[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        CFC'S STILL A HOT ISSUE

                                 ______


                         HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 13, 1994

  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention an 
article from the Specialty Equipment Marketing Association [SEMA]. This 
article was published in the SEMA News October 1993 issue. This article 
is one voice in a growing chorus of protest against the human 
devastation that could result from the ban on production of CFC's. I 
commend this article to Members' attention.

                      [From SEMA News, Oct. 1993]

                        CFCs: Still a Hot Issue

     Why is the auto industry letting the government dictate . . . 
     again?

                         (By Paul V. Sheridan)

       If a contest were held to award the most scientifically 
     baseless, politically oppressive, morally bankrupt, 
     economically destructive environmental farce, the hands-down 
     winner would be the banning of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). 
     Due to government intervention, the automotive industry is 
     being forced to scrap billions of dollars in unamortized 
     Freon-based equipment and spend billions more on equipment 
     dedicated to new refrigerants (R134a) since the two are not 
     compatible. Meanwhile, automotive A/C customers will see 
     their ``repair'' bill go from $25 to $800 as retrofits become 
     required.
       Whenever a major action is being dictated, especially at 
     the national level, ask yourself ``Who benefits?'' If your 
     answer includes ``arrogant scientists,'' ``trendy 
     politicians'' and ``faceless corporate bureaucrats,'' you can 
     safely assume that scandal is not far behind. These do-
     gooders will proclaim that you are going to benefit because 
     they are doing you a big favor  * * * one you don't remember 
     requesting.


                          unanswered questions

       When I began studying the theory that CFCs were affecting 
     the ozone layer, I found less and less, not more, 
     credibility. This trend continues at an accelerating pace. A 
     review should include these questions:
       1. The Rowland/Molina theory seeks to convince you that 
     chlorine from CFCs is responsible for ``destruction of the 
     ozone layer.'' If this is true, why did Mother Nature evolve 
     oceans that emit an average of 600 million tons per year, 
     80,000 times the chlorine theoretically supplied by CFCs? 
     What about volcanoes such as Mount Erebus which emits an 
     average of 1,000 tons of chlorine each day? When Mount 
     Pinatubo recently erupted, 10 million tons of chlorine was 
     ejected. Chlorine from this planet's 6,500 volcanoes has been 
     deposited directly into the stratosphere for billions of 
     years! Why weren't natural sources even mentioned in the 
     theory?
       2. Why are the major chemical companies pushing for a ban 
     of CFCs? What is the status of the international patent 
     rights to CFC production? Is it merely a coincidence that the 
     scheduled ban of CFCs coincides with the expiration of the 
     parents? Is it coincidence that the companies that are 
     shoving this ban down your throat are the very same companies 
     that hold the ``approved'' patents? Is it coincidence that 
     these bureaucrats are also major stockholders of media 
     mouthpieces such as Time? Is there any correlation between 
     the business plans of selected chemical companies, and the 
     subsequent emergence and widespread media promotion of this 
     theory?
       3. Gordon Dobson, the father of atmospheric science, 
     discovered seasonal fluctuation of the Antarctic ozone layer 
     in 1956. Why is this natural phenomenon never discussed? What 
     is the implication given that CFCs were not widely used when 
     Dobson made his historic observations? What is the 
     significance of the Scandinavian claim that their research on 
     ozone-layer fluctuations dates back to 1925--when CFCs had 
     not yet been invented!
       4. If the ozone layer is being ``depleted'' why has the 
     ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface been 
     declining for the last 50 years?
       5. Why the Tazieff Resolution? Why would hundreds of 
     respected scientists sign a document that states that the 
     CFC/ozone layer issue is a fraud? Why is this resolution 
     avoided like the plague by the American news media? The EPA? 
     Why is the Tazieff Resolution hidden from the public?
       6. Why did Vice President Al Gore fire Dr. William Happer 
     of the Department of Energy, who was pursuing a scientific 
     review of available data? He was also proposing more accurate 
     instrumentation to ensure credible conclusions. What does 
     this incident indicate about the ethical stature of the 
     present administration? Has Gore decided that the scientific 
     method should be replaced by ``political correctness?''
       7. Why House Resolution 547? This legislation calls for a 
     complete investigation of this fraud and will probably result 
     in criminal proceedings. Why haven't our friends in the news 
     media told you about H.R. 547?
       8. The original design criteria for refrigerant chemicals 
     was to be durable, non-flammable, non-corrosive and non-
     toxic. After 20 years of development and tests, and more than 
     40 years of use, CFCs have completely proven themselves. By 
     stark contrast, R-134a is flimsy, explosive, corrosive and 
     downright poisonous! Recognizing that they themselves will 
     not be routinely exposed to this unproven chemical, what 
     criteria did the EPA use to pronounce from their ivory towers 
     that R-134a was ``acceptable''?


                            requests denied

       I called the EPA (202/233-9155) and requested its human-
     toxicity studies on R-134a. Under the Toxic Substance Control 
     Act, the EPA is required to release these findings. It flatly 
     refused my requests. The important issue is the health risk 
     imposed on our technicians who will unknowingly be exposed to 
     a substance that is at least 100 times more carcinogenic than 
     the CFCs it replaces! The EPA does not want you to know the 
     details contained in the toxicity studies.
       That this fraud is backed by those who would dissolve 
     organizations such as SEMA is demonstrated by Mr. Gore, who 
     explains in his book that the automobile is a ``mortal threat 
     . . . more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever 
     again likely to confront.'' Certainly, politics, greed and 
     fascism are not new to humankind. What is new is the context 
     of these implementations: the environment!
       The 15th-century Europeans were told of sea monsters at the 
     edge of a flat earth. In truth, the market share of silks and 
     spices enjoyed by the major traders were being threatened by 
     the smaller mariners. Similar to the lies told of the earth's 
     flatness, SEMA is being told, ``The ship has sailed . . . 
     it's too late.'' That money-making ploy did not work for the 
     greedy mariners of the 15th century, and SEMA members need to 
     ensure that it doesn't work today. An excellent start is to 
     write to your congress-person and demand that he or she 
     support H.R. 547.

     

                          ____________________