Chapter 15

The Best Solution to the Freon Non-Problem


Oregon Observer and Gary Lindgren

These facts are a continuation of the Oregon Observer story.

In 1992, Gary Lindgren, just a regular smart guy, a former aerospace engineer, got wind of the opportunity to create a solution to satisfy the fraudulent need for a Freon replacement. So, he began experimenting to see if he could come up with something while working in his home town of Post Falls, Idaho. He was toying with some old refrigerators, which he had lying around—so he had a nice sandbox in which to play.

Like many inventors before him, Lindgren hit the jackpot with a combination of chemicals that emitted no Ozone depletion factors, and was well within all of the numbers as specified by the EPA. Moreover, since his formula worked in all the old refrigerators, no major refrigeration unit would have to be replaced when his concoction replaced Freon. R-12 (Freon) could simply be taken out and Lindgren’s OZ-12 (a.k.a. HC-12a) put back in as a replacement, according to the Lindgren studies. Refrigeration experts across the Internet have certified this as fact.

Lindgren had in fact discovered the alternative answer to what was then the looming refrigeration dilemma—an inexpensive, harmless, non corrosive alternative to Freon. When the EPA moves out of the way, Lindgren’s brew may be found to be the safest for all commercial applications. But, we won’t know until we move the EPA and Obama out of the decision process.

Though Freon still remains scientifically OK, and it has never been proven to be an Ozone depleter, the fact is that the EPA, using what scientists consider bogus science, banned it and unless Congress eliminates the EPA, that ban will hold. Therefore Freon can no longer be used commercially.

To lighten that statement a bit; this made Freon’s use problematic at best. Lindgren’s solution is actually as efficient as Freon, and it is far better than the witch’s brew DuPont cooked up as its solution. Do you think that the malcontents at the EPA really liked the DuPont brew? Is it possible that there was something else in play?

Knowing this was an important discovery; Lindgren founded OZ Technology to market his discovery. HC-12a became his answer to the international chlorofluorocarbon (CFC, Freon) ban as per the Montreal Protocol of 1987, of which the US was a signatory. The intention of the treaty was of course to limit global warming and ozone depletion. Both of these notions are hocus pocus and in great disrepute as I write this book.

However, the EPA is indefatigable in its insistence that Freon and DDT must not ever be used again. It is carved in the precepts of their religion. When the EPA is gone, my recommendation would be to simply bring back Freon, unless we find Lindgren’s solution, when the light of day analysis is permitted, to be even better than Freon.

Lindgren had actually solved a “non-problem” with a wonderful and acceptable solution. This expose shows how the EPA could not accept a non-DuPont solution even though it is still recognized as the best solution of all by other opinionists in the world refrigeration marketplace. 

Because the statement is true, we do like to say that there is substantial speculation that Freon was and is not really an air-quality or atmospheric problem, but it served as a straw man—a declared problem to give the EPA a cause to act. Any solution that did not come directly from DuPont to replace Freon apparently was DOA at the EPA. Was it trust or was it corruption?

The EPA loved DuPont for its own reasons. The thinking is that the EPA and DuPont had been good bedfellows and the EPA did not like Lindgren’s HC-12a because DuPont could not make as much money on it. I am not suggesting the EPA got kickbacks but there is speculation something other than the facts had to create such a love affair.

Even the EPA does not take issue with the fact that HC-12a can immediately replace Freon (R-12) without any changes to the refrigeration / AC system. However, since HC-12a is a hydrocarbon blend, it is by definition, flammable. This is the claimed EPA big issue. Yet scientists and engineers, and even technicians know that all refrigerants in operation are flammable—even Freon. By itself, Freon is non-flammable but it becomes flammable when used.

How flammable is HC-12a? It is in the family of butane and propane and so, by itself, just like the component butane and propane gases, which are used for cooking and for lighters, HC-12a is highly flammable.  Before we move from this thought, however, think of all the things in a car that are flammable, including gasoline and motor oil.

Some readers may like to get an immersion education about hydrocarbons. Butane and propane and Lindgren’s HC-12a are hydrocarbons, as is OZ-12, the OZ version of HC-12a. For your edification, I found this site to be the most helpful in providing me with a basic knowledge about what the hydrocarbon debates against the EPA are all about. Feel free to take a trip when you can:

Learn more about hydrocarbons at

For your information, I have reproduced the hydrocarbon list from this hydrocarbons21 site for your convenience:

The following hydrocarbons can be used as a refrigerant in cooling & heating applications:


  • R170 - ETHANE - C2H6
  • R290 - PROPANE (Dimethylmethane) - C3H8
  • R600 - BUTANE (N-Butane, Butane) - C4H10
  • R600a - ISOBUTANE (2-Methylpropane) - C4H10
  • R1270 - PROPYLENE (Propene) - C3H6
  • R1150 - ETHYLENE - C2H4

However, the most commonly used HC refrigerants are propane (mainly in commercial and industrial freezers, air conditioning and heat pumps), and isobutane (in domestic refrigerators and freezers).

Gary Lindgren’s HC-12a is a mixture of hydrocarbons. Gary, who once was an aerospace engineer, used propane (R-290) and isobutane (R-600a) to create his effective concoction. So, for the EPA, the good news was that this is considered nearly non-ozone-depleting when compared to dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12, Freon-12), the banned substance.

The part the EPA did not like was it was actually more environmentally friendly than the newly adopted compound approved by the EPA known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) created by DuPont. Despite its great qualities, the EPA remained unimpressed with Lindgren’s solution. My perspective is that the EPA should have looked to either Lindgren’s solution or a derivative so the world would not now have to deal with the residual effects of R-134a, which are not very pleasant.

HC-12a can directly be used in refrigeration systems designed for R-12. Moreover, it provides substantially better cooling than an R-12 system retrofitted to the approved DuPont R-134a, with much greater energy efficiency as well.

Since 1996, HC-12a has been sold in Canada as Duracool but the EPA ban on HC-12a goes all the way to Canada. It cannot be used in automobiles even in Canada though it is a drop in with no work involved. HC-12a can be used in commercial units but cannot be used in mobile air conditioners due to the EPA blockage. Why is the EPA so much against the non-DuPont solution? Can it be its non-DuPont-ness?

Energy efficiency has always been very important to the EPA. As of January, 2012, the EPA has begun its process to eliminate incandescent light bulbs—not because the bulbs have any problem but because the power plants have to work too hard to light them. See Chapter 8. So, why choose a refrigerant that causes a car engine to have to work harder to cool a car?

Can it be that the playing field is not fair? Though the official word is that HC-12a performs better than R134a (the DuPont blend), unofficially, refrigeration experts will tell you that HC-12a is actually more efficient than Freon (R-12).

Unlike R-134a, the DuPont solution to R-12 (Freon), HC-12a is completely compatible with the hoses and oils used in R-12 systems, making the conversion much easier to accomplish if it were only permitted by the EPA. Though Lindgren did hold a patent for the specific mix, HC-12a was still considered to be patent-free due to its non-synthetic nature. That made it even more desirable as a replacement for Freon. Somehow, the EPA did not buy any of those arguments. Then again, the EPA is the EPA.

The documentation indicates that the flammability characteristics caused the EPA to declare HC-12a illegal to replace R-12 units in vehicles in the United States. It is not illegal to buy HC-12a in the US, but EPA approval is necessary today for corporations to adopt anything. So, nobody is trying to override the EPA even though they should.

The consolation prize for Lindgren is that his HC-12a product may be used legally in refrigeration systems that were not originally charged with R-12. However, using EPA guidelines, there are certain states that prohibit the use of flammable refrigerants in automobiles.

If we were not sure the EPA was pure, we should now think the EPA is not pure.

Those in the refrigeration business think that if Gary Lindgren, who unfortunately died in a fire in his trailer in 2009, was Mr. E. I. DuPont, or even Mr. Gary DuPont, speculators would think that all the stops would have been removed so that DuPont could market HC-12a free and clear. Lindgren, may he rest in peace, was harassed by the EPA until the day he died.

HFC R-134a

In my career as a Senior Systems Engineer with IBM, I was called upon often to evaluate one system against another over multiple criteria to ultimately determine and present which one was the best for a given situation. Fox Tools Supply Company sells HC-12a in America and they hope to wait it out until this phenomenal replacement for R-12 is in widespread use.

The company built a matrix very much like the ones I used for comparing computer systems so that it is easy to see the various characteristics and how HC-12a compares with the DuPont recommended solution HFC R-134a. Please notice in the chart that both are non ozone depleting. That is the only positive characteristic of the DuPont solution, though I do not claim to be a refrigerant expert.

The only real problem with R-12 that the EPA cared about was that they said it was ozone depleting (Real scientists do not agree with their premise.). If the EPA wanted non ozone depleting, that is what they got with the DuPont solution but it comes with a lot of other nasty baggage issues. If I were you, I would not want to ever touch HFC R-134a. The non-ozone depleting HFC R-134a is hazardous to the health of human beings and animals. But, why would the EPA care about that. Perhaps it is a tool that can be used to aid in population control?  I copied the Fox Tools chart from their site for our full review:



The chart on the next page shows the major differences between the HC refrigerant product and HFC R-134a


Notice the last item in the chart. It is not in the original document. I added it because from all the literature out there it is true. It tells you in no uncertain terms that all refrigerants are flammable when in use. The EPA ruled out HC-12a because it is flammable. Yet in system, all refrigerants are flammable so why is the whole story not being told to the public?

R-134a (and other refrigerants) is just as flammable as HC-12a when mixed with refrigerant oil, yet the quantity of refrigerant and oil in a typical system is so low that the danger of a fire issue in any case (including HC-12a) is minimal.

One would have to believe the EPA was asleep when they approved R-134a or they thought nobody would catch them. When R-134a is exposed to flame, it releases one of the worst gasses of all time. Perhaps you already know of the toxic phosgene gas. Contrast this with HC-12a, which is completely non-toxic.

In the interest of full disclosure, do you find it strange that the EPA does not discuss the phosgene gas as a problem in case of an auto accident? After all, this colorless gas gained infamy as a chemical weapon during World War I. It is more lethal than mustard gas.

I would like to see burn tests on R-134a. In most refrigerant information sites they offer the same response as the wiki.answers site I reference below:


HC Refrigerant Products such as HC-12a

HFC R-134a

Non Global Warming (GWP negligible)

Global Warming (GWP of 3200 for r134a on Greenpeace calculations and publications. In other words it is a light greenhouse gas.

Non Ozone Depleting

Non Ozone Depleting

Non Toxic

- Animal Testing has indicated that with repeated exposure Benign testicular may develop

-Postmortem will indicate increased organ weight

-r134a Human Testing has indicated that with repeated and/or high concentration single exposure humans may experience any of the following:


Reduced oxygen intake


Temporary alteration of heart's electrical activity


Irregular pulse / palpitations


Inadequate circulation


Heart irregularities


Tremors and other Central Nervous System symptoms


Unconsciousness or death


Thermal decomposition (exposure to open flame, glowing metal surfaces) forms

"Hazardous" hydrofluoric acid and possible carbonyl fluoride (both of which can cause severe  Central Nervous System reactions.)

Compatible with both mineral and synthetic oils including PAG and Ester oils

r134a not compatible with mineral oils.  Need ester and PAG only.  Ester oils are very hydroscopic.  PAG oils are subject to toxic registration in certain states/regions. . 

Non Corrosive

r134a Highly Corrosive

Pressure "high side" of MVACS approx. 150 psig

Pressure "high side" of MVACS approx. 300 psig

Energy efficient compared to R-12

r134a not energy efficient compared to R-12

Flammable – non toxic emissions when burning

R-134a (and other refrigerants) appear to be just as flammable as HC-12a when mixed with refrigerant oil, yet the quantity of refrigerant and oil in a typical system is so low that the danger in any case is minimal. Additionally, when R-134a and R-12  is exposed to flame, it releases toxic phosgene gas, whereas HC-12a is completely non-toxic


“R134a, when exposed to a flame, such as from a candle, a cigarette or a gas range, decomposes into phosgene gas, which can be deadly if inhaled in sufficient amounts.”

It is strange that the EPA bans HC-12a but permits R-134a. Gasoline is flammable. Motor oil is flammable, and R-134a in system is also flammable. But, the EPA is right. You are likely not to die of burns in an R-134a equipped vehicle perhaps because the WMD gas released during burning will get you ( phosgene is a deadly WMD gas) before the flames burn any part of your body.

The EPA does not suggest that and it is possible that the amount of phosgene in a potential accident may be minimal or something not to be concerned about but that is a risk not too many would want to take. Why does the EPA not fully explain phosgene gas? Would you rather be burned or would you rather inhale something that did not kill you until a few weeks after it was inhaled?

In the first combined chlorine/phosgene attack by Germany in WWI, against British troops at Wieltje near Ypres, Belgium on December 19, 1915, 88 tons of the gas was released from cylinders causing 1069 casualties and 69 deaths. Nobody ever died from HC-12a gas, so you tell me which is more dangerous to humans. Clearly the EPA believes that Freon Gas (R-12) and is more deadly to Mother Nature; but what about humans?

If you would like to learn a bit more about air conditioning in very, very, easy to understand terms, feel free to go to You may not be interested. I too was not interested originally but I am glad I took the trek. If you want to learn more about lethal gases used in wars, we have no additional references.  However, as you, we are shocked about the notion of phosgene gas close by humans after a decomposition of an AC refrigerant.

Let me go over this flammability issue one more time and you tell me whether the EPA ought to approve HC-12a since the flammability issue is not as clear-cut as the EPA would like us all to believe.

As discussed, all refrigerants are blended with oil in the actual system, and all refrigerants are violently flammable under catastrophic system breach conditions (refrigerant rushes out, creating aerosol mist of oil—a big flame-ball erupts whether it's R-12, R-134a, OZ-12, or whatever). So, should fire be an issue with HC-12A? It does not seem so.

Is the reason that HC-12a is not approved because it is not very expensive and anybody—not just DuPont can make it?  It is a fact that the hydrocarbon blends (HC-12a, etc) are very cheap (about $1.25 for enough to charge a few systems), But they aren't approved by the EPA for use in automotive A/C systems.

I am so suspicious about getting my facts from the EPA that I searched many other sites for corroborating evidence before I came to any conclusions. Again, I am not a scientist but I do have a B.S. degree in IT. I was not conducting experiments either. I was assessing analysis done by experts.  I would love somebody to do an expose on why HC-12a is really being held up.

Apparently trying to avoid a defamation suit, the Oregon Observer in its expose, danced around the issue as it noted that “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.”

HFC-134a as documented in the Oregon Observer and as we have shown in the chart has many undesirable properties, but the EPA knew it was an original product by DuPont. Among its undesirable “retro” characteristics it was found to be an unstable, expensive, corrosive, toxic, inorganic, greenhouse gas-producing product. Somehow, none of that mattered to the EPA or to DuPont.

To make HFC-134a, any other producer would require a chemical plant that cost at a minimum, $2 billion. That just about assured DuPont would get all the refrigerant business at the time. HFC-134a was the EPA strategy, and they made sure it worked from a business standpoint for DuPont.

When market entry ($2 Billion) is expensive or difficult, the dominant player gets what the business people call a “monopoly.” As a casual observer, my research shows that is exactly what DuPont needed to rescue itself from its malady—what were once its Freon profits.

Somehow, a man from OZ became a threat, but he would not have been able to come up with a $2 Billion bogey to beat DuPont in a rigged market. Then again, if DuPont held the patent any plant-building would be moot.

Clearly, patent restrictions as well as hostile market entry terms made it highly unlikely that any other company would ever be able to make the HFC-134a product. So, the EPA saw its job to prevent any other “nobody” solution from getting the light of day.

Working further on the list of retro characteristics, nobody in the mainstream media will report that 10 percent of the total 134a production volume always ends up as toxic waste. This nasty stuff needs its own disposal methodology. Besides what appears to be potential corruption in the approval process, I would suggest that the worst part of HFC-134a from a commercial perspective is that it requires those who switch from Freon to suffer through an expensive conversion or get a new air conditioner or refrigerator. The new box, of course can use any legal EPA approved refrigerant. Moreover, if your Freon unit, needs to simply be recharged, the EPA will not permit it. The system needs to be changed and 134a will be your new game. That is a very expensive proposition.

In other words, every refrigeration system in the world had to change so as to accommodate the corrosive nature of HFC-134a. The DuPont invention was really bad overall. DuPont perhaps knew it would be adopted by the EPA regardless of faults, and they may have thought they could come up with something better sooner, but there is no documentation supporting that line of thinking. In a nutshell, HFC-134a is a poor product, and America would be better without it.

When it needed to become the product released to market, and it needed t work for consumers, DuPont needed to augment it with some hellish chemicals including expensive, carcinogenic, synthetic compressor oils. The profit motive for some companies is a huge driver of product change. Without the bad stuff, whatever good HFC-134a promised could not be delivered.

HC-12a, a product of one man’s garage, needed none of this extra duty work; but, then again, it was not made by the EPA-friendly DuPont Company.

Most of the people in the refrigeration industry know that the CFC ban is a scam and thanks to the Oregon Observer, the late Gary Lindgren and others, now you know also.

Based on what we now know, why should we, the forgotten taxpayers of America, pay the salaries of 18,000 people in this un-American Agency that works against all of US. It costs US $10.5 billon per year, and each time they do anything, we lose!

Regardless of the opinions of ideologues and zealots, the EPA deserves nothing. Hopefully a quick end to its existence will come very soon.

Medical Evidence -- CFCs Help Asthmatics

The EPA CFC ban used a broad brush on CFCs. There are no exceptions. The EPA is all-knowing! No exceptions is the EPA hard-nosed style. Even if your product helps living people live better than any other product, the EPA says it must be removed as the EPA is unmoved by human needs. If the EPA thinks X; X it shall be!

Even if your company was using just a few ounces of a CFC for your product, it would still be banned. You would not be permitted to make the device. It did not matter to the EPA that products that used just a miniscule amount of CFCs were proven to be the best products in their marketplace and they could actually help people live better. For example, Doctors of asthmatics believe that CFC inhalers are unmatched in their ability to relieve the symptoms of mostly younger Americans.

In other words, in the marketplace, if the EPA were not a participant, the inhaler that helped children the most would have been the one doctors prescribed the most. Can you imagine if the EPA is the agency Obama selects to enforce the medical provisions of Obamacare?

Just like the EPA stopped the Gulf oil spill from being cleaned up in short order, they have stopped the use of the best inhaler for asthmatics while concurrently claiming their organization is the reason humans can breathe.

The ideological EPA knows what it is doing. CFC inhalers will be banned forever as long as the EPA can control Congress. Despite proof from the medical community that the EPA ban causes deaths and discomfort for young Americans, the EPA continues to be unmoved.

The bottom line for the EPA on the CFC ban on inhalers is that they are still banned and will continue to be banned as long as the EPA has any say. Children in this case are the ones who suffer while the EPA executes its agenda without scientific proof a ban is needed. The EPA says “No.” to any exception. Congress unfortunately remains powerless as the Obama team controls the Senate.

The EPA created a medical issue out of its major scheme or as some called it, a scam. The issue they wanted to assure was put out to the public was “CFCs hurt all people.” The medical community disagrees with the EPA, but this regulatory body overruled the doctors and nurses and instead won one for the environment at the expense of our children.

Doctors and medical practitioners are upset that the EPA has placed its agenda over what is good for Americans, especially those with bronchial issues—mostly young people.

Here are some unaltered comments from medical professionals about CFCs. Again, you must make your own decision:  Check out the site when you have time:

Here are the quotes introduced by the site above. 

"I occasionally have bronchospasm after I get a cold, and I personally can say that the HFA version of albuterol doesn't work. My patients say the same thing. How CFC inhalers were banned and more expensive, less effective medications substituted for dependent patients is beyond me. Dr. Howard Schulman, RI #4916

“Many say that they feel like the inhaler isn't delivering the medicine.”

Dr. Mario Castro, pulmonologist and associate professor of medicine for Washington University's School of Medicine, December 29, 2008

"During my twenty five years of practicing medicine, I have had occasion to treat hundreds of asthmatics, from mild cases to severe cases requiring hospitalization. I can report that during this time, I had many patients who responded better to the CFC inhalers than to the HFA inhalers. The relief response was faster and more pronounced, and these patients were much more satisfied with the CFC inhalers.”

"Fifteen years ago, I developed the sudden onset of adult asthma,which was frequently severe to the point of crisis, requiring oxygen as well as injections of epinephrine and steroids. I feel that the CFC inhalers provide faster and longer lasting relief from difficult breathing than the HFA inhalers.”

"The amount of CFC’s released into the atmosphere by the MDI's from asthmatics is trivial in comparison to the numerous other causes of contamination, andto withhold an effective therapy for one who feels suffocated and unable to breathe is callous and grossly misdirected. Many physicians feel that there is an emotional component to the causation of asthma.”

“Even if studies claim that the two types of inhalers are of equal effectiveness, to deny to an asthmatic in crisis the medication he or she feels is more effective is cruel and might well aggravate the asthmatic symptoms instead of providing the treatment (i.e. CFC’s) the asthmatic person feels is more effective.”

"CFC’s are not available because of the influence of medically untrained persons prevailing upon the legislature to ban them from the marketplace. It has been widely noticed that when a patented drug’s patent protection expires, and cheap generics become widely available, the manufacturer of said patent medication immediately produces a new patent-protected medication said to produce much better clinical results. Note that universally, the new medication is considerably more expensive than the former patented drug, and many times more expensive than the generic version.”



The EPA worships nature and abhors man. The more humans that live on earth, the more unhappy is the EPA. The more comfortable humans are made the more likely they will want to live longer lives.

Would the EPA care if children with bronchial issues died because of the CFC ban? That is already on the table. If they cared, for the amount of traceable pollution, the ban would be lifted in these circumstances.

At, there are a number of complaints about inhalers and ironically there are also ads for inhalers. Here are some comments from the site.

“The ProAir brand inhaler does not reach the lungs and does not contain more than 20 doses when it is supposed to contain 200. I and 6 children all have had lifelong asthma and we cannot get relief resulting in many trips to the ER. Every doctor and pharmacy argues with me that they work just fine and they have had no other complaints.

“Type in ProAir on the Internet and complaints come up one after the other. Why is the FDA not correcting this when people are literally dying? And why are these doctors and pharmacists lying to us?

“All insurance companies will only cover the red ProAir canister and that is usually with a hefty co-pay. Then when they only last a few days, they will not let asthmatics get any more because they insist it was a 30 day supply!

“A few weeks ago there was a big deal made about a college girl who "died from overuse of her inhaler.” Her classmates stated that she had been puffing on it more than usual until she finally died. It was all over the news until the comments from those of us that use these inhalers were very negative stating that this poor girl died because she kept trying to puff on her medication, but it was not reaching her lungs and did not stop the attack that killed her. Those comments stopped any reporting of this case and the poor girl's death is just going to go down as her doing something wrong. These cases are too many to mention so they are just being disregarded. This needs to stop!”

Closing Note

In the war against humankind, in which the EPA may already be engaged, a desirable “end game” would be that 90% less people live on the planet after the war. Mother Nature would finally be appeased. If you buy that, do you think there is any collective weeping in the EPA for a soul that passes on because they could not breathe without help from a banned CFC?