Xref: utzoo sci.bio:2415 sci.chem:584 sci.med:13015
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!utastro!terry
From: terry@utastro.UUCP (Terry Hancock)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.med
Subject: Re: PAM propellant
Message-ID: <4472@utastro.UUCP>
Date: 16 Oct 89 23:32:07 GMT
References: <1989Oct16.145131.13913@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: terry@astro.UUCP (Terry Hancock)
Organization: UT AUSTIN Astronomy Department/McDonald Observatory
Lines: 31

>
>As well, there is the question of non\-propellant use of CFC's.  For 
>instance a `correction fluid' for typists called `LIQUID PAPER'
>would appear to contain such products.  In two bottles I just picked
>up in our storeroom here, are slightly different labels:
>     1) Contains: Chlorinated solvent(s)
>and, 2) Content: 1.1.1Trichloroethane
>
>Clearly when this stuff evaporates and dries on the page, these
>solvents are released.   Can you buy LIQUID PAPER in the USA?  Do they
>say what is in it?
>-- 

	Since trichloroethane is a chloro-carbon, but evidently not
a chloro-fluoro-carbon (CFC) (I assume, not being a chemist), I wouldn't
think the ban would cover it.
	Which brings up a question I've wanted to ask -- do chloro-carbons
or fluoro-carbons catalytically reduce ozone too, or is it only
the CFC's?

	I'd appreciate an e-mail reply, as I read this newsgroup only
intermittently.

>Name: Richard Snell
>Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    M5S 1A1
>UUCP: uunet!attcan!utzoo!snell      BITNET: snell@zoo.utoronto.ca

********************************
Terry Hancock
terry@astro.as.utexas.edu
********************************