Yeh, the HFC-134a is a good example of industry controlling what can can sold to maximize their profits. When freon 12 was banned, and freon 22 was restricted, they started looking for a good replacement. One was quickly found, a combination of butane and propane. In fact it worked as well as or better than the original freons, was compatible with them and the lubrication oil they used, so it could be used directly to replace them. But oh no, those chemicals are dirt cheap, and Dupont did not want to lose this nice cash cow, so they convinced congress that use of these should be outlawed because they are flammable. They ignored that fact that there is only a few pounds of them in a car air conditioner, and if they leaked they would immediately dissipate, and there is about 100 times more highly explosive gasoline in a car, plus the fact that freon was also flammable. They outlawed the environment finely butane an propane, and instead pushed the less friendly 134a because they could patent it and make more money on it. It required completely redoing the systems, uses an incompatible oil, and is, as far as I know, flammable as well.
Marshall Ode Coyote wrote: > Fluorochlorocarbons are pretty much inert but contain both deadly Chlorine > and Flourine...and carbon. > > [Sure, that stuff will 'break down' into toxic componants with high energy > UV..but you don't have that sort of radiation source inside and if you did, > that would kill you a lot faster] > > You can't make broad assumptions about chemical compounds. > Each one has to be examined under "real" conditions in proper contexts. > > In summary, HFC-134a has been rigorously tested for toxicity more than is > usual for other industrial chemicals, and all the testing has shown it to > have extremely low toxicity. HFC-134a is expected to be at least as safe as > CFC-12 which has an outstanding record of safety. > CFCs are members of the halocarbon family; which consist of a chemical > compound of the element carbon, and one or more of the halogens bromine, > iodine, chlorine, or fluorine (Encyclopedia Brittannica, 1982). CFCs were > first produced in 1928 by Thomas Midgley of the Frigirdaire Division of > General Motors, to obtain a safer substitute to the previous toxic coolants > such as ammonia and sulfur dioxide used in refrigeration and cooling systems. > > ..on the other hand... > Water can be quite toxic. > > Ode > > At 01:50 PM 7/24/2005 -0400, you wrote: > > > > > >Hi Duncan, > > > >I have to differ with you on your point of view on splenda. > > > >I'm not a chemist, but I did read Betty Martini's article. She did not say > >that no chlorine is good. Rather she said "chlorocarbons" are bad, and that > >chlorine in other forms, such as salt, are safe. > > > >Quote: > >"It is logical to ask why table salt, which also contains chlorine, is safe > >while Splenda/sucralose is toxic? Because salt isn't a chlorocarbon. When > >molecular chemistry binds sodium to chlorine to make salt carbon isn't > >included. Sucralose and salt are as different as oil and water." > > > >"Unlike sodium chloride, chlorocarbons are never nutritionally compatible > >with our metabolic processes and are wholly incompatible with normal human > >metabolic functioning."..... > > > >..."Splenda/sucralose is simply chlorinated sugar; a chlorocarbon. Common > >chlorocarbons include carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethelene and methylene > >chloride, all deadly. Chlorine is nature's Doberman attack dog, a highly > >excitable, ferocious atomic element employed as a biocide in bleach, > >disinfectants, insecticide, WWI poison gas and hydrochloric acid." > >End quote. > > > >You also mention that the body has only to deal with the .45 mg of a 15mg > >dose of suralose, and that "your body has built in mechanisms to deal with > >it". While this is probably true, it is also true that our body has the > >ability to deal with many poisons/toxins such as lead, fluoride, cadmium, > >mercury, DDT and chloridane, PFOA (from Teflon) and dozens of other > >poisons... but WHY ADD TO THE BURDEN? With cancer, heart disease, > >Alzheimer's, and so many other diseases on the rise, it just doesn't make > >sense to me. Doctors routinely see diseases today that were rare 30 and 40 > >years ago - Alzheimer's, childhood cancer and macular degeneration for > >example. There is so much toxic load in today's world that babies are now > >born polluted. > >See: > >http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2005- > >07-14T152835Z_01_N14715900_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-CHEMICALS-DC.XML > > > >Also note that according to: > >http://www.splendaexposed.com/ > >the percent of splenda that your body absorbs is around 15% (2.25 mg) not > >0.45 mg that you mention. I don't know who if either is correct. > > > > > >There are plenty of documented cases of people who didn't have the ability > >to detox splenda: > >http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_testimonials.htm > > > > > > > >Who knows what the long term side effects of Splenda are? - There have never > >been any long term studies to determine what they are, so those who take it > >are gambling. In my view, the prudent action is to use those sweeteners made > >by nature, they have a know track record of many generations. I don't > >understand why someone as yourself, who is a proponent of natural medicine, > >would promote something unnatural as splenda. > > > >John > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Duncan Crow [mailto:[email protected]] > >Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 11:28 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: CS>The Lethal Science Of Splenda - A Poisonous Chlorocarbon at > >News Breaking Healt > > > >Betty Martini's sucralose scare that is propagating on the Internet > >seems to be overstated. It does not mention that about 97% of each > >dose of about 15 mg of sucralose taken as a sweetener is excreted. > >This leaves .45 mg to be dealt with. > >........................................ > > > > > > > >-- > >The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > > > >Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org > > > >To post, address your message to: [email protected] > >Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > > >Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected] > >OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html > > > >List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> > > > > > > > >-- > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 7/22/2005 > > > > > > > > > >-- > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4 - Release Date: 7/22/2005 > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4 - Release Date: 7/22/2005
