Date:         Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:52:06 EDT
Reply-To:     KENWILFY@AOL.COM
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         KENWILFY@AOL.COM
Subject:      Re: Who has the real skinny on R-12?
Comments: To: Steve@schwenk-law.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

In a message dated 6/11/99 3:17:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Steve@Schwenk-Law.com writes:

<< Please, Ken, if you have doubts, read the scientific literature, not EPA.
 You
 can't be serious that this is all a wacky conspiracy.
 steve
  >>
Hey all I was doing was asking questions.  To me the whole thing doesn't make
sense.  They make a big deal about how that R-12 is going to mess up the
ozone layer, then they approve a replacement for it (R-134a) that is a known
"green house" gas.  So we don't mess up the environment one way we mess it up
another (assuming the ozone hole idea and the global warming ideas are both
actually true).
I just wanted to know if anyone else saw the inconsistancies here.
As I have said before I am not a scientist or a chemist.  But I hopefully do
have the common sense God gave Lettuce (which some scientists or chemists
seem to lack).
Not a Flame.
Where is Super Bulley when you really need him?
Ken Wilford
Van-Again
John 3:16