Not to mention the automakers.  After all, who wins
when Joe Sixpack takes his 91 Taurus to Honest Ernies
for an A/C service, only to find that Ernie needs
$800-1500 to convert the system to CFC-free.  Just as
easy to buy a new car sez Joe.

Ditto with emissions testing.  Notice the carmakers
have quietly conceded to these measures also.

--- "Mark B. Magee" <condor2@FLASH.NET> wrote:
> Steven, et. al.,
> You bring up a good point; Monied Interests. From my
> review of the case for CFC's zapping the ozone layer
> is -very- weak. There are some interesting facts
> however:
> 1) CFC/R12/Freon was patented by DuPont Corp in the
> US and abroad many years ago. 2) 2) With slight
> tweaking of this molecule they (DuPont) was able to
> attain patent extension spanning nearly 50 years.
> 3) When it was apparent that no more patent
> extensions would be granted, this about 8-10 years
> ago, DuPont began (very cleverly from a business
> perspective) to send -huge- amounts of cash in the
> form of grant $$ to college professors who were just
> starting to theorize on ozone depletion due to CFC
> atmospheric release.
> 4) With this newfound $$, this relatively small
> cadre of scientists published thier findings and
> made a lot of excitement within the press of thier
> theory.
> 5) All the while, in the background, DuPont just
> happen to be able to patent the R-12 replacement,
> HF-134a, and have it officially approved by the EPA,
> and accepted among the major automakers in light of
> many competing companies with replacement molecules.
> 6) The scientist making hay over the CFC issue, were
> successful w/Dupont cash to get R-12 banned
> world-wide.
> 7) With R-12 now banned, no one can produce it
> "generically", and DuPont is making all the cash
> worldwide on the new refrigerant HF-134a.
>
> You draw your own conclusions, I'll follow the
> money/greed as the primary motivator in this entire
> issue. For the science is theoretical at best.
>
>
> Steven X. Schwenk wrote:
>
> >     I know...and all this crap about the world
> being round, i don't believe that, either.  We would
> all fall off!  :~)  sorry, couldn't resist.
> Ok...what's thew conspiracy, then?  What possible
> motivation to buy off reputable scientists world
> wide?  Sure, not everyone agrees...at least not
> yet.... too many monied interests for that to happen
> quickly
> > ... but with the potential harm so great, does it
> not make sense to err on the side of caution until
> we know more?
>
> ><>     ><>     ><>     ><>     ><>     ><>     ><>
>    ><>     ><>
> Shalom
>      87 GL
> Mark Magee
>  91 Westy
> Kemah TX USA                                      96
> Suzuki 4WD Sport
> John 14:6
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com