home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!CARL
- From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
- Newsgroups: sci.environment
- Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
- Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:47:57 GMT
- Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
- Lines: 61
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <1ec3rtINNc33@gap.caltech.edu>
- References: <1992Nov15.030120.25323@pbhye.PacBell.COM> <1992Nov17.181013.13400@Princeton.EDU>,<1992Nov17.215924.829@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
- Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu
-
- In article <1992Nov17.215924.829@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
- >> > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. writes:
- >> >Ozone depletion (caused mostly, in the U.S., by auto air
- >> >conditioners) threatens, and has already initiated, an epidemic of
- >> >skin cancer, blindness, etc.
- >
- >
- > Just a few facts......
- >
- > Volcanic eruptionsput out 1,000's upon 1,000's more ozone depleting
- >chemicals than we humans have ever done. Since volcanoes have erupted
- >for 1 billion years I think our ozone level is just fine.
-
- Volcanos put out lots of REACTIVE chloring compounds, along with sulfates.
- Mostly these go into the troposphere where most of them are removed before ever
- having a chance to reach the stratosphere (occasionally are really large
- volcanic eruption may inject some chemicals directly into the stratosphere).
- CFC's, on the other hand, are not very reactive (that's one of their big
- advantages for refrigeration and industrial applications). They have a very
- good chance of reaching the stratosphere before being scavenged. Hence pound
- for pound, they present a MUCH larger threat to the ozone than do volcanic
- compounds.
-
- > Sun creates ozone, you wanna destroy the ozone layer you gotta destroy
- >the sun. How are you gonna do it? >
-
- You might consider taking a chemistry course or two. While it's true that
- eliminating ALL the ozone from the stratosphere would require shielding the
- atmosphere from the ultraviolet radiation, reducing the concentration
- dramatically requires nothing so drastic. All one has to do is increase the
- rate of the 2O3 => 3O2 back reaction. By supplying a catalyst, for example.
-
- You should simply have asked Vandeman to supply some of the evidence for his
- claim that increased UV levels have already cause epidemics of blindness and
- skin cancer. Had you done so, he almost certainly have:
- 1) Pointed to statistics on incidence of skin cancers. Of course, given
- the latency of such cancers, such statistics typically reflect exposure
- from a decade or so ago. He would, of course, deny that the tanning
- craze of that era could possibly have affected skin cancer rates. And
- of course, he wouldn't be able to produce figures relating skin cancers
- to exposure to solar UV, taking into account the fact that local
- pollution in, e.g., the Los Angeles basin can have as much of an effect
- on incident UV as the variability in the ozone layer.
- 2) Some claims that sheep in a certain part of South America are going
- blind. Of course, the fact that the blind sheep all came from a
- relatively small area and that sheep elsewhere in South America that
- would've received higher doses of UV are *NOT* going blind doesn't
- matter to Vandeman in his attempts to get rid of automobiles by any
- means he finds convenient. The distribution of cases of blindness in
- the sheep supports a hypothesis of a bacterial infection as the
- causative agent much better than it does UV exposure.
- But to Mike, lying is perfectly justified as long as there's a chance it might
- get rid of cars.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
-
- Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
- understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
- unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
- organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
- hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
-