From: john@makesys.com (John Turman)
Subject: Re: Intrepid and Ozone A/C
Organization: Make Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:12:12 GMT

In article: <=7hq5md@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>Just shows P.T. Barnum was right.  As with most of this econazi stuff,
>reality is a bit more nasty than the lovely shade of green painted
>by the ad agencies.

>The refrigerant is R-134a, a hyperfluroinated hydrocarbon refrigerant.
>According to the ozone theory of the day, it causes minimal damage to
>to the ozone layer.  This is subject to change since this is all smoke
>and mirrors.  Even though zero damage is claimed, EPA still requires it
>to be captured and disposed of. Just like R-12.

>While it "solves" what is likely to be a mythological problem, it brings
>some real world problems to the car owner.  All the materials used in
>an R-134a system are new and have unknown health effects.  R-134a
>has caused testicular cancer in lab rats.  While I place little faith
>in lab rat tests, it should be noted that R-12 is proven safe under
>all conditions that do not cause molecular disintegration.  Similarly
>reports are already coming in that the polyalkaneglycol (PAG) oil used in 
>R-134a systems causes severe skin irritation to some technicians.
>PAG has yet to pass the health screens so its long term effects are 
>unknown.  

>While non-flammable at atmospheric pressure, R-134a does become flammable
>at slightly elevated pressures (<5 psi).  Thus we replace a non-flammable
>refrigerant with one that can be ignited.  This is not as much of a 
>problem as it may appear because freon/oil, as emits from a leak, is 
>also flammable.

>On the maintenance front, the situation looks even more bleak.  The current
>price of R-134a is around $10 a pound.  Limited availability can cause
>a 30 lb can to cost as much as $1000 by the time it makes it to the 
>service technician.  Compare this to R-12 which went for $0.30 a pound
>before the econazis went on assault and even with the green tax, still
>costs only around $3 a pound.  This translates into stratospheric 
>repair costs.  Worse, no mixing at all is allowed between R-134a 
>and conventional systems.  Even traces of chloride ions cause 
>rapid failure.  The literature reports as little as 1% contamination 
>with R-11 causing compressor failure inside a week of operation.

>Lastly but not leastly, the cooling capacity of R-134a is about 30% less
>than that of R-12.  That means larger condensers, larger compressors,
>more power required to drive the compressor, lower economy and so on.

>There were alternatives that would have accomplished the same objective
>but since none of them had the political might of R-134a, R-134a is
>what you get.  Now doesn't that make you feel good.

>John

>-- 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC

One thing I find outrageously humorous or tragic, take your pick, about all
this hoopla about the ozone layer is that plain old water vapor is responsible
for 98 % of the depletion of the ozone. Why isn't anyone making noise about
this? Another thing I find rediculous about all this is that we've only been
studying the ozone layer for about 20 years maximum, hardly enough time to be
able to make any trend analysis a valid one. And one more thing to ponder as
you go about your busy day boys and girls, as far as I've seen nobody has been
able to prove conclusively that CFC's are at all responsible for deterioration
of the ozone layer, in fact studies I've seen suggest that the CFC's break
down before they ever get anywhere near the altitudes in question. Personnally
I think it's all just mass hysteria, as is a lot of environmental naziism.

When Al Gore has us all standing in bread lines because all industries that
are politically incorrect are shut down due to his environmentalist terrorism,
please don't blame me, I voted for Ross.

John T.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you take yourself too seriously, you'll be the only one who does.

..John Turman...
Newsgroups: rec.autos