine, which is produced copiously by the planet naturally and manmade. How come Chlorine does not go up to the stratosphere? If it does, then why blame the CFCs alone?

    2. CFCs remain in the troposphere for more than 40 years and they found CFCs at the stratosphere (100 ppt in 1960 to 400 ppt in 1987). If they were dissociated by HEUV. How come we found them? And if they are stable as shown by the 40 year history, then what is there to worry about?

    3. When an atomic chlorine meets another atomic chlorine, they love each other to form molecular chlorine.

    4. It is easier to break a tri bond as in CFCl3 (CFC-11) than CFC-12. CFC-11 comes from aerosols. So why ban CFC-12 which is used in closed cycle refrigerators?

    5. Where did we get all these atomic oxygens that are sitting arround for ClO to react?

    6. Atomic chlorine has a stronger affinity to react than atomic oxygen. That is why you see commercials that sell oxyclean which does not bleach the colors. Chances are good that if there are a bunch of atomic chlorine they will connect each other before they find other chemicals to join.

    7. The same process that absorb the kinetic energy of UV rays via ozone also should works with CFCs too. So, one way or the other , our UV shield should work.

    8. May be we should cover the planet with a plastic sheet that only absorbs part of UV?
  11. kmguru Staff Member

    More on ozone:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Since ozone is created and destroyed by solar UV radiation, there is some correlation of ozone concentration with 11-year sunspot cycles. Sunspots emit high levels of electromagnetic radiation. The increased UV radiation contributes to ozone production. Sunspot variations only account for 2 to 4 % of the total variation in ozone concentrations. Natural cycles in ozone variation are also associated with the quasi-biennial oscillation in which tropical winds switch from easterly to westerly every 26 months. This cyclic change in wind direction accounts for approximately 3 % of the natural variation in ozone concentration
  12. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Excellent Posting KM,I thought earlier that you were Mechanincal Engineer.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Cosmos Guru,
    The skepticity of Carl what i dont know... why does he keeps on changing.i still remember when he was there for convention he kept on saying that we cant deny the possibilty of Alien encounters and strange activity happening above our own eyes,but inmost of his books he expresses that people who see UFOs are halucinating.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Rick Valued Senior Member

    I thought Most of the pools use Ozone purification systems.
    that is they discharge blue gas for couple of minutes and pool is clarified.isnt that true KM?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. kmguru Staff Member

    Chlorine gas is much cheaper to use in municipal potable water and swiming pools than ozone. Some waste water treatment facilities do use high intensity UV lamps to sterilize the water. Large fish tanks use UV lamps for the same purpose. I use UV lamps integrated to my home airconditioning system to reduce airborne biological contaminants (I have not had a cold in 15 years)

    I am an engineer by degree and have worked as Chemical, Mechanical, Electrical and Computer engineer on the job. Engineering is nothing but application of science and technology. One learns only the fundamentals in school, rest comes from actual on the job needs. In a capitalistic society, they will allow you do do anything you have the ability to do. That saves a lot of money. All you need is a curious mind, the kind you find in this sciforums. If you do not know something, plenty of information is available to fill the void. Most people go through life refusing to learn any new thing - it is their choice rather than a problem in their ability. I am not a genius or anything like that. We are all capable to do many things. The brain does not care what subject you put into it....
  15. Rick Valued Senior Member

    UV lamps i thought were supposed to cause skin troubles,especially in pools?is that correct?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Well, I think I will put a few ¢'s in.


    While Feon is no longer manufactured it is still in use. You would not believe the amount that was stored in warehouses. The cost has risen dramatically for those whose still use the chemical as the amounts are limited to that still stored. The replacement for Freon 22 (air conditioner, refrigerant) is not as effective as Freon 22.

    Those using Freon in the course of refilling air conditioners require licensing to purchase Freon in bulk. If evacuation of the air conditioner system is required then it must be captured through vacuuming process. No such requirement is needed if the Freon is in liquid stage, used in chemical processes and testing.


    We are worried of green house gas and it's run-a-way possibilities. I am not too sure we have not jumped the gun on just how dangerous it might be or might not be.

    Plankton uses CO2 and makes O2 from in though the photosynthesis cycle. Without adequate CO2 the plankton would die, leaving us with an atmosphere we would not survive beyond a few generations. There is a balance here. As CO2 increases plankton growth does also. Now there are other factors besides availability of CO2 that regulate the growth of plankton, such as ambient sea temperature. Plankton is also a staple of the food chain in the ocean, providing whales and krill with food. Without krill a lot of the other marine live would not exist either, as it is at the base of the food chain for a lot of the marine species.

    I am not convinced that we are on a green house run-a-way. By the estimations we should be seeing a steady slow increase of temperature. We are not. We are seeing the fluctuations that have been seen through out the history of the earth. Yes, I know, they have taken samples of the air environment from ice, mud, resin, etc. which show a dramatic increase of co2 from those times. That does not say we are in the stages of such a run-a-way. Only that we have effected our environment. Man has done that forever. At least as long as he has been a species and used fire. We are still find things out about our planet we did not know, such as the heat sink in the Pacific that seems to vent heat into space. It is way too early to call it green house. Those who first called attention to it in the scientific community were so sure of there finding that they slanted the data to reflect what they want to see.


    If you are worried about the amount of methane we produce it will comfort you to know that we are not the major producers of methane. Rather the world's populations of termites are. Call Orkin.
  17. kmguru Staff Member

    One should not expose ones skin or eyes to the industrial UV lamps. Yes, they are harmful to human body just as they have germicidal properties. That is why they are closed inside a box or tube and the water passes around them. A friend of mine got the idea from me and has now setup a company to install them in big buildings to clean the air. Whether it kills anthrax, I do not know and should be tested. My system is inside the inlet air intake of our central air, away from human eyes

    Yes as wet1 pointed out, Freon is used in industrial processes to convert chlorine gas to liquid format and also in natural gas processing (I think).

    The reason CO2 growth is a problem is because, we lost a lot of photosynthesis surface area through generation of deforestation and creating grass lawns including golf courses. The surface area of one inch grass is much smaller than the trees they replace. This is a serious matter that no one is willing to do anything about. As a result we are losing the level of oxygen in the atmosphere. It is worst in the highly populated cities like Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles. For every drop in Oxygen level, breathing difficulties go up for the elderly whose lungs are not as efficient as it once was. Since it only affects the elderly, one one is much concerned.
  18. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Hello there, I'm back after some months abscence. Please forgive my intrusion in the ozone-CFC and CO2 subject, but I would like to make my contribution to the discussion. So let me make brief quotes:

    <font color="blue"><b>Tristan:</B><i> "Another thing is that CFC's havent caused that much damage so far. The problem is that they will "Continually" deplete the Ozone layer for another hundered years. They will last a long time. "</i></font>

    Tristan, the truth is: CFCs have not caused <b>ANY damage AT ALL.</b> The well detailed posts by kmguru should give you an idea of what's going on, but kmguru failed to mention a couple of scientific facts that render the "ozone layer destruction" theory worthless --notwithstanding the political Nobel Prize given to Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina, and Paul Crutzen.

    1) Atomic weight of CFCs can be averaged around 130 (Freon-12=121.01, and Freon-11=137,51), that makes CFCs almost <b>THREE times heavier than Iron</B> (Fe=55,8). This simple fact means <b>CFCs do not fly up to the stratosphere</b> like Helium or Hydrogen, or any gas with an atomic weight less than the atmosphere's (average=29,01). This means that CFCs, Halons and the like, are extremely dense gases and behave and flow like water when poured from a container. Yes: if you could actually see these invisible gases, you would see them flowing down to the floor and making pools in crevices, cracks, etc. That's the reason why these gases were widely used in the photofinishing industry, as perfect lids for highly oxigenable reactives (as B&W and color developers) in the processing lines or open pans. I used them extensively when I owned a small color developing lab, back in the early 70s.

    2) Most of the CFCs in the environment are recycled by microorganisms in swamps and riverbeds (A. Khalil, R.J. Rasmussen, 1989, <i>"The potential of Soils as a Sink of Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Man-Made Chlorocarbons"</I>, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 16, No. 7 (July),pp. 679-682), and the rest can be found down to 4,000 meters deep in the oceans. We are talking here about the annual release of CFCs that contributes with <b>7,500 tons of chlorine</b> to the environment, that are digested by bacteria or sent down to the bottom of the seas. The total calculated amount of chlorine instilled to the atmosphere by Mother Nature is about <b>600 million tons</B>. Which makes what is left from those 7,500 tons coming from CFCs a drop in the ocean.

    3) However, some of the CFCs in the ground, are taken by storms and tornadoes and driven to the stratosphere (about 10-12 km altitude) where they stay for a while and later drop back to Earth. According to P. Fabian, R. Borders, S.A. Penkett, et al., 1981 <I>"Halocarbons in the Stratosphere"</I>, Nature, (Dec. 24) pp.773-735), there are 0,1 pptv (parts per trillion volume) of Freon-11 at 28 km altitude; which increases to 110 pptv at 10 kms. The amounts of F-12 found at 28 km altitude are 10 pptv; and 300 ppt at 10 kms. These concentrations are extremely low, and most important, are located in a region <b>where there is not Ultraviolet ratiation powerfull enough to split the CFC molecule.</B> Photons with the adequate energy for splitting CFCs molecules are found well above the 40 kms altitude, an altitude CFCs have never reached.

    So, the conclusions are:
    (a) CFCs have never made a "dent" in the ozone layer.
    (b) The ozone layer is indestructible, as it regenerates itself at an astonishing rate. It only needs oxigen and UV radiation with energy over 290 nm wavelength.
    (c) Ozone is an extremely unstable molecule (it has a <b>high quantum energy</b> level) so it absorbs very little energy from the incoming UV radiation. While oxigen absorbs 118,111 kcal/mol from any photon, ozone <b>only absorbs 64 kcal/mol.</B>
    (d) So, the truth is: much more UV radiation passes through a layer of ozone than a layer of oxygen. Put this idea in your heads: oxigen molecules are like Terminators, and ozone molecules are like dwarfs. For the making of two ozone molecules, we need to destroy three oxigen molecules (3 O2 + UV  2 O3) If you wanted to defend a fortress against incoming enemies, which would you choose? Three Terminatiors or two dwarfs? In mathematical terms: 118,111 kcal/mol x 3 = 354,333 kcal/mol, or 64 kcal/mol x 3 = 192 kcal/mol? Your pick...

    <font color="blue"><b>Kmguru:</B> <i>The reason CO2 growth is a problem is because, we lost a lot of photosynthesis surface area through generation of deforestation and creating grass lawns including golf courses. The surface area of one inch grass is much smaller than the trees they replace. This is a serious matter that no one is willing to do anything about.</I></font>

    Relating the CO2 issue, kmguru, you should take notice of some scientific facts: water vapor takes account of about 95% of the "greenhouse" capacity of Earth's atmosphere; CO2 accounts for about 3.5% and the rest goes to other trace gases.

    Actually, there are not streams of oxygen being created every year, but just a slight replacement of oxygen used and deposited as sinks by carbonates. The job of producing oxygen is accomplished in a 95% by the phytoplanktons in the oceans, and <b>only about 3% by the entire biosphere of green plants!.</B> Moreover, adult forests and jungles do not contribute to oxygen production (or CO2 sequestration) because they actually have a <b>negative balance of CO2</b>. According to studies made by Bert Bolin and George Woodwell back in the 70s, adult forests and jungles produce more CO2 than they absorb! Bert Bolin is the head of the IPCC, remember?

    The whole issue of Global Warming spins around a fallacy: <b>CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas</b>. This is shown in paleoclimatic studies demonstrating that during the Cretaceous period, -90 million years ago- CO2 levels were 2,000 ppm, almost six times higher than today. However, <b>temperatures then were only 1,5°C higher than present</B> --and 1°C lower than the ones found during the <b>Climatic Optimum</b> of 800-1250 AD, when vikings were naming <b>Greenland</b> what today is a piece of thick ice. So, if the Earth warms up one more Celsius degree, it will reach the same temperatures of the Climatic Optimum, that is, what climatologists all over the world used to declare <b>the best climate for human beings, animals and plants</b> --then it came politics into climatology and everything went rotten.

    The Earth is warming, yes, so what? No wonder it is warming, as it is coming out of a long period of cold and small glaciation known as the <b>Little Ice Age</B>, (1250-1850). It is natural, following the Sun's activity, solar spots, and/or brilliance, and mankind has nothing to do with it. The infamous statement by the IPCC of<i> "discernible human influence"</i> on the warming was refuted by Dr. Richard Lindzen, former president of the AAS (American Academy of Science) and one of the scientists that wrote the IPCC reports, who later discovered that the conclusions written by the political staff of the IPCC had nothing to do with the scientific facts on the report. What makes us think that there is a <b>"discernible political inluence"</b> in the Global Warming issue, leaving mankind out of the question.

    So people out there, dont worry; eat nice, drink your beers and sleep well, the world is not going to end (at least in the next five billion years, <b>I guarantee it</b>.)
  19. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    I'd like some confirmation on the toxicity of CFCs, if someone can help me, and they stoped using HCFCs a while back. When you read a book, you have to remember that the information is as old as the initial (unless revised) publication date.
  20. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    CFC toxicity?

    Toxicity? CFCs are <B>INTERT</B> gases, so they do combine with <b>nothing</b>, thus there is not toxicity <b>AT ALL.</B>

    The inventor of Freon, Thomas Midgley, back in 1929, (BTW, the same one that discovered that lead in gasoline improved performance), during the public presentation of the new gas, inhaled Freon into his lungs and slowly poured it from above, over a lighted candle. The gas put off the candle --as Freon cannot combine with oxygen. Of course, the scientists was not harmed.

    On the other hand, CFCs replacement (Suva, or a134), has been proved to cause hepatitis on workers dealing with it (first studies coming from Belgium in the late 80s).
  21. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Specifically, I have a friend who is pro-scare, and he heard that it is toxic, and the material safety data sheet that OSHA gives out shows it too. Now they can't be that toxic, because of what you just said.

    more later.
  22. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Let's put it this way: The only waqy CFCs can kill you, is if you enter a room 100% filled with CFCs. There is no oxygen-nitrogen mixture there, so you will suffocate in about two minutes. But the autopsy will reveal <b>NO CHEMICAL CHANGES</b> in your lungs tissue, <b>NOR ANY PRESENCE of CFCs</b> in your body cells. A swimming pool will do the same trick...

    The tremendous stability of CFCs is the main reason for the ban on this useful chemical. As alleged by the "greens", CFCs do not decompose or is transformed into another less harmfull (for the ozone) chemical, then it had to be banned from Earth's surface. Of course, that has been proven to be a blatant lie, as usual.

    M.A.K. Khalil and R.A. Rasmussen made extensive research on the subject, and they concluded:

    <i>"In our recent studies we have found that the soils tend to take up man-made chlorofluorocarbons particularly CCl3F (F-11) and CCl4 (carbon tetrachloride) (Khalil and Rasmussen, 1989. "The Potential of Soils as a Sink of Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Man-made Chlorocarbons", Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 16, July 1989). When we looked at the fluxes of chlorofluorocarbons in the rice field experiments, we found once again that the fluorocarbons were being taken up by the paddies ,,, The mean rates of removal of F-11, F-12, CCl4 and CH3CCl3 are of the same order of magnitude but several times higher than found in studies on Australian soils... (page 225)"</I>

    Several scientists interested in pursuing this line of research have had their requests for funding rejected...
  23. kmguru Staff Member

    There are very powerful industry groups that control certain chemicals and products like a cartel. Going up against them is not only futile but could be dangerous to your pocketbook. I ran into one and found out the hardway.

Share This Page