IIRC a few of the arguments back then were:
-It is heavier than air so how is it getting into the ozone?
-Volcanoes shoot that crap straight into the Ozone-why no holes there?
-Something eats it when it hits the ground so no big deal anyway.
-The other countries are not banning it so quickly so attacking it will wreck the US economy including dupont
3 minutes of reading just got me these arguments:
-They drastically overestimated it.
-It changes seasonally so they just cherrypicked the worst times.
-Funding drives science and the funding is typically by environmentally driven types, nobody will fund anything pro corporation.
-Some new (now pretty old) techniques of measuring from space showed the ozone layer to be a constantly changing shape and size much like weather patterns, not a homogenous layer, so the current modeling is ridiculous and inaccurate.
Regardless of beliefs it was banned. It looks like DuPont got smart along the way and shaped the new policy to favor their substitute. So evil corporation still won fitting the theme of this thread.
Dr. Hess said:
Also, DDT wasn't bad stuff either. Didn't hurt Bald Eagles a bit. There even was a zoo that force fed a nesting pair DDT. No effect on their eggs/baby eagles at all. Another politics and money thing.
My wife is a wildlife biologist who works with non-releasable raptors in an educational role. She would say far less kind things than I'm about to.
DDT is dangerous because of biological magnification. Apex predators consume prey that have accumulated these toxins at levels higher than is considered tolerable because each link of the food chain multiplies the affect of the previous link. DDT thins the shells of their eggs because it affects calcium uptake due to an inhibitory function. When these birds incubate, they inadvertently break their own eggs, which means entire generations of replacement young were never born.
It's neither politics nor money that drive folks like my wife and I to be enthusiastic supporters of prevention in widespread use of chemicals...it's the lack of long-term data and complete denial by the companies that profit from it's use but are loathe to be held financially responsible for it's failings.
Also, removal of apex predators from their naturally evolved position in the circle of life has long-term catastrophic effects on ecosystems and the environment.
MrJoshua said:
...Regardless of beliefs it was banned. It looks like DuPont got smart along the way and shaped the new policy to favor their substitute. So evil corporation still won fitting the theme of this thread.
One of the weird side effects of the ban of CFC was that there used to be an inhaled (anti-asthma I think) medicine. Well, the inhaler used CFC, and was reported because of that and the company was force to redesign the inhaler. The catch? Well, guess who turned them in? The company itself! Why? Well, the re-design was considered a significant change, and that reset the patent on the drug...
johndej
HalfDork
7/29/19 11:01 a.m.
I've heard a bit about him... worked at Afton (Ethyl) Chemical briefly. I believe another poster here was employed by them at one time also.
aircooled said:
MrJoshua said:
...Regardless of beliefs it was banned. It looks like DuPont got smart along the way and shaped the new policy to favor their substitute. So evil corporation still won fitting the theme of this thread.
One of the weird side effects of the ban of CFC was that there used to be an inhaled (anti-asthmaI think) medicine. Well, the inhaler used CFC, and was reported because of that and the company was force to redesign the inhaler. The catch? Well, guess who turned them in? The company itself! Why? Well, the re-design was considered a significant change, and that reset the patent on the drug...
Never underestimate big pharma’s ability to skirt patents.
As a working chemist, the only thing I'll add is that one of my pet peeves is the belief "chemicals" are bad. Everything is "chemicals" except the vacuum of deep space. Some of those chemicals are very bad for us, some are required for life, but literally every molecule in existence is a chemical. We are literally, made of "chemicals." So it's wildly inaccurate to the point of absolute stupidity to say "chemicals are bad."
I'll spare you the rant about the blockheaded belief that "natural" compounds are always safer than "synthetic" compounds.
mtn
MegaDork
7/29/19 12:51 p.m.
ultraclyde said:
As a working chemist, the only thing I'll add is that one of my pet peeves is the belief "chemicals" are bad. Everything is "chemicals" except the vacuum of deep space. Some of those chemicals are very bad for us, some are required for life, but literally every molecule in existence is a chemical. We are literally, made of "chemicals." So it's wildly inaccurate to the point of absolute stupidity to say "chemicals are bad."
I'll spare you the rant about the blockheaded belief that "natural" compounds are always safer than "synthetic" compounds.
You're telling me that Botulin isn't safe????
Grizz said:
In reply to ultraclyde :
BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE
DON'T BREATHE AIR, IT HAS NITROGEN IN IT!
z31maniac said:
Grizz said:
In reply to ultraclyde :
BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE
DON'T BREATHE AIR, IT HAS NITROGEN IN IT!
Are you saying my car is already on Nawwwsss? AWESOME!
ShawnG
PowerDork
7/29/19 5:22 p.m.
I bought some high performance shocks, used, for my motorcycle.
The guy told me the charge was gone in them and I would have to recharge the nitrogen before I used them.
I asked if I could use 74% nitrogen instead and he got really confused.
ultraclyde said:
As a working chemist, the only thing I'll add is that one of my pet peeves is the belief "chemicals" are bad. Everything is "chemicals" except the vacuum of deep space. Some of those chemicals are very bad for us, some are required for life, but literally every molecule in existence is a chemical. We are literally, made of "chemicals." So it's wildly inaccurate to the point of absolute stupidity to say "chemicals are bad."
I'll spare you the rant about the blockheaded belief that "natural" compounds are always safer than "synthetic" compounds.
I agree. I know I said chemicals as if all are bad, what I meant was the kind that can have negative (and far-reaching) impacts for living things...which often is discovered AFTER they are released into "the wild".
It's like ORGANIC...bish, ANYTHING with carbon in it is organic...doesn't mean it's GOOD for you.
MrJoshua said:
IIRC a few of the arguments back then were:
-Funding drives science and the funding is typically by environmentally driven types, nobody will fund anything pro corporation.
Because as everyone knows, private corporations don't fund any scientific research, and if they did they wouldn't pay nearky as well as public backing...
