> Chloroflourocarbons.
>
> Those nice molecules that (as compared to most gas molecules in the
> air), weigh about as much as a small horse, and are extremely
> vulnerable to bioprocesses and sunlight.
Vulnerable? I always heard that they were used because they were
stable. They seemed miraculous: good for whatever they're good for,
and unlikely to trouble anyone. Basic chemistry: we're talking about
halogen atoms bonded to carbon. "Vulnerable" does not come to my mind.
"Teflon" does.
Yeah, they're vulnerable to sunlight -- to high energy ultraviolet rays.
Now, hydrogen-CFCs -- HCFCs -- are different. The current or almost
current _Nature_ had a column bemoaning the rush to ban HCFCs along with
CFCs. CFCs are stable, very powerful greenhouse gases when released,
and bad for ozone. HCFCs have a life time of 1.4 years and thus won't
make it to the ozone layer, and the letter argued that the energy
savings their use provides offsets any greenhouse increase they may
provide in that short lifetime. It also argued that production does not
have to equal eventual release, but I can't address that topic any
further.
-xx- GCU Mindstalker X-)
Death is for animals; immortality for gods. Technology is the means by
which we move from one state to the other.