Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, so you decide to go with ammonia.

Then, in 20 years, someone posts on the Internet saying "what greedy, shortsighted moron decided to replace inert Freon gas with a poisonous, explosive, corrosive gas that's already killed hundreds? I wonder how he would feel if it was HIS family that had been killed when that building's HVAC system leaked?" What would you tell them? Would you own up to your self-centered mistake and apologize?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AFAIK there is nothing wrong with Freon as long as it is used in a closed system. Freon is an inert gas that has many beneficial uses. The problem is high in the atmosphere, where CFC destroys the protective ozone layer.

The only problem with Freon is preventing it from being released in the atmosphere. As was the case using CFC in pressurized aerosols spraycans, which can just be replaced by pressurized air at a slightly higer cost.

Thus the problem is not the use of CFC, but its containment.
https://www.brighthubengineering.co...efrigerants-that-cause-ozone-layer-depletion/

p.s. IT IS A CRIME TO RELEASE CFC INTO THE ATMOSPHERE OR TO DUMP IT INTO THE GROUND.
i.e. leaking CFC is "criminal negligence".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hate that phrase. Doing nothing is always an option. Where governments are involved it tends to be the prevalent option.

What you mean is that it's an option you don't like.

 

Something HAS been done to reduce the release of CFC into the atmosphere. CFC aerosols have been outlawed by international agreement.

https://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_...ommunity_to_control_the_damage_to_ozone_layer

 

You have no idea what you are talking about....
Google ammonia refrigerators, caravan fridges, Portable fridges. you simply have no idea how to discuss anything...
The pages you refer to is simply because of the BS that is being posted that I am refuting...

What have I posted that is actually wrong?
Anything?
You failed to find anything last time... how about you go look again...
Just fill this thread up with false accusations like you always do...

 

compared to CFC, as was the original question, which would you prefer, Global destruction of the ozone layer by CFC or locally managed relatively minor ammonia potential leaks.

Again you fill threads up with BS.

Also guess what?
The ozone layer (O3) is created from O2 and if hypothetically Atmospheric O2 is depleted due to running a deficit caused by the loss of major forests, guess what happens to the ozone layer?

 

Agree!
But continuing to allow CFC and other Halons to be released to the atmosphere in aerosols, refrigerator recharge etc was not a happy option. It would mean that the ozone layer would further deplete.
The question posed by Billvon was this:

His question is badly flawed to begin with. ( too much energy being spent on attacking rather than thinking)
There has always been an alternative to CFC, even before 1920's use as a fire controller.
So it was never a choice between just CFC and HFC.
His question implies that the only choice was to move onto HFC's when simply removing CFCs ( even with out a replacement), according to the Montreal Protocol was all that was fundamentally necessary.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (a protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer) is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion.​

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

With or with out a replacement, CFC's had to be removed and disposed of properly. (I was working in the automobile industry at the time and had to deal with CFC recovery nearly every day.)
But as far as removing the threat to the Ozone layer doing nothing was not an option. Unless of course you maintained the use of CFC's and looked forward to being irradiated.

So Billvon is demonstrating further how the Dunning-Kruger syndrome exists in all people and not just the anti-science people.

 

Right.

I asked you if you had that one choice, which choice would you make? You could not answer that question.

You then substituted your own answer, which was that you would use ammonia - guaranteeing that there would be a great many deaths due to the use of that toxic, flammable and corrosive refrigerant. Like the people you attack, you did not even know the extent of your own ignorance.

There's a lesson there that I am sure you will not learn.

 

Absolutely nothing. There is not even a hint that we would lose so much O2 that the ozone layer would be threatened. You are making things up again.

 

Also it is worth noting that the rubber hoses in Automotive applications are designed to be porous and over time will leak CFC gasses regardless of maintenance.

 

perhaps you don't know what the term Hypothetical means...
Or perhaps you do and just wish to play games by switching from hypothetical and actual..
which is it?
Ignorance or deliberate obfuscation?

btw on a more friendly note... I am waiting for an email reply to the issue of Pressure needed to maintain acclimatization at a Hypothetical 15% O2 mix atmosphere...I will post results for your edification when I get them.

 

yes , don't ask stupid and impossible to answer questions.

Currently what is the death rate associated with Ammonia?
Compare with Skin cancer numbers?
What is the total damage being done to our biosphere due to ozone depletion?
Compare with Ammonia deaths?

It's a no brainer honestly....

 

How about CO2 as a gas can be quite dangerous to humans and other oxygen breathers if it leaks? ( climate change for one example)
or CO ( Carbon monoxide) is also a gas that if leaked can be dangerous to humans - Motor cars, fossil fuel burning, aircraft , etc...
or Iodine 131 radiation from Nuclear tests, war and accidents, hey, that can be pretty devastating as well..

 

That was in days of old when Ammonia was used with rubber hoses. They leaked ammonia.

This was before we knew CFC attacked the ozone . Actually we made this discovery by accident while measuring other stratospheric phenomena.

But AFAIK, due to the international cooperation in restricting CFC, the ozone layer is in process of recovery and less problematic refrigerants are being considered.
One of the main problems is that automobile refrigerants require world-wide dedicated stations for servicing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Refrigerant

 

A good post!
One little correction if I may?
The hoses used in all automotive CFC, HFC applications are indeed porous, requiring the systems to be recharged on a fairly regular basis, (100,000kms or there about) commonly requiring a top up but vac-ing down and recharging completely was and still is a better option due to the need to remove any corrosive water build up inside the A/C system.
In the 1920's rubber manufacture was inferior by today's standards as well. Physical comparison is obvious if you had the opportunity to examine vintage cars etc.

CFC's appeared to be the ideal solution, with out any thorough testing on environment complications. Understandably in those days environmental concerns were very low priorities.
as wegs and RainbowSingularity has alluded to, the benefit of hindsight grants us the capacity to learn from our mistakes. If and only if the mistake is not terminal.

BTW, If I am not mistaken CO2 as a refrigerant requires extreme pressure vessels with their inherent dangers but I may be talking out of turn...

 

Weren't you the one saying "doing nothing is not an option?" And here you are, saying you can't do anything because the question is too hard to answer.

Low. About 120 a year in the USA. That's because we don't use it for refrigeration much. Use more, death rate goes way up.

Skin cancer in the US kills about 10,000 people a year. Of them, about 1% are due to increased UV from lack of ozone. So about the same.

Of course, if you had your way, the ammonia deaths would be 100x what they are now.

Yes. You would give a no-brain solution - and thousands would die.

 

You are serious? Surely not!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://www.who.int/globalchange/summary/en/index7.html

Note the graph c/o WHO only refers to millions of skin cancers and does not discuss billions of cataracts and other issues. Nor does it discuss impacts on phytoplankton and other earth life forms or DNA mutation.
The real cost of this scientific folly is not only unable to be estimated in dollar terms but will not even be fully realised or even close for a number of generations.
Your attitude is really a very good example of the topic of this thread. Mis-informed anti science, fake news. Do some research next time.

 

How many would have died if you just removed the cfc gas with out providing an alternative gas?

Right now even though we have a better understanding of the ramifications we are still running a similar risk to the use of CFC's. We simply do not know everything. Using a gas that we humans have evolved with and adapted too makes much more sense than throwing our evolution into the deep end with a heap of unknowns when we really don't have to in the first place.
Just sayin'....

 

I wanted to add but edit time out occurred.
The mistake has to be acknowledged, confessed to and owned first before it becomes a lesson.

We stuffed up ... I accept it, I own it, I learn from it... do you?