Date:         Tue, 24 May 2011 22:53:58 -0500
Reply-To:     mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Vanagon a/c
Comments: To: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <4ddc728d.22bb340a.3205.0be5@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Sorry David.  Jeff and I rub each other the wrong way, and I should not let intrude on the list.

So far as the relative importance of the consequences of chlorofluorocarbon pollution vs. greenhouse effect, and trade offs of approaches to avoiding one or the other, I try to do what I can on both.  I have no idea why Europe is discontinuing R134a, or whether they are.

But there is little vanagon content in this, beyond the choice to retrofit an old R12 system.  Most of them are leaky, and at this point, with current knowledge, I'd rather leak R134a than R12, though I have always suspected that R134a may end up being considered problematic for some reasons.  After all, "who knows what evil lurks ............... ?"

DMc

---- David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET> wrote:
> At 10:39 PM 5/24/2011, Jeff Schwaia wrote:
> >So... what about greenhouse v. CDC issue?
>
> Ok gents, you've each had your licks.
>
> If you want to continue the discussion on its merits, go ahead within reason.
>
> Yours,
> d mod

--
David McNeely