Conference back40::soapbox

    i was just awaitin on the legendary phil hays to start this one.

 (1)  UV(fairly high energy) + O2 -> O + O

 (2)  O2 + O -> O3

 (3)  UV(most of the UV band) + O3 -> O2 + O

Reaction 1 and 2 create ozone.  Reaction 3 is how most UV is absorbed.  

 (4)  O + O3 -> O2 + O2

Reaction 4 is the normal way for ozone to be destroyed.

 (5) UV + CFC's => Cl + ....

 (6)  Cl + O3  -> ClO + O2

 (7)  ClO + O3  -> Cl + O2 + O2

Reactions 5,  6 and 7 are how CFC's destroy ozone.

Most of the Cl in the atmosphere at the base of the stratosphere is in CFC's.  

If CFC production is eliminated then the ozone layer will restore itself.

To replace CFC's will cost the US about $200 per person to get a 90% 
reduction in ODP sometime between now and 2020.  I suspect we can afford it.  
Most equipment will just be replaced when it wears out.

HCFC's cost about the same,  are about as safe,  etc..  They also have ozone
depletion potentials ODP of about 3% of CFC's they replace.  Now,  I do agree 
that replacing HCFC's in 2030 doesn't have a good solution today.  But it's 
not like we don't have some time to look at the problem.

In 1993 cars with HCFC-123a air condition units cost about $100 more than
cars with CFC units.  This will drop with time:  it's mainly startup costs.
Window units use (not sure,  think it's CFC-22) with (I'm sure) an ODP of 8%:  
doesn't need to be phased out to 2020 something.  Whole house AC using natural 
gas fired ammonia is often cheaper today (depends on gas/electric cost ratio).  
(Commercial units often use ammonia or HCFC's today).

The tough problems we have years to solve,  and if no good solutions show up
we will not be the only ones wanting to change the treaty.  

Most (90+%) of the reduction can come from replacing one high ODP CFC with a 
low ODP CFC or HCFC.  There is _no_ reason not to this.

Human produced chemicals may be a tiny fraction of total chlorine,  but are
the source of about 90% of chlorine in the stratosphere.  Between about 1940
(when stratospheric chlorine was first measured) and 1990 the amount of
chlorine in the stratosphere has gone up 10 times.


Phil

    okay, gene, indulge phyl this one-time, maybe he'll shuddup
    about...what else was i gonna say?

    
    
    Better start putting mufflers on the cows.  That would do the most
    good.  

    You need one too!

    
    Well, since it was suggested yesterday that I let you in on my diet
    secret.......perhaps your note belongs in the pot/kettle topic? 

    Good Answer!  Good Answer!!
    

    Yea, Mikey's gonna do a hipster type workout video and 'recipes by
    Mikey'...
    
    the profits go to his MickeyD fund

    
    
    
    And Ronnie has contributed his favorite recipe, fried butter.....

    The amount of ozone-eating stuff that man tosses into the atmosphere
    (assuming that freon and other crap actually reaches high enough to do
    damage...which I'm not saying it doesn't), is a small fraction of what
    nature itself does.
    
    By spending billions of $$ a year to slow man's expulsion of
    ozone-eating chemicals only harms industry and taxpayers with very
    little REAL benefits to the ozone layer.
    
    -steve

    Steve Leech, you've already been taught that natural chlorine sources
    (such as from volcanoes) throw up water-soluable compounds, which are
    washed out by rain before they get to the upper atmosphere.  Freon and
    other CFCs are not water-soluable, and survive until they get there.
    
    When will you learn?

    I thought everyone knew that the hole in the ozone is over the building
    where the SLT resides :-}
    
    

	Isn't there a BIG ozone hole right around Revere Mass? You know, where
all the High Hair Princess' live. (both male and female) 

    re: .12
    
    I doubt all of it gets washed out by rain before it hits the upper
    atmosphere.  What doesn't get washed out is still more than what man
    throws into the atmosphere, most likely.
    
    -steve

RE: 38.14 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum"

> What doesn't get washed out is still more than what man throws into the 
> atmosphere, most likely.

The measured chlorine in the stratosphere roughly 90% from human produced 
gases,  mainly CFC's.  We can believe you,  or we can believe the
measurements.


Phil

    RE:38.13 
    
    Male Princess' ???
    
    You been listenin' to Chelsea or something???
    
    ;^)
    
    C

    re: .15
    
    You can't trust measurements...better take my word for it.  8^)
    
    There's an agenda afoot, you know.

    I think the topic title would make one hell of a band name... in fact,
    I'm gonna talk to my mates about it tonight.
    
    -b

    I think your agenda is much more obvious, Mr. Leech.

| <<< Note 38.16 by CSLALL::CEANES "Laughter is a smile that exploded" >>>



| Male Princess' ???  You been listenin' to Chelsea or something???



	Nah..... just see them in the gay community.... :-)  In fact, my
roomate's one of them gals. :-)

    re: .19
    
    Yup...I'm against federal intervention in private business and my
    personal life.  I'm funny that way.

RE: 38.21 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum"

> Yup...I'm against federal intervention in private business and my personal 
> life.  I'm funny that way.

Is dumping your used motor oil into a lake your private business?  


Phil

    > Is dumping your used motor oil into a lake your private business?
    
    Dumping oil into the lake is wrong.  We shouldn't need the gov't
    to tell us that.  Common sense...

    >Common sense...
    
    isn't.

	Common sense tells us taking something that doesn't belong to us is
wrong. Common sense tells us that killing another person is wrong. Would you
like us to do away with the government telling us this and the punishments that
go along with it or are you a pick and choose type-o-person when it comes to
what the government should or shouldn't tell us?

    re: Note 38.25 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
    > Would you like us to do away with the government telling us this and
    > the punishments that go along with it or are you a pick and choose
    > type-o-person when it comes to what the government should or shouldn't
    > tell us?
    
    If this was directed at me, I'd prefer for government to obey the
    Constitution when wondering what it can tell me.  The Constitution
    indicates individuals operate under Common Law, not Statute law.
    If I crack your head or steal your car I've broken the law and should
    be punished.  If I wish to destroy my property, I suppose that's my
    call.

RE: 38.26 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly"

> If I crack your head or steal your car I've broken the law and should
> be punished.  If I wish to destroy my property, I suppose that's my
> call.

What if you dump oil into a lake?  Should you be punished?


Phil

| <<< Note 38.26 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>


| If this was directed at me, I'd prefer for government to obey the Constitution
| when wondering what it can tell me. The Constitution indicates individuals 
| operate under Common Law, not Statute law. If I crack your head or steal your 
| car I've broken the law and should be punished. If I wish to destroy my 
| property, I suppose that's my call.

	But dumping oil into a lake was something you stated as being common
sense and it should not be done and no law should be in place. Cracking my head
open or stealing my car (which you wouldn't want as it's a Toyota) are
basically common sense things too that really fall under the same catagory.
That's why I asked if you wanted to see those laws go away too, and if not, are
you a pick and chose type of person.

	Dumping oil into a lake is something that happens. If the government
doesn't come in and say it is against the law, then people will feel it's ok to
do so, won't they? If they took murder off of the books, would common sense
keep people from committing them or would murders happen a lot more? Can you
see why I asked this Mike? Common sense does not mean people won't do it. In an
age where people search for ways of getting around the laws of the land, don't
you think they would scream there is no law so it's ok?


Glen

    Whose lake is it?  If it's not mine, that's destroying property.
    If it's mine and I dump oil into it, I'm stupid.
    
    Take it a step further.  What if you own a powerboat with an
    engine that leaks oil.  Can you get screwed by the gov't for
    negligence?  Do you want to give the gov't that much power to
    regulate people?  Hey, technically your dumping oil into the lake.
    Do you change the oil in your cars in your own driveway, or have
    you been prevented from doing this by local ordinance yet?
    
    Can you burn leaves in your yard?  Can you burn your trash?  I can.
    I don't need the gov't to tell me what I can and can't do.  Like I
    said, if I pour oil into my lake I'll ruin it.  If I spill some oil
    while working on my cars, I don't need the EPA and OSHA and other
    gov't agencies fining my arse off or putting me in prison.

    re: .27
    
    If it's his lake, it's his business.  

    re: .28
    
    Why must the federal government do this, though (in conjunction with
    the EPA)?  Why not have local laws to protect specific communities? 
    Oh, I forget, it is not their job to be responsible for their own land,
    it is the job of the government to create bureaucracies to govern the
    affairs of private land-owners and force its laws on local communities.
    
    -steve

    
    Federal regulation of pollution makes more sense than local regulation,
    because, for one thing, pollution has a nasty habit of wandering from
    where it was spilled; and for another thing, you don't have to worry
    about localities bidding to attract industry by relaxing their local
    pollution laws.
    

| <<< Note 38.29 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

| Whose lake is it?  If it's not mine, that's destroying property. If it's mine 
| and I dump oil into it, I'm stupid.

	And by you dumping oil into it, does it affect other people? Like say
the water table for others? Wildlife? Fish? 

| Take it a step further. What if you own a powerboat with an engine that leaks 
| oil. Can you get screwed by the gov't for negligence? Do you want to give the
| gov't that much power to regulate people? Hey, technically your dumping oil 
| into the lake.

	If you didn't fix it, yeah, you should be screwed.

| Do you change the oil in your cars in your own driveway, or have you been 
| prevented from doing this by local ordinance yet?

	Everyone has been prevented from dumping their oil wherever they want.
I remember my father would dump it on the side of the driveway, which was a
leave covered hill. Never thought that this was wrong. Everyone was doing it
afterall.

| Can you burn leaves in your yard?  Can you burn your trash?  I can. I don't 
| need the gov't to tell me what I can and can't do.  

	Do you burn with or without a permit? 



Glen

    re: Note 38.28 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
    Under Common Law, there needs to be a victim.  If I crack your head
    or steal your Toyota Corroda you are a victim and I violated the
    law.  Don't get confused. 
    
    If I pour oil in YOUR yard, I've violated you.  If I pour oil in
    MY yard I've violated myself.  The goverment, under statute, wants
    to become the victim in the case of dumping oil in my own yard, or
    lake in this case.
    
    By allowing this we let the gov't dictate other things to us as well.
    Sooner or later they're telling you how to run your own life.  Gee,
    doesn't that sound familiar?                           

    
    .34, Mike:
    
    Oil poured in your yard, if there is enough of it, makes it into the
    water table.  Then it is no longer simply your problem.  Also, there
    is the issue of the ultimate disposition of the land.  When you sell
    it, do you tell the new owners that the soil has been poisoned?  If
    you would, then do you think most people would, and accept a lower
    price for the land?
    

    re: Note 38.33 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
    You ask me if *I* need a permit?  Permit = permission to do something
    from big brother.  The answer is obvious.  
    
    > And by you dumping oil into it, does it affect other people?
    
    Ah ha.  IF it affects other PEOPLE, then I am breaking a law.
    If I dump oil in my property and it flows into someone elses yard,
    or over to their dock than I am screwed.

	Mike, it ain't a Coroda, it's a Sellithuh. But when you dump oil into
your yard/lake, it goes somewhere. It can do more harm to wildlife and such.
Are you saying that this is ok?


Glen

| <<< Note 38.36 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>



| You ask me if *I* need a permit?  Permit = permission to do something
| from big brother.  The answer is obvious.

	Actually, permit means that the fire dept says the conditions for the
day are ok to burn. So if you were stupid enough to burn your own leaves in
your own yard on a day where the winds were whipping up, you, who feel you
should be able to burn what you want, when you want won't start other fires
that would bring our tax $$$ into play cause your own house is burning to the
ground! 

| > And by you dumping oil into it, does it affect other people?

| Ah ha.  IF it affects other PEOPLE, then I am breaking a law.

	I really like this way of thinking. Hey, until it actually does another
person harm, stay away. Do you wait until your oil in your engine is completely
broke down before you change it or do you do some errr... preventative
maintenance on your vehicle(s)?


Glen

    > Are you saying that this is ok?
    
    No I'm not saying it's ok.  I'm saying the gov't should have no 
    business telling you what you can and can't do on your own property.
    Dumping oil will eventually ruin stuff that's not yours.  It's
    irresponsible.  It's not smart.  Should it be a crime?
    
    If we allow the gov't too much authority, you can see in the extreme
    they will abuse that authority.  That's why I pointed out the example
    of changing the oil in your driveway.  You allow them to regulate
    what you can do in your driveway yet scream like hell when they
    enter your bedroom.  I expect them to MTOFB where my property begins.
    
    Another thing:  Do you have emmissions testing?  I don't.  It's another
    way of squeezing money from you.  The gov't _can_ squeeze the auto
    manufacturers, but they have a lot of clout.  It's easier to screw
    individuals.  How much longer before you need to pay a personal
    emmisions fee when you fart?  Seriously.

    No man is an island, Mike.

>	Actually, permit means that the fire dept says the conditions for the
>day are ok to burn. So if you were stupid enough to burn your own leaves in
>your own yard on a day where the winds were whipping up, you, who feel you
>should be able to burn what you want, when you want won't start other fires
>that would bring our tax $$$ into play cause your own house is burning to the
>ground! 

No, permit means I need to pay a FEE for something that says "it's ok to
burn leaves" or something.  Notice the FEE.  What else can they regulate
and charge you for?  Lots of stuff.

I gladly fund my local fire dept.  Of course, by the time they get out
to my house, my house will be burned down unless I put the fire out.  Face it. 
Some people are stupid and they will screw up something.  Who am I to dictate 
to you what is "stupid" and what is "OK".   

>	I really like this way of thinking. Hey, until it actually does another
>person harm, stay away. Do you wait until your oil in your engine is completely
>broke down before you change it or do you do some errr... preventative
>maintenance on your vehicle(s)?

See how nice things would be if we all minded our own business?  I take
all my used oil to a local garage and they gladly dispose of it in a 
responsible manner.

    >I take all my used oil to a local garage and they gladly dispose 
    >of it in a responsible manner.
    
    The problem is that, in the absence of regulation, most garages,
    most PEOPLE, will simply pour the stuff down the drain.
    
    People, and businesses, will always do everything they can get away
    with...and with an issue like pollution, the long-term results are
    just too serious to be left to the whims of the `brain-dead' as
    the masses are so often referred to here.
    

>The measured chlorine in the stratosphere roughly 90% from human produced 
>gases,  mainly CFC's.  We can believe you,  or we can believe the
>measurements.

How was this determined?  It's not like you can query a chlorine atom and ask
it if it was attached to a CFC molecule, or came out of a volcano or something.

-Madman

RE: 38.43 by WRKSYS::MORONEY

>> The measured chlorine in the stratosphere roughly 90% from human produced
>> gases,  mainly CFC's.  We can believe you,  or we can believe the
>> measurements.

> How was this determined?  It's not like you can query a chlorine atom and
> ask it if it was attached to a CFC molecule, or came out of a volcano or
> something.

You can query a chlorine atom and find out if it is currently attached to 
a CFC molecule.  It's a strong bond,  call it love?  :-)

More to the point,  air at the base of the stratosphere has ~90% of the 
chlorine in CFCs and other artificial gases and ~10% in natural organic 
chlorine gases.  Air in the stratosphere has the same amount of chlorine 
(Hmmm conservation of mass works),  but largely converted to inorganic 
chlorine.  

Accurate measurements of chlorine concentrations in the stratosphere go back 
to the early 1940's.  These measurements showed a chlorine level one tenth 
the current value.  


Phil

RE: 38.39 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly"

> Dumping oil will eventually ruin stuff that's not yours.  It's 
> irresponsible.  It's not smart.  Should it be a crime?
    
Dumping CFCs will eventually ruin stuff that's not yours.  It's 
irresponsible.  


Phil

| <<< Note 38.39 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>


| No I'm not saying it's ok. I'm saying the gov't should have no business 
| telling you what you can and can't do on your own property. 

	Let's see.... the government happens to see the danger of the future,
so instead of letting it happen and worry about it later, they put a stop to it
before it happens. This is bad? I think by now the government knows the dangers
of dumping oil. They have cleaned up enough places to realize this is bad. From
these clean-ups they have seen that it causes harm to others, not just to the
person doing the dumping. So they put a stop to it. What is so hard to
understand? You agree if you wack me in the head you should be punished. Yet
when you know your actions will hurt others EVENTUALLY from dumping oil, you
don't think the government should step in. EVEN though the wildlife that
happens to be on your property, who have not learned to read the private
property signs, will be insured, if not killed if they get caught up in the
mess. 

| Dumping oil will eventually ruin stuff that's not yours. It's irresponsible.  
| It's not smart.  Should it be a crime?

	YES! Read the part above about wacking me in the head!

| If we allow the gov't too much authority, you can see in the extreme they will
| abuse that authority.  

	To be honest with you, it can and does happen. From the government, to
the police force, to the town council, to your boss at work. It happens. It
does not mean that we should disregard everything because some will abuse. 

| That's why I pointed out the example of changing the oil in your driveway. You
| allow them to regulate what you can do in your driveway yet scream like hell 
| when they enter your bedroom.  

	Let's see.... oil will hurt others.... what goes on in the bedroom will
not. Yeah, I can see how they are the same.... NOT! Apples and oranges.

| Another thing: Do you have emmissions testing? I don't.  

	Don't as a whole or you personally don't because you have old cars? 

| It's another way of squeezing money from you.  

	It's another way of helping with the polution problem. Combining it
with inspections really doesn't add that much more to it.

| The gov't _can_ squeeze the auto manufacturers, but they have a lot of clout. 

	You are right they could squeeze the manufactures a little harder.
Especially now that profits seem to be up so much. The air bag took too long to
get into the picture. 

| How much longer before you need to pay a personal emmisions fee when you fart?
| Seriously.

	Yeah, you are being so serious...



Glen

| <<< Note 38.41 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>


| >	Actually, permit means that the fire dept says the conditions for the
| >day are ok to burn. So if you were stupid enough to burn your own leaves in
| >your own yard on a day where the winds were whipping up, you, who feel you
| >should be able to burn what you want, when you want won't start other fires
| >that would bring our tax $$$ into play cause your own house is burning to the
| >ground!

| No, permit means I need to pay a FEE for something that says "it's ok to burn 
| leaves" or something. Notice the FEE. What else can they regulate and charge 
| you for?  Lots of stuff.

	Mike, if a store charges you for stuff, do you complain? If you were to
pay for a mechanic, and they charge you for washers they used, do you bitch? It
seems that companies can do what they want to make money for stuff, to pay for
services, yet you don't feel the same way about the government. Why is that? 

| I gladly fund my local fire dept. Of course, by the time they get out to my 
| house, my house will be burned down unless I put the fire out. Face it. Some 
| people are stupid and they will screw up something. Who am I to dictate to you
| what is "stupid" and what is "OK".

	Mike, how do you feel about welfare? How do you feel about someone who
never checks the oil level in a car that burns oil? Does it really make sense
to wait until something happens until someone does something about it? That's
stupid. Were you ever one to bitch about the deficit? It could have been
addressed years ago. It could even have been prevented. But we waited, we let
it grow, and we were stupid for allowing it to happen. Something that has been
proven again and again to be stupid, to cause harm to others, should have
something done about it. Whether it's the deficit or dumping oil. 

| >	I really like this way of thinking. Hey, until it actually does another
| >person harm, stay away. Do you wait until your oil in your engine is completely
| >broke down before you change it or do you do some errr... preventative
| >maintenance on your vehicle(s)?

| See how nice things would be if we all minded our own business?  I take
| all my used oil to a local garage and they gladly dispose of it in a
| responsible manner.

	Mike, you totally avoided the question. Do you wait for the oil to
completely break down or do you do preventative maintenance? If the latter, why
are you so against the government doing the same on something that is known to
cause harm?



Glen

    re: .45
    
    That's what I said.
    
    re: .46
    
    The first sentance of your note describes, clearly, something called
    prior restraint.  That is something to be extremely carefull with.
    You can't have a bat because you might misuse it.  You can't do this
    because you may hurt yourself, you can't do that because...
    
    see where that leads?  We are supposed to trust each other.  We
    ARE the government.  You must be found to be not worthy of trust
    in a court of law before you can be punished.  Can't punish people
    BEFORE they do something irresponsible.  Understand?

    re: Note 38.46 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
>| If we allow the gov't too much authority, you can see in the extreme they will
>| abuse that authority.  
>	To be honest with you, it can and does happen. From the government, to
>the police force, to the town council, to your boss at work. It happens. It
>does not mean that we should disregard everything because some will abuse. 

Minor nit:  Take my boss out of the question in the above sentance.
Now, government officials are not supposed to have this power to abuse
authority.  When are you going to take it back or will you continue to 
submit to the gov't?

>| That's why I pointed out the example of changing the oil in your driveway. You
>| allow them to regulate what you can do in your driveway yet scream like hell 
>| when they enter your bedroom.  
>	Let's see.... oil will hurt others.... what goes on in the bedroom will
>not. Yeah, I can see how they are the same.... NOT! Apples and oranges.

Take it a step further with your logic.  What happens if you get a serious
STD and I'm what's called a taxpayer?  I get to pay to fix you up because
you did something irresponsible in your bedroom?  (you is generic).
Same thing IMO.

>| Another thing: Do you have emmissions testing? I don't.  
>	Don't as a whole or you personally don't because you have old cars? 

We don't have mandated emissions testing up here.  Metro Atlanta does, but
I live where I'm free.  I will actively fight all attempts to move their
federally mandated emmision programs up here.

>| It's another way of squeezing money from you.  
>	It's another way of helping with the polution problem. Combining it
>with inspections really doesn't add that much more to it.
>| The gov't _can_ squeeze the auto manufacturers, but they have a lot of clout. 
>	You are right they could squeeze the manufactures a little harder.
>Especially now that profits seem to be up so much. The air bag took too long to
>get into the picture. 

You fail to understand, the ONLY people government are authorized to screw
is BUSINESS.  Businesses are allowed to pollute within the law, and the
individual "taxpayers" get to pay to clean it up.  Is that fair?  No.
Is it wrong?  Yes.  Are you willing to fix it?  You are subsidizing 
irresponsible business activity.  Listen to businesses that can buy or
sell pollution chits.  What a concept.  You dump a quart of oil and your
a federal bad guy, but the government condones business that pollute in
quantities which are staggering.  Why?  (hint: Special interest/PAC money)

>| How much longer before you need to pay a personal emmisions fee when you fart?
>| Seriously.
>	Yeah, you are being so serious...

How much taxpayer money did the gov't spend to research cow emmisions
and its effects on the environment?  I _am_ serious.

    re: Note 38.47 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
>	Mike, if a store charges you for stuff, do you complain? If you were to
>pay for a mechanic, and they charge you for washers they used, do you bitch? It
>seems that companies can do what they want to make money for stuff, to pay for
>services, yet you don't feel the same way about the government. Why is that? 

I have a choice in where I shop.  I knowingly pay for washers or whatever
so I have no grounds to bitch if I, in my own free will shop there.
The governments supported by tax revenues would have an unfair advantage
with private business so in general the public sector is prohibited from
making a profit in the private sector.  What does the government give me?
What do I get for my money?  Their answer would be: Piece of mind.
Wow, thanks, a forced safety net.  Currently I get squat for my money.

Business IS NOT the same as Government.  Your comparisons are flawed.

>	Mike, you totally avoided the question. Do you wait for the oil to
>completely break down or do you do preventative maintenance? If the latter, why
>are you so against the government doing the same on something that is known to
>cause harm?

I do preventative maintenance.  I'm against the government doing preventative
maintenance because it's called prior restraint.  Your ratholing this to
make it look like I say it's ok to dump oil into the environment.  That is
NOT what I'm saying.
                    

| <<< Note 38.48 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>


| The first sentance of your note describes, clearly, something called prior 
| restraint. That is something to be extremely carefull with. You can't have a 
| bat because you might misuse it. You can't do this because you may hurt 
| yourself, you can't do that because...

	Mike, how does that compare to, "if you dump oil into the ground, it
will cause harm to others". This has been proven again and again. It isn't
something that is a theory, it is a fact. And like in all your other notes, you
have not addressed the wildlife issue. Is there a reason for that?

| We are supposed to trust each other.  

	If a rapist gets out of jail after serving time and moves next door to
you, will you trust him? He hasn't committed a crime since he got out, but do
you trust him. 

| You must be found to be not worthy of trust in a court of law before you can 
| be punished. Can't punish people BEFORE they do something irresponsible.  
| Understand?

	If you dump oil, you have committed the crime. Understand?

| <<< Note 38.49 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>


| Minor nit:  Take my boss out of the question in the above sentance. Now, 
| government officials are not supposed to have this power to abuse authority.  
| When are you going to take it back or will you continue to submit to the 
| gov't?

	IF an INDIVIDUAL is abusing their power, regardless of who it is,
regardless at what level it is happening at, the PERSON should be replaced. IF
the person had accomplises, they too should be replaced. But tell me where the
government is abusing their authority by telling you if you dump oil into the
ground, when it has been PROVEN to harm others, then you will be fined. 

| Take it a step further with your logic.  What happens if you get a serious
| STD and I'm what's called a taxpayer?  I get to pay to fix you up because
| you did something irresponsible in your bedroom?  (you is generic).

	Since when do my medical bills become your problem Mike. If I made a
mistake, I pay for it. 

| We don't have mandated emissions testing up here.  Metro Atlanta does, but
| I live where I'm free.  I will actively fight all attempts to move their
| federally mandated emmision programs up here.

	Did they take away highway funds, and other monies because you didn't
have them in place?

| You fail to understand, the ONLY people government are authorized to screw
| is BUSINESS.  Businesses are allowed to pollute within the law, and the
| individual "taxpayers" get to pay to clean it up.  Is that fair?  No.
| Is it wrong?  Yes.  Are you willing to fix it?  

	Mike, for those companies who dumped and are still in business, they
pick up the tab. For those companies who are not in business, we pick up the
tab. If you had a chemical dump on your property and you died, you will not
have to pay for it. Get it?



Glen

| <<< Note 38.50 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>



| >	Mike, you totally avoided the question. Do you wait for the oil to
| >completely break down or do you do preventative maintenance? If the latter, why
| >are you so against the government doing the same on something that is known to
| >cause harm?

| I do preventative maintenance.  I'm against the government doing preventative
| maintenance because it's called prior restraint.  Your ratholing this to
| make it look like I say it's ok to dump oil into the environment.  That is
| NOT what I'm saying.

	Mike, I was not trying to imply that. What I was trying to point out is
preventative maintenance is something you do now for many things. But it seems
that if the word government is attatched to it, all of a sudden preventative
maintenance becomes wrong. I just don't understand that logic, that's all.


Glen

    
    Why does this topic make me think of the Patriots' secondary ?
    
      bb

    re: Glen
    
    > I just don't understand that logic, that's all.
    
    Do you understand why a court issued restraining order isn't worth
    the paper it's written on?  It's unenforceable UNTIL a crime has
    been committed.  Prior Restraint is a no no.  It's not pick or choose
    glen.  You either practice prior restraint, or you don't.

    Lessee, last year nature outproduced man in production of CFC's by
    about a factor of 30.
    
    I'm keeping my freon until they ban those damn volcanoes...
    
    Gene, why didn't you CRAP this note?

	Mike, it is not pick and choose. With the oil it is something we KNOW
will cause harm. It has already been proven. With murder it has already been
proven that there is harm. BOTH are wrong, BOTH will get you screwed if you do
them. So you dump oil, anywhere, you have committed a crime. You kill someone,
anywhere, you have committed a crime. Where is there a pick and choose?

RE: 38.56 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" 

> Lessee, last year nature outproduced man in production of CFC's by about 
> a factor of 30.

You have a source for this factoid?  Or did you just make it up?


Phil

    I have a source.  One of the major by-products of volcanic activity is
    CFC's.  I forget the actual tonnage, but it was about 30 to 1.  Wild
    guessing here, I think it was something like 45 million tonnes to 1.5
    millionn tonnes.  I just made a mental note of the ratio.
    
    There are several bothers about the "ozone" problem.  One is that ozone
    is made up of oxygen, and the oxygen is not going away.  Ozone is
    created in the high atmosphere by the action of short UV, and broken up
    lower down my longer UV.  It is a cyclic affair.  Also, there is no
    ozone "layer" unless you are talking about the 23 miles or so of
    atmosphere where ozone (and other oxygen) is present.  The eco-scam
    presents this "layer" as though it were some sort of blanket, which is
    not the case.  Also, since the mid-1950's, when we started measuring
    this "phenominon", there is more ozone in the atmosphere today than
    there was then.  For all we know, this is related to something
    extraterrestrial, such as sunspot activity.  We simply have not
    monitored it long enough to know.
    
    And lastly, of course, is the fact that nature has been out-producing
    man in "ozone-depleting" substances since before man existed.  Sorry,
    but this particular scare is not even closely related to science.

RE: 38.59 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog"

> I have a source.  One of the major by-products of volcanic activity is
> CFC's.  

Ok,  then post your source.  


> Also, since the mid-1950's, when we started measuring this "phenominon", 
> there is more ozone in the atmosphere today than there was then.  

Did you make this up as well,  or do you have a source?


> And lastly, of course, is the fact that nature has been out-producing man 
> in "ozone-depleting" substances since before man existed.  

Sigh.  I guess it's clearly a virtual Friday.  Got any more made-up-facts 
to post?


Phil

    
    Gee.  Freon volcanos ?  Not on my world.  Wouldn't wanna be near
    one of these babies...
    
      (I believe all CFC's are manmade. Phil, isn't this correct ?  They
    didn't exist before this century or so, right ?)
    
      bb

    I do not make up stuff, unless it's really obvious that I'm joking. 
    Resorting to name calling when you are ignorant of a topic is pretty
    twitty, even for the box.
    
    Chlorine, Flourine, and Carbon occur in nature, as do compounds that are
    composed of those items.  Volcanoes do not produce the same stuff used
    in refridgerators.  However they DO produce the same class of compound
    that has the same binding effect.
    
    Regarding man-made, the answer is yes, we make our own.  It's easier
    and cheaper than attempting to harvest them from the atmosphere.  The
    answer to whether or not they existed before this century, yes they
    did.  Before this millenium.  Before man.  Before the dinosaurs.  

Fluorine.  You're welcome.

    Wow!  I think we may have a successor to /jack Haskell here, though his
    perfect blend of cluelessness and derision would be hard to match 8^)
    
    Anyway, while Brother Hays knows a lot more about this subject than I
    do, I think I can give you the following clues without fear of
    contradiction, Mike: while chlorine, fluorine, and carbon are indeed
    natural elements and have been on Earth since the beginning,
    chlorinated fluorocarbons are artificial substances, not found in
    nature.  Natural chlorine compounds are indeed thrown up by nature much
    more than CFCs, but the natural compounds are water-soluable, which means
    they get washed out of the atmosphere by rain; CFCs are not
    water-soluable (one of the reasons they are useful, perhaps?), and they
    remain in the atmosphere until air currents mix them into the
    ozonosphere.
    
    Unless you can cite something substantive, I must conclude you've
    gotten your "facts" from Rush (who made the same howler in his first
    book).

    Well, I find it quite interesting that the people in the northern
    hemisphere actually debate this issue, I mean, it hardly has had much
    affect up here. Here are some little "factlets" for you non believers:
    in the past ten years, the "burn time" in N.Z. has dropped from approx
    1.5 hrs to as low as 5-6 minutes: this does not make for constructive 
    sunbathing!!! factlet no2: skin cancer in N.Z. has increased threefold
    in the last 10 years as has UV related eye problems.
    As for the issue earlier about the lake: No-one owns the lake or the
    land, you simply reside or make use of it for the short time you are on
    earth, so people just go & pollute things in their wonderfully lazy way
    ;why shd they worry, its not going to affect them?
    
    He who thinks f.a of human nature.
    pierre 

    
    
    Well, the problem of this has been solved.  It seems that there is a
    new drug out that cuts down on the emission of gas through belching in
    cows and sheep (calm down Gene). 
    
    
    
    Mike

RE: 38.64 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve"

> Natural chlorine compounds are indeed thrown up by nature much more than 
> CFCs, but the natural compounds are water-soluable, which means they get 
> washed out of the atmosphere by rain;  CFCs are not water-soluable (one 
> of the reasons they are useful, perhaps?), and they remain in the 
> atmosphere until air currents mix them into the ozonosphere.

Largely correct,  Mr Jong.  A couple of nits:

Most natural chlorine compounds are not only water-soluable,  they are 
water-loving.  The one major exception is the source of most natural
chlorine into the stratosphere:  and it's made by ocean life,  not by
volcanoes.

CFC's are very slightly water-soluable:  Oceanographers uses the
concentration of CFC's to track the past motion of ocean water.  

CFC's are broken down in the lower atmosphere:  the average life of a CFC
is from a few years to a couple of hundred years,  depending on the CFC in
question.


Phil

    
    This note disturbed me enough to go look this up.
    
    Chlorofluorocarbons are artificial man-made compounds.  They are
    not found in nature.
    
    I think somebody is confused here - CO2, particulates, sulfur, etc
    are produced in vast quantities by geological activity, and volcanos
    kill billions of life forms when they blow.
    
    But they produce no CFC's.
    
      bb

    Well, I know whoever bought into Rush's line is seriously confused,
    because he's dead wrong on this.

>                   <<< Note 38.69 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
>             -< Maybe why we haven't heard from Mike lately? 8^) >-
>
>    Well, I know whoever bought into Rush's line is seriously confused,
>    because he's dead wrong on this.

He sites his sources for his information.  Where are your sources?  Why
are your sources (and there ARE as many on both sides of the issue but
only one side get the press!) any more credible than his?  Because he's
fat?

Bruce

    Bruce, what does Rush's girth have to do with anything?
    
    In the case of the ozone layer, at least in _The Way Things Ought to
    Be_, his supporting evidence, if memory serves, is, and I quote, "This
    is absurd."  That's it.
    
    (He does cite Dixie Lee Ray on the general question of science as a
    fundraising activity.)
    
    Mr. Hays, for one, regularly cites _Science_ as the source for his
    information; I leech off him 8^)  In any case, if you have evidence
    that CFCs are naturally occurring compunds, by all means let's have it.
    You say there's as much evidence against as for, but I say you're
    wrong.

    
    Look up chloroflurocarbons in a recent Brittanica.  You won't even
    find it in an old (60's) one.  It's just a name given to certain
    refrigerants like Freon created by chemical companies.  They are also
    sometimes used for cleaning and for dispensers.  Like benzene,
    plastic thermosets, high-tech ceramics, or for that matter, most steels,
    CFC's do not occur in nature.  They are engineered materials.  Freon
    was patented but the patent ran out long ago.
    
      bb

>                       <<< Note 38.72 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>
>
>    fwiw - The fall issue of the Skeptical Inquirer completely debunks the
>    Ozone depletion urban legend. Seems sunlight not only destroys ozone
>    but also creates it.

Oh!  Don't say that!  Don't say that!  You're wrong!  Too many liberals have
said you were wrong!!  Even before there was proof there was the Liberal
Statement that humanity is destroying the planet!! 

Bruce

>                      <<< Note 38.73 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
>                            -< Go to any library. >-
>
>    
>    CFC's do not occur in nature.  They are engineered materials.  Freon
>    was patented but the patent ran out long ago.
>    
>      bb

That last sentence explains why the current chloroflorotittyorogophora scare
came along!  It seems that one of Digital's biggest clients decided that what's
good for the apples (Alar) is good for their bottom line!  Now we have 
several new industries created to handle a non-exitent problem that can't 
even be proven!

Bruce

    Anent .72 (ROSCH):  Here's a clue for you: "UV" in the chemical
    equations in Reply .2 means sunlight.

    Anent .75: Bruce, if you don't know what to do with a citation, why do
    you ask for it in the first place?

    
    There are indeed respectable skeptics of the CFC/Ozone theory.
    
    Mainly, the USA (and Digital in a leading way) have a plan to phase
    out the use of these materials, because there are alternatives.  So
    for a few tens of billions (over some years), they are being replaced,
    as we did in Printed Wiring Board cleaning, for example, by aqueous
    products and process changes.
    
    You are correct that Ozone (O3 molecules) are unstable and are created
    and destroyed continually in the upper atmosphere.  We do not know
    for certain that anything bad would happen if CFC's were not replaced.
    But the proposed process of ozone depletion is credible, and there is
    no reason to suppose the Earth would have any self-correcting
    mechanism, as it does in so much else.
    
      bb

>                   <<< Note 38.77 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
>                      -< You're putting on quite a show >-
>
>    Anent .75: Bruce, if you don't know what to do with a citation, why do
>    you ask for it in the first place?

I got exactly the answer I was looking for!  The profit motive and the fact
that the allegations cannot be proven are my point.  It's easy to get people
all stirred up over things that cannot be proven!  The Alar in apples was
started by a company that made a microscope small enough to see the Alar
molecule BUT NOBODY WAS BUYING THEIR PRODUCT UNTIL THEY PRODUCED THE SCARE!
Now, that chemical company has created a replacement for freon AND has
created an entire disposal industry for a chemical that anybody can make
really cheaply!  

Now - this methodology has created many jobs and many industries in recent
history (like 1706).

Bruce

    Well, then, do please provide a reference and I'll check it out.
    
    Otherwise, I don't get your point about breathlessly telling that
    sunlight produces ozone when you say you already knew that.  Were you
    trying to make a joke?

    Anent .80: Bruce, let me see if I understand you correctly.  Are you
    telling us that there was no market for Alar until the company that
    makes it created a phony scare to increase sales?
    
    Are you further suggesting that the company that manufactures
    alternatives to CFCs created a phony scare about CFCs?  Do you think
    DuPont would have nothing to say about this?  Do you think DuPont *is*
    the company?

>                   <<< Note 38.83 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
>                         -< Let me get this straight >-
>
>    Anent .80: Bruce, let me see if I understand you correctly.  Are you
>    telling us that there was no market for Alar until the company that
>    makes it created a phony scare to increase sales?

Get real!  The entire Alar scare was because nobody (not even the US
government agencies) were buying that silly microscope!  Once they created
the scare, there was a market for the microscope.
    
>    Are you further suggesting that the company that manufactures
>    alternatives to CFCs created a phony scare about CFCs?  Do you think
>    DuPont would have nothing to say about this?  Do you think DuPont *is*
>    the company?

The company that created the scare got help from every other company of it's
ilk because they saw the profit potential provided by the brand of
environmental zealot that will automatically believe the "facts" presented
without dispute.  All they had to say was that the sky was falling and
they got free advertisement for their "cause"!

Bruce

p.s. - is DuPont the only company that DEC does business with that produces
CFCs?  Does the parent organization have to have a well-known chemical 
company?

    Jong.  Mike is busy, you have not scared him.  I am not afraid of
    unabashed ignorance.  I merely find it annoying.
    
    I do not have Rush's book, I do not listen to him, and I would not get
    advice on the environment from an entertainer.  My sources are
    magazines, some popular, some political, some scientific.  The only
    ones that do NOT cite scientific studies are the ones that are saying
    the sky is falling.
    
    I do not carry these magazines.  I moved recently, and could not find
    them over the weekend in the short amount of time I spent looking for
    them.  They are together, though, from when I had this discussion last
    year with someone who thought I'd lost my marbles.  After reviewing the
    articles for a half hour or so, my point was won.  This is a
    non-problem, based on some odd-looking photographs.
    
    Also, I never said that volcanoes produce CFCs.  I said they produce
    ozone depleting compounds.
    
    Also, everybody seems to keep missing the point that ozone is oxygen,
    and that it is manufactured in the atmosphere by the action of UV, and
    broken down by lower energy forms of UV, which does in fact make it a
    "self correcting" mechanism to some degree.  Unless you are saying that
    the CFCs are depleting our oxygen supply, which would definitely be a
    problem.  I haven't heard that one, though.
    
    The "ozone problem" has not been studied long enough to say "Oh, CFC's
    are causing a depletion of ozone which is causing UV to get to the
    surface and cause cancer..."
    
    Are there OTHER atmospheric actions taking place?  Sun activity? 
    Climatalogical considerations?  Weather cycles? 
    
    If it's CFCs, why does ozone disappear in antarctica, but is most
    heavily concentrated in the areas of highest CFC emissions (europe)? 
    I've read that the CFC's "collect" around the poles, but you'd think
    they'd have the greatest action where there's the most ozone and CFC
    together, eh?  Instead, we get the ozone "hole" in the least polluted
    parts of the planet, which, incidentally, correspond with the highest
    concentration of volcanic particulates in the atmosphere.
    
    Here's one for you all.  Howze about YOU come up with SUBSTANTIATED
    references for the following...
    
    	a) There is an ozone "layer"
    	b) Describe the layer (where it is, how thick, concentration of
    	   ozone).
    	c) Measurements over a period of time that indicates that the level
    	   of atmospheric ozone is declining.
    	d) Evidence that such decline is PRIMARILY cause by man-made
    	   chemicals.
    
    I think it is more appropriate that the media science be documented. 
    Meanwhile, I'll keep an eye out for my stuff.  But, between you and me,
    I'm not going to lose any sleep over CFC's.
    
    
    Later,
    	   Mike
               

    Sorry, Mike, I don't provide citations to those who refuse to do so
    themselves.  (And I have it in my bookshelf at home, too:
    Papagiannis will do nicely.)  Maybe when you finish moving you'll find
    your citations.  (Don't bother if it's Hogan in _Omni_.)
    
    As for your questions, you must have missed the discussion in the last
    edition of the 'Box, so I'll fill you in on the hole.  Jack Haskell
    asked the same question, and was similarly answered: The ozone hole is
    in the Antarctic, the region of lowest UV flux and the lowest 
    temperatures, because the ozone-creation reaction is naturally weakest 
    there and the ozone-destroying reaction is strongest.

    And so... what would be destroying it there then? After all, the
    Antarctic is also the most pollution-free place on earth. Penquin
    farts, maybe? Or are you suggesting that pollution migrates?
    
    -b

RE: 38.85 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog"

> My sources are magazines, some popular, some political, some scientific.  

Fine.  List one source in a peer reviewed scientific journal. 


> The only ones that do NOT cite scientific studies are the ones that are 
> saying the sky is falling.

Too funny.  Start with Science,  10-Feb-1989 page 763.
    
Proceed to Science,  4-Jan-1991 page 39.

Continue with Science News,  24-Apr-1993 page 260.

Don't stop now,  continue to Science 14-Oct-1994 page 217

Oh,  and don't miss Science 13-Apr-1990 page 207.


> If it's CFCs, why does ozone disappear in antarctica, but is most
> heavily concentrated in the areas of highest CFC emissions (europe)? 

Simple.  Temperature.  The stratosphere coldest over Antarctica.  The
reaction (see .2) runs much better at lower temperatures.  Airflow in the
stratosphere is upwards near the equator,  and downwards at the poles.


> I think it is more appropriate that the media science be documented. 

You are part of the media,  as you publish in PEAR::SOAPBOX.  Document
yourself.


Phil

    Anent .87 (MARKEY):
    
    >> Or are you suggesting that pollution migrates?
    
    Pollution migrates.

    Your skin's a pretty thin layer, too, but you wouldn't want to go
    without it 8^)

    >> Or are you suggesting that pollution migrates?
    
    >Pollution migrates.
    
    Yes. Well, perhaps it does. But... according to a National Geographic
    special I watched the other night, it doesn't migrate toward the south
    pole. In fact, the south pole has the cleanest air on earth. This is
    one of two reasons why the south pole is the best choice for
    astronomical observatories (the other reason is there's no horizon for
    objects to fall below.) Now if the air so SO clean that there's
    virtually no refraction, then it must be rather free of CFCs and other
    things which are supposedly causing the hole...
    
    -b

    
    Ozone concentration over European metropolitan areas is also
    decreasing.
    
    Even though ozone is created and destroyed by UV, *additional* components 
    will undoubtedly get the process out of balance. Maybe - I'm making up
    the numbers now - we have 10 tons of ozone in the ozone layer. Each and
    every day, 2 tons are destroyed by UV and 2 tons are created again. If
    CFC emissions account for 1kg less ozone per day that'd make 1 ton in
    3 years, that will not be substituted.
    
    
    
    As Pierre correctly noted in .65, what really saddens me is that people
    only ask in how far their personal, individual life is affected. Some
    do also care for their neighbors. But to few care for mankind. 
    
    But in this case 100% of the population might have to pay for 50%
    being irresponsible. 
    
    Heiko
    
    
    
     

    Anent .92 (MARKEY): To an astronomer, "clean" means no light, no dust,
    no vibration, and high altitude.  Antarctica fits those descriptions.
    
    Remember, the claim is that CFCs are long-lived gases that mix into the
    entire atmosphere, both vertically and horizontally.  They ought to get
    to the South Pole eventually, which, measurement reveals, they have.

    Are you citing that article as evidence that the ozone hole is an urban
    legend?  Sounds to me like it confirms everything we've been saying!
    (Though I'm glad to hear the damage seems to be more rapidly
    repairable than first thought.)

Below is an article written by S. Fred Singer, professor of environmental
science at the University of Virginia.  He directs the Washington-based
Science & Environmental Policy Project.  Singer DEVELOPED the satellite
INSTRUMENT USED TO MEASURE STRATOSPHERIC OZONE and was the first director
of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.


"During the past five years, the public has been bombarded with alarming news
about an alleged depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer that shields the
Earth's surface against solar ultraviolet radiation.  This is especially
scary because part of the ultraviolet spectrum, termed UV-B, is believed to
cause skin cancer, including the deadly malignant melanoma, and a variety
of other disasters luridly spelled out in the popular press: plankton death,
blind sheep and rabbits and, of course, the obligatory effect on the immune
system.

The trouble is that the existing scientific evidence has not suported the more
frightening scenarios.  Plankton have such a short life-cycle that populations
affected by any increase in UV-B would be expected to adapt quickly.  Blind
sheep in southern Chile were found to have common eye infections in no way
associated with any putative increases in UV-B.  And any serious effect on the
immune system from an increase in ultraviolet radiation surely would have been
seen already among all those New Yorkers who've retired and moved to Florida
in recent years.  Because of the higher angle of the sun, just moving from
New York to Miami increases UV-B exposure by more than 200 percent!

Nevertheless, the precipitous acceleration of the chlorofluorocarbon phaseout,
rammed through Congress in February 1992 on the basis of a nonexistent "ozone
hole over Kennebunkport," will cause serious adjustment problems.  The crunch
may come as early as this summer, as motorists pay to recharge their auto air
conditioning.

Two recently published studies underscore the shaky science that has been used
to support recent efforts to eliminate production of important chemicals like
halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, as well as chloroflourocarbons,
or CFSs.  One study received wide attention; the other is almost unknown to
the general public.

In November 1993, the journal "Science" featured an article by two Canadian
researchers, James Kerr and Thomas McElroy, titled "Evidence for Large Upward
Trends of Ultraviolet-B Radiation Linked to Ozone Depletion."  The Kerr-McElroy
paper received extensive newspaper and television coverage as the result of a
press release issued by "Science" before the paper appeared in print.  The
media focused on the authors' claim to have detected a 35 percent per year
increase in ultraviolet radiation in the winters between 1989 and 1993, and
their contention that the large upward trends of surface UV were due to the
depletion of stratospheric ozone over populated regions of North America.

Both findings are incorrect.  In fact, the study was so flawed that my
colleague Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia and I have taken the
unprecedented step of asking the editors of "Science" to withdraw the paper and
issue a correction.

To begin, the results quoted did not show error bars (margins of error defining
the uncertainty), which invariably are attached to every scientific result.
When Michaels repeated the statistical analysis at the Virginia State Office
of Climatology, using the Canadian data, the margins of error were found to be
so large as to cancel out most, if not all, of the claimed increases.

The alleged upward trend in surface UV was based entirely on just four high
readings out of more than 300 data points that occurred at the end of their
record in March 1993.  In short, the authors confused a shortlived increase -
likely connected to a severe weather disturbance, the "storm of the century"
that hit the East in March 1993 - with a long-term UV trend.  Eliminate these
four readings, and the "trend" is essentially zero.

Firm evidence for long-term global ozone depletion due to CFCs is still lacking.
Since the ozone content in the stratosphere diminished in 1992 and 1993 (as
a result of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, according to many researchers),
the absence of an expected UV trend shows that ozone depletion does not
necessarily enhance the UV intensity at the Earth's surface.

The whole question of a UV-B trend may well be moot, in any case.  Much of the
driving force behind the policy to phase out CFCs  has been the fear of an
epidemic of skin cancer, particularly malignant melanomas, with the EPA
estimating 200,000 additional skin cancer deaths by 2050.

But unlike basal-and squamous-cell skin cancers, which are easily cured
growths caused by long-term exposure to UV-B, melanoma rates do not show a
pronounced increase in lower latitudes, where UV-B is stronger. (In Europe,
melanoma rates actually increase in higher latitudes.)  Also, the incidence
of melanoma has been on the rise since 1935, decades before CFCs came into
wide use.

Recently, the evidence has moved from epidemiology into the laboratory.  In a
unique and little-publicized study published in the July 1993 "Proceedings
ofthe National Academy of Sciences", Richard B. Setlow and his colleagues
at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, N.Y., investigated
the cause of malignant melanoma.  In controlled experiments, they exposed
groups of hybrid fish - specially bred for their extreme sensitivity to
melanoma induction - to radiation in narrow wavelength bands.

The results were surprising, especially considering the fears propagated in
the media in recent years.  Setlow and his colleagues at Brookhaven concluded
that in natural sunlight, 90 to 95 percent of melanoma induction may be caused
by UV-A and visible regions of the solar spectrum.  Unlike UV-B, UV-A is not
absorbed by ozone.  Therefore, changes in the ozone layer would have little
effect, if any, on melanoma rates.

This important finding, if confirmed, undercuts one of the main justifications
for eliminating CFCs and other important chemicals.  Substitutes surely will
be found, but much testing will be necessary to establish their safety and
effectiveness.  Then there is the huge cost of replacing or retrofitting
capital equipment that cannot accept the CFC substitutes - estimated at more
than $130 billion in the U.S. alone - $1,300 for the average household. 

With public dissatisfaction over costs, the health and environmental conse-
quences still unproved, it will be interesting to see whether the new
scientific results and a closer scrutiny of the old ones force a reexamination
of existing policies.  Chances are they won't."

    Thanks for entering that, Jeff.  This is something one can sink one's
    teeth into...!

    
    I'm not sure I believe the 130 gigabuck estimate - sounds like too
    much.  The dispensers were the easiest.  In PWB's (something I know
    about), there is no known degreaser as effective as CFC's on an
    epoxy surface.  But companies have redesigned their entire production
    lines to use aqueous as a substitute, by increasing nozzle intensity
    and cleaning duration.  By using multiple stations, you can get the
    same throughput.  Now in ordinary environmental terms, the aqueous
    are WORSE polluters than CFC's, since the strong poisons like ammonia
    can get into local aquifers.  So you also need to build a station for
    cleaning the water and disposing of the residues.  CFC's are also
    irreplaceable in debug, so far as I know.  (Amazing how a proto can
    boot the O/S after spraying with Freon !)  I think chip manufacture,
    liquid machine cooling, and other electronic disciplines have had to
    make compromises as well.
    
    Most expensive of all is turning over the entire refrigeration
    equipment capital stock of the world.  But that happens slowly.
    Just don't make any new ones.  Yes, the new refrigerators and air
    conditioners will cost more, but at least feasibility is not an
    issue.  Once the decision was made, it develops a momentum of its
    own, and you really cannot change your mind, punishing those who
    have made the expensive adjustments.  Let this be a lesson to those
    who plunge into unproven ecological claims, particularly those
    where the mechanism requires that a whole series of things be true.
    
      bb

    Thank you Jeff.  In response to all of the attacks because I don't have
    all my stuff in my panniers instantly available - I finally asked my
    wife where my file went.  She loaned it to a friend.
    
    The articles I have do not include what Jeff posted, but focused on the
    ozone cycle, the scientific errors in the popular theory boosting
    studies, and comparative damage based on other atmospheric
    considerations.  Also actual measurements of ozone showing flat or
    increased atmospheric content, and the fact that in terms of
    climatology we haven't been studying the situation long enough to
    determine any kind of baseline reference.
    
    But thank you all for slamming me anyway.

RE: 38.95 by CAPNET::ROSCH

> The threat to life on earth has not, nor can it be measured because the
> instruments used to measure ozone has a sampling error greater than the
> reported decrease in the ozone. 

Not even close to true.  Ozone depletion at the South Pole is roughly 50% 
(halved),  and the instruments are accurate to much better than ~2%.


Phil

RE: 38.97 by USAT05::BENSON

The Rev.  Benson has a tract to post again.  How special.

> In November 1993, the journal "Science" featured an article by two Canadian
> researchers, James Kerr and Thomas McElroy, titled "Evidence for Large Upward
> Trends of Ultraviolet-B Radiation Linked to Ozone Depletion."  

A copy is on my chair.  If you care to discuss it,  get it.


> In fact, the study was so flawed that my colleague Patrick Michaels of 
> the University of Virginia and I have taken the unprecedented step of 
> asking the editors of "Science" to withdraw the paper and issue a 
> correction.

And the editors of Science did not do so.  Shall we look at why?


> To begin, the results quoted did not show error bars (margins of error 
> defining the uncertainty),  which invariably are attached to every 
> scientific result.

Yes,  error bars are not used.  The size of the error in measurement is 
+-0.6%.  The size of the dots on the graph are about 1%.  It's hard to draw
error bars that small.


> When Michaels repeated the statistical analysis at the Virginia State Office
> of Climatology,  using the Canadian data,  the margins of error were found 
> to be so large as to cancel out most,  if not all,  of the claimed increases.

Show this analysis.  Otherwise,  it's an unfounded claim.


> The alleged upward trend in surface UV was based entirely on just four high
> readings out of more than 300 data points that occurred at the end of their
> record in March 1993.  

Removing the four highest readings does not remove the trend.  Notice that 
a positive trend is seen for both winter and summer at in the ozone
absorption band (300 nm),  and no trend is seen outside of the ozone
absorption band (at 325 nm).  Look carefully at the data.


> Firm evidence for long-term global ozone depletion due to CFCs is still 
> lacking.  Since the ozone content in the stratosphere diminished in 1992 
> and 1993 (as a result of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, according 
> to many researchers),  the absence of an expected UV trend shows that ozone 
> depletion does not necessarily enhance the UV intensity at the Earth's 
> surface.

Go check out Science 14-Oct-1994 page 217.

"This was supposed to be a better year for the ozone over Antarctica.  Not a
great one,  of course,  given that the synthetic chemicals that attack the
ozone layer each year at the time as the sun hits the Antarctic
stratosphere are still there.  But researchers expected that last year's
record ozone loss wouldn't be repeated.  The reason for their optimism was
that the volcanic debris spewed by Mount Pinatubo in 1991,  which enhanced
the chemical destruction of ozone,  is nearly gone.  But instead of
recovering this year,  the ozone hole is nearly as deep and wide as ever."

Oh yes,  and someone asked for this:

-------------------------------------------------------------
   Halley Bay Antarctic Ozone Data

    1956      321                    1975      308
    1957      330                    1976      283
    1958      314                    1977      251
    1959      311                    1978      284
    1960      301                    1979      261
    1961      317                    1980      227
    1962      332                    1981      237
    1963      309                    1982      234
    1964      318                    1983      210
    1965      281                    1984      201
    1966      316                    1985      196
    1967      323                    1986      248
    1968      301                    1987      163
    1969      282                    1988      232
    1970      282                    1989      164
    1971      299                    1990      179
    1972      304                    1991      155
    1973      289                    1992      142
    1974      274

(1993 was a record low,  and 1994 is a close second.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 


Phil

RE: 38.99 by CAPNET::ROSCH

> No - the Urban legend is that the Ozone layer will disappear and all
> life will end on earth. 

I agree that this is false.  I have NEVER claimed that.


> The myth is that this is all due to CFCs. 

No,  other synthetic gases are involved as well.


> The popular press has blown up this issue all out of proportion. 

Or minimized it beyond factual.


> The dinosaures were not made extinct by the ozone being destroyed by the 
> volcanos. 

No,  but the P-Tr mass extinction is dated to the same age as the Siberian
Traps.


> Nobody knows how long this has been going on - ozone seems to have a cycle 
> related to the sunspot cycle but since it occurs every 12 years and we've 
> only been concerned about the ozone for the same amount of time.

Measurements of ozone go back to the 1920's in Europe.  Nothing like this
shows up prior to ~1976.
    

Phil

RE: 38.101 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog"

> The articles I have 

Post your sources.


> But thank you all for slamming me anyway.

Welcome to Soapbox.  I'm being nice.  Hope this helps.


Phil    

    I should add (though I hardly need to, given Mr. Hays's response) that
    solar UV flux is not mysterious, the way, for example, sunspot
    formation rates and solar magnetic flux are.  Recording it is
    straightforward, and any subtleties in the cycle that we can't detect
    do not seem to match up with ozone depletion (in other words, it's not
    as if solar UV flux is changing 0.000001% and causing depletion to go
    up 50%).

RE: 38.107 by CAPNET::ROSCH

> "Because of the natural fluctuations in ultraviolet, it is impossible
> to detect a treand in a short period of data collection.
> While there is evidence that the ozone damage is happening, it has
> proved impossible so far to detect any resulting increase in UV
> reaching the ground, because ultraviolet fluctuates so much naturally.

Outside of near polar regions and high mountains,  this is correct.


> "The amount of increase that the theory says we should be getting from
> ozone depletion is smaller than the error of our best measuring
> instruments," said John E. Fredrick, an atmospheric physicist at the
> University of Chicago.

This is a radically different claim.  Ozone and UV measurements can be made
to with an accuracy much better than 2%,  even back in the 1950's.  I suspect 
he was misquoted:  The correct issue is listed next:


> "People get excited about a few percent change in UV but it's nothing
> to get a 20 percent increase naturally," Fredrick said. "If an increase
> of 20 percent were going to be so damaging, there should be no life in
> Florida," where ultraviolet always exceeded the allegedly dangerous
> levels once forecast for more northerly latitudes."

Yes,  at mid latitudes,  the ~5% increase is less than the natural
variation.  As such,  it is hard to measure.  We could continue to increase 
atmospheric levels of CFCs until this wasn't the case.  Would you suggest 
that we do this?

Notice that this does not apply over Antarctica,  where the reduction in
ozone is over 50%,  several times the natural variation.

Now,  on the other hand,  how far does it make sense to reduce atmospheric
CFC levels?  I don't see the point to getting rid of all ozone depleting
gases,  as we are now committed to doing by ~2030.  I do see the point of
getting rid of roughly 90% of the total by substituting lower OD gases.  This
is technically easy,  vastly reduces all of the risks,  has a low cost,  and 
allows reasonable trade-offs.  Having said that,  the technology may well
make a higher reduction easy:  but that's not something we can count on.


Phil

    Yeah, Rosch, but what were Rensberger's sources sources, huh?  Post
    them, I dare ya.
    
    FWIW, the poles ALWAYS get more UV.  Fairbanks was nasty bad for it on
    occasion, and there is always much higher UV at altitude as well.  When
    this whole thing first came out, I thought CFC's as a cause was absurd,
    just based on the lack of data.  Thanks for posting the excerpt. 
    
    And back to Hays, I saw the numbers you posted, and I believe you think
    they are correct.  However, they directly conflict with the numbers I
    recall.  Were those numbers raw, or were they munged in some way. 
    Please post what they represent, and how they were derived.
    
    Oh, yeah.  I'm still waiting for somebody to post a source defining and
    verifying the existence of a layer of ozone in our atmosphere.

    Anent .109 (Mike):
    
    >> I'm still waiting for somebody to post a source defining and
    >> verifying the existence of a layer of ozone in our atmosphere.
    
    Do try to keep up...

    .110
    
    How about you catch up.  I just checked all of your notes (against my
    better judgement).  
    
    Now, back to it, what is the ozone layer, please and how has this layer
    been verified to exist.
    
    If I missed the reference to papajohn, I apologize in advance.

    Has Ozone been verified to exist ?
    I haven't seen a O molecule yet. I haven't even seen a O molecule.
                      �                                     �
    
    Are you honestly doubting its existance? Or are you just argueing for
    argumentation's sake ? 
    
    We have an increase of skin cancer (malignes Melanom in German)
    appearances in Oz and NZ. An increase that can hardly be attributed
    to natural statistical variation. There is something wrong with 
    Earth's UV protection. 
    
    Heiko
    

    Wow, betcha have to be a Consulting Kodierwurst to get SUBscripts to
    come outta a termulator!!
    
    /s/
    Impressed
    
    :-)

RE: 38.109 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog"

> FWIW, the poles ALWAYS get more UV.  

Uh,  no.  The poles get less UV,  as the path through the atmosphere is
much longer.


> And back to Hays, I saw the numbers you posted, and I believe you think
> they are correct.  However, they directly conflict with the numbers I
> recall.  Were those numbers raw, or were they munged in some way.
> Please post what they represent, and how they were derived.

Mean October ozone column thickness,  Dobson Units,  from the Halley Bay
station in Antarctica.  Oh,  a DU is about 2.7*10^16 molecules/cm^2.

What I expect you remember is some propaganda that came out of Lyndon
LaRouche's organization,  correctly quoting Dr Dobson as saying he was 
surprised to find less ozone in Antarctica than he expected.  The context 
was munged by failing to mention a lot of things,  like this lower than
expected value was a normal value for the period 1956-1976,  and current 
values are less than twice this.

   
> Oh, yeah.  I'm still waiting for somebody to post a source defining and
> verifying the existence of a layer of ozone in our atmosphere.

Ozone is a trace gas even in the "ozone layer",  which runs from roughly 
15 km to 45 km.  Below 15 Km,  there isn't much ozone.  Above 45 km,  there
isn't enough of anything.


Phil

    Mike, you need to catch up at two levels -- obviously both barrels of
    my double entendre went over your head 8^)
    
    Yes, I have supplied a citation, albeit obscure, to a work that
    discusses the *existence* of the ozone later: Professor Michael
    Papagiannis, chairman of the astronomy department at Boston University
    when I was an undergraduate there, whose text was his own _Space
    Physics and Space Astronomy_.  It discusses, at the outset, the
    composition of the Earth's atmosphere (which all ground-based
    astronomers have to deal with anyway).  The ozone layer is directly and
    indirectly observable.  Interestingly, one indirect measurement is the
    fact that in the ozone layer, the air temperature goes up.  Why? 
    Because when ozone absorbs UV energy, it reradiates it as heat (it's
    got to go somewhere).
    
    The other way in which you need to keep up is that no one (else)
    questions the *existence* of the ozone layer.  We're all off discussing
    questions like "How much is there?" and "Is it changing?" and "If so,
    why?" and you come along and demand proof that it exists!  Now, maybe
    I'm misinterpreting your request.  If you want to read something and
    learn the basics, I'll be happy to recommend something more accessible
    than Papagiannis (who I wouldn't want to see getting the royalty anyway
    8^)  But if you're just trying to be pedantic, well, we don't have the
    time for your request.

    a few back, I know that ozone exists.  The question is whether the
    LAYER exists.
    
    Jong, Hays gave me the answer, which I knew (though not as well), that
    the "layer" is approximately 30km thick.
    
    More loosely defined, the "ozone layer" is the upper atmosphere, and
    Hays only misleading statement regards below 15km.  It does exist down
    here as well.  However, even in the upper atmosphere, ozone is merely a
    trace gas.  The phrase "ozone layer" is misleading in that the popular
    conception is that there is a distinct layer of atmosphere where ozone
    is a major consituent gas, and that this layer is being torn apart, or
    disintegrated, or whatever.  This is not the case.  Ozone is a minor
    constituent, even in its highest concentration.
    
    Also, I don't have one word of anything from LaRouche.  I didn't know
    he published anything on the subject, although it would make sense.
    
    Another thought I had, was why isn't anybody questioning the factoid
    reported by someone in here (might even be Hays) regarding the
    recovery of the "ozone layer".  I believe it was stated that there is
    surprise that our efforts are so effective at turning around this
    phenominon.
    
    Considering that the most draconian efforts have yet to be commenced,
    could it be that the reason they are effective is that the CFCs were
    not causing the "problem" to begin with?  Or would asking a question
    like that require documentation, in which case, I withdraw...
    
    Oh yeah, I don't really give a rip about what you think about UV
    penetration at the poles.  The amount of UV reaching the ground is
    higher at the poles, obviously during the summer.  The atmosphere is
    thinner, and the length of exposure is greater.  Sun exposure is a
    problem in the arctic, and skin cancer rates are quite high.  In
    addition, you can do some exotic damage to your eyes, particularly over
    snow.  Same holds true for high altitude flying, high mountain
    climbing, etc.  In fact, the only real difference between desert and
    arctic sun consideration is the rate of dehydration.
    
    And no, I don't have sources.  I lived and worked there, and UV skin
    damage was drilled into us during the various survival courses we were
    required to take.

RE: 38.78 by CAPNET::ROSCH

> I was just quoting an _authoritive_ source - The Skeptical Inquirer - 
> available at most large news stands. 

I've tried a couple of the largest news stands in Southern New Hampshire, 
and none of them carry it.  I'd like to get a copy of this article:  any
suggestions?


Phil

RE: 38.117 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog"

> Another thought I had, was why isn't anybody questioning the factoid
> reported by someone in here (might even be Hays) regarding the
> recovery of the "ozone layer".  I believe it was stated that there is
> surprise that our efforts are so effective at turning around this
> phenominon.
> 
> Considering that the most draconian efforts have yet to be commenced,
> could it be that the reason they are effective is that the CFCs were
> not causing the "problem" to begin with?  Or would asking a question
> like that require documentation, in which case, I withdraw...

Is this perhaps the comment you are talking about?

================================================================================
Note 38.95                    The Hole in the Ozone                    95 of 118
CAPNET::ROSCH                                        16 lines  29-NOV-1994 10:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the article in SI (which won an award from the scientific
    community for accuracy - written by Risenberg, a science writer) the
    ozone layer will be the thinnest in 1997-1998 and then will increase
    again. This is much sooner than anyone had thought but the Montreal
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    accord on CFC's produced a reduction in the use of CFCs much faster
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    than originally predicted. (I seem to recall it was 2010 or so when the
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    nadir would be hit before increasing)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice that the predicted minimum in ozone is due to a predicted maximum in
CFCs.


Phil

    Proof That Man Caused Hole In Ozone Layer 


    Goddard Spaceflight Center, Md. 

    Information provided by a NASA satellite proves that man- made
    chemicals caused  the ozone hole over the South Pole and the global
    thinning of the protective ozone layer, scientists  said yesterday. 

    The crucial evidence, said Mark Schoeberl, was the detection in the
    stratosphere  of hydrogen fluoride, a chemical that comes only from
    man-made sources. 

    Schoeberl, project scientist for the Upper Atmosphere Research
    Satellite, said  the amount of hydrogen fluoride measured by the
    satellite corresponds directly to the amount of  chlorofluorocarbons in
    the atmosphere. That means that the thinning of the ozone layer cannot
    be caused by  chemicals from volcanoes or from any other natural
    source, he said. 

    ``We have this thing nailed,'' said Anne Douglas, deputy project
    director.  ``There is no other possibility.'' 

    Ozone in the stratosphere protects the Earth's surface from excessive 
    ultraviolet radiation from the sun. That radiation can cause sunburn,
    skin cancer, destroy some microscopic  organisms and damage some
    plants. 

    Because of this danger, most nations in 1987 signed an agreement, the
    Montreal  protocol, to phase out the use of CFCs. 

    Not all scientists, however, endorse the theory that CFCs cause the
    thinning of  ozone. Some have blamed chlorine gas formed by volcanoes
    for the problem. 

    But Schoeberl said the new satellite measurements leave no room for
    natural  possibilities. 

    ``This data confirms that chlorofluorocarbons are the major source of
    chlorine  in the stratosphere and are responsible for ozone loss,''
    said Schoeberl at a news conference. ``We don't  see any other
    plausible explanation for chlorine in the stratosphere at the levels
    that produce  large-scale ozone losses like the Antarctic ozone hole.'' 

    Ozone hole: NASA puts it squarely on us Satellite data cites synthetic
    chlorine

    By Robert L. Jackson

    Los Angeles Times

    WASHINGTON -- Three years of data from a NASA satellite have provided
    conclusive  evidence that synthetic chlorine in the stratosphere -- not
    natural phenomena -- is the  primary cause of the ozone hole above
    Antarctica, NASA scientists said Monday.

    ``The detection of stratospheric fluorine gases, which are not natural, 
    eliminates the possibility that chlorine from volcanic eruptions or
    some other natural source is responsible for the  ozone hole,'' project
    scientist Mark Schoeberl said at a news briefing.

    Scientists have warned for years that the widespread use of
    chlorofluorocarbons  in refrigerators, spray cans and foam packaging
    was responsible for stratospheric ozone loss. But some  critics have
    claimed that natural factors such as volcanic eruptions and sea spray
    have been a far larger  cause.

    Now, however, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration can end
    the  debate because ``these new results confirm our theories about
    CFCs,'' Schoeberl said.

    NASA's announcement represented the first ozone data to be disclosed
    from its  upper-atmosphere research satellite launched Sept. 15, 1991,
    from the space shuttle Discovery.

    Schoeberl and Anne Douglass of the Goddard Space Flight Center
    explained that  ozone is a molecule of oxygen containing three oxygen
    atoms instead of the usual two. Although  poisonous, its presence in
    the upper atmosphere is regarded as vital to the survival of many forms
    of life. By  blocking ultraviolet radiation produced by the sun, ozone
    protects humans from damage to the immune system and  the increased
    risk of cataracts and skin cancer.

    Jay Herman, another research scientist at Goddard, has reported that
    the hole is  smaller this year but that the overall ozone loss in the
    Antarctic is ``much the same as last year.'' The  hole is said to be as
    large as North America.

    Jonathan Shanklin of the British Antarctic Survey, who calculated that
    at the  present rate of destruction the ozone above Antarctica could be
    fully depleted by the year 2005.

Published 12/20/94 in the San Jose Mercury News.

    Are they the same guys who predicted global warming (now) and global
    cooling (part of the 1st Earth day)?
    
    Question:  Was the ozone hole bigger the year after Mount
    Pinatubo(sp?)'s eruption?  That could skew the data a bit.
    
    ME

>       <<< Note 38.122 by REFINE::KOMAR "Patsies no longer.  Go Pats!" >>>
>                          -< Still in question, IMHO >-
>
>    Are they the same guys who predicted global warming (now) and global
>    cooling (part of the 1st Earth day)?
>    
>    Question:  Was the ozone hole bigger the year after Mount
>    Pinatubo(sp?)'s eruption?  That could skew the data a bit.
>    
>    ME

Because we watched more television about the eruption.  Hense, we were in
our favorite spot.  Then we needed to have a brew.  We opened the refrigerator
thus causing more freon to circulate and eventually our refrigerators died
at enormous rates and the junk yard Fascists simply cut the freon lines 
because they were greedy and wanted the earth to self destruct!

ELVIS DID IT!

Bruce

RE: 38.122 by REFINE::KOMAR "Patsies no longer.  Go Pats!"

> Question:  Was the ozone hole bigger the year after Mount Pinatubo(sp?)'s 
> eruption?  

Yes,  slightly.  Now that most of the debris from Pinatubo is gone,  the 
ozone hole is slightly smaller.


> That could skew the data a bit.

No.  Pinatubo didn't put any CFC's into the atmosphere.  The NASA report
was talking about byproducts of CFC's (other than chlorine) found in the 
ozone hole.


Phil

    Well then, I find it hard to believe that CFCs are the ONLY reason for
    the ozone hole.
    
    ME

RE: 38.125 by REFINE::KOMAR "Patsies no longer.  Go Pats!"

> Well then, I find it hard to believe that CFCs are the ONLY reason for
> the ozone hole.

"Primary" is not the same as "only".


Phil

    If CFCs are the primary reason for the ozone hole, and not the only
    reason, could it be assumed that there was a hole in the ozone before
    the CFCs were invented?  If so, do we know how large it was?
    
    Also, if the ozone hole became smaller, would it then be safe to assume
    that ozone is created naturally?  And, since CFCs are soon to be
    banned, then the ozone hole will eventually be non-existant, correct?
    
    ME

RE: 38.127 by REFINE::KOMAR "He's been twitterpated"

> If CFCs are the primary reason for the ozone hole, and not the only
> reason, could it be assumed that there was a hole in the ozone before
> the CFCs were invented?  

Yes,  there are geologic records of volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts
that almost surely put enough junk into the stratosphere to cause a ozone
hole.

> If so, do we know how large it was?

No,  as such events are well before recorded history,  and I'm rather hoping 
this doesn't change.  I don't want to get a first hand look at such an event.  


> Also, if the ozone hole became smaller, would it then be safe to assume
> that ozone is created naturally?  And, since CFCs are soon to be
> banned, then the ozone hole will eventually be non-existant, correct?

Yes and yes.  There is no evidence of an ozone hole before 1970,  and the
amount of chlorine in the stratosphere had been increased by CFC's to about
three times the normal level by that date.


Phil

There is no evidence of the ozone hole before 1970?  I find that hard
to believe.  And just how long have MANMADE CFCs been in existance?
I would think that it is much longer than 24 years (but then again,
I don't know for certain).  

Now that I think about it, it might not be so hard to believe that 
there is no evidence of the ozone hole.  The technology today is 
much better than it was then.  Why, if we only knew what we were 
doing to the planet during the days of the Industrial Revolution, we
might still be using slide rules instead of computers.  We would have
the ice man come every day to make sure the meat doesn't spoil.  
The milk man would come daily to provide us with fres milk.  Damn!
I wish I lived during those days.  NOT!

ME

RE: 188.413 by LEADIN::REITH

>  How about Antarctica.
> 
> As for the ozone - they forget to mention that the hole only
> occurs during the Antarctic winter - when there is no sun.
> But I bet that's a subject for another topic.

Of course.  Like this one.

You have the wrong season.  Ozone depletion happens during spring at 
current CFC levels.  Spring,  as the stratosphere is still cold,  and
the sunshine has started.  Ozone depletion requires sunshine.  Ozone
depletion reaction runs faster at cold temperatures.


Phil

    You sure about that?
    
    Never heard of a reaction running faster at colder temps.

    Never heard of an endothermic reaction?  Never heard of reactive
    materials in a vapor phase and not solid or liquid?  Never heard of
    these things?  Neither have I. 

    I can attest that ozone depletion occurs when it's chili... :-)

    -b

    I've heard of an endothermic reaction...as it absorbs heat, wouldn't it
    need heat present to make it progress faster? 
    I'm not yet ready you say you're wrong, becuase I'm definitely not sure
    about my stuff, but the idea of a reaction proceeding faster at temp A
    than at temp B when temp A is lower than temp B sounds very odd to me.
    
    Excepting phase changes, of course...but this isn't a phase change.

#1 daughter was trying to tell me about the benefits of vegetarianism.
(She has decided to be a 75% vegetarian. She will eat meat one week out
of four. Unless she's home. And I'm cooking chicken fried steak. Etc.)

Anyway, she says one reason not to eat meat is for environmental concerns
because that means we concentrate too heavily on raising cattle and
the methane gas in cow flatulence is a major cause of depletion
of the ozone layer. Now, I can't quite buy this given my limited remembrances
of chemistry and physics. So, pardon the expression, but what's the poop
on methane gas dangers, and how much do we really believe cows passing
gas to be a contributory factor?

    Ackshally, anent efflatus, it's Marketeers who're the woise threat.
                              

    
    I thought methane was a greenhouse effect gas, not an ozone depleter?
    
    It's possible that you can get a short "high" from sniffing cow bottom
    burps.  My dad was a coal miner in his yoot, and the younger lads
    would stick their heads up into voids in the mine ceiling and
    take a breath of methane.   It gives a short-lived sense of euphoria.
    On the other hand, if you work as a coal miner I guess about anything
    elso in the world would be euphoric.

    .137
    
    Sniffing methane causes euphoria due to a phenomenon known to the
    medical community as hypoxia.

    Ban cows!

    
    > Sniffing methane causes euphoria due to a phenomenon known to the
    > medical community as hypoxia.
    
    Methinks it's a bit more than that.  A lot of Methane-series based
    compounds are psychoactive - methanol or Qaalude for example.

    
    
    I recall reading something awhile back that it was a particular insect
    that was leading the field in the methane wars...
    

    RE: Exo/endo thermic - check your whatever meter, I was only funnin'.
    
    RE: Methane & cows, it is greenhouse not ozone problems that result
    from over grazing and cowphartz.  Add to this, the amount of water it
    takes to raise a head of cattle, the land required, the erosion, the
    water shed pollution from cow dung and urine runoff, the wastes created 
    by the meat processing industry, the worldwide deforestation for grazing
    lands, the desertification that results years after as the vegetation
    is depleted and you have a real enviro treat.  Think of these things
    the next time you bite into a big heart stopping McBovine burger wit da'
    woiks.  

    
    
                          (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     ||  
                 *  ||W---||  
                    ~~    ~~  

    
    I'm not Glenn, but this is just soooo cute 8^).
    
    

    the intociatin' effects of methanl are due to the alcohol group, not
    the methane bases. This is why ethanol's also intoxicating.
    
    BTW, don't swig any methanol. It'll make ya go blind. Ethanol's the one
    you find in your friendly bottle of J.D.
                                                       

    .141
    
    Quaalude(tm) is not based on the the methyl radical CH , though it does
                                                          3
    include the radical in its makeup.
    
    It is methaqualone, C  H  N O.
                         16 14 2
    
    Having an organic chemist for a dad wasn't a bad thing.

RE: 38.134 by STATUS::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..."

> but this isn't a phase change.

Ah,  but phase change is involved.  Near and below -78 C,  stratospheric 
clouds form.  These clouds cause reactions that free chlorine from relatively 
unreactive compounds.

See Science 4-Jan-1991 page 46 "The Dynamics of the Stratospheric Polar
Vortex and Its Relationship to Springtime Ozone Depletions" for a good
discussion.


Phil

>    Having an organic chemist for a dad wasn't a bad thing.

He supplied you with 'ludes?

    
    
                          (__)
                          (oo)
           *toot*  /-------\/ 
                  / |     ||  
                 *  ||W---||  
                    ~~    ~~  

    
    
    

                              --          (__)
                         --               (oo)
                               .  * .      \/
                             *   *    .
                     /      .  \  |  /  *    
		    /	      -	BLAM! -     
                   *         * /  |  \  *       \
                         |   .  *  *    .    |   \
                       | |    .   .          |    ~
                       | ~                   ~
                       ~      W

    >See Science 4-Jan-1991 page 46 "The Dynamics of the Stratospheric Polar
    >Vortex and Its Relationship to Springtime Ozone Depletions" for a good
    >discussion.
    
    I would - you know, I'm always one for a good discussion - but I think
    I have to rearrange my socks tonight.  :) 

    > He supplied you with 'ludes?
    
    He supplied me with enough reagents and lab glassware that I coulda
    MADE 'ludes, probably.

So he wasn't your pusher engine?

    
    > Having an organic chemist for a dad wasn't a bad thing.
    
    Ha, I'll bet.
    
    Being a designated cranky ole fart, and therefore mainly methane, you
    exposed yourself to someone and noticed that they did not get euphoric.
    
    

He was a cranky young fart back then.

    
    Unless of course they are lighting a cigar !
    Gives a hole new meaning to being a flaming a**h*** !
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
    38.130 by BOXORN::HAYS
    
    >Of course.  Like this one.
    >
    >You have the wrong season.  Ozone depletion happens during spring at
    >current CFC levels.  Spring,  as the stratosphere is still cold,  and
    >the sunshine has started.  Ozone depletion requires sunshine.  Ozone
    >depletion reaction runs faster at cold temperatures.
     
    In the graphics I saw showing Ozone over Antarctica, the thinning
    started to occur in June and peaked in September, at which point the
    Ozone started to build up fairly rapidly.
    
    It is the chlorine from the CFCs which interacts with the ozone.  The
    chlorine does not need sun light to tear ozone apart.  But, if it has
    sunlight, the chlorine can get ripped off of the oxygen it stole from
    ozone and do its nastiness again.  But then again, if there is sun
    light, the ozone gets torn apart by the UV, and the free oxygen is
    available to make more ozone.  
    
    Currently, the ozone is created at a faster rate than it is impacted by
    the chlorine, so the hole does not appear when the sun is high enough
    to make a difference.  The concern (and a valid one) is that there may
    be a point where the combination of UV and chlorine tear the ozone
    apart faster than it is created, thus reducing or eliminating the UV
    protection from the upper atmosphere.
    
    An ironic twist - the level of air polution and ozone in the lower
    atmosphere has reduced the UV hitting the ground by about 20%.  So that
    even a significant hole in the atmosphere will not cause a problem from
    UV radiation (at least more than what is normally there).
    
    I am not saying this is good, I am just pointing it out.
    
    	Skip

 .150 has me ROTFL

    .135 by MOLAR::DELBALSO 
    
    > Anyway, she says one reason not to eat meat is for environmental
    > concerns because that means we concentrate too heavily on raising
    > cattle and the methane gas in cow flatulence is a major cause of
    > depletion of the ozone layer.
    
    Methane has nothing to do with Ozone layer.  And the ozone layer has
    nothing to do with the green house effect.  It is amazing, though, how
    many people confuse the two environmental "crises".
    
    But, it seems that Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. 
    Also, water vapor is a big greenhouse gas.  We are all set now, though. 
    The Government is going to spend a few million dollars studying what
    the news has reported as "cow belches" (whimpy news reporters).
    
    I feel much safer now.
    
    	Skip

So it we stop worrying about the methane, and do something useful
with it, like use it as fuel, and thereby "convert" it into two
less risky greenhouse gases, CO2 and H2O, we'd be doing good things,
right?

    Yup, we would.  When you patent the capturing device, you will be a
    very lucky man indeed.  You could even give it a snappy name like 
    Flatuless or The Phart Phazer.  
    
    Brian
    

Dick,

>    Having an organic chemist for a dad wasn't a bad thing.

Aren't all chemists organic, or I did I miss the discovery of a new life-form?

Bob

    Perhaps the exploding cows can be used in a propulsion system for
    interstellar space craft.

    >So it we stop worrying about the methane, and do something useful
    >with it, like use it as fuel, and thereby "convert" it into two
    >less risky greenhouse gases, CO2 and H2O, we'd be doing good things,
    >right?
    
    I like it. Maybe we could put a cow in the trunk of the car with a tube
    up its ass that leads to the fuel injectors?
    
    I'll take mine rare!  :)
    
    ...Tom

re .159:

>    the news has reported as "cow belches" (whimpy news reporters).

Actually that's correct.  The belches are worse than the "other" source
as far as methane generation.  Cows have multiple stomachs and the first
ferments the grass they eat, this fermentation produces methane (would be
interesting if it produced alcohol, cows would always be drunk... :-) )

Termites and swamps are worse generators of methane (don't know which end
of the termite is responsible...)

And methane is a greenhouse gas, not an ozone depleter as pointed out
earlier.

re: Brian

Ackshually, I recall about 25 years ago there was a concept in barn
construction being introduced in Upstate NY (America's Second Dairyland).
The barns were constructed with a "basement" which acted as a "collection
area" for the gutter materials behind the cows' stalls. There were
devices down there which "stirred" things up, and produced a sort of
homogeneous liquid manure product which would "ferment" a bit more
and increase the methane concentration. There were also compressors
to "bottle" the methane for use as fuel in generators, heating plants,
and the like.

The problems were twofold -
   All of the "equipment" in the basement required a lot of maintainence
   due to the corrosive nature of the environment, and too many experimental
   barns were lost due to fire from sitting atop a rather flammable fuel
   supply.

    
    So...all this talk about cow toots should really be taking place
    in topic 62, then?
    

    Go to Burp Factor 8, Mr. Sulu.
    
    Chris

    
    <-------------
    
    Probably, but when did logic prevent this notes file heading
    down into a rodentia breeding ground, or cow warren for that matter.
       

    "Captain! I canna give ya fart 9 much longer! Ooooo the mooing! It's
    killin' me ears! I canna take it any more!"

    
    <insert `udder-based' joke here>
    

    
    That's udder foolishness
    

    
    Dammit Jim. I'm a doctor, not a vet

>                               Cows have multiple stomachs and the first
>ferments the grass they eat, this fermentation produces methane (would be
>interesting if it produced alcohol, cows would always be drunk... :-) )

See 79.929.

    An organic chemist works with compounds based on the element carbon.
    The <insert-other-name-here> chemists work with non-carbon based
    compunds.

RE: 38.135 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

Methane directly isn't related to ozone depletion.  There are two marginal
connections,  as methane does oxidize to water,  and methane is a
greenhouse gas.  Also,  while cattle are a source of methane,  they are not
the major source of methane,  or even the major man-made source of methane.
Both rice growing and leaks from oil_drilling/mining/natural_gas_systems
are probably larger.

The extra water may cause some additional PSCs (Polar Stratospheric Clouds),  
which are part of the process of ozone depletion at current chlorine
levels.  However,  there is usually enough water in the stratosphere to form 
PSCs.

An increase in greenhouse gases (such as methane) will not only warm the 
surface,  but also cool the stratosphere.  The best way to change this
isn't by trying to reduce methane,  but by trying to reduce CO2.  The best
way to do that is to convert from fossil power to non-fossil power,  such as
nuclear.


Phil

>								The best
>way to do that is to convert from fossil power to non-fossil power,  such as
>nuclear.

I don't disagree. I have a friend who recently came off a contract for
GE in North Carolina where he was converting an XWindows app to Motif
at the fuel rod manufacturing facility. The folks employed by GE down there
are watching the business dwindle and move to Europe and Asia. It seems
as though the US market for fuel rods is quickly shrinking as old plants
are decommissioned and new ones aren't built. If a safe means of disposing of
the waste could be found, this situation might change, but of course
it's a NIMBY issue, and it's not likely to change.

    
    .175
    
    Inorganic.

    Physical and bio too.  Better living through chemistry I say.

    
    .177> If a safe means of disposing of
        > the waste could be found, this situation might change
    
    They have a way to reprocess the rods.  In seperating out the unspent 
    fuel and medically useful radioactives, they have a stage of uranium
    that is or close to bomb grade.  The government said no-way because
    of the fear of theft.  The same government that has lost many pounds 
    of bomb grade plutonium from its own plants.
    
    	Skip
    
    P.S. The NIMBY issue comes from the negative hype put out by
    the "unbiased" media.

RE: .150


	I haven't laughed that hard in a long long time! Good one Glenn!

>                 Also,  while cattle are a source of methane,  they are not
>the major source of methane,  or even the major man-made source of methane.

I didn't know cattle were man-made.  What you learn in the 'box!

    .183
    
    Before we had cattle, we had aurochs.  Unfriendly buggers.  Big horns
    and a temper to match.

    
    I wonder what kind of methane was floating around when there were
    herds of buffalo so large, you could not see from one end to the other.
    
    Also, think of the methane put out by a Bronto'  Prob'ly what
    killed off all those dinos.  (The explosion wasn't from some ol'
    meteorite.  Someone lit a match and whooooooooosh flaboooom.)
    
    	Skip

    >Wow, those must've been big buffalo.
     
    Yup.  And let's just say you wouldn't want to stand behind them
    when there was a strong wind.      

    
    NEW YORK (AP) - The annual depletion of ozone over the Antarctic has
    steadily worsened over the last 10 years and has reached about the most
    severe levels possible, says a co-discoverer of the so-called ozone
    hole.
    
    "Basically, the situation is we've not seen any slowdown at all.  If
    anything, there's an acceleration of the depletion," meteorologist
    Jonathan Shanklin says.
     

>    steadily worsened over the last 10 years and has reached about the most
>    severe levels possible

Well, I guess we can stop worrying about it, then.

RE: 38.189 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

>> steadily worsened over the last 10 years and has reached about the most
>> severe levels possible

> Well, I guess we can stop worrying about it, then.

What leads you to this conclusion?  Antarctica isn't the whole world, 
after all.


Phil

    If the hole can spread, then it hasn't "reached the most severe levels
    possible."
    
    If it's reached "the most severe levels possible," then it's done
    spreading.

RE: 38.191 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..."

> If it's reached "the most severe levels possible," then it's done
> spreading.

No,  doesn't mean it's done spreading,  the hole is done getting deeper in 
Antarctica only.  

The hole over Antarctica has reached about the lowest level that calculations 
suggest that a reasonable amount of CFC's can cause.  That says nothing about 
the rest of the Earth.  Might get a hole that deep in the Arctic,  been
close a couple of times.  Might get major reductions outside the polar 
regions.  We would get both,  if we continued to increase releases of long
lived chlorines gases.

The good news is that artificial chlorine gas concentrations have about 
peaked.  Some types are already starting to trend downwards.


Phil

    Yes, deeper and bigger are both different from severe.
    
    I stand by my statement...the original author should not have used the
    phrase "most severe level possible" if it can get worse in any way,
    shape or form.

. . . which prompted  my facetious comment. however Phil's sensayuma
was out of whack.

Usually is.

"Pretty" ozone hole this year.

http://nic.fb4.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/tovsto/950925_sp.gif


Phil

Halley Bay September average ozone measurement was 201 DU,  the second
lowest in history (lowest was last year)  The worst ozone depletion is
usually in early October.  The October 5 reading was 112 DU,  slightly
better than last year.


Phil

>Halley Bay September average ozone measurement was 201 DU,  the second
>lowest in history (lowest was last year)  

So things got better...

>The worst ozone depletion is
>usually in early October.  The October 5 reading was 112 DU,  slightly
>better than last year.

So things got better...

I knew this Ozone hole stuff was a hoax...

/scott

    
    	I read somewhere that termite farts are causing the most damage
    	to the ozone layer.
    
    	Pretty disgusting, although I can't honestly say that I've been
    	bothered by the smell.  Of course, it does explain alot of the
    	"No, it wasn't ME!!" answers to "You REEK".
    

    The hole is a hoax.  
    
    Scientists have reported that the largest concentration of methane in
    the Earth's atmosphere hovers above Shawn's house.
    
    Mike

    
    	Hey, it wasn't ME.
    
    	We must have termites.
    

    If a termite farts in the forrest and there's nobody there to hear it,
    does it make any noise?

yes...pffffffffffffffffffffff

    
    	Glen, you apparently never heard the one about the tree falling
    	in the forest with no one around to hear it fall, and "does it
    	make a sound?".
    
    	Well, technically it doesn't make a sound because there is no
    	eardrum within audible range to convert the sound waves to a
    	sound.
    

    
    
    So, does that mean yer a termite, Glen, that you eat woods?

| <<< Note 38.205 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "A seemingly endless time" >>>


| Glen, you apparently never heard the one about the tree falling in the forest 
| with no one around to hear it fall, and "does it make a sound?".

	I heard it.... but the sound from the termite would still be pffffffff



Glen

| <<< Note 38.206 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA fighting for our RIGHTS" >>>



| So, does that mean yer a termite, Glen, that you eat woods?

	I have been told by some that I bug them, and redwoods are a favorite
of mine..... :-)

    that's one way to get fiber in your diet.

    And protein....

    
    "...from the sea!"
     

    box!

    
    Corrrrrrrrect!
    

================================================================================
Note 62.53              Global Warming / Greenhouse / CO2               53 of 54
GAAS::BRAUCHER "Frustrated Incorporated"            148 lines   2-NOV-1995 11:32
                            -< Ozone smuggling... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Freon Hot in Miami : Smugglers find big profits in soon-to-be-banned gas
    (11/2/95 Boston Globe, by Brian McGrory, Globe Staff)
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MIAMI - Down at the port here, down on the docks that were once the most
  notorious battleground in the nation's war on drugs, some smugglers have
  gone the way of the rest of 1990s America : They have become more domestic.

    Federal officials say that a multimillion dollar industry has cropped up
  in the last year around the smuggling of CFC-12, better known by its
  trademark name of Freon - the compressed gas that cools automobile air
  conditioners and household refrigerators.

    Massive cargo ships arrive with the Freon under the cover of dark.
  Captains hide it in the bowels of their boats.  Importers disguise shipping
  manifests to make their cargo appear to be something else.

    The reason : Environmentalists concerned that CFC-12 is harming the ozone
  layer have persuaded the government to impose a hefty environmental tax
  on the gas through the remainder of this year.  And beginning in January,
  CFC-12 will be banned outright in the United States, except in rare
  medical cases and for use on the space shuttle.

    "There are people who think the problem of smuggling will be like
  Prohibition all over again, only with CFC-12 instead of alcohol," said
  Thomas Watts-Fitzgerald, the assistant US attorney here who heads up the
  cases. "Already this year, the smuggling of CFC-12 was the second-highest
  smuggled product in South Florida, second only to the drug trade."

    Said Keith Prager, a special agent in charge for the US Customs Service,
  "It's smuggling the old-fashioned way, with a different cargo."

    Though lacking the sheer profits that drug smuggling offers, CFC-12 is
  still a lucrative trade, a point made clear when a federal jury convicted
  the manager of Caicos Caribbean Lines Inc., 50-year-old Irma Henneberg
  of Fort Lauderdale, on charges she falsified shipping documents from
  December 1993 to March 1995 to allow 4,000 tons of CFC-12 to be brought
  into Miami.

    Federal agents said the street value of the illegal cargo - 209 shipping
  containers filled from top to bottom with 30-pound cylinders - was
  approximately $52 million, and the scheme allowed Henneberg to evade
  approximately $32 million in import taxes.  She is scheduled to be
  sentenced Wednesday, and Watts-Fitzgerald predicted she will draw a
  five-year prison term, the longest for anyone yet charged in a Freon
  smuggling scheme.

    Anyone, anywhere with a car can understand the rising value of Freon.
  Here in Miami, at AAA Air Conditioning and Radiator, Alan Kromsteadt said
  he has seen the price of a 30-pound cylinder rise from $19.95 a few years
  ago to $265 today.  Much of that increase is the result of the
  $5.35-per-pound federal import tax.  That cost has been passed on to
  motorists, who are now paying upwards of $100 to recharge their air
  conditioners, when it was only a fraction of that in the 1980s.

    "They're saying the price is outrageous, but there's not a whole lot we
  can do about it," said Kromstadt.  Cars built after 1994, meanwhile, use
  R-134A, a different refrigerant that is less harmful to the atmosphere.
  Older cars must be retrofitted to accomodate it for a price between $200
  and $600.

    For now, Freon is smuggled in from overseas manufacturers to avoid the
  federal tax, as well as to sidestep strict allowances on how much companies
  may bring into the country.  Next year, smuggling will be the only choice
  for those who want to bring it to US shores.

    The smugglers themselves are often shipline operators, common criminals
  who sense an opportunity to turn a quick buck and dabblers in the
  automotive industry, federal officials said.  The product is distributed
  around the country, to a loose network of automotive radiator shops that
  seem constantly in short supply of Freon or are eager to buy it cheaply
  on the black market, officials said.

    For a majority of scientists and environmentalists, next year's ban on
  CFC-12 in the United States - stipulated in the landmark 1987 Montreal
  Protocol - marked a major victory, but the black market Freon trade has
  significantly dulled their celebration.

    "Everyone in Washington had their little charts," said John Passacantado,
  executive director of the Washington-based advocacy group, Ozone Action.
  "They were thinking they would be pushing people into the alternative."

    When CFC-12 was invented in 1928, it was hailed as somewhat of a miracle
  chemical - nontoxic, entirely breathable and bringing relief from even the
  worst heat.  But nearly a half-century later, in the mid-1970s, a group
  of scientists began theorizing that CFC-12, though stable on the ground, was
  causing damage in the stratosphere to the crucial ozone layer.  In October,
  three scientists, Drs. F. Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina and Paul Crutzen,
  won the Nobel Prize for chemistry for their research on ozone depletion
  cause by humans.

    Scientists have argued that when CFC-12 reaches the stratosphere between
  15 and 30 miles above the earth's surface, it is broken down by the sun
  and releases chlorine.  That chlorine then destroys the ozone layer, and
  the result is that more harmful sun rays reach Earth, causing greater risk
  of skin cancer and cataract problems among humans and damage to plant and
  animal life.

    "There are many layers, many levels, in which it does damage,"
  Passacantado said.

    To be sure, there are abstainers.  Sallie Bauliunas, a physicist with the
  George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, said the government measures
  over CFC-12 seem more severe than the problem itself.  "It's proper to go
  on a schedule of phaseouts," Baliunas said.  "But I question whether that
  needs to be this rapid or draconian."

    And here in Miami, some lawyers are incredulous over the stiff sentences
  handed down to CFC-12 smugglers, as well as the high-minded rhetoric used
  by federal prosecutors.

    "Big Brother is overstepping his bounds," said lawyer Jeffrey Feldman,
  who represented a smuggler sentenced to two years.  "They are putting
  people in jail for selling something that for years was sold in Kmart."

    Regardless, a task force of US Customs agents, Environmental Protection
  Agency investigators, IRS agents and US Commerce Department officials scour
  South Florida and parts of California for any sign of smuggling.  Customs,
  for example, has a team of agents dedicated just to CFC-12 investigations.

    "Mostly, it's just hard work," said Prager, of Customs.  "We have
  intercepted deliveries and followed paper trails until we came up with
  evidence.  The money is there.  It's shocking.  It's incredible."

    Already, more than 1 million pounds of CFC-12 has been confiscated by
  federal authorities.  In South Florida, eight people have been convicted
  in the last year, and another two await trial.  Much of the CFC-12
  originates in Northern Europe and India, and arrives either in ports here,
  in New York, or in New Jersey.

    But despite some success, officials hesitate to gauge the problem.  More
  than 10 cargo ships arrive at the Port of Miami every day bringing in or
  picking up 24,000 cargo containers.  Within an hour's drive, another
  12,500 containers are moved each day.

    "If you want to engage in classic smuggling where you misidentify the
  product, everything is not going to be inspected," said Watts-Fitzgerald,
  who heads the environmental enforcement section of the US Attorney's office
  here.  "It's just like drug smuggling."

    Ozone Action estimated that 24,000 tons were brought into the United
  States illegally in 1994, but others question how such a figure can be
  stated with certainty.

    "Any number has to be taken with a grain of salt," Watts-Fitzgerald said.
  "But they are significant numbers that pose a significant problem."

    
      If you wanna play mod, we'll call you Phillipe...
    
      bb

62.53> "Big Brother is overstepping his bounds," said lawyer Jeffrey Feldman,
62.53> who represented a smuggler sentenced to two years.  "They are putting
62.53> people in jail for selling something that for years was sold in Kmart."

You can buy a gun in Kmart.  Selling a gun to a known mental defective or
a known criminal is illegal.  Putting someone in jail for doing this isn't
"Big Brother overstepping his bounds."  Correct?

If you don't want the time,  don't do the crime.


62.54> "the government can ban anything it wants;  that just creates black 
62.54> markets, siphons law enforcement from more pressing duties,  and makes 
62.54> smugglers rich. Great solution.

Got a better one?


62.55> Banning inanimate objects does nothing except stir up a lot of 
62.55> trouble, and changes people's behaviour little.

There has been a substantial,  measurable reduction in the release of most 
types of CFCs.  So people's behavior has been changed a lot.


Phil

    
    	I use non-aerosol hairspray, so how come I've still got a 
    	hole in my ozone layer ??  I'm sure that's the cause of my
    	inability to retain data in my memory cells.
    
    	

>Got a better one?
    
    Mandate that all new cars sold in the US must be made with the new cfc
    airconditioning systems. This allows a gradual and graceful end to the
    freon problem, without the black market for freon, because as people
    buy new cars, the utility of freon will be reduced. Also, get rid of
    the huge import tariffs, because they are part of the reason there is a
    black market.

    Freon used in aerosols was eliminated a long long time ago as a
    propellant.  You may use aerosols in this country with impunity as far
    as damaging the ozone goes.  It is less wasteful packaging wise to use
    non-aerosol products however.  
    
    Brian

RE: 38.218 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "mucks like a fink"

> Mandate that all new cars sold in the US must be made with the new cfc
> airconditioning systems.  This allows a gradual and graceful end to the
> freon problem, without the black market for freon, because as people
> buy new cars, the utility of freon will be reduced. 

What will the range of possible peak levels of stratospheric chlorine be if 
this is the strategy?  (Best case,  worse case)  What will the range of 
ozone losses be at these levels of CFC's?  What will the surface level UV
exposure rates be at these levels of ozone losses?  Is this an acceptable
risk,  why or why not?

If this is not acceptable,  what additional policy(s) are needed?


Phil

    
    re:.216
    
> You can buy a gun in Kmart.  Selling a gun to a known mental defective or
> a known criminal is illegal.  Putting someone in jail for doing this isn't
> "Big Brother overstepping his bounds."  Correct?
    
    That my friend is still a matter of contension.
    
> 62.55> Banning inanimate objects does nothing except stir up a lot of 
> 62.55> trouble, and changes people's behaviour little.
> 
> There has been a substantial,  measurable reduction in the release of most 
> types of CFCs.  So people's behavior has been changed a lot.
    
    Yes, but has the hole stopped growing?  If yes, ducky.  If no, then
    somebody has made a mistake.
    

RE: 38.221 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "No Compromise on Freedom"

> Yes, but has the hole stopped growing?  If yes, ducky.  If no, then 
> somebody has made a mistake.

Why don't you find out?

http:://www.acd.ucar.edu/gpdf/ozone/science/bas-o3b-95-10.html


Phil

RE: 38.218 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "mucks like a fink"

Oh,  and a hint.  What part of a car's lifetime is most likely to have the 
largest CFC loss into the atmosphere?  


Phil

    
> > Yes, but has the hole stopped growing?  If yes, ducky.  If no, then 
> > somebody has made a mistake.
> 
> Why don't you find out?
> 
> http:://www.acd.ucar.edu/gpdf/ozone/science/bas-o3b-95-10.html
    
    Because I can't, I don't have a way to look at web stuff.  So has the
    hole stopped growing or not?
    

RE: 38.224 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "No Compromise on Freedom"

> I don't have a way to look at web stuff.

Lynx and Mosaic should work on DEVLPR::.  Do you have a text or a x-windows
display?  And would you like pictures,  or are you most interested in text?


> So has the hole stopped growing or not?

You tell us.

=============================================================================
Stratospheric Ozone Law, Information & Science

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Return to the SOLIS home page | science page | BAS page...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAS ozone bulletin 10/95

Issued 30 October 1995

Preliminary ozone values from the British Antarctic
Survey Faraday station (65 south, 64 west on the coast of
the Antarctic Peninsula) show mean ozone values dropping
from values of around 290 Dobson Units (DU) at the
beginning of August to around 180 DU at the end of
September (45% depletion).  The first week of October saw
a major spring warming event, with a rise in mean total
ozone to over 300 DU as the circumpolar high ozone belt
moved across the station.  Mean values then fell back to
around 200 DU in mid October before rising again to
around 260 DU at present.  Planetary wave activity as the
edge of the ozone hole passes over the station is giving
day to day variation of around 50 DU.  Values are
generally above those reached in 1993 and 1994, but well
below those of the long term mean.  Data from our long
term record for the station indicate normal values are
around 360 DU in late October (with a range of 290 DU to
480 DU).

Faraday preliminary mean daily total ozone, (DU).
Revised 1995 October 26

1995 August 1 - October 26

 300 266 270 259 284 328 302 274 238 226
 232 217 212 216 275 277 279 267 218 221
 229 236 224 212 200 209 204 231 217 207 222
 206 202 203 242 200 195 183 185 188 151
 193 271 246 219 268 227 166 205 158 141
 138 214 196 173 240 202 157 154 212 261
 279 369 323 316 308 317 288 303 246 169
 170 169 144 133 280 283 222 184 177 231
 289 263 222 280 296 218

Faraday provisional monthly mean total ozone (DU)
Revised 1995 October 26

Aug  Sep
244  200

The mean for September is the second lowest September
mean recorded at the station, the lowest being 195 DU in
1994.

Preliminary ozone measurements from the British Antarctic
Survey Halley station (76 south, 26 west on the Brunt ice
shelf) show that mean total ozone values dropped slowly
from around 250 DU at the beginning of August to around
220 DU in early September and then fell rapidly to a
minimum of 125 DU at the end of September (60%
depletion).  The decline then halted and ozone values
rose very slowly to around 140 DU in mid October.  Mean
values are now steady at around 135 DU, similar to those
at the same time in 1993/94 and below those at the same
time last year.  Day to day variation has dropped from
around 25 DU in early October to around 10 DU.  Data from
our long term record for the station indicate normal
values are around 305 DU in late October (with a range of
270 DU to 360 DU).

Stratospheric temperatures at 100 hPa, near the peak of
the ozone layer, are steady at around -79 deg C; this is
substantially below normal and similar to those at the
same time in 1993/94, but well below those at the same
time last year.  Some stratospheric clouds will still be
present at this temperature.  Data from our long term
record for the station indicate normal values are around
-67 deg C in late October (with a range of -60 to -73 deg
C).

Halley preliminary mean daily total ozone, (DU)
(0 indicates no data)

1995 August 1 - October 29
Revised 1995 October 30

   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 221 228 231
 248 244   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
   0   0   0   0   0   0 212 225 197 225 239
 209 214 235 227 234 205 213 189 183 206
 210 167 192 187 183 164 143 159 163 142
 136 137 141 116 121 133 126 135 117 120
 123 131 143 137 112 117 145 177 138 126
 118 132 152 132 134 137 159 152 128 133
 132 138 138 134 134 125 125 137 139

Halley provisional monthly mean total ozone (DU)
Revised 1995 October 30

Aug  Sep
227  170

TOVS satellite images from the US NCEP/NWS/NOAA Climate
Prediction Center show that ozone depletion intensified
during September, with the ozone "hole" covering most of
the Antarctic continent and centred close to the south
pole.  Ozone values at Halley and Faraday were a little
above those of last year, because the centre of the hole
was further away from the BAS stations than in 1994.
During the first half of October the hole became more
elongated; the axis of elongation is currently aligned
towards the South Atlantic.  The axis of elongation is
rotating around the Antarctic continent with a period of
about a month.  This rotation of the "hole" gives rise to
the larger day to day variation in ozone amount seen at
Faraday, which is sometimes inside and sometimes outside
the ozone hole.  The edge of the hole clipped the tip of
South America and the Falkland Islands between October 12
and 14.  The hole is beginning to fill and has become
more elongated; however the small decline in values at
Halley suggests that ozone depletion is still taking
place.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Antarctic Survey ozone bulletins are provided by courtesy of Dr.
Jonathan Shanklin of BAS, who requests acknowledgement if the preliminary
data contained therein are passed on or used in any way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received from BAS 30 October 1995 and posted 2 November 1995 with minimal
HTML markup.

Compilation copyright � 1995
Gregory P. Dubois-Felsmann - [email protected]

    
> Lynx and Mosaic should work on DEVLPR::.  
    
    How?
    
> Do you have a text or a x-windows display?  
    
    Vax station 3100... Set host to DEVLPR::
    
> And would you like pictures,  or are you most interested in text?
    
    Anything I can get.
    
> > So has the hole stopped growing or not?
> 
> You tell us.
    
    Nope, so why the hell have we been wasting all this money?
    

Try these:

$ lynx

Or

$ Set display/user/create/node={the name of your VS3100}
$ mosaic

RE: 38.226 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "No Compromise on Freedom"

>>> So has the hole stopped growing or not?
> Nope, so why the hell have we been wasting all this money?

Didn't read it,  eh?


Phil

> >>> So has the hole stopped growing or not?
> > Nope, so why the hell have we been wasting all this money?
> 
> Didn't read it,  eh?
    
    I sure as hell did, did you miss this?
    
> The hole is beginning to fill and has become
> more elongated; however the small decline in values at
> Halley suggests that ozone depletion is still taking
> place.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^
    

    
    	Maybe the hole is getting smaller, but the layer itself is
    	getting "thinner"?
    
    	So the whole layer is weakening.
    

    
    re:.227
    
    Neither one worked...  
    :-(
    

    
    	Was there an error when you typed MOSAIC?
    

    
    
    
    SO why is there this note dedicated to the hole in Phil's head? ;')

RE: 38.229 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "No Compromise on Freedom"

>    I sure as hell did, did you miss this?

>> The hole is beginning to fill and has become
>> more elongated; however the small decline in values at
>> Halley suggests that ozone depletion is still taking
>> place.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ^^^^^

The case of the missing context.  I'm about to leave for a long trip.  See
if you can figure out the context you missed.  I'll mail you some hints.


Phil

If Mark wants to discuss issues,  he might try to answer the questions in
38.220. 

>What will the range of possible peak levels of stratospheric chlorine be if 
>this is the strategy?  (Best case,  worse case)  What will the range of 
>ozone losses be at these levels of CFC's?  What will the surface level UV
>exposure rates be at these levels of ozone losses?  Is this an acceptable
>risk,  why or why not?
    
    I don't know the answers to these questions, do you? How do they differ
    from the current policy? How do the costs of the two plans differ? How
    do the second order effects compare?
    
    You want to put the burden on me to justify a more palatable (to
    humans) approach to solving this problem. But you haven't proven the
    current, drastic approach is necessary, significantly more beneficial,
    and worth the costs and second order effects.

RE: 38.236 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

> I don't know the answers to these questions, do you?

Then how could you possibly know that the current policy isn't the best
policy for humans?  Remember,  you are complaining about the legal status
quo,  and you don't want to bother to learn enough about issue to
understand it.  But you do know that the current policy is "eco-terrorism".

How sad.


Phil

>Then how could you possibly know that the current policy isn't the best
>policy for humans?  
    
    I don't. But the fact that it has not been demonstrated to be the best
    policy for humans coupled with the clear negative impacts on humans
    that the regulation has caused gives me plenty of justification to
    question it.
    
>Remember,  you are complaining about the legal status quo,  
    
    Which itself is a huge change from the existing status quo. Yet I
    didn't hear you demanding that it be proved to be in our best interests
    before the change was made. I haven't heard you express that it would
    even be favorable that the facts surrounding the issue be publicized.
    What I have heard is argument by assertion and no facts on your part.
    If it's so clearly in the best interest, then the facts should be
    trivial to demonstrate. The negative impacts on humans certainly are.
    
>and you don't want to bother to learn enough about issue to
>understand it.  
    
     This assertion is not only unprovable, it is also false. But instead
    of providing information, you'd rather throw stones. How incredibly
    helpful. How amazingly respectful. How intellectually honest. Consult a
    dictionary if these terms are as foreign to you as appears.

RE: 38.238 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

>> Then how could you possibly know that the current policy isn't the best
>> policy for humans?

> I don't.

Why did you start by calling supporters of current law "eco-terrorists"?
The fact I don't like that makes me unhelpful?  Disrespectful? 
Intellectually dishonest?  And in need of a dictionary to understand these
terms?  Yea,  right.

These are hardly a good ways to show your willingness to learn about the
issue.


Oh,  and if you didn't hear me discussing this issue when the law changed
you must have been mighty fast with the next unseen key.  


I also did a BOE comparing the drug trade and Freon smuggling,  and I can't
see how Freon smuggling can be anywhere near as big of business as the drug
trade.  While the potential number of buyers of black market Freon are
about twice as large as the number of people that regularly use illegal
drugs,  the potential sale of black market freon is going to be much less
than the $600 needed to replace a compressor.  Average drug use per year
per must be at least an order of magnitude higher.

Here is my BOE:

If there are 100 million cars,   and 10% of the air conditioners break down
in a given year,  and 20% of the car repairs use black market Freon,  and
average amount spent on black market Freon is $100,  then the size of the
black market for Freon is around $200 million dollars.  

The illegal drug trade has got to be in the billions of dollars per year.
We spend 19 billion fighting the war on drugs (see 188.13).


Phil

RE: 38.236 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

> I don't know the answers to these questions, do you?

Science 10-Feb-1989 pages 763 to 770.  Figure 8A line ii shows the
projected stratospheric chlorine for the original Montreal Protocol,  which
is close to what you seem to suggest in policy.  However,  I don't read
your mind,  what are your exact policy changes?  What is the impact?

The amended Montreal Protocol,  signed by that Ecoterrorist,  George
Bush, is producing something like curve iv,  however without as drastic
change in slope as shown.

I can accurately tell you the amount of ozone loss with the Ecoterrorist
approach.  While we probably have not yet seen the peak ozone loss,  it is
not likely to get much worse than what we measure today.  We should see an
Antarctic ozone hole until about 2045 or so.  

You want to change the treaty to increase the amount of CFC's that can be
produced.  Provide a believable estimate of ozone loss with your changes.

Perhaps I should point you to the web.

http://www.acd.ucar.edu/gpdf/ozone/index.html

This site has a lot of resources.  Start with Robert Parson's FAQ.


Phil

RE: 38.238 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

> If it's so clearly in the best interest, then the facts should be trivial
> to demonstrate. The negative impacts on humans certainly are.

It's easy to demonstrate that there is a cost,  of about $100 dollars per
person in the United States,  of banning the production of CFCs.  This ban
prevents roughly doubling in atmospheric chlorine levels,  and instead starts
chlorine levels declining starting at about the year 2000.

The cost is all that matters,  from the Republican view.  The environment
doesn't count.  None of the leading Republican candidates bothered to show
up at an environmental forum in New Hampshire.  They don't care.

If you bothered to follow up the references I gave,  you would know that
mid-latitude ozone levels have dropped about 6%,  and that this increases UV
levels at the surface by about 6%,  and that this extra UV reduces plant
productivity by more than 6%,  more for some types of plants,  less for
others.  You could have multiplied this times the gross farm output and
determine that the current cost of our past use of CFCs is on the rough
order of $100 per person in the United States.  Of course,  this is a
distributed cost,  so it can only be roughly estimated.  And there are
other costs and risks,  such as skin cancer.

If you bothered to research the question,  you might have found that
doubling CFCs will cause a much larger reduction.  Avoiding a six percent
reduction is about break even.  What about a 75 % reduction?  You can do
the math.  Remember,  even at the same temperature,  the chemistry is
non-linear.  Also,  reductions in ozone amounts reduce the stratospheric
temperature,  which increases the rate of ozone loss.  The cost from
something like this might be pretty outrageous.  Think about it. 


Phil

The Republicans don't care about the environment.

For a roughly $100 per person savings in avoided costs of rapid phase out
of CFC's,  they would willingly roughly double atmospheric chlorine levels. 
Even if this just doubled current mid-latitude losses of ozone,  it would
be an economic loss to allow such an increase.  As the chemistry of ozone
loss isn't linear,  it would be worse,  and it might be a lot worse.

But,  the economic loss of rapid CFC phase out is more measurable, and will
happen before the next election.  And the harm to the ozone would three to
five years away.

So the Republicans call rapid phase out of CFCs "Ecoterrorism".


Phil

    Lots of hand waving going on there, Phil. Looks to me like a lot of
    your supporting data is PFA.
    
    And it may average out to "only $100 per person" but who's really going
    to be paying? Replacing an air conditioner system that's perfectly
    functional but needs recharging is ~$600-875. And many families have
    two vehicles. Now we're talking maybe $1500 to do both vehicles. You
    think the kids are going to chip in their "fair share"? At my
    daughter's current allowance rate, she can have her "fair share" paid
    off in 3.6 years (meaning her allowance is diverted for 3.6 years to
    pay back a no interest loan. Add interest to the picture and it'll take
    a good bit longer.)

RE: 38.243 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

PFA?

> And it may average out to "only $100 per person" but who's really going
> to be paying? 

Just who is going to be paying for ozone loss?  As the type of CFC that was
used in vehicles has a half-lifetime of about fifty years in the
atmosphere,  your daughter might have more at stake than you do.


Phil

What bugs me about this whole A/C thing is there have been several
CFC replacements patented that are "drop in" replacement for R-12
auto air conditioners.  But no, the EPA wouldn't approve of their
use, only the incompatible HFC is allowed.

I even know someone who said the hell with the whole thing and
recharged his system with a propane/isobutane mix.  When asked
about safety issue with that he pointed out the car already has
a 20 gallon gas tank.  

    The EPA has a whole host of dumb decisions, including forced emissions
    testing of all cars in certain geographic areas despite the existence
    of a device which can passively discover which vehicles pose the
    problem without imposing a requirement to submit to (and pay for) an
    emissions test for each vehicle. Nope, they want every vehicle tested.
    You'd think they had a financial stake in the emissions testing
    machines.

    
    
    re -1
    
    
    In Britain it's actually more insidious. The Car manufacturing lobby is
    very strong, the government makes a lot of money from the taxes of new
    cars, and company car fleets are very lucrative. 
    
    But cars are getting pretty reliable these days, there's no need to
    change your car every 2-3 years, so the government loses revenue. The
    solution, incorporate an annual emissions test, into the existing
    roadworthiness test that is so stringent that any car over 5 years old 
    is very unlikely to pass. The roadworthiness test in itself is pretty
    stringent, ie; any major windscreen chips require a new new windscreen,
    imagine them trying to enforce that one in Colorado !!!
    
    
    In fact while I'm on my hobby horse. I used to work for BAe, BAe used
    to own Rover, the company cars were Rovers. They were changed ever 6
    months/10,000 miles whichever occurred first. The cars then went into a
    large nationwide pool, they were parked on Airfields, and in "hidden"
    depots. They were not dumped onto the 2nd hand market because it would
    depress the market. But if you went to a Rover dealer, liked a
    particular model, but couldn't afford a brand new one , the dealer could
    "find" you a low mileage, 6 months old model for a much better price !!
    
    What a smart way to build 2nd hand cars.  
    
    The capital cost is offset against the company car, and you can sell the
    car all over again.
    
    
    Conrad
                       

RE: 38.245 by EVMS::MORONEY "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity"

Never.

> What bugs me about this whole A/C thing is there have been several
> CFC replacements patented that are "drop in" replacement for R-12
> auto air conditioners.

What are the ozone depletion potentials (ODPs) of these replacements?


> I even know someone who said the hell with the whole thing and
> recharged his system with a propane/isobutane mix.

I started hearing of this sort of replacement in the mid to late 1970's.  A
real sub culture,  with an interesting mix of environmentalists, 
motorheads and libertarians.


Phil

RE: 38.246 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

> The EPA has a whole host of dumb decisions

We are not talking about the EPA here,  we are talking about a treaty and
the amendments to that treaty that were ratified by the Senate and signed
by the President.


Phil

re .248:

> What are the ozone depletion potentials (ODPs) of these replacements?

I think some were about 5% of that of R-12.  Of course the propane
mix has an ODP of 0 (I actually heard of a proposal to disperse
propane in the stratosphere, apparently it scavanges the free
Cl radicals, so using this could even _help_ the ozone layer!
At the expense of higher HCs at ground level, of course)

-Mike

See http://worldserver.com/R-406A/ for two of them.  One has an ODP
of .0553 per pound or .0442 per system (you apparently use less).
Sounds like the other was recently approved for use in autos.

RE: 38.251 by EVMS::MORONEY "Never underestimate the power of human stupid

One of his fluids has approval for non-automotive uses,  the other fluid is
going through the approval process.  As part of this,  he needs UL approval
and a bunch of other tests completed.

Oh,  and a complete rathole.  Check out the lighing of a charcoal grill in
just three seconds.  Start with 60 pounds of briquettes,  one ignition
source (READ THE WARNING on his home page for the reason) and dump on three
gallons of liquid oxygen.  Result,  20 pounds of charcoal ready to cook, 
and all the excess grease,  paint and any nearby eyelash hairs removed in
just seconds flat.  


Phil

Thanks Phil, I'll try it. I can do with a few less eyelash hairs.  :)

re .252:

yes, he's someone I can relate to...

"Pretty" little ozone hole getting started in the Arctic.  Normal ozone
levels are ~400 DU,  near Iceland yesterday was ~200 DU.


Phil

    
    >near Iceland yesterday was ~200 DU
    
    
    Boy!! I feel sorry for all the frogs over there!!

    Oh, are the French planning tests in the area?

Ozone hole center,  with levels less than 210 DU is now over Northern
Norway.  Levels below 300 DU cover Ireland and Scotland,  with Northern
Scotland below 240 DU.  Normal levels are ~400 DU.


Phil

    So buy the ducks and seals some sunscreen, right?
    
    

Unlike most animals, the frogs skin is exposed to the UV (just like people).
Their skin also plays other roles in their health. 

With the UV injuring the skin, it is no longer functioning properly and
the frogs are suffering for it.

Yes, we should be concerned (but not panic'd)

    Is anyone trying to figure out a way to repair the ozone layer?

    
    
    How many Republicans would it take to repair the ozone layer??
    

RE: 38.261 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Trembling Liver"

> Is anyone trying to figure out a way to repair the ozone layer?

Sure.  We are reducing releases of long lived chlorine containing gases. 
Once the level of such gases starts falling (about the year 2000),  the
ozone will start to repair itself. The gases already released have
atmospheric lifetimes of ~50 years, so this isn't a quick fix.


Phil

    Is there a gas we can release to speed up the process?

I've heard of propane or other hydrocarbons released in the stratosphere.
Apparently scavanges the ozone-killing chlorine radicals.

 Let's everybody run down to the store and buy a few cans of ozone and 
 fly around and spray it!




 Jim

    
    >Is there a gas we can release to speed up the process?
    
    
    	Did someone call me?
    
    	[WHOOSH]
    

    Well, why don't we put some of this military hardware to good use then?
    
    Why doesn't Mr. Maudling DO SOMETHING before it's too late?!?!?

	Hole in the ozone 69 snarf!

>I've heard of propane or other hydrocarbons released in the stratosphere.
>Apparently scavanges the ozone-killing chlorine radicals.


Wait a minute.

"Propane is good"? How 'bout methane?

Seems as though we could pipe plenty of that up to the stratosphere for
next to nothing.

    And Shawn could help.

Ozone hole stretches from Norway across northern Russia almost to Alaska. 
It is getting less deep,  however,  with the deepest parts being between
240 DU and 270 DU.  There is another ozone hole opening up over southern
Greenland.


Phil

>Sure.  We are reducing releases of long lived chlorine containing gases. 
>Once the level of such gases starts falling (about the year 2000),  the
>ozone will start to repair itself. The gases already released have
>atmospheric lifetimes of ~50 years, so this isn't a quick fix.

 As I understand it, if we ('we' being the world) stopped producing CFCs today
 the gas being used all over the world would continue to leak at levels which
 will continue to increase the levels of CFC in the upper atmosphere 
 for 60 years.  So the year 2000 might be a bit optomistic. Now, third world
 nations are using more CFCs every day and show little sign of changing this
 trend.

 Doug.

    
    .260> Unlike most animals, the frogs skin is exposed to the UV (just
    > like people). Their skin also plays other roles in their health.
    
    >With the UV injuring the skin, it is no longer functioning properly and
    >the frogs are suffering for it.
     
    One problem with this analysis.  In case you haven't noticed it's
    winter.  And it is even more winter in Norway and Greenland then here. 
    Also, being winter there is almost no sunlight - UV or otherwise to
    speak of.  If they are lucky they are getting 2 hours per day now. 
    Also, since the angle of the sun is extremely low, the intensity of the
    light is way down.
    
    All this leads to the fact that the amount of UV they are getting now
    is less then 10% of what they would get during the summer without any
    problems with the Ozone layer.  Note also that by the time summer roles
    around, the Ozone layer will be back to more or less full strength.
    
    Also, almost any self respecting frog is in a deep freeze at the bottom
    of some pond right about now and could care less about ozone, UV or
    other such things.
    
    > Yes, we should be concerned (but not panic'd)
    
    Panic is definitely something we should not do.  Also, there are plenty
    of other problems that are more pressing then this.  (Unless of course
    your research funding depends on making this a major issue.  In that
    case this is extremely important and time to panic.  Think of all of
    the cancer the UV could cause.)
    
    Note that stopping CFC production is probably a good thing. 
    Unfortunately, there is another gas that appears to be many time more
    damaging to the ozone layer.  I can't remember the name of it, but when
    the USA suggested that it also be banned, the international committee
    just laughed.
    
    I would just like to point out that this is yet another example of
    haste making waste.  The All Knowing Environmentalists jumped the gun
    and demanded banning CFCs without actually being all knowing.  After a
    huge effort, the international community agreed, since they were
    assured that stopping CFCs will cure the problem.  Well, low and behold
    it won't.  There are things many times more damaging out there, and the
    use of these new chemicals is growing.  Now the internation community
    is saying - "screw you.  We put in the huculean effort because you said
    it was needed, and now you are saying you were wrong!  Well, when you
    get all the facts come back to us, but you have lost too much
    credibility this go round."
    
    So, instead of doing things right, they may actually end up causing
    more harm then if they had not got involved in the first place.
    
    	Skip

RE: 38.274 by TRLIAN::MIRAB1::REITH "If it's worth doing, it's worth overd

> One problem with this analysis.  In case you haven't noticed it's
> winter.

And ozone loss is not limited to winter.  However,  see "What is killing
the Frogs",  topic 661.  Followups there,  please.


> The All Knowing Environmentalists jumped the gun and demanded banning
> CFCs without actually being all knowing.  After a huge effort, the
> international community agreed, since they were assured that stopping CFCs
> will cure the problem.  Well, low and behold it won't.  There are things
> many times more damaging out there, and the use of these new chemicals is
> growing.

Hardly correct,  but with a grain of truth.  First,  these chemicals
(bromine compounds) are not new,  and they were known to be a smaller
problem overall than chlorine containing chemicals such as CFCs,  and they
were limited to current usage levels in the Montreal Protocol.  Sure,  more
loss per active molecule,  but many fewer molecules.  Secondly,  unlike
CFCs there are not good,  safe,  cheap and simple replacements.


Phil

    
    > Hardly correct,  but with a grain of truth.
    
    Only a grain huh?  Well, from an Economist article several months back,
    there were comments that these bromine compounds my be as much as 50
    times more damaging.  Yes, at the moment there is less there, but the
    use is growing, especially in third world nations.
    
    > and they were limited to current usage levels in the Montreal Protocol
    
    Which was all fine and good, except many of the third world nations who
    agreed to the CFCs refused to agree to the bromine part.  The result is
    two fold.  Somewhere between 2000 and 2020, these bromines will have a
    much bigger impact to Ozone then CFCs do today.  And the damage could
    actually be longer lasting then CFCs.
    
    Another important note on this and other environmental issues.  Places
    like the USA tend to not be the continuing source of a problem.  This
    country has the resources and regulations to contain, recycle, and
    control CFCs, Bromines, or whatever.  Poor countries don't.   All the
    screaming and yelling won't change that.  The only way to change that
    is to help the poor countries to stop being poor.
    
    But then the problem is what to do about all the people in this country
    you put out of work because you open efficient, environmentally safe
    factories over seas to reduce pollution.
    
    Any crying about the environment that does not address how to fix the
    problem in the poorer nations is not a true fix at all.
    
    	Skip

RE: 38.276 by TRLIAN::MIRAB1::REITH "If it's worth doing, it's worth overd


> Well, from an Economist article several months back,  there were comments
> that these bromine compounds my be as much as 50 times more damaging.

That is 50 times more damaging per molecule,  right?  The current
atmospheric concentration of bromine compounds is about three hundred times
smaller than chlorine compounds.

If we didn't reduce releases of CFCs,  then bromine compounds would be a
minor player in the resulting ozone loss.  Replacing bromine coumpounds is
technically harder than replacing CFCs.  There is no sin in setting
rational priorities.  Now that there are major reductions in releases of
CFCs,  as shown by the near zero atmospheric growth rate,  bromine starts
to look more important.  But that is only because we as a world have fixed
the larger problem.


> Places like the USA tend to not be the continuing source of a problem. 
> This country has the resources and regulations to contain, recycle, and
> control CFCs, Bromines, or whatever.  Poor countries don't.  Any crying
> about the environment that does not address how to fix the problem in the
> poorer nations is not a true fix at all.

A major ozone loss over the tropics and mid latitudes would greatly reduce
crop yields.  This would not be good for the rich countries.  This would be
a major disaster for poor countries.


Phil

    
.277>A major ozone loss over the tropics and mid latitudes would greatly reduce
>crop yields.  This would not be good for the rich countries.  This would be
>a major disaster for poor countries.
    
    That is totally true.  The problem comes about - how do you solve the
    problems in the poor countries.  For example, Brazil is doing some
    major slash and burn farming for several reasons:
    
    	1) Land is cheap, work is scarce.  This is an easy way for people
    	   get a farm and generate some income.
    
    	2) They can't afford artificial fertilizers, the small amount 
    	   they get from burnt wood is all they can afford.
    
    	3) They can't afford large farm equipment.  So, even if they 
    	   could get the fertilizer, they would have a hard time working
    	   it into the fields.
    
    	4) Due to harsh US and IMF response to their poor debt rating, 
    	   they can't get foreign cash, and thus can't afford US grown
    	   food.  They are forced to do what they can to survive.
    
    So, environmentalists complain about slash and burning, yet never offer
    solutions or money to fix the underlying economic problem.  
    
    Likewise, they complain about CFCs, bromines, and other ozone depleting
    materials, yet don't offer solutions to fix thed underlying economic
    problems that prevent the poorer nations from fixing their problems.
    
    Thus, instead of spending billions in this country to get the next 1%
    improvement, maybe we should look at spending billions overseas to get
    a 50% improvement.
    
    unfortunately that would mean all sorts of cost benifit analysis on all
    sorts of environmental issues. 
    
    > There is no sin in setting rational priorities.
    
    Truer words are rarely said.  The problem is setting those rational
    priorities.  Especially when you bump up against the reality that there
    are only so much in the way of resources that will be available for any
    one problem.  Picking the right problems is difficult.
    
    	Skip

As of 4-March-1996,  the ozone hole covers from the North Pole to the west
coast of Greenland,  down to northern Spain,  including western France, 
the Low Countries,  northern Germany,  and part of Poland.  Deepest hole
(between 210 and 240 DU) covers most of Norway and Sweden.


Phil

How does a hole "cover" anything?

    
    <--- 
    
    Ask Bill and Hillary.
    

As of 5-March-1996,  the ozone hole covers� about the same as yesterday. 
The part with depletion between 210 and 240 DU covers from Iceland to
Scotland to Norway.


Phil

�  cover 2) to extend over.  Webster's New World Dictionary,  1987 page 145

Now that the hole has (probably) closed for the season,  the press is
getting around to reporting it.  

Remember,  you heard it here first.


Phil

    <--- The press only reports on puckered holes.
    
         HTH.

    >  <--- The press only reports on puckered holes.
    
    yep. just ask any person involved in an auto accident.
    
    that's why they always make the evening news...
    

>Now that the hole has (probably) closed for the season,


????

Does this ("hole has closed") mean that the ozone layer is again 
intact/contiguous/rent-free due to seasonal changes?

RE: 38.287 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

> Does this ("hole has closed") mean that the ozone layer is again
> intact/contiguous/rent-free due to seasonal changes?

Northern hemisphere,  yes,  as major ozone depletion at current chlorine
(and bromine) levels seems to require both cold temperatures and sunlight, 
meaning spring time.  Southern hemisphere's polar hole is during their
spring,  August,  September and October.


Phil

    The US customs service says that the 2nd biggest problem they face is
    the illegal importation (aka smuggling) of cheap CFCs for cooling. The
    article surface in, I think, tuesday's Telegraph (Nashua, NH daily).
    It was an AP article, so it should be available in other areas. Alas,
    it went out in the recycling before I had a chance to glean more
    information. I don't remember the size of the problem, but they
    estimated the illegal revenue in the hundreds of millions on a yearly
    basis. Anybody else catch the article?

> Anybody else catch the article?

Rush apparently saw something similar yesterday.

    Couldn't find it in the Globe, but then again Tuesday's Globe was
    missing from the LKG library. It was an interesting article, and I
    thought of Phil when I read it. :-)

     I found the article.
    
     Excerpts:
    
     The US Customs Service says CFC-12, aka freon, is now the #2 problem
    behind illegal drugs.
    
     "It's like prohibition all over again," says Thomas Watts-Fitzgerald,
    a federal prosecutor in Miami.
    
     Production of CFC-12 remains legal in and for the use of third world
    countries, such as India, as a result of a loophole in the 1987
    Montreal Protocol treaty. This loophole doesn't expire until 2010.
    
    In recent years, the US government more than tripled the cost of CFC-12
    by imposing massive taxes and duties in an effort to encourage 
    conversion to the new, presumed safe chemicals (and, oh, by the way,
    increase revenues).
    
     A single scheme recently broken up in Florida involved $52 M worth of
    freon.
    
     It is estimated that the US government has lost "hundreds of millions"
    in tax revenues as a result of coolant smuggling.
    
     Besides India, major sources for the illegal coolants are our pals
    Russia and China.
    
     Ways to smuggle CFC-12 into the US are to disguise CFC-12 as another
    gas or to create a false manifest for CFC-12 (claim it is destined for
    a 3rd world country where it's legal).
    
     In a single case, 3,750 tons of CFC-12 were smuggled into the US. None
    was recovered.

RE: 38.292 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "contents under pressure" 

> It is estimated that the US government has lost "hundreds of millions"
> in tax revenues as a result of coolant smuggling.

How much is this per person?  On the order of $2,  right?

Don't forget that the tax is now most of the price of Freon.

How does this compare with the drug problem?  1/10th the size?  No?!?  Maybe
1/100th to 1/1000th.  Federal spending alone on drug interdiction alone is
tens of billions of dollars.  

Saying #2 makes it sound like a similar size.  Not accurately,  wouldn't
you say?  Rather misleading,  right?


Phil

    The problem's just getting started, Phil, and it's already in the
    hundreds of millions of dollars range. Where's it going to be in 5
    years? 10 years? How many people are going to die as a result of
    getting in the way of the distribution of this contraband?
    
    Personally, I think that the loophole is far too large. We've got to
    look forward to another 15 years of this? That's whacky. Talk about
    creating an environment custom made to promote a black market. This
    effort is too uncoordinated. Additionally, the government is trying to
    use the stick approach to effect change. Perhaps they should try using
    a carrot as well. Perhaps they should make the cost of upgrading a
    cooling system to use the new chemicals tax deductible or otherwise
    find a way to encourage people to do the right thing. Additionally, the
    loophole needs to be closed far sooner than 2010.

RE: 38.294 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "put the opening in back"

> The problem's just getting started, Phil, and it's already in the
> hundreds of millions of dollars range. Where's it going to be in 5 years?
> 10 years? 

The cars with CFC air conditioners were sold before ~ 1993.  In 10 years, 
these cars will be about 13 years old,  or older.  What percentage of the
cars on the road today are older than 1983's?  So how is the problem going
to get bigger?  Alternative drop in replacements may well be on the market
in a year.  Again,  how is the problem going to get bigger?


> How many people are going to die as a result of getting in the way of the
> distribution of this contraband?

Probably a whole lot less than would die if a major tropical hole opened up
for just a single month.


> the government is trying to use the stick approach to effect change.
> Perhaps they should try using a carrot as well. Perhaps they should make
> the cost of upgrading a cooling system to use the new chemicals tax
> deductible or otherwise find a way to encourage people to do the right
> thing. Additionally, the loophole needs to be closed far sooner than 2010.

Careful,  these come close to being "treehugger" ideas.  If we,  as a
society,  had rational political debate,  both of these suggestions would
make sense.  But do you really expect to get these sorts of actions past 
the Freshmen Congresscritters?  


Phil

    > The cars with CFC air conditioners were sold before ~ 1993.  In 10
    > years,  these cars will be about 13 years old,  or older.  What
    > percentage of the cars on the road today are older than 1983's? 
    
    careful with that.  Cars made since 1983 are much more reliable than
    cars made before 1983.  And relative income levels have been stagnant
    or only very slowly increasing for much of the US since the late 80's-
    both of which might indicate that older cars will be more common on the
    roads in the future than they are now.
    
    > So how is the problem going to get bigger?  
    
    People with lower incomes don't replace vehicles as often.  Higher
    quality in late 80's-early 90's cars will keep more of them running 
    longer than cars made before 1983.  Perhaps.  
    
    > Alternative drop in replacements may well be on the market in a year. 
    
    My 1991 Honda with 36K miles and a freon-based AC still runs great and
    will continue to do so with proper maintenance and no accidents.  I'm
    not planning to rip out a perfectly good $750 AC and replace it with a
    drop-in of comparable value unless forced to do so.  If that means I
    take it to TJ in a couple years' time to get the freon recharged then
    that's what it means.
    
    >Again,  how is the problem going to get bigger?
    
    People who don't live within a (long) day's drive of TJ but with the
    same freon-recharge requirement may well sustain a black market for it.
    Most ACs go several years without a charge- mine has gone five and I've
    had it checked carefully the last two - its still ok.  But when the ban
    starts to get to the age of 5 or 6 or 7 years, there'll be a lot higher
    demand for illegal freon.  Right now, the ban is only three years old.
    Economic pressures have only begun to build.
    
    DougO

RE: 38.296 by SX4GTO::OLSON "DBTC Palo Alto"
    
> older cars will be more common on the roads in the future than they are
> now.

I agree,  but the number of CFC air conditioners will fall.  It might be
slower than it would have in the past,  but every trashed compressor, 
every rust out and every "It would cost too much to fix" removes another
one.


> I'm not planning to rip out a perfectly good $750 AC 

I guess I wasn't clear enough.  There are at least two companies working on
fluids that can replace the CFC in your air conditioner without changing
the compressor.  I doubt if there would be much demand for CFC's with
reasonably cheap legal replacements.  


> Economic pressures have only begun to build.

Only the future will show,  but I think there is a lot of reason to hope on
this problem.  


Phil

    What's R22, and is it ozone friendly?

It's the freon used in (home) air conditioners and refrigerators.  It's
much less nasty than R-12 from auto A/Cs but is still an ozone depleter.
I think it has 5% of the appetite of R-12 for ozone.

    That's what I gathered (it was for sale at Costco in a 30 lb tank).

According to a report in Science,  31-May-1996 pages 1318-1322,  the summed
total of all halogens (mostly chlorine and bromine) has been declining at
the surface since sometime in 1994.  The peak concentration in the
stratosphere is predicted to start declining somewhere between 1997 and
1999.


Phil

    
      Primitive peoples, when confronted by a solar eclipse, would
     sound the alarm.  Everybody would wave rattles, chant, and do
     the "scare away the moon dance".  This always worked - the sun
     would escape.
    
      bb

RE: 38.302 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise"

> Primitive peoples, when confronted by a solar eclipse, would sound the
> alarm.  Everybody would wave rattles, chant, and do the "scare away the
> moon dance".  This always worked - the sun would escape.

And if the neighbors were being real nasty,  they did the "curse on the
neighbors" dance.  This sometimes worked.  And usually didn't.  Anymore, 
we would just nuke them.

Hey,  your choice BB,  would you rather I lobbed a curse your way or a 20
Megaton H-bomb?

I think there is a real difference.  Your milage may vary.


Phil