In 1992 Gary Lindgren of Post Falls, Idaho was experimenting with some old refrigerators he had laying around and discovered the answer to what was then the looming refrigeration dilemma.
In the spirit of true American ingenuity, Lindgren founded OZ Technology to market HC-12a as an answer to the international clourofluorocarbon (CFC, FREON) ban as per the Montreal Protocol of 1987 to limit global warming and ozone depletion.
HC-12a is a completely organic, environmentally compatible hydrocarbon compound that, according to several foreign governments and environmentalist groups, is the world's answer to a safe, effective, inexpensive, environmentally sound drop-in replacement for CFC refrigerants which were banned in the U.S. as of January 1, 1996.
There is evidence to suggest that the CFC ban is another enviro-hoax based on bad science so big business can open up a brand new marketplace enforced by an international treaty and rape the people of the world for $billions. The estimated "chiller change" market in the U.S. alone is $40 billion.
The actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a self-admitted policy to drive Lindgren and other small hydrocarbon refrigerant producers out of business, make the enviro-hoax evidence all the more compelling.
To deal with the expected rush of second generation alternatives to banned CFCs, the EPA came up with its Significantly New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) list which approves or disapproves CFC alternatives.
DuPont, which incidentally holds the patent for banned FREON, the most commonly used refrigerant in the world, patented HFC-134a to replace FREON when the product became banned as of the first of the year. HFC-134a is on the SNAP list as an approved first generation replacement.
HFC-134a, a hydrofluorocarbon, is an unstable, expensive, corrosive, toxic, inorganic, greenhouse gas-producing product that requires a $2 billion chemical plant to produce and 10 percent of its total production volume is toxic waste; a product which will require the retrofit and/or redesign of every refrigeration system in the world to accommodate its corrosive nature with expensive, carcinogenic, synthetic compressor oils.
This nasty, dangerous, environmentally unsound product has been embraced by the EPA while it tells everybody who calls the EPA SNAP Hotline that HC-12a is banned and illegal. According to the EPA's own SNAP rules, HC-12a can be used to replace a first-generation replacement (HFC-134a) and to inform people otherwise is a lie.
The EPA's position concerning all refrigerants other than the DuPont product was made perfectly clear in an interview with Automotive Cooling Journal, April 1993. EPA Senior Policy Analyst Lena Nirk outlined how the EPA planned to run companies like OZ Technology out of business.
When asked if the EPA was planning to regulate hydrocarbon refrigerant manufacturers out of business, Nirk said, "I don't want to say that these substances, although we can't take them off the market today, that they will be around that much longer, in some cases. The effect of a proposed rule that says something is unacceptable, even if it's proposed, has a big effect in, if people aren't buying it in any big amount, it will disappear from the market..."
Earlier in the interview, Nirk admitted that, "The agency has for a long time supported the idea of a 134-a retrofit (in cars). We believe that would be easiest because it would limit the number of chemicals on the market..."
In a May 31, 1996, OZ Technology Executive Director Bob Small contacted Alice Law of the EPA Kansas City office in response to a call from a concerned HC-12a distributor in Iowa. It seems the EPA contacted the distributor and shared misleading information as to the legality of HC-12a.
Law confirmed that the EPA has continued its pattern and practice of misleading existing and potential OZ customers as to the legal standing of HC-12a as a second generation replacement for HFC-134a. Such EPA disinformation directly contradicts its own SNAP rules and an out-of-court agreement that the EPA would discontinue referring to HC-12a as a banned and illegal, drop-in replacement for HFC-134a.
In her conversation with Small, Law kept referring to the fact that she was operating from directives from "headquarters," but refused to identify those at "headquarters" responsible for maintaining the EPA policy of lying to the public.
Small informed Law that OZ Technology had an agreement in writing with the EPA which clarifies HC-12a's acceptance as a second-generation replacement in automobiles. Small even offered to provide Law with a copy of the transcribed conversation of when the agreement was reached.
Law said, "Well, just be aware that I must send it (the transcript) directly to headquarters." Law added, "...and I will keep advising people, which has been my advice, that HC-12a is not to be used in cars."
Law insisted that HC-12a is not approved in cars, as per directives from "headquarters," even though their own rules say a second-generation replacement can be used legally and lawfully so long as it is non-ozone depleting.
Small offered to send Law the entire packet of information including the safety test video to prove the legal standing of HC-12a. Law said, "I don't do safety tests. Again, I tell you, I'll just send it to 'headquarters.'"
When Small said he would get the information out to her that very day, Law said, "Very good because I'm having people call me every day and I will continue to give out the information that I have."
Small told Law she should, "double check with him (at "headquarters") because, like I say, we have..."
Law interrupted to say, "I have double checked this week about a half a dozen times."
Small asked if Law was allowed to say who it was she checked with. Law, apparently under orders not to come clean with the who and why of the EPA's policy to misinform the public about HC-12a, said, "Well, no, I won't at this time."
Most of the people in the refrigeration industry know that the CFC ban is a scam and that since the article "Idaho Man With Answer To International CFC Ban" was printed in the May edition of The Oregon Observer, many people now realize that the EPA is in bed with DuPont so it can maintain the near-monopoly on refrigerants that it enjoyed in the FREON days.
The following article was translated to English from a Japanese newspaper from April 24, 1996.
The Environmental Division of Japan has announced their intent to encourage Japanese business and industry to seek alternatives to ozone-depleting and global warming refrigerants.
On April 8, 1996, officials of the Japanese Environmental Division formally decided to work toward the phase-out of products which contribute to global warming. Their immediate concerns are household/industrial refrigeration and car air conditioning.
Officials revealed R-134-a (HCR-134a) has not previously been targeted internationally because it is non-ozone-depleting; but now, after extensive research, they have serious concerns because of R-134a's global warming potential.
They are encouraging businesses to explore other alternatives through new
technology to develop an alternative refrigerant that will result in negligible global warming potential.
A report published in The Lancet Journal August 23, 1997, presented powerful and well - documented evidence to suggest that hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which have been used to replace banned CFCs [like Freon], are responsible for a world-wide epidemic of liver disease.
The EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program Refrigerants Analyst, Jeffrey Levy, commented, "The report in The Lancet was interesting but not especially relevant."
In 1992, an international group of experts concluded "on repeated exposure HCFC 123 induces liver toxicity...," according to The Lancet report entitled, "Epidemic of liver disease caused by hydrochlorofluorocarbons used as ozone-sparing substitutes of chlorofluorocarbons."
See also: No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming