Clinton Environmental Policy Sabotaged the Shuttle

NewsMax.com ^ | 2/04/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[carl in alaska]

Please read post #24 above. I don't think it's a valid argument that environmentalists are responsible for NASA's shuttle foam problems. If freon-free foam is hazardous to the astronauts, then NASA should ask for a waiver on freon use from the EPA. As you point out, the amount of freon used in 4-5 launches per year is insignificant. So why shouldn't they be allowed to use it, especially when China is producing tons of "bootleg" freon every year? This has the look of a leadership and management problem at NASA. If the shuttle is not safe to fly, then you don't launch it. No excuses, no rationalizations. You just don't launch it, and if someone orders you to launch, then you resign instead. I haven't heard of any resignations lately by high-level people at NASA.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Tell me you wouldn't feel safer aboard the next shuttle launch with the tank coated in the good old fashioned freon-derived foam!

[carl in alaska]

Although freon is slightly heavier than air, trace amounts of it can still drift into the upper atmosphere as discussed in post #37 below. As for ozone, while it is mildly toxic to humans at low elevations, it forms the ozone layer in the stratosphere which absorbs massive amounts of dangerous ultraviolet rays. This UV absorption stops these UV rays from reaching the earth where they would damage plant and animal life. That's why you hear all the concern about destruction of the ozone layer.

This is really an interesting subject, because you see that some substances can be harmful at low altitudes and beneficial at high altitudes. Just for the record, I heard an interesting item on the TV news a few weeks ago: they said new research shows that carbon dioxide may radiate heat AWAY from the earth at high altitudes, while it absorbs heat at lower altitudes (the so-called greenhouse effect.) So the plot thickens, and it's clear that we haven't done nearly enough research to conclude that the greenhouse effect even exists.

[Lancey Howard]

Carl,
NASA is at the mercy of the politicians. When the politicians say "jump", NASA asks permission to come down. The "management" at NASA is not about to lock horns with the people who write the checks. If the scumbag politicians want to pander to the environmental extremists who help fill their campaign coffers, NASA doesn't stand a chance. That's the way it is, especially when the Democrats' parasite constituencies are constantly whining about "sending money to the moon instead of to the schools", etc., etc.

If NASA was intimidated into changing the composition of their foam insulation, they didn't stand a chance of getting a "waiver" and they didn't dare complain. All they could do was smile and say "yas suh!" Because next year, and the year after that, they have to go back to these same scumbag politicians and beg not to have any more cuts in their budget.

Regards,
LH

[backhoe]

Careful here....As far as I know the science behind the banning of freon is solid.

No, it isn't- if you will review all the information available, an equal number of scientists & researchers looked at the same data, and reached the opposite conclusion.

Their voices were not given any forum by the press.

There is a still-active volcano in Italy which spews about 4 quadrillion tons of flourine compounds into the atmospere per year- yet we were told the backyard mechanic's cracking of pound cans of Freon were damamging the Earth. It does not add up in either case.

[seams2me]

NO, I LOVE PINK LADY APPLES!!!! and they are from Washington State, I checked. (that's bad enough for a Texas gal like myself.) :P

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bump

[jpl]

Seven good people may have needlessly died because of a bogus theory being pushed by a bunch of neo-Stalinists.

I'm so pissed off right now I could just scream.

[timestax]

bttt

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Thanks,I will have to look into this further. I dunno the exact ban date/year. I know the environwackos and Clinton have worsened things with their environmental theories. I think I recall reading under Clinton DDT was refused to be reinstated.I remember the sprays in neighborhoods in trucks as a kid and it did not harm me.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Related Thread

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bump to the top

[timestax]

bump

[defenderSD]

"An equal number of scientists & researchers looked at the same data, and reached the opposite conclusion."

What data are you talking about? And it's not the backyard mechanics that could cause a problem, it's large-scale industrial users. I know that volcanos spew a lot of chemicals into the air, but not all flourine compounds can react with ozone. It takes a specific kind of compound that can initiate this chain reaction in the conditions of the upper atmosphere. I think too that it's important to understand that chemical reactions in the ozone layer are not that well understood, and the banning of CFC's was largely a precautionary measure because the risks from ozone depletion are so severe. If the risks were not so severe, we wouldn't have acted to prevent a potential problem. (It's a lot like Iraq today.)

[timestax]

bump to the top for newbies to peruse and make comments to

[timestax]

bump to the top

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

bump bump bump