By government order, based on the Montreal Protocol (and as it turns out, nothing in particular), the cost of asthma inhalers is going up, to save the ozone layer. Many asthmatics won’t use their inhalers as much, or when the need is indicated. Actually, a great many won’t. Some asthmatics won’t have inhalers. Unfortunately, this will mean death for some asthmatics. But it saves the ozone layer.
Asthma inhalers go green but also cost more green
Oakland Tribune February 9, 2008 Barbara Anderson
Asthma inhalers are going green.
And users are seeing red over paying more for the new, environmentally friendly devices.
But like it or not, asthmatics who carry inhalers containing albuterol, a quick-acting drug that opens airways, will be switched to new inhalers soon — if they havent already — that are free of chlorofluorocarbons, an ozone-depleting propellant.
The old devices — called CFC inhalers — will be banned for use in the United States on Dec. 31.
Pharmacists say its increasingly difficult to order CFC inhalers. Manufacturers began phasing them out a year or two ago for inhalers that contain hydrofluoroalkane, or HFA, a more ozone-friendly propellant.
The new inhalers are as effective as the old ones, pharmacists and doctors say. But they’re more expensive and operating them requires some getting used to.
Overall, prices of the new inhalers are higher because there are no generic versions, said Nancy Asai, a pharmacist in Fresno. And that means higher insurance co-payments for the brand-name drugs. The new inhalers typically cost from $45 to $65, Asai said.
One brand of inhaler, ProAir HFA, is available for about $30 at some discount pharmacies. But the old generic albuterol inhalers cost less than that.
The hope is prices for the new inhalers will drop, Asai said.
David Harvey, 40, a Fresno radio salesman, paid about $25 for his albuterol inhaler a year ago. Today, he pays about $45 for the drug.
The government ban on CFC inhalers is in response to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international pact that called for the elimination of ozone-depleting chemicals.
The new inhalers are good for the environment, said Dr. Richard DeMera, a Fresno allergist. We needed to do this, he said. But patients are having to pay a higher co-pay for their inhalers.
Yes, many asthmatics won’t use their inhalers as much. It should save the ozone. We all must make sacrifices.
But wait; real scientific results say that there is no strong reason to have banned CFCs in the first place:
Ozone hole theory faces lab problems
Luboš Motl the reference frame September 29, 2007
. . . Even though this should have been a good enough reason to make lab experiments with all these compounds, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory apparently did these experiments only recently. Their experiments were probably not trivial and required some low-temperature engineering. What is their result for the rate of photolysis of Cl₂O₂?
It is almost ten times smaller than needed for the existing ozone hole theories.
That’s a huge problem. But only Markus Rex of Potsdam was brave enough to look at the ozone depletion theory with these new data. A lot of things have obviously changed. A dramatic conclusion is that
At least 60% of observed ozone depletion is due to an unknown mechanism.
At least all quantitative features of the models – that have been considered a part of the “scientific consensus” – suddenly become uncertain again. One modest implication is that we certainly no longer know which molecules are actually important for ozone depletion and whether most of this process is due to completely different reasons, perhaps unrelated to chlorine and bromine. . . .
Shades of global warming! Computer models – phoney computer models – have supplanted empirical science. Bogus theory comes from computer. Is there Latin for it? Don’t get me wrong. I am against unnecessary pollution as much as anybody. But $billions and $billions have been spent replacing CFC with vastly more expensive refrigerants or propellants, for no good reason. Are we really going to take random action to ban this chemical and that byproduct, regardless of human need; regardless of impact, regardless of the cost, and imagine that the requirement has a scientific purpose; that the cost is scientifically justified?
What do we really have against asthmatics? What do we really have against energy?
Filed under: Global Con | Tagged: Climate Fraud, Fraud | 3 Comments »