R-134a Toxicology R-134a also has very low acute inhalation toxicity. The lowest concentration that causes mortality in rats, the 4-hour Approximate Lethal Concentration (ALC), exceeds 500,000 ppm. The cardiac sensitization response level for R-134a is approximately 75,000 ppm. Anesthetic-like effects are observed at concentrations greater than 200,000 ppm, or 20%. Long term exposures with very high concentrations, 50,000 ppm, caused an increased incidence of benign tumors in the testis of rats. Again, none of the observed tumors were life-threatening, and all occurred near the end of the study. The evidence from all tests in cultured cells or organisms, as well as in laboratory animals, indicates that R-134a in not genotoxic and that the increased incidence in benign tumors is not due to an effect on genetic material. The test findings indicate that R-134a has very low acute and subchronic inhalation toxicity, is not a developmental toxicant, and is not genotoxic. Most refrigerant manufacturers recommend that TWA occupational exposures not exceed 1,000 ppm; this also is the level recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) Committee. Again, exposures still should be kept to the practicable minimum.

It is important to note that the tumors attributable to the R-123 and R-134a exposures were not cancerous. The findings reflect an increase in tumor incidence compared to rats in the experimental control group, those not exposed to the refrigerants. Some tumors also were observed in this control group, but not as many. Also, the recommended occupational exposure limit for each refrigerant is below the level at which toxic effects were observed in laboratory animals. The use of rats, dogs, and other animals is based on accepted scientific procedures and sensi- tivities to specific concerns by species. The lower exposure limit affords both a margin of safety and a conservative reflec- tion of potential differences, between responses in individual humans and between humans and test animals.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrig...ackground.html

ORIGINAL: wheelsup
I just hate paying $1500 to replace the thing on a 12 year old car. Doing it myself is out, I saw the write up last year and it scares the crap outta me!!

ORIGINAL: tech
Well if you plan on getting atleast another 10 years out of the car you would be better off replacing it.

ORIGINAL: tech

I will be keeping mine till either I wreck it or it folds in half from driving it to long.

I get to attached to my cars.
Thats why the Mustang is still sitting in the Garage. It does nothing but sit there.
I could sell it in a heartbeat. It is a trunk car instead of a hatchback.
Everyone wants the Notchback cars.(trunk)