All the points you make below are correct, except I had heard that R-12 was #1 in smuggling, maybe you are thinking dollars, and I am thinking quantity..
Marshall Sferic wrote: > No offense, Philip, but whoever wrote that article is very short of > facts. I'll name a few. 1) The use of CFC's was NOT banned in 1987. > FACT: CFC's are still available for purchase today (in the United > States). Their use has been restricted, and their manufacture has been > banned (only in Montreal Protocol countries) since January 1, 1996. > Mexico is due to quit production soon, but South American countries > still produce it, legally and illegally. Believe it or not, of all the > things smuggled into the United States, drugs are first on the list, > and R-12 is SECOND! 2) CFC's WILL be in the atmosphere a lot longer > than 20 or 30 years. R-12, also know by its DuPont name as "FREON" > (the main CFC used in history), has an atmospheric lifetime of 130 > years. 3) While I have read much implicating CFC's in the depletion of > the ozone layer (which is still a theory), I have never read anything > about the burning of hydrocarbons contributing to it. Adding to > 'global warming', yes, but depleting the ozone layer? 4) There is as > big a difference between "ozone layer depletion" and "global warming" > as there is between concrete and applesauce. In other words, they have > nothing in common. The author CONSTANTLY confuses the two subjects, > and treats them as one-and-the-same. So, in a nutshell, the author > makes such blatant errors in factual contents that I can't even begin > to take his personal theories or opinion seriously. Sferic
