Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
By the way, the way you've written your whine, it very much sounds as if you are accusing BriPat1234 of getting hysterical and going full blown mental. You might want to adjust those opening lines before he comes after you with a big shillelagh. He's got quite the temper.
Tolerance of bigotry is not a virtue, asshole.
No, it's a fundamental requirement of freedom, asshole.
Not for the people whose rights you're violating.
Tolerance of bigotry is not a virtue, asshole.
No, it's a fundamental requirement of freedom, asshole.
Bri.....guy is part of that crowd who throws themselves off a 100 foot cliff before they'd slightly hurt somebody's feelings. Get hysterical about everything......go full blown mental case over a word or two stated on an internet message board. FCUK......how do these people navigate in the real world?Imagine working around people like this? I do.....they are the typical shit stirer problem employees that fcuk things up for everybody else with their thin skin. Deal with them all the time.....part of this new culture of hyper-sensitivity brought on by the PC whores, effectively ruining the workplace for everybody else. If you embrace anything traditional and publically state it, they loath you. You become a target. Its becoming an epidemic in my field......human services......these people are social oddballs who were irrelevant growing up and had to embrace this alternative social dynamic so they could feel relevant. Mental cases........
Nitrogen is the most common gas on the planet. How the fuck is it that you believe it is more expensive than a banned, manmade chlorofluorocarbon gas? Did someone drop you on your head as a child? Jeez.
Nitrogen has a boiling point of -320 degrees Fahrenheit. Freon has a boiling point of -21 degrees Fahrenheit. That means the later requires much less energy to condense into a liquid for use as a propellant in aerosol cans. It also means the pressure exerted by evaporating liquid Nitrogen is much greater then the pressure exerted by liquid Freon, which means a can using the former has to be much stronger.
see, the difference between you and I is that I actually know a few things about physics and economics. Whereas you are a total fucking ignoramus who spouts of the first idiocy that pops into your head.
Which is completely irrelevant since no asthma inhaler on the market uses a liquid propellant.
Mine has a tiny pump in it that is charged when you turn the top of the container. Then you push a button to release a dose. It doesn't get any simpler or safer than that.
Of course, the droplets produced by a pump spray are much larger than the droplets produced by an aerosol can. In other words, the result is much inferior to what an aerosol can gives.
The size of the droplets are a product of the design of the venturi used to deliver the medication, not a function of any propellant used.
Argue this all you want, but I've used just about every inhaler on the market, and the one I currently use works just fine. So the argument that is being made that Obama is jeopardizing the health of asthma sufferers is simply right wing bullshite, nothing more.
chlorofluorocarbons which were banned when?
Chlorofluorocarbons have been banned since 1996 because they destroy the ozone layer. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are a group of manufactured chemical compounds that contain chlorine, fluorine, and carbon. This group includes CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115, and many forms of Freon.
toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/.../chem..
So let us destroy the ozone because it's all Oblama fault for not letting us do it. But which would you like to have, an ozone or chlorofluorocarbons ?
The ozone layer regenerates on a constant basis.there are alternatives, but depleting the ozone layer, not so much...
You really have no idea what you are blabbering about, do you?
Yes, do you? The ozone can't regenerate at a rate sustainable when being bombarded with corrosive chemicals..
As though some asthma inhalers are going to destroy the ozone layer. Either that or you are being facetious.
So, you are either unfunny or just callous.
Why then was the chemical banned in 1996? Because it was not a hazard to the environment which we as humans depend upon or are you into self destruction?
It was banned because the EPA is under the control of an out-of-control gang of commies.
The ozone layer regenerates on a constant basis.
You really have no idea what you are blabbering about, do you?
Yes, do you? The ozone can't regenerate at a rate sustainable when being bombarded with corrosive chemicals..
Clearly, you don't have a clue. Ozone has a half life of minutes. It is highly unstable and decays almost as fast as it is created.
Yes, do you? The ozone can't regenerate at a rate sustainable when being bombarded with corrosive chemicals..
Clearly, you don't have a clue. Ozone has a half life of minutes. It is highly unstable and decays almost as fast as it is created.
And here's some more of SSooooDDuuumb's pseudo-science bullshit to debunk.
Ozone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent, far stronger than O2. It is also unstable at high concentrations, decaying to ordinary diatomic oxygen. It has a varying length half-life (meaning half as concentrated, or half-depleted), depending upon atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, and air movement). In a sealed chamber, with fan moving the gas, ozone has a half-life of approximately a day at room temperature[13]
That's right. And as the same article, immediately afterwards states "This reaction proceeds more rapidly with increasing temperature and increased pressure." Thus it will certainly NOT take place in less than half a day in stratosphere save where UVC has gotten strong enough to break it down. The concentrations of ozone by altitude in the stratosphere are precisely as described. The loss of ozone due to CFCs in the atmosphere and it's recovery since their ban is all exceedingly well documented.
Is there no mindless conspiracy theory on which you won't bite?
Clearly, you don't have a clue. Ozone has a half life of minutes. It is highly unstable and decays almost as fast as it is created.
And here's some more of SSooooDDuuumb's pseudo-science bullshit to debunk.
Ozone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent, far stronger than O2. It is also unstable at high concentrations, decaying to ordinary diatomic oxygen. It has a varying length half-life (meaning half as concentrated, or half-depleted), depending upon atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, and air movement). In a sealed chamber, with fan moving the gas, ozone has a half-life of approximately a day at room temperature[13]
Yeah, and out in the wild its half life is measured in minutes....of course you fell for the hoax....you have a big hoax me birthmark in the center of your forehead.
That's right. And as the same article, immediately afterwards states "This reaction proceeds more rapidly with increasing temperature and increased pressure." Thus it will certainly NOT take place in less than half a day in stratosphere save where UVC has gotten strong enough to break it down. The concentrations of ozone by altitude in the stratosphere are precisely as described. The loss of ozone due to CFCs in the atmosphere and it's recovery since their ban is all exceedingly well documented.
Is there no mindless conspiracy theory on which you won't bite?
Again, if it has such a long half life, why is it not well mixed within the stratosphere?
Of course, the droplets produced by a pump spray are much larger than the droplets produced by an aerosol can. In other words, the result is much inferior to what an aerosol can gives.
The size of the droplets are a product of the design of the venturi used to deliver the medication, not a function of any propellant used.
Right, that's why they use pumps for spray paint. The venturi solely determines droplet size only among pump sprays.
Argue this all you want, but I've used just about every inhaler on the market, and the one I currently use works just fine. So the argument that is being made that Obama is jeopardizing the health of asthma sufferers is simply right wing bullshite, nothing more.
You're basing your claims on your expert medical credentials, right?
I think we should leave these decisions to doctors, not you or EPA bureaucrats, don't you?
Of course, the droplets produced by a pump spray are much larger than the droplets produced by an aerosol can. In other words, the result is much inferior to what an aerosol can gives.
The size of the droplets are a product of the design of the venturi used to deliver the medication, not a function of any propellant used.
Right, that's why they use pumps for spray paint. The venturi solely determines droplet size only among pump sprays.
Argue this all you want, but I've used just about every inhaler on the market, and the one I currently use works just fine. So the argument that is being made that Obama is jeopardizing the health of asthma sufferers is simply right wing bullshite, nothing more.
You're basing your claims on your expert medical credentials, right?
I think we should leave these decisions to doctors, not you or EPA bureaucrats, don't you?
The size of the droplets are a product of the design of the venturi used to deliver the medication, not a function of any propellant used.
Right, that's why they use pumps for spray paint. The venturi solely determines droplet size only among pump sprays.
Argue this all you want, but I've used just about every inhaler on the market, and the one I currently use works just fine. So the argument that is being made that Obama is jeopardizing the health of asthma sufferers is simply right wing bullshite, nothing more.
You're basing your claims on your expert medical credentials, right?
I think we should leave these decisions to doctors, not you or EPA bureaucrats, don't you?
Yep.. EPA shouldn't be making decisions on inhaler/nebulizer designs. PERIOD..
flacidman said:I led a team designing a nebulizer for CF medication. With a nebulizer, the droplet size is EXCEEDINGLY small and uniform. And this is used in high end (mostly clinical, not home use) drug delivery. Cost of these delivery systems is HIGH because of govt mandated reimbursements -- not cost of manufacture. Our nebulizer had no cost controls because it was designed to admin CF drugs at HOME rather than as out-patient. And therefore the govt reimbursement would be the SAME AMOUNT even if the patient didn't have to sit in a clinic for administration. THUS -- the govt took the efficiency improvement right OUT of the cost equation. Which is why -- costs for common techniques never go down no matter what technical innovations or cost savings are applied...
