ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners DigestforFri 17 Jan, 2003



As of this time, this particular propellant (1,1-difluoroethane) has
been considered safe to the environment and non-toxic in most
concentrations.  However, unlike CFCs, it is flammable.

However, I should point out that CFCs were considered environmentally
friendly for many years, and non-reactive, but it was only many years
later that the awareness of their ozone damaging aspects on
disassociation of the chlorine radical high it the atmosphere was
realized, where one chlorine radical at those atmospheric conditions can
break apart millions of ozone molecules.  In fact, the damage to the
ozone layer accomplished by CFCs to date are from those released about
30 years ago.  Newer releases have yet to do their full damage.

I'm not suggesting that 1,1-difluoroethane will be found to cause
problems, but it may...

Also, other propellants are (or have been) used in some canned "air"
products.  The stuff I have here on the shelf (I've never used it) has
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and is considered a bad one for ozone
depletion (about 20-30% as bad as CFC 12 and CFC 11. It is not
considered flammable under normal circumstances.

Dry compressed air is renewable, cheap and safe, and an inexpensive
compression system can be bought for under $100.

Art


Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Arthur,
>
>
>>Rather than canned "air" which is really a propellant which can spit out
>>liquid on your film,
>>
>
> Just as a note, I have not had that problem as long as I don't use too much
> at one time (short bursts), and as long as the can is held upright.
>
>
>>(and besides its bad for the environment (including
>>your own personal one)
>>
>
> I thought it was more so those that used CFC based propellants that were
> (really) "bad for the environment", and that the "CFC Free" ones were not
> near as "bad".  The one I use has difluoroethane, and states "%100 safe for
> the ozone".  I did a web search on it, and I wasn't able to turn up anything
> substantive with a quick glance.  Do you have more information on this?
>
> Austin
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.