When mario molina and f. sherwood rowland first presented their findings about the threat of cfcs, the industrial chemists who developed cfcs scoffed at their warnings. they argued that cfcs were known to be very nonreactive. would you categorize the reaction of these scientists as science or pseudoscience? explain.

Pseudoscience contains the statements or practicles that are trying to be proved as scientific and explain the facts but are not accurate actually with the scientific method.

The CFC are quite reactive to produce chlorine radicel which results in ozone depletion and thus is reactive but according to the arguments of scientist that it is non reactive indicates that they are not having any factual description about the non reactivity of the CFC and thus the argument comes under pseudoscience.

on passing the small ampere of electric current through the tube made of ar and hg of cfl generates uv rays which excites the fluorescent and thus emits the high radiation by consumption of just 5- 12 w in comparison to incandescent light which requires more power such as around 40 - 55 w to lighten.

moreover the life span of fluorescent or cfl is around 8000 h whereas the life span of incandescent is around 1200 h

hence, the building installed with incandescent lights bears more electricity bill.