"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Are you seriously suggesting that the tiny quantities of halon discharged
in
airplane fires will have any appreciable effect on the ozone?

No. It's not the individual fires for which an individual canister of halon
is discharged that's the problem. It's the total leakage that happens over
the entire production, distribution, and storage lifetime of halon products.

That said, one aspect of halon and similar agents is that a very small
amount goes a very long way, in terms of depleting ozone. Because they act
to encourage chemical reactions that get rid of ozone without actually being
consumed in those reactions themselves (things that behave this way are
known as catalysts), once ANY halon or other depleting agent gets into the
upper atmosphere, it stays there for a very long time doing harm.

What makes you
think the other agents do not have the same or worse environmental
effects?

Um, because they don't. Your question is like asking what makes me think I
can't use water as fuel for my airplane. The chemical agents used in fire
extinguishers now are very different from halon, in that they are not
catalysts for ozone-reducing reactions.

In any case, I'm not here to debate the merits of halon bans with you. I
was simply explaining WHY the ban exists, and the error in your assumption
that a) you have to burn alive without halon and b) that cancer is the
concern. You should feel free to contest the ban as much as you like, but
if you don't get your facts straight everyone will just think you're an
idiot.

Pete