Because I remember some people saying the ban was unnecessary, the science of ozone depletion by CFCs was not proven, the ban would cause a strain on sections of the economy, etc, etc.
Has the ozone recovered?
2007-07-10 01:51:00 · 7 answers · asked by Dastardly 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's always better to use the least destructive chemicals. Freon was good stuff in its day, before the genral public know of its downside. Once informed less harmful chemicals were employed...that makes sense. The mantra that some change will cause 'strain on the economy' is something never proven to be true, while the chemical bonds that cause a reaction between Freon and oxygen in the upper atmosphere is proven. Generally I go with science, and so far I haven't gone with the the right wing radio talk show nitwits that carry industry's jock...but hey! That's just me!
2007-07-10 02:12:28 · answer #1 · answered by Noah H 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
When will it ever end? Freon was never a threat to the ozone layer. It is scientifically and physically impossible for freon used at ground level to affect the ozone in the upper atmosphere. Why? CFC's are heavier than air. If you open up a canister of freon it will spray out and fall down and pile up on the ground where, guess what, micro-organisms eat it!
The sun creates more and more ozone twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. The so called ozone hole over Antarctica is another joke. First of all, we never even measured ozone in the atmosphere before. When we did we found the "hole" which is a greatly reduced amount of ozone over the Antarctic than the rest of the world. HELLO? The sun creates ozone. The sun doesn't shine on the Arctic for six months at a time. Even when it does it is at an extreme angle yet the so called hole gets bigger when the sun does not shine and smaller when the sun does shine. Are you getting any of this?
If man deliberately went into a destroy the ozone mode and manufactured freon just to release it into the atmosphere as fast as possible the results on the atmospheric ozone would be negligible. The sun just produces more every minute.
.
2007-07-10 02:10:08 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope, it has ended up hurting the environment.
Ever hear of the Law of Unintended Consequences ?
When they banned CFC's, and replaced them with HFC's.
They had done no studies on the effects of HFC's.
While cfc's were harming the ozone layer.
HFC's cause Global warming and the use of HFC's to replace CFC's has caused billion of metric tonn's of global warming gas's to be released into the atmosphere.
2007-07-10 02:10:19 · answer #3 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, very beneficial. Real deeper problem, in China, where they never saw or had refrigeration, it is now becoming widespread. They have not banned Freon or CFC's and their refrigeration construction isn't quite leak free. They can punch bigger holes in the ozone layer than we ever previously thought to be conceivable.
2007-07-10 01:55:50 · answer #4 · answered by Rob's Corner 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If you're referring to R-12 refrigerant, my opinion is, NO. The people who benefited from that debacle is big business. DuPont owned the patent on R-12 and owns the patent on R-134 (it's replacement). On a whole, R-134 is actually much more dangerous for people to inhale. And to make things even worse, it's sold on the open market and any idiot can purchase it.
The benefactors were and are: DuPont, recycling equipment manufacturers, and a host of other big businesses.
The losers are, as usual, Joe Blow, public. :)
2007-07-10 02:08:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They were concerned about the chlorine. Well what about pools and bleach????
That seems like more of a problem to me.
2007-07-10 03:12:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
lol, now we have too much ozone!
2007-07-10 02:20:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋