Excerpts from Fort Freedom BBS, 914/941-1319 -- a pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free enterprise oasis. Call in, its free! FIRST HOT AS HELL, THEN MAD AS HELL 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴� [93.044] Industrial and commercial air-conditioners are called `chillers'. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal implausibly states that the number of chillers in the world is 112,000, with 80,000 [71.4%] in the United States. This figure seems too low. A different source states that there are over 100,000 chillers in large buildings in the U.S., and about 430,000 chillers in large buildings elsewhere. Chillers are used by industry, supermarkets and restaurants. The transportation industry uses chillers in both refrigerated ground and sea transports. All these chillers use CFCs. It is a Mandated Truth that CFCs destroy the ozone layer. The United States is also a signatory to various treaties which obligate it to phase out CFCs by the year 2000. By a (moronic) Executive Order issued in February 1992, U.S. CFC production is to end by 31 December 1995. The replacements for CFCs now available cannot be used in existing chillers (because of the replacements' characteristics as solvents, their surface tension and other qualities). New chillers designed for the new refrigerants must be used. Replacing industrial chillers alone will cost $8 billion. Current chiller production is 6,000 new chillers each year. At this rate, assuming only replacement purchases, it would take 18.7 years to manufacture 112,000 replacements. Even if chiller production doubled each year, it would not be until 1997 that all chillers would be replaced. And the assumption of doubling of production capacity is an absurd one. Hence, unless the EPA extends its deadline, a lot of us are going to be hot at work during many, many summers. A cynic may observe that the international conventions against CFCs disproportionately affect the United States, and that the economic harm to the United States is correspondingly disproportionate. (The beauty is, the American idiots do it to themselves.) But how can Mr. Cynic be right? Not being motivated by greed and the desire for profit, our friends in Washington act from purely altruistic motives. Al Gore wants to be President not because he is a megalomanical, power-hungry little creep with messianic delusions, but because, like Ted Turner, he wants to Save The Planet. Like all the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, he has no thoughts except for those about others. The two leading substitutes for CFCs are: HFC-134a (for high-pressure chillers) manufactured by DuPont (as Suva) and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) PLC, and HCFC-123 (for low pressure chillers) manufactured by DuPont. In July 1991, an industry consortium reported that at high doses of HCFC-123, female rats developed benign tumors; a study conducted in 1992 found that male rats did not develop tumors, but that some did develop enlarged testicles. CFCs cost $0.50/lb in the early '80s. Today (1993), they cost $7 a pound, which includes a tax of $3.35/lb which took effect in 1993. Prices will increase as production diminishes and hoarding increases. The manufacturers of CFCs, which include DuPont, Allied-Signal Inc., and Elf Altochem SA, won't reveal their profit margins. One suspects they are profiteering, since they are selling to a captive market. As we swelter, we should remind ourselves that the sole purpose of our discomfort is the aggrandizement of the EPA, the State Department (which negotiates the treaties) and the Leviathan State. Rather that remaining hot as hell, we must become mad as hell. More McMurray, Scott. "Air-Conditioner Firms Put Chill on Plans To Phase Out Use of Chlorofluorocarbons". The Wall Street Journal [Easter Edition], 1993 May 10, p. B3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ LOTS OF SCIENTISTS AREN'T FALLING FOR OZONE SCARE By Ralph A. Zingaro, Professor of Chemistry [Zingaro is a professor of chemistry at Texas A&M University, where he has taught and conducted research since 1954.] [From the Houston Chronicle, Monday, Dec 7, 1992, p. 19A.] [A kindly upload by freeman John Alway, 3/7/93] On an almost daily basis we are being bombarded by media reports that are telling us that ozone of the atmosphere is being depleted. The main culprits, according to these reports, are chlorofluorocarbons, which play a critical role in medical inhalors, air conditioning and refrigerating systems. Is the ozone really being depleted? Are we really in danger of an increase in the ultraviolet radiation? In search of the truth, let's begin with a fish story. Last winter, the head of a NASA scientific team held a hastily called press conference. He reported that the ``highest levels of chlorine monoxide -- 1.5 parts per billion by volume -- ever measured'' had been observed by a converted ER-2 spy plane at the center of a polar vortex over eastern Canada and northern New England. High concentrations of this chemical compound have been associated with a decrease in the concentration of atmospheric ozone. However, the very same scientist who called the press conference reported in a scientific article in 1980 that chlorine monoxide levels reaching seven parts per billion were measured in an atmospheric layer between 35 and 40 kilometers above the Earth. Clearly, this individual was relating a fish story. This scientific misinformation led to a frenzy of activity in the U.S. Senate. It was declared on the floor of this illustrious body that there existed ``an immediate, acute, emergency threat'' and of the formation of an ``ozone hole over Kennebunkport (President Bush's vacation home).'' The Senate, by a vote of 96-0, called upon the president to move up the phaseout of CFCs by 1995. The president, as scientifically naive as the legislators and perhaps afraid of the political implications of being labelled as ``weak on the environment,'' announced that the executive branch would comply with the request. I have been skeptical about the theory of ozone depletion by CFCs I have spoken with a number of distinguished scientists; I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the scientific literature. What I have learned is that many factors affect the ozone concentrations in our atmosphere. It was reported in 1991 that from 1979-1983 a decrease in ozone concentrations was measured. During the 1983-1985 period no trend was observable, and from 1986-1990 ozone concentrations increased. In May 1974 a publication authored by scientists from the department of astro-geophysics at the University of Colorado reported that for the period 1957-1990, an upward trend in ozone concentrations was measured. Let it be remembered that CFCs were introduced in 1958, and that world production in 1974 was about 18 billion pounds. Dr. Kenneth M. Towe of the scientific staff of the Smithosonian Institution has noted that when atmospheric ozone concentrations are critically examined, no discernable changes in ozone concentrations can be observed. The villain in the CFC theory of ozone depletion is the chemical element chlorine. Yet many natural sources of chlorine exist. These include volcanic chlorine, seawater chlorine and chlorine arising from plant and animal life. These sources inject into the atmosphere quantities of chlorine that dwarf those attributable to CFCs. No legislative action can be imposed upon nature's vagaries. Factors other than CFCs affect the atmospheric ozone. One has to do with the vast quantities of sulfuric acid aerosols that enter the atmosphere during volcanic eruptions. The Antarctic ozone hole is real, but it has been explained in terms of the enormous temperature differences that exist over the surface of the South Pole during the winter. This hole is a natural phenomenon that reaches a maximum in October but shrinks and reaches normal levels by December. It has, in all probability, been occurring for millennia -- well before the introduction of CFCs. I feel that a segment of the scientific community is guilty of creating fear and alarm among the lay population. The proponents of the CFC-ozone depletion theory have ignored virtually all of the other scientific studies that are not in agreement with their ideas, and they have succeeded in converting a large segment of the population to their almost religious point of view. The movement is so strong that they have succeeded in convincing the public that their theory is believed by the ``scientific community.'' This is another fish story. A large and respected segment of the scientific community does not adhere to this religion. Evidence of this is to be found in the ``Heidelberg Appeal,'' which states: ``We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe where resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved. But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions.'' This appeal was initiated at the close of the Rio Summit earlier this year (to which, incidentally, not a single engineer was invited) and initially carried the names of 425 scientists, at least 48 of whom are Nobel laureates. As of October, the number of scientists who signed this declaration was in excess of 2,000. The cost of giving up CFCs can be enormous. They are excellent refrigerants. They keep our foods frozen at home and in the markets where we shop. They keep our homes, buildings and vehicles cool in summer heat. They are non-toxic, they do not explode and they are odorless. The cost of replacing existing cooling systems with new ones will be enormous. Perhaps the prospect of new business is why we have heard no opposition from the manufacturers of refrigerating equipment. What I find deeply disturbing about the fanatical environmentalists is that the movement has taken on all of the trappings of a fundamentalist cult. Differences of opinion are not tolerated. I have been shouted down by students in my classes and scoffed at by some of my peers because I dare to be a skeptic about the theory of ozone depletion by CFCs. Statements in a number of text-books fail to point out that the theory of ozone depletion by CFCs is unproven and that there exists ample scientific evidence that no depletion in atmospheric ozone is taking place. However, of greatest importance is that movements driven by fanaticism are intrinsically irrational. Fanaticism, be it religious, political or environmental, should not be tolerated.