A Small Double Ozone Hole

Edufer

10-30-02, 09:59 AM

BatM: “Edufer's points do not appear to be very well accepted by the general atmospheric scientific community.”
On the other hand, you appear to believe that the “general atmospheric scientific community” is composed solely by people who has taken sides with the “depletion theory”. I took the time and effort to read all the links you provided (not that I expected to see something new, though) but just to have a confirmation of the uncertainties and false reasoning, and poor science that surround their arguments. A few examples will suffice:

In the long pages of the “ciesin” links, we see this introductory remark:
<blockquote>
“Special attention is devoted to the evidence that most of the chlorine comes from the photolysis of CFC's and related compounds.” </blockquote>,
Which, of course, is a gross untruth (or blatant lie?). It has been demonstrated many times that the yearly CFCs releases to the environment was 1% of the CFCs produced, whose chlorine content is about 7,500 tons. Compare those 7,500 tons with the 650 million tons of chlorine produced annually by Mother Nature (600 million come from the sea, 5 million from ocean biota, 8,4 million from forest fires, 36 million from volcanoes, etc).

So, if the page starts with a gross “mistake/misinformation/ignorance/lie”, how can we be sure that the rest of the article is not also a bunch of “mistakes/misinformations/ignorances/lies”, or simply a distortion of facts, and data manipulation –dressed with fancy pseudo-scientific jargon?

Then comes the fact that CFCs are, in average, 4,5 times heavier than air, so it makes it quite difficult for them to get all those 7,500 tons of chlorine to the stratosphere. As I told you before, measurements of CFCs in the stratosphere, (made by R. Fabian, S.A. Borders, and S. Penkett, “Halocarbons in the Stratosphere,” Nature, Dec 24, 1981) showed that Freon-11 was found in concentrations of less than 0.1 ppt (parts per TRILLION) at 29,000 meters, CF3Br was in much less than 0,1 ppTrillion at 26,000 meters, CF2Cl2 was about 9 ppb at 32 km, and Freon-12 was about 10 ppb at the same altitude.

The important fact here is: UV radiation with the energy enough to split the highly stable CFC molecule is found well above the 40 km mark, the region where oxygen (although one of the strongest gas molecules –along with nitrogen- it is not as stable as the CFC molecule) absorbs almost all the UV-C radiation that could dissociate the CFC molecules.

The comes the issue of “assumptions”, shown in http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ozone/rtm/mval.html :
<blockquote>“UV irradiance was calculated every half hour from 8AM to 7PM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) based on variation in solar zenith angle. Ozone and aerosol levels were assumed constant over the day due to lack of appropriate measurements.” … “With uncertainties in boundary layer aerosol and ozone in addition to the non-validated total column ozone value, these estimates give confidence that this model provides an accurate representation of the UV budget at the surface of the Earth.”</blockquote>
Confidence? Based on unproved an unmeasured ozone and aerosols levels, just because there were ”a lack of appropriate measurements”? Is this sound science? Are this people insane? Or they just think we are ignorant or simply stupid?

Then comes this piece of misinformation: (in http://www.shsu.edu/~chemistry/ESC440/PSC.html)
“Arguing against the presence of CFCs in the stratosphere is a waste of time: CFCs have been detected in the stratosphere, their chlorine containing decomposition products have also been detected there, and their fluorine containing decomposition products have been detected in the stratosphere. Period. The data are overwhelming.” 

The data really is overwhelming, but not favorable to the “depletionists” or “general atmospheric scientific community”, as the aforementioned paper by Fabian, Borders, and Penkett showed that the amount of CFC is barely measurable above 32 km, so the data mentioned by the article becomes “flimsy”, or simply “no data at all”.

The question that seem to be crucial here is: Have the UV levels increased at the Earth’s surface? According to many scientists they have not. As demonstrated by Dr. Joseph Scotto, et al, “Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985” – Science, Feb, Feb. 12, 1988) the levels of UV radiation went down: They say:
<blockquote>
“Average annual R-B (Robertson-Berger meters, in which UV radiation is measured) counts for two consecutive 6-year periods (1975-1979 and 1979-1985) show a negative shift at each station, with decreases ranging from 2 to 7 percent … Figure 3 shows that there are no positive trends in annual R-B counts for 1974 to 1985 … For all the stations the R-B counts dropped and average of 0,7 percent since 1974.” (page 762).
</blockquote>
In a subsequent issue of Science, Nov. 25, 1988, Scotto rejects the possibility that urban pollution was scattering incoming UV-B and thus causing the decrease in UV reaching the Earth. Scotto points to data from the sir station at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, “which is relatively free from urban air pollution”, yet, he says, “preliminary analysis of data from this site shows no increase in ultraviolet B radiation from 1974 to 1985”.

I could go for days showing you every piece of junk science that appeared in the links you provided thinking they contained the scientific truth –perhaps because, as you implied in your post, you didn’t go to deep into the subject. However, it was a good try, as it showed that you made some research of your own. Now you should make more research, but this time looking at what the “skeptics” and “dissenters” have to say.

For example, Soren H. Larsen and Thormod Henriksen, from the University of Oslo’s Institute of Physics, say (in “Persistent Arctic Ozone Layer”, Nature, Jan. 11, 1990): that gases like CFCs have had a negligible effect on the Arctic ozone layer. “The general balance between formation and destruction of ozone has not changed, at least not to an extent that is apparent in the long-term observations”.

I don’t want to bore you with all the hard scientific data available that show, without doubt, that the variations of ozone concentrations in the stratosphere are caused by natural reasons. AS J.K: Angell, “On the Relation Between Atmospheric Ozone and Sunspot Number,”, Journal of climate, Nov. 1989) showed a clear evident correlation between the 11-year and 22-year cycle in ozon levels, matching the Sun’s sunspot cycle. The graph from Angell’s paper shows it clearly (the graph is in Spanish –taken from our website of the Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology- but it can be understood by anyone.
 
<center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/Ozono-Manchas.jpg></center>
 
As in the “global warming” subject (or any environmental subject, for that matter) the ozone subject is divided in equal parts between “believers” and “dissenters”. The only judges here are the scientific, unbiased, undistorted facts. Politics should stay out of the matter. But, sadly, in this matter money talks loudly –on both sides, of course, so the issue will remain in darkness for ages.

BatM

10-30-02, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by kmguru
That is true. The same scientific community who want to ban the herbal supplement (including Chinese and Ayurvedic) saying they dont work. I wonder who funds these studies? And why is that only the chemicals whose patent is expired are on the hit list?

You lost me some here. What study? Which Chinese herb? What is Ayurvedic? What study(s) have said they do work? Which chemicals with patents are you talking about?

My point was not to say whether Edufer is right or wrong, but just to say that there is a lot of controversy about it and I put some interesting URLs behind that statement. I didn't want others perusing this thread and thinking ozone depletion is as big a lie as Edufer would like it thought without checking into the other side of the argument. However, I'm only a computer programmer and my high school science background is 25 years gone, so I'm not going to claim to be an expert.

But I am going to take a look at Edufer's message next. ;)

kmguru

10-30-02, 03:38 PM

BatM:

We (you, me and Edufer) have gone through this same item before. I would also like to point out that there are stuff out there that is ignored and people need to ask why. May be those who are in a position to do research could get engaged for the truth.

Due to pharma company pressure, most alternative medicine that does not have a patent are regarded as useless. Granted, there are a lot of useless products out there, so are even those which are patented (they may work 50% - 70% of cases).

Products whose patent ran out are items such as Freon, PCB. I am sure there are others.

Just another view point to think about. Since neither I, nor you and even Edufer did not physically took a sample up there - we all can point to other studies and thoughts. In this regard, your posting is as valid as Edufer's except that Edufers information makes sense from a chemical engineering standpoint. Let the reader beware.

BatM

10-30-02, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Edufer
On the other hand, you appear to believe that the “general atmospheric scientific community” is composed solely by people who has taken sides with the “depletion theory”.

No, just that there is a large amount of scientific resources that do. I go by the skeptic's credo, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". In the early 70s, I would've said that the claim of ozone depletion was a theory requiring much evidence to back it up. Now, 30 years later, much work has been done and the evidence appears to be pretty solid -- sufficient that I would now view the "no depletion theory" as extraordinary (and, therefore, requiring extraordinary proof).

You caught me on the phrase. When I wrote it, it looked okay and I couldn't think of anything better, but it bothered me.

In the long pages of the “ciesin” links,

You still don't like Columbia University, huh?

It has been demonstrated many times that the yearly CFCs releases to the environment was 1% of the CFCs produced, whose chlorine content is about 7,500 tons. Compare those 7,500 tons with the 650 million tons of chlorine produced annually by Mother Nature (600 million come from the sea, 5 million from ocean biota, 8,4 million from forest fires, 36 million from volcanoes, etc).

References? This report (http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/011-423/toc.html) from just some of the companies producing CFCs suggest that far more than 1% is eventually released into the atmosphere. Also, CFCs are not removed from the atmosphere until they are broken apart by upper-atmosphere UV radiation whereas natural chlorine is much more readily absorbed by water in the atmosphere. Finally, CFCs have an atmospheric lifetime of 50-200+ years, so they accumulate whereas the natural chlorine cycle is not cumulative.

Then comes the fact that CFCs are, in average, 4,5 times heavier than air, so it makes it quite difficult for them to get all those 7,500 tons of chlorine to the stratosphere.

If you accept that, then there would be no stratospheric ozone layer and we should all be breathing ozone (see this (http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/weight.argument.html)). Or, using your previous statements, all the ozone would be at our feet.

As I told you before, measurements of CFCs in the stratosphere, (made by R. Fabian, S.A. Borders, and S. Penkett, “Halocarbons in the Stratosphere,” Nature, Dec 24, 1981) showed that Freon-11 was found in concentrations of less than 0.1 ppt (parts per TRILLION) at 29,000 meters, CF3Br was in much less than 0,1 ppTrillion at 26,000 meters, CF2Cl2 was about 9 ppb at 32 km, and Freon-12 was about 10 ppb at the same altitude.

How did they get their measurements? NOAA suggests differently at here (http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/Assessment98/faq3.html), but I'm still looking for better links.

The important fact here is: UV radiation with the energy enough to split the highly stable CFC molecule is found well above the 40 km mark, the region where oxygen (although one of the strongest gas molecules –along with nitrogen- it is not as stable as the CFC molecule) absorbs almost all the UV-C radiation that could dissociate the CFC molecules.

Reference? I had a reference to something showing how organic chlorine is prevalent in the lower stratosphere and inorganic chlorine is prevalent in the higher stratosphere and how this relates to CFCs, but I can't find it right now.

The comes the issue of “assumptions”, shown in http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ozone/rtm/mval.html :
<blockquote>“UV irradiance was calculated every half hour from 8AM to 7PM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) based on variation in solar zenith angle. Ozone and aerosol levels were assumed constant over the day due to lack of appropriate measurements.” … “With uncertainties in boundary layer aerosol and ozone in addition to the non-validated total column ozone value, these estimates give confidence that this model provides an accurate representation of the UV budget at the surface of the Earth.”</blockquote>
Confidence? Based on unproved an unmeasured ozone and aerosols levels, just because there were ”a lack of appropriate measurements”? Is this sound science? Are this people insane? Or they just think we are ignorant or simply stupid?

Your use of ellipsis is telling particularly since that section clearly said "model estimates showed variation of less than 8% at 305 nm and 320 nm, and less than 4% at 340 nm relative to measurements". The point was that, even without these particular ozone and aerosol measurements, the model stil produced reasonably close values to actual measurements.

The question that seem to be crucial here is: Have the UV levels increased at the Earth’s surface? According to many scientists they have not.

But then to others, they have:

http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/UV/ENCYCLOPEDIA_1.pdf
http://www.gcrio.org/UNEP1998/UNEP98p7.html

However, more analysis is needed.

For example, Soren H. Larsen and Thormod Henriksen, from the University of Oslo’s Institute of Physics, say (in “Persistent Arctic Ozone Layer”, Nature, Jan. 11, 1990): that gases like CFCs have had a negligible effect on the Arctic ozone layer. “The general balance between formation and destruction of ozone has not changed, at least not to an extent that is apparent in the long-term observations”.

Your references, however good they may be, are hard for me to find because they aren't URLs.

My understanding is that arctic ozone is affected differently than antarctic ozone due to differences in the atmospheric cycling between the poles (I probably stated that wrong). What does Larsen and Henriksen say about antarctic ozone and the effects of CFCs on it? This news release (http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_homepage/eharchive/00/june/articozone.html) suggests that arctic levels of ozone are being greatly affected.

I don’t want to bore you with all the hard scientific data available that show, without doubt, that the variations of ozone concentrations in the stratosphere are caused by natural reasons. AS J.K: Angell, “On the Relation Between Atmospheric Ozone and Sunspot Number,”, Journal of climate, Nov. 1989) showed a clear evident correlation between the 11-year and 22-year cycle in ozon levels, matching the Sun’s sunspot cycle.

So sunspots cause fluctuations in the ozone levels? Why would that be unexpected? Sunspots would increase solar radiation which, in turn, would have to be absorbed by the ozone layer and, thus, temporarily reduce its concentration.

If you ignore the variations due to sunspot activity, what is the overall trend in ozone levels over a long period of time (you choose the timescale)? That is more germane to this discussion.

As in the “global warming” subject (or any environmental subject, for that matter) the ozone subject is divided in equal parts between “believers” and “dissenters”. The only judges here are the scientific, unbiased, undistorted facts. Politics should stay out of the matter. But, sadly, in this matter money talks loudly –on both sides, of course, so the issue will remain in darkness for ages.

As you counsel, do not let your inherent bias against "environmentalists" lead you to discount what is said out of hand. Ultimately, the facts are not the judges of this issue as they cannot make judgements about their validity to the problem -- only we (the human race) can.

BatM

10-30-02, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by kmguru

I would also like to point out that there are stuff out there that is ignored and people need to ask why. May be those who are in a position to do research could get engaged for the truth.

Examples?

Due to pharma company pressure, most alternative medicine that does not have a patent are regarded as useless. Granted, there are a lot of useless products out there, so are even those which are patented (they may work 50% - 70% of cases).

This doesn't make sense. The market has already put enormous pressure to bring alternative medicine to market. That's why there is such a huge amount of herbals on the shelves. And, yet, as you point out, a large (and unknown) amount of these products are useless or even downright dangerous. Many of these alternative products have not had any significant study and most have not had any large scale study. Sure, some of them have value (possibly great value), but, without the proper study, all you have to go on is "tribal knowledge".

In theory, the pharmaceutical products have gone thru testing. In practice, that testing can also be faulty (or, in some cases, just not executed). With validated testing, at least you have more to go on. The cost of doing the testing, though, means that only the potentially expensive will get the testing. It will be up to the market to push for better testing, but that will also increase the cost of the product.

Products whose patent ran out are items such as Freon, PCB. I am sure there are others.

Ahh, the relationship to this discussion. This also doesn't make sense because the majority of the studies on ozone depletion and its relationship to CFCs are coming from government backed institutions rather than industry. In fact, the reverse way of looking at this is easier to understand -- that industry sources want to discredit "ozone depletion" and CFCs because it would be very expensive for them to switch to something else.

Let the reader beware.

Always.

kmguru

10-30-02, 08:30 PM

Check this out:

http://ctan.unsw.edu.au/pub/archive/HC/news/lancet/article2.html

BatM

10-30-02, 09:03 PM

Is that supposed to suggest that, since HCFCs cause this problem, we should go back to CFCs?

Take a look at these:

http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2001/1/17_6.html
http://www.ineosfluor.com/refrigeration/klea/news/ArticleText.asp?ID=62
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/1736

kmguru

10-30-02, 09:22 PM

In fact, the reverse way of looking at this is easier to understand -- that industry sources want to discredit "ozone depletion" and CFCs because it would be very expensive for them to switch to something else.

That is a good point. We know that CFCs were found in the upper atmosphere even though in small amounts. We know that in the laboratory CFC plus UV and ozone produces Chlorine Dioxide which kills the ozone.

We also know that between 1979 and 1993, the ozone depletion took place. We also know that after we banned the aerosol cans with Freon - few years later like now, the ozone hole is closing.

That is a pretty strong case for proving that the theory is correct.

The only thing that bothers me is that the ozone reaction is not with CFC but with chlorine. What if the photons breakdown the chlorine molecule to their atomic states? If that is the case, are we not having a false sense of security?

Only time will tell if the ozone layer grows big again in the next 20 years....on its own solar radiation cycle...

kmguru

10-30-02, 09:29 PM

Apparently HCFC is not good either.

HCFC Phaseout Schedule
All developed (i.e., non-Article 5) countries that are Parties to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a cap on their consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).

Consumption is calculated by the following formula: consumption = production plus imports minus exports. The cap is set at 2.8% of that country's 1989 chlorofluorocarbon consumption + 100% of that country's 1989 HCFC consumption. (Quantities of chemicals measured under the cap are ODP-weighted, which means that each chemical's relative contribution to ozone depletion is taken into account.)

Under the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. and other developed nations are obligated to achieve a certain percentage of progress towards the total phaseout of HCFCs, by certain dates. These nations use the cap as a baseline to measure their progress towards achieving these percentage goals.

The following table shows the U.S. schedule for phasing out its use of HCFCs in accordance with the terms of the Protocol. The Agency intends to meet the limits set under the Protocol by accelerating the phaseout of HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b and HCFC-22. These are the most damaging of the HCFCs. By eliminating these chemicals by the specified dates, the Agency believes that it will meet the requirements set by the Parties to the Protocol. The third and fourth columns of the table show how the U.S. will meet the international obligations described in the first two columns.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html

BatM

10-30-02, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by kmguru
The only thing that bothers me is that the ozone reaction is not with CFC but with chlorine. What if the photons breakdown the chlorine molecule to their atomic states? If that is the case, are we not having a false sense of security?

Humh? Chlorine is an atom, CFC is the molecule (chloroflourocarbon). The issue is that CFCs are broken down in the upper atmosphere and chlorine is released. That, in turn, causes the following reactions:

Cl + O3 = ClO + O2
ClO + O = Cl + O2
(the extra O comes from the normal breakdown of ozone in the upper atmosphere)

Net effect: O3 + O = 2O2
(ie. ozone is destroyed)

Only time will tell if the ozone layer grows big again in the next 20 years....on its own solar radiation cycle...

I wonder if it is that quick. Some things I read suggest that CFCs have an tropospheric lifespan of 50-200+ years.

Edufer

10-31-02, 12:04 AM

Also, CFCs are not removed from the atmosphere until they are broken apart by upper-atmosphere UV radiation whereas natural chlorine is much more readily absorbed by water in the atmosphere. Finally, CFCs have an atmospheric lifetime of 50-200+ years, so they accumulate whereas the natural chlorine cycle is not cumulative.
You are so wrong! …and still you think you are right because you got your information from the NOAA, and the rest of people active in the web, pushing this hoax to unbelievable levels. Unfortunately, my references are hard to get: you must get the scientific papers published in science journals, and that is a hard task, indeed. But, if you try hard enough, you can get the information: try the US Library of Congress, for instance. I am luck to have a cousin of mine working there as the head of the Latin American Department (for more than 30 years) so every time I need that kind of information I ask her for such a favor.

In the case of removal from the atmosphere, there are many studies performed by many scientists, but one of the most important is the one carried by M.A.K. Khalil and R.A. Rasmussen, “The Potential of Soils as Sinks of Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Man-Made Chlorocarbons”, in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 16, (July 1989), when working out of the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences at the Oregon Graduate Center, said in their report that “their measurements showed amazingly rapid removal of chlorocarbons by the soils and other constituents of the termite mounds. The soils depleted methylchloroform (CH3CCl3) and carbon tetrachloride (CCl3) by about 25 percent and more than 50 percent, respectively. According to their paper “Such large changes cannot be explained by the slowness of the processes that transport these chemicals into the soil of the termite mounds or soils in general… It can only be a result of either adsorption in the soil or removal by heterogeneous or biological processes” (page 680). What makes the whole subject suspicious is that several scientists interested in pursuing this line of research had their request for funding rejected. However, since 1989 (time of the study) this fact was thoroughly investigated and proved beyond doubt: soils and bacteria remove CFC from the atmosphere.

Moreover, other studies proved that the main sink for CFCs are the oceans, something quite logical, as CFCs are heavier than air and they have a strong tendency to sink to lower places. As demonstrated by J.L. Bullister, in “Chlorofluorocarbons as Time-Dependant Tracers in the Ocean”, in Oceanography, (November 1989), have a graph (I would have to scan it and upload to our website to post it here –I will do it, though, just need some time) where we can see more than 2,000 samples of CFCs found at different depths (up to 4,000 meters deep) in varying concentrations –much higher than the concentrations found in the stratosphere. So the question arise: If CFCs are destroying the ozone layer in the stratosphere, as the depletionists claim, then what are these CFCs doing at the bottom of the ocean? (By the way: J.L. Bullister works for the NOAA. Would you believe him?)

If you really want to make a serious research on this matter, I provide below a list of references (alas, not URLs)where you might find the scientific facts:

(1) Brockman, Fred, et al., 1989, “Isolation and Characterization of Quinoline Degrading Bacteria from Subsurface Sediments,” Applied & Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 1029-1032.
(2) John L. Bullister, 1989, “Chlorofluorocarbons as time dependant tracers in the ocean,” Oceanography, (November), pp. 12-17.
(3) P. Fabian, R. Borchers, G. Gomer, et al., 1984, @The Vertical Distribution of Halocarbons in the Stratosphere”, in “Atmospheric Ozone”, Proceedings of the Quadrennial Ozone Symposium, Sept. 1984,
(4) P. Fabian, R. Borchers, S.A. Penkett, et al., 1981, “Halocarbons in the Stratosphere”, in “Nature”, *Dec. 24( pp. 733.735.
(5) Aslam Khalil and R.A. Rasmussen, M.Y. Wang, et al., “Emission of Trace Gases from Chinese Rice Fields and Biogas Generators> CH2, N2O, CO, H2 Chlorocarbons and Hydrocarbons”, Chemosphere, Vol. 20, No. ½, pp. 207/2026.
(6) Derek Lovely and Joan Woodward, 1990, “Consumption of Freon F-11 and F-12 in Methane-Producing Aquatic Sediments”, paper presented at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, Calif., (Dec. 3-7, 1990)

I have read all these papers, (and about a couple of thousand more) that have convinced me that there is no scientific base for the ozone depletion theory. I have read also the same amount of papers by the “depletionists”, and have a severe lack of scientific methodology, wild assumptions, and, quite often, shameless lies and distortion of facts, data manipulation, wrong statistical procedures, etc.

If you accept that, (that CFCs are much heavier than air so they cannot go high in the stratosphere) then there would be no stratospheric ozone layer and we should all be breathing ozone (see this). Or, using your previous statements, all the ozone would be at our feet. 
Why? I do not get your reasoning. Ozone is heavier than air so it must go down? It does go down, indeed, but it is instantly replaced by new ozone created by the splitting of oxygen molecules. And that is one of the reasons why the ozone layer cannot be depleted: the rate of reposition is much higher than the rate of removal or destruction. The proof is just under your nose: the replenishment of ozone in the Antarctic Hole starts when the first UV rays hit the stratosphere in early spring. If the chlorine atoms were so effective in destroying the ozone forming the hole, why don’t they slow down the replenishment? We could assume that replenishing a 60% reduction of the layer would take more time than replenishing a 15% reduction, isn’t it? That is, if a 15% depletion replenishes by late October, a 60% reduction will replenish around late November. But surprisingly, the hole closes every year by the same date, give or take a couple of days. And this tells us that, if chlorine cannot delay the replenishment of ozone, then it was not the cause of its destruction.

If you ignore the variations due to sunspot activity, what is the overall trend in ozone levels over a long period of time (you choose the timescale)? That is more germane to this discussion.
My timescale would be 30 years. The same span referred to by Dra. Victoria Tafuri, who’s been in charge of measuring ozone at the Villa Ortuzar national Observatory in Buenos Aires, who has stated many times “We have been measuring the ozone layer for the last 30 years (also in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, the southernmost city in the world) and have not found any decrease in ozone levels --other than natural seasonal variations.” 

The NOAA website you provided gave valuable information –on how people can lie when they have an agenda to push. One topic was:
<blockquote>
When Did the Antarctic Ozone Hole First Appear? 
The springtime Antarctic ozone hole is a new phenomenon that appeared in the early 1980s. The observed average amount of ozone during September, October, and November over the British Antarctic Survey station at Halley, Antarctica, first revealed notable decreases in the early 1980s, compared with the preceding data obtained starting in 1957. 
</blockquote>

Which, of course, is a shameless lie. As most people know, the infamous ozone hole was noticed, simultaneously, by British scientist George Dobson, and by the French scientists at the Dumont D’Urville scientific station (at the other side of Antarctica), when they discovered such low levels of stratospheric ozone that they thought the instruments were at fault.

You should try to get George Dobson’s great book, published in 1968 by Oxford University Press, “Exploring the Atmosphere”, and red Chapter 6, where you will find a beautiful graph: Figure 6.2 ANNUAL VARIATION OF TOTAL OZONE FOR EACH 10 DEGREES OF LATITUDE where is clearly shown the “normal” average ozone levels during different months, and different latitudes. This graph is for the northern hemisphere, but the ozone levels vary with the seasons, and we can see that ozone levels are quite low in winter and spring and recover during summer and fall (as in the southern hemisphere). The depletionists try to ignore this historic fact: Dobson and the French were the ones who discovered the “hole” back in 1957, and this show that the hole has a natural (dynamic) cause, and has nothing to do with chemistry.

Again the NOAA page said: Stratospheric ozone depletion, caused by increasing concentrations of human-produced chemicals, has increased since the 1980s. The springtime loss in Antarctica is the largest depletion. Currently, in nonpolar regions, the ozone layer has been depleted up to several percent compared with that of two decades ago. But, as Dra. Tafuri measurements in Buenos Aires and Ushuaia show, this NOAA’s statement is another shameless lie.

But what do they care? Nobody believes what the skeptics say. People believe what’s in the web, in fancy websites. Science is absent. Nobody care to read thousand of scientific peer-reviewed papers that deny any loss in ozone worldwide. So the issue has become more a case of religious faith instead of a scientific issue.

So sunspots cause fluctuations in the ozone levels? Why would that be unexpected? Sunspots would increase solar radiation which, in turn, would have to be absorbed by the ozone layer and, thus, temporarily reduce its concentration.
Actually, UV radiation is absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen, as I told you in a previous post. 21% and 78%, respectively, of the atmosphere. Highly stable gases, (double bonded, you know…) Ozone is only 0,000003% (three millionth percent, highly unstable –high quantic energy-- low absorbing capacity). So ozone levels all over the world –also in the Poles—are influenced by many dynamic (physical) factors as the sun, the Quasi Biennial Oscillation (stratospheric winds at the Equator), the uplift of oxygen during the Antarctic winter, the self destruction by ozone during the dark six-month polar night and no formation of new ozone, due to the absence of sun rays, etc, etc…

I got tired, so I rest my case. Please forgive any typos, I am too tired to check the whole post… :)

BatM

10-31-02, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Edufer
You are so wrong! …and still you think you are right because you got your information from the NOAA, and the rest of people active in the web, pushing this hoax to unbelievable levels.

The mistake is mine, not NOAA's. The data is there at NOAA as you mention later. The interpretation was my mistake. CFCs are removed from the atmosphere both through upper-atmosphere photolysis (sp?) and through the air-sea exchange process as well as...

M.A.K. Khalil and R.A. Rasmussen, “The Potential of Soils as Sinks of Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Man-Made Chlorocarbons”, in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 16, (July 1989)

Does this one go into any detail on the quantity of CFCs absorbed by soils? Does it also go into the global variations of CFC absorbtion into the soil? For instance, if the concentration in soils is near the poles, then the question would be how did the CFCs get there?

Moreover, other studies proved that the main sink for CFCs are the oceans, something quite logical, as CFCs are heavier than air and they have a strong tendency to sink to lower places. As demonstrated by J.L. Bullister, in “Chlorofluorocarbons as Time-Dependant Tracers in the Ocean”, in Oceanography, (November 1989), have a graph (I would have to scan it and upload to our website to post it here –I will do it, though, just need some time) where we can see more than 2,000 samples of CFCs found at different depths (up to 4,000 meters deep) in varying concentrations –much higher than the concentrations found in the stratosphere. So the question arise: If CFCs are destroying the ozone layer in the stratosphere, as the depletionists claim, then what are these CFCs doing at the bottom of the ocean? (By the way: J.L. Bullister works for the NOAA. Would you believe him?)

I think the data and graphs you're referring to are under here (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cfc/review/), but I haven't quite figured it all out.

If you really want to make a serious research on this matter, I provide below a list of references (alas, not URLs)where you might find the scientific facts:

Good. I'm always interested in another interpretation of the facts. It may take awhile to find the information, though.

Why? I do not get your reasoning. Ozone is heavier than air so it must go down? It does go down, indeed, but it is instantly replaced by new ozone created by the splitting of oxygen molecules.

And where does the sinking ozone go? Wouldn't it be raining down on us at all times? And what about all the other heavier-than-air particles? How do they get up in the atmosphere?

Which, of course, is a shameless lie. As most people know, the infamous ozone hole was noticed, simultaneously, by British scientist George Dobson, and by the French scientists at the Dumont D’Urville scientific station (at the other side of Antarctica), when they discovered such low levels of stratospheric ozone that they thought the instruments were at fault.

Dobson noted the naturally occuring difference in ozone at Antarctica compared with the Arctic during the springtime. The ozone hole discussed in places such as NOAA is much greater than what Dobson noted and is related to ozone depletion.

The depletionists try to ignore this historic fact: Dobson and the French were the ones who discovered the “hole” back in 1957, and this show that the hole has a natural (dynamic) cause, and has nothing to do with chemistry.

No. The annual variation is duly noted. The overall trend in ozone levels, though, has been heading down since that time. That can't be accounted for by "natural cause" and that's what was noticed in the 1980s.

But, as Dra. Tafuri measurements in Buenos Aires and Ushuaia show, this NOAA’s statement is another shameless lie.

That I have to look into more. I don't believe they have a reason to lie. I just believe its a question of data interpretation.

But what do they care? Nobody believes what the skeptics say. People believe what’s in the web, in fancy websites. Science is absent. Nobody care to read thousand of scientific peer-reviewed papers that deny any loss in ozone worldwide. So the issue has become more a case of religious faith instead of a scientific issue.

By the same token, peer-reviewed papers are not absolutes. A few years ago, American physicist Alan Sokal wrote a spoof cultural studies article called 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' and manged to get it published in 'Social Text' a leading journal. The article was complete garbage and caused much embarasment to the social science community. There are also claims that it's been done with garbage theoretical physics papers and someone may have gotten a PhD out of it.

Naturally, I am not a climatologist, so the deep papers are not going to make much sense to me. I have to leave it to the experts at places like NOAA to collect the data and provide some conclusions. There are no such things as "facts" -- there is only data and theoretical certainty about what that data means and no theory is 100% certain.

I got tired, so I rest my case. Please forgive any typos, I am too tired to check the whole post… :)

Me too. :)

kmguru

10-31-02, 08:57 AM

Chlorine exists naturally as molecule not as an atom. One atom of Chlorine finds the nearest another atom to form a molecule. If it can not, it combines with nearest Oxygen (in atomic form from O2 split or from Ozone) to form Chlorine Oxide. Same with Fluorine and Bromine.

Gifted

10-31-02, 04:56 PM

Let's throw these in here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=9082
Question: How do I find all the rest of the ozone threads on sciforums? that was the intention, but I can't find any more.

BatM

11-01-02, 01:05 PM

I've decided to be more logical in my response to the topic of ozone depletion, so I'm collecting information on the subject and getting my thoughts in order. However, problems at work have come up, so I'll have to get back to this next week. At the time, I'll start a new topic when I have (what I think is...) something more coherent to say.

Edufer

11-01-02, 01:52 PM

I´ll try to clear some things out. (Not easy)

Does this one go into any detail on the quantity of CFCs absorbed by soils? Does it also go into the global variations of CFC absorption into the soil? For instance, if the concentration in soils is near the poles, then the question would be how did the CFCs get there?
Khalil and Rasmussen studies were conducted in China, and other temperate countries. They did not study the poles. But, now that you mention it, have CFCs been found in the Poles? I have not seen any study about this. It seems reasonably that, if they are in the pole’s stratosphere, they would eventually fall down to Earth where they would be recorded. Interesting…

I think the data and graphs you're referring to are under here, but I haven't quite figured it all out.
I went to the site you pointed out, but sadly, all links to the images were broken, so I cannot say anything.

Good. I'm always interested in another interpretation of the facts. It may take awhile to find the information, though.
There are huge databases for scientific papers and articles published in the technical and scientific journals, where you have to subscribe and pay a fee for the information. As we are quite poor (no funding from anyone) we have not been able to access this service. As I told you, I get my info through my cousin in the US Library of Congress, something that will end soon, as I learned last night she has been discovered an advanced colon cancer. In this moment I am really shaken.

And where does the sinking ozone go? Wouldn't it be raining down on us at all times? And what about all the other heavier-than-air particles? How do they get up in the atmosphere?
Excellent question. Ozone, as a gas slightly heavier than air is coming down at all times, but s it is a highly unstable molecule, most of it is destroyed by nearby ozone molecules, returning to the more stable state of oxygen: 2 O3 molecules produces 3 O2 oxygen molecules. Ozone is also destroyed by other gases that take one oxygen atom for making a new compound as carbon monoxide (CO) that takes one oxygen atom to become carbon dioxide (CO2. So there is a very small possibility that ozone produced in the stratosphere reach Earth’s surface.

As for heavier than air materials (debris, dust, smoke, etc) they are caught by strong air currents (as tornados, hurricanes, volcano explosions, etc) and are uplifted to the lower part of the stratosphere –called the tropopause, at heights from 10 to 30 km (give or take a couple km)-- where they get locked. This region of the atmosphere is characterized by its total absence of winds and air current. So that’s one of the reasons why they don’t reach the higher regions of the stratosphere called the mesosphere and the mesopause, at altitudes of about 70 km and 90 km, respectively. It is interesting to note that ozone concentrations in the stratosphere reach a 10 parts per trillion as a maximum. The top of the ozone layer reaches up to about 50 km, where the concentrations start to decrease in relationship with the abundance of oxygen, of course.

Just for fun, go to http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ingles-2/AmazingOzone.html “Amazing Calculations”, read the article I wrote some years ago, and have fun.

The ozone hole discussed in places such as NOAA is much greater than what Dobson noted and is related to ozone depletion.
I have to disagree. Dobson and the French recorded in 1957 ozone levels of 150 DU (they were not called Dobson Units then, of course), levels that have been reached in not many occasions since then.

I don't believe they have a reason to lie. I just believe its a question of data interpretation.
I could give you many reasons for lying, but probably you will not accept them. Government money is the pasture feeding the cow that scientists are milking happily. Politics enter here, unfortunately, and grants and subsidies are given to those scientists that agree with a specific agenda. That’s not a secret to any scientist, and this spirit is beautifully expressed by Stephen Schneider, climatologist of National Center of Atmospheric Research at Boulder, Co, when he stated: ”To do that (make the world a better place) we need (as scientists) to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves and cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest.” (page 47, Discover magazine, October 1989 issue, during an interview. (The red marking is mine).

Could that give you a reason for why lying? Schneider has been doing just that since he abandoned the boat of the “next ice age” that he was unsuccessfully pushing, to jump onto the “global warming bandwagon”.

By the same token, peer-reviewed papers are not absolutes. A few years ago, American physicist Alan Sokal wrote a spoof cultural studies article called 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' and managed to get it published in 'Social Text' a leading journal. The article was complete garbage and caused much embarrassment to the social science community. There are also claims that it's been done with garbage theoretical physics papers and someone may have gotten a PhD out of it.
I totally agree with you. In another thread in sciforums I mentioned the famous case of Dr. Fox, a journalist that made an experiment on “stupidity” (as I call it). He selected a great number of scientists and divided them into three groups. He sent group one a “paper” explaining an absurd theory he had invented, written in plain understandable English, asking for peer-review. The second group got a version with a much more elaborated wording, full of highly technical and scientific terms. The third group received a study that was pure, abstruse gibberish, that no one could have ever understood.

The response from the first group was unanimous: this theory is garbage. The second group had mixed responses. Scientists that knew something about the issue said: ”garbage”, the rest, less specialized, said “Interesting. Needs more research”. The third group all said “Excellent theory. Keep working on it”. They couldn’t just say: “We don’t know what you are talking about”. It is very difficult to find a honest scientist that can utter the words: “I don’t know”. That would show is ignorant in some field –and that’s something no one likes to admit.

There are no such things as "facts" -- there is only data and theoretical certainty about what that data means and no theory is 100% certain.
I think there are well established FACTS, as most laws governing physics (Thermodynamic laws, almost all laws in electricity as Ohm’s law, Kirchoff laws, etc; gravity; most of chemistry and atomic interaction laws; almost all mathematics (even Fermat’s theorem was finally solved), calculus, etc. These are the things I refer when I mention facts. Other things that are “almost” facts are constantly recorded observations of phenomena in the physics world. If Dra. V. Tafuri in Buenos Aires consistently records –during 30 years in a row- that ozone levels in Argentina have not decreased below normal seasonal levels, that’s a fact, and not an interpretation. We have in Argentina one of the four Robertson-Berger spectrometers in existence in the world, specially designed by Drs. Robertson and Berger for measuring ozone levels. Is the same model and make as the ones used by NASA and the NOAA, provided by the US government years ago –when they thought the ozone threat was real.

Another fact is that chemistry laws say it is impossible for chlorine atoms react with ozone molecules in “free air”. This is well established in what’s known as the “gaseous phase”. Chlorine atoms can ONLY react with ozone on the hard ice crystals in the surface of the SPC (stratosphere polar clouds) in Antarctica. As SPC forms ONLY in Antarctica during the winter and spring (they do not form over the Arctic, because the Arctic’s stratosphere is not cold enough), the logical conclusion is that chlorine do not react with the ozone layer in the rest of the world. That’s a fact. But recognizing this fact would show the ozone depletion theory is a fake, and would deprive scientists milking the “ozone scare cow” of the so much needed money to survive. That goes also for the NASA that is always being threatened with budget cost since they abandoned the space race. And of course, for organizations as the NOAA that lives just because there exists scares as the ozone and global warming. If these hoaxes were proven as such, then they would say goodbye to nice easy money. The world sucks!

This is getting interesting, though...

Avatar

11-01-02, 02:02 PM

hmmm

if it isn't for CFT's what then is destroying our ozone layer?

BatM

11-01-02, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Avatar
hmmm

if it isn't for CFT's what then is destroying our ozone layer?

Careful. You haven't laid any groundwork for this question. The obvious reply is "what makes you think our ozone layer is being destroyed?"

p.s. it's "CFCs".

Avatar

11-01-02, 05:51 PM

oh ok sorry:o
that's why I ask

but how do you call it otherwise- the ozone layer has been reducing (on the poles, especially southpole) from 80s till mid 90s (so I've heard)

BatM

11-01-02, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Edufer

Other things that are “almost” facts are constantly recorded observations of phenomena in the physics world. If Dra. V. Tafuri in Buenos Aires consistently records –during 30 years in a row- that ozone levels in Argentina have not decreased below normal seasonal levels, that’s a fact, and not an interpretation. We have in Argentina one of the four Robertson-Berger spectrometers in existence in the world, specially designed by Drs. Robertson and Berger for measuring ozone levels. Is the same model and make as the ones used by NASA and the NOAA, provided by the US government years ago –when they thought the ozone threat was real.

There is so much to touch on, but I've only got time for this right now.

Does Dra. V. Tafuri also handle the Ushuaia station? What do you make of this slide presentation (I hope you can handle PDF files):

http://www.biospherical.com/nsf/presentations/Sparc2000.pdf

The detail of the graphs are difficult because they've shoved a lot of data into a small space. However, looking at the "Total Column Ozone (DU)" graph (and magnifying it with Acrobat), you can get the sense that (say) October ozone over Ushuaia has gone from 475DU in 1978 to a low of 150DU in 1992/4 (and maybe 2000). The data is also on NSF website (http://www.biospherical.com/nsf), but you need to register to get access. Of course, there are significant fluctuations that may be due to any number of things, but, as you can see in the second to last slide, the ozone hole did reach Ushuaia in October of 2000.

How do you interpret these facts? ;)

BatM

11-01-02, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Avatar
oh ok sorry:o
that's why I ask

but how do you call it otherwise- the ozone layer has been reducing (on the poles, especially southpole) from 80s till mid 90s (so I've heard)

Start at the top of this thread and read. Then see if you want to rephrase the question. :)

Edufer

11-01-02, 07:20 PM

Does Dra. V. Tafuri also handle the Ushuaia station?

Both stations belongs to the National Meterological Service network, and Dra. Tafuri si in charge of monitoring ozone over Argentina.
... you can get the sense that (say) October ozone over Ushuaia has gone from 475DU in 1978 to a low of 150DU in 1992/4 (and maybe 2000).Normal ozone levels at the equator averages 275 DU, the region where there is the highest insolation. There are not abnormal indexes of skin cancers or melanomas or cataracts, as compared with Idaho, or Moscow, or even Ushuaia. The highest ozone concentrastions are normally found near the Arctica and Antarctic circles, due to stratospheric aerial currents from Equator to the Poles. So, when "scientists" scream about a 50% reduction of the ozone layer over Ushuaia, (for example), the levels measured as catastrophic decrease are about 200-250 DU, quite normal for tropical areas. Nothing to fear.

But, as I said in previous posts (perhaps in other thread) Drs. Isidro Orlansky and Ernesto A. Martínez, from the Geophysical Laboratory at the Buenos Aires National University, made a study in Ushuaia, measuring the UV-B radiation passing through an "ozone mini-hole" above the city, (1999) whose results led them to say: "Typical values of global radiation (according to annual averages) are about 300 watts/m2 in Buenos Aires, about 120-150 watts/m2 in Ushuaia, and about 100 watts/m2 in the Antarctic. UV-B levels directly below the ozone hole does not reach half the values present at the same moment in Buenos Aires". So, what's so fearsome about mini ozone holes over Ushuaia?
... as you can see in the second to last slide, the ozone hole did reach Ushuaia in October of 2000.Sure, it has been happening since Earth was created. Depends on the altutide the ozone losses were measured, of course, as there may be great concentrations at 35 km while there are a big decrease in the 15 km altitude. Great variations of ozone occurr naturally in Antarctica and Tierra del Fuego (Ushuaia), but it seems that that does not have a great influence in the UV-B levels reaching Earth, due to the long distance the UV rays have to travel through the atmosphere (the Earth is round, and the curvature of the planet makes the angle of incidence quite low). As Martínez and Orlansky said in their study: "If ozone levels were to drcrease 50% -something that happens very few days and in quite reduced places in Antarctica- and the rest of parameters remain constant, the UV radiation increases 15%, and global radiation increases 1,5%.". This might come as a surprise to you, but these things have been scientifically demonstrated. Of course it bothers the fat guy at NASA and the NOAA, so that's why Martínez and Orlansky were deprived of funding to keep researching this field.

Remeber Al Gore (Ozone Man) saying the lambs in Patagonia got blind because the ozone hole? And such a liar got to be vicepresident of the US, and almost reached the presidency! Something smell foul, (not in Denmark) but right at the White House...

I will take a look at the .pdf files and will let you now my opinion. And Avatar, stay calm and sleep well. The ozone layer is not being destroyed anywhere in the world, as they want you to believe. And believe it or not, BatM is right: "The obvious reply is "what makes you think our ozone layer is being destroyed?" "Perception" is not the same thing as "observation". :)

Edufer

11-01-02, 07:34 PM

I forgot to add to my explanation of low UV levels at Ushuaia and Antarctica under an ozone hole that, even if there is no ozone at all in a spot near the Antarctic, the UV rays have to travel such a long distance through the atmosphere that almost all UV is filtered by the OXYGEN and NITROGEN in the atmosphere.

At the Equator, the sun's rays must travel about 50 km of air, but during the southern spring, when the lowest ozone values are in the Antarctic, the distance they must travel is about 800 km. See the graph in Chapter 2: "The Ozone Fraud" in my book "Ecology: Myhts and Frauds" (in Spanish, but clear enough to get the idea):

<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/LargoCamino.gif" width=513 height=300>

Did you like my infograph? :D

Edufer

11-01-02, 08:04 PM

I am sorry, BatM, but I was denied acces to the .pdf files in the site your provided (unauthorized acces), but I went exploring the site and found the following irradiance index map that show no difference between 1997 and 2002, showing that Martínez and Orlansky were quite right in their study.

http://www.biospherical.com/nsf/updates/austral/duvindex.htm

I tried to link it here, but the site refused to have the graph taken from their server. Too bad.

BatM

11-01-02, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Edufer
I am sorry, BatM, but I was denied acces to the .pdf files in the site your provided (unauthorized acces), but I went exploring the site and found the following irradiance index map that show no difference between 1997 and 2002, showing that Martínez and Orlansky were quite right in their study.

http://www.biospherical.com/nsf/updates/austral/duvindex.htm

I tried to link it here, but the site refused to have the graph taken from their server. Too bad.

Hmmm. You've had access problems before for things I wouldn't think you should have a problem with. I haven't had to do this in a long time, but, in those last ditch cases where you can't get direct access to something on the web, you might be able to get access to it via email. These two web-pages might be of help in that area.

http://www.bellanet.org/email.html
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/internet-services/access-via-email/

I didn't have trouble accessing the PDF and I haven't signed up for any access login as of yet. Did you go directly to it from my link? Maybe if you go in via the NSF website (http://www.biospherical.com/nsf) (follow the "Presentations" menu item), it might set a cookie into your browser to allow you in (that's a guess, though).

Edufer

11-03-02, 07:35 PM

Well, I discovered that my Internet Explorer somehow lost its capability of calling my Acrobat Reader version 5.0 when accesing .pdf files in the internet. I have to fix that problem, and see why it is not doing that. Now let analyze some of the CIESIN files. Then you'll know why I don't like Columbia University website, (even though my elder brother was a guest researcher in neurphysiology there for about 20 years).

From CIESIN site ="CFCs and Ozone Depletion.htm": “A complex scenario of atmospheric dynamics, solar radiation, and chemical reactions was found to explain the anomalously low levels of ozone during the polar springtime.

So it seems that atmospheric dynamics and solar radiation also has a lot to do with ozone depletion. They should quantify the amount of depletion caused by each of these factors –if they really would like people to believe they are being honest.

”Announcement of polar ozone depletion over Antarctica in March 1985 prompted scientific initiatives to discover the Ozone Depletion Processes, along with calls to freeze or diminish production of chlorinated fluorocarbons.

I wonder if the March 1985 date was the time of depletion or if it was the date of publishing of the news. March is a month of high ozone levels, as in any other year since they started monitoring ozone in the poles. But this is not important…

CIESIN: Global monitoring of ozone levels from space by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument has shown “statistically significant” downward trends in ozone at all latitudes outside the tropics”

What is “statistically significant” for these people? And “outside the tropics” means “in Antarctica” or “near the Arctic circle”, of course, because as recorded by monitoring stations as Buenos Aires (outside the tropics and the Arctic circles) say there has not been any reduction at all for the past 30 years…

CIESIN:“Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) still contain chlorine atoms, but the presence of hydrogen makes them reactive with chemical species in the troposphere. This greatly reduces the prospects of the chlorine reaching the stratosphere, as chlorine will be removed by chemical processes in the lower atmosphere.

Why all the fuss about chlorine in the stratosphere? Even S. Solomon, R. Watson and the rest of “depletionists” agree that chlorine only react with ozone on the crystal of stratospheric polar clouds (SPC) –found only in Antarctica, in winter and spring… They should tell the people that nowhere in the stratosphere –outside the Polar Vortex in the Antarctic—chlorine attacks the ozone layer. They are telling half-truths, and half-truths are “whole-lies”. Tsk, tsk…

From CIESIN site: Catalytic destruction of O3 ”Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) themselves are not involved in the catalytic process; upon reaching the stratosphere, they are subject to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation that decompose the CFC and release atomic chlorine.”

We’ve already seen that, for CFCs to be decomposed by UV rays, they must reach altitudes higher that 40 km, where the energetic UV-C photons have the energy required for “splitting” CFCs molecules. And no CFCs have been found at such altitudes.

CIESIN: ”Multiphase reactions involving aerosol particles are another source of ozone loss that can occur at all latitudes. Hofmann and Solomon (1989) analyze the El Chichon eruption in 1983 and show ozone destruction in areas of higher aerosol concentration in "Ozone Destruction through Heterogeneous Chemistry Following the Eruption of El Chichon." The process is thought to be similar to the Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) scenario: Aerosol particles act as a base for multiphase reactions, leading to ozone loss.”

Which, of course is true… but it contradicts the claims that chlorine attacks ozone outside the Polar Vortex, and the observed reduction in ozone caused by the El Chichón volcano was no caused by CFCs or man-made pollution. They are saying it, not me…

CIESIN:”Hofmann et al. (1992) report that additional ozone loss over Antarctica in 1991 beyond the depletion caused by PSCs may be attributed to this process following the eruption of Mt. Hudson in "Observation and Possible Causes of New Ozone Depletion in Antarctica in 1991."

They keep giving me the reason. “Additional” ozone loss, in this case, means that the normal losses in ozone, which have natural, dynamic causes (strong winds in the Vortex, solar irradiation, the Quasi biennial Oscillation, etc) were not caused by CFCs, --that haven’t went higher than 35 km. But here is a strange thing: How can CFCs be dissociated by UV ray in the Ozone Hole over Antarctica, during winter and spring, if there the sun has not been present there? It is still dark polar night.

The destruction of ozone takes place in the spring in this manner: The first rays of the sun pass over the horizon warming the atmosphere inside the vortex. As the atmosphere is “transparent” to IR rays (it does not block infrared rays) but completely blocks out UV radiation, due to the long journey through the thick atmosphere (as I said before, about 800 km), the ozone molecules begin to move rapidly and collide with each other, canceling themselves out, producing oxygen.

That’s the reason why oxygen levels grow “mysteriously” inside the polar vortex. As the chemical reaction of ozone colliding with ozone releases 64 kilocal/mol, the heat resulting from the self destruction of ozone warms the atmosphere further, speeding the process of destruction. That’s the reason why in 1987, a decrease of 15% of ozone in 24 hours could not be explained by the “chemists”, but was perfectly explained by the “dynamicists”, giving the explanation above.

From CIESIN: Observation and possible causes of new ozone depletion in Antarctica in 1991, by D. J. Hofmann*, S. J. Oltmans*, J. M. Harris*, S. Solomon+, T. Deshler++ & B. J. Johnson++

Abstract: “Local ozone reductions approaching 50% in magnitude were observed during the Antarctic spring in the 11-13 and 25-30 km altitude regions over South Pole and McMurdo Stations in 1991.

What happened to ozone in the 14-24 km altitude? A much smaller reduction. The 50% reduction observed where not constant, of course, but lasted just for hours, even minutes. A reduction can happens for just a few minutes, but it is recorded as it lasted for the whole day. That is not ethical. It is cheating. But they don’t say that in the study’s abstract or in the conclusions. Sometimes we can find this fact (if we are lucky) buried in the draft charts used to carefully build gross misinformation. When you hide information that would contradict your hypothesis, you are lying. The Polar Vortex is characterized by terrible winds that put Hurricanes in the Caribbean in shame. This tremendous air movement provokes the destruction of ozone as collision of ozone molecules against themselves causes the formation of oxygen molecules as I told above.

CIESIN:“ON the basis of the phase of the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) of equatorial stratospheric winds[1], and tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures (SST)[2,3] which affect the timing of transport of ozone to the Antarctic continent in spring, 1991 was expected to be a year of early recovery of the springtime Antarctic ozone hole and only moderate ozone depletion. Although the recovery of the ozone hole indeed occurred early in 1991 (mid-November), total ozone nevertheless reached record lows in September even though values during the October minimum period at South Pole were no lower than the previous record low values observed in 1987.”

From this part of the study we deduct:

1) the losses in ozone can be blamed, in part, to a delay in transport from the tropics (a dynamic cause, not CFCs).

2) In this case, it seems that the ozone transport was not expected to be delayed by the QBO and the SST, so they thought there would be high levels of ozone. Well, as expected, the recovery was ”early in the spring (about mid-November) although I would call that date “late spring”). By the way, the recovery occurs at about the same date, every year, and does not depend on the amount of depletion suffered by the ozone layer, what suggest that if the chlorine present in the “hole” is not capable of retarding the formation of ozone in the hole, it was not the cause of its destruction.

3) They say that total ozone loss occurred in September “ reached record values”, something that support the claim that infrared radiation warms the atmosphere and stirs it causing the ozone molecules to collide against each other, reducing their number.

4) Moreover, we know that in September, when the sun is barely above the horizon in the vortex, the UV rays reaching the area have not the energy enough to break apart the CFCs molecules, releasing chlorine, so there shouldn’t be any chlorine in the vortex to attack ozone. So, why the reduction of ozone, if there is no chlorine present? You could say: “Chlorine was transported from other places in the world”.

OK, granted, but from where? From the 36 million tons of chlorine produced by volcanoes? From the 8,4 million tons produced by forest and prairies fires? From the 5 million tons produced by ocean biota? Or perhaps from the 600 millions tons produced by the oceans. If we add all the chlorine produced by Mother Nature, the total is about 650 million tons of chlorine. And this is quite higher than the mere 7,500 tons released by CFCs –if ALL CFCs released annually were transported to the stratosphere and released ALL the chlorine they contain, and NONE of that chlorine was not intercepted by other gases known as “sinks” for chlorine. (The so called “interference reactions”) Then, why the stubbornness in blaming those 7,500 tons of CFC–made chlorine for the depletion, instead of the 650 millions tons of natural occurring chlorine? Quite absurd, don’t you think?

So, who these people think they are fooling? Perhaps less informed people would swallow the scientific jargon and abstruse explanations they give. But people with little more than a basic knowledge of physics and chemistry –let aside people as former presidents of the National Academy of Science as Dr. Frederick Seitz, or respected atmospheric scientists as Dr. Fred Singer, of Richard Lindsay, of Dr, Michaels, or late French vulcanologist Dr. Haroum Tazieff, -- can easily spot the “holes in the ozone scare”.

This issue is getting funnier every minute! :D

Edufer

11-06-02, 09:45 PM

After a few days without answers to my post above, it seems I sent another of my usual thread killer posts... That's a pitty.

See you somewhere else. ;) :D

BatM

11-07-02, 01:00 PM

Not quite. I've been thinking about it, but personal issues have kept me busy elsewhere. Also, as I alluded to above, I want to lookup things on the 'Net to gather background and weigh the different views. I'm not totally of one opinion on this. However, there are some issues I've found where opinion in various research organizations seems to be strongly in favor of ozone depletion, but I haven't found the data on which they base their opinion yet. I have the feeling that the data is there, but, due to lack of climatological background, I'm not understanding it. NOAA, for instance, has a lot of data for people to download and run their own statistical analysis on, but that's beyond my ability.

Keep an eye out for future threads on this.

Zeaper

11-12-02, 09:05 AM

I’ve some experience with an ozone generator and using ozone for controlling algae growth in cooling towers. From this I know that ozone is very reactive and will revert back to oxygen in short order (at least at ground level and room temperatures).

So could the reason for the winter Antarctic ozone hole be largely due to the ozone reverting back to oxygen with out the source of UV radiation to replenish it? Never mind the CFCs or ice or whatever.

Edufer’s stance that ozone does not block much UV makes pretty good sense but doesn’t ozone block a particular wave length that oxygen or nitrogen miss?
:D

BatM

12-04-02, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by kmguru
Apparently HCFC is not good either.

Maybe we don't need HCFCs or CFCs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2543085.stm

One of these days, I'll get back to this thread... :(

Gifted

12-05-02, 01:45 PM

solves only some of the problems. Alot of aerosol cans use propane or another flammable gas, because they are the only ones that will work. Did you know that those cans of whipped cream use nitrous oxide as a propellant?

Avatar

12-05-02, 01:50 PM

why not use a simple - push and spray - ie a pump as it is in many sprays

Edufer

12-06-02, 11:25 AM

Hi, BatM! Long time no see… (or read) . I have also been busy, away from the board. In the meantime I posted an article (in Spanish) on our website about the stupidity of the “ozone’s chlorocatalytic cycle”, the theory that earned a Nobel Prize in Chemistry to F. Sherwood Rowland et al., although for “the political consequences of their theory, that saved mankind from a catastrophe”. So much for the value of Nobel Prizes nowadays!

My article is titled: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/articulos-3/CloroParalitico.html“The Paralytic Cycle of Chlorine” (in Spanish, with a graph) meaning that the cycle is just that: paralytic because it does not “walk” (in Spanish, we use “walk” with the same meaning of “work” or “function”). The reason is, briefly, this:

Everybody is too concerned with the chlorine atom released when UV radiation strikes the ClO (chlorine monoxide) molecule, but loose sight of the oxygen atom left free. While chlorine must go looking for an ozone molecule (stratospheric concentration 0.000003%), the oxygen atom wanders looking for other gases to attach itself and make a new compound. As oxygen concentration is about 21%, (relative to other gases, no matter the altitude or actual abundance) it seems that finding another oxygen molecule is far easier than finding a molecule of the other gas in the list, Argon, (0.93%) or CO2 (0,03%), other gases as methane, chlorine, CFCs) 0.0757%, with whom it might combine. You could easily calculate the odds.

Then, this oxygen atom finds an oxygen molecule much faster than chlorine finds an ozone molecule (21% versus 0.000003%) and attaches to it forming a new ozone molecule. So we can assert that ozone is replenished faster by this catalytic cycle than it is destroyed by chlorine –if that ever happens, as the heterogeneous (surface) phase of chemistry tell us that chlorine can ONLY react with ozone over the hard surface provided by ice crystals in polar clouds, and on the surface of aerosols emitted by volcanoes.

As polar clouds exist only in Antarctica during winter and part of spring, chlorine is NOT attacking ozone outside the Antarctic stratosphere. These conclusions are not mine, however, but come from the study by hard-core “depletionists” as S. Solomon, G.H. Mount, R.W. Sanders, R.O. Jakoubek, and A.L Schmeltekopf, published in Science magazine, October 28, 1988, vol. 242, pp.550-558, that would be quite easy for anyone to find in the web.

So, BatM, the ozone hole theory has long been deceased, but the green corporation still keeps its corpse mummified to scare the gullible and ignorant. Sic Transit Mundi. R.I.P. (not meaning Rest In Peace, but Requiescat in Pacem).

By the way: did you see the World’s Meteorological Organization revealing that October was (globally) the coldest month in record for many decades? What happened to the Global Warming? We are experiencing in the Southern Hemisphere the coldest summer in decades, with still snowing in the foothills of the Andes, and snowfalls near Buenos Aires! Perhaps this cold could be blamed on warming? We have heard that before coming from Al Gore, remember? Cool!

Avatar: why not use a simple - push and spray - ie a pump as it is in many sprays

Why not use CFCs in a can? They are better, cheaper, more efficient, won't spoil the product inside, won't explode in your face making you look as The Opera Ghost and, above all, ozone friendly, as I have shown above :D :D

carmichael sparks

06-14-06, 02:20 PM

Tired Warrior, What is the status of your position as of now, 14 June 2006, i.e. what ha sthe passage of four years done to shed light on this issue?

Nice picture, wet1. Computer imaging can do wonders with useless data.

It seems that the ozone hole scare is still in good health. They keep passing subtle missinformation (or shameless lies) as "Ozone is vulnerable, though, to CFCs and halons being released into the atmosphere.", without letting know the gullible people that CFCs and halocarbons are INERT, so they can't react with ozone. In any case, the ozone MIGHT react with chlorine, but ONLY on the surface of ice crystals in stratospheric polar clouds (SPC) over Antarctica, as demonstrated (back in 1988) by S. Salomon, R. Stolarski, et al, one of the teams trying to prove the dangers of CFCs to our stratosphere. (published in Science, 1988. I will give you the reference in a next post, if you are interested, maybe quoting the main conclusions of the paper.)

This means that the chlorine allegedly coming from CFCs cannot attack ozone nowhere in the stratosphere, and that's the reason why the ozone levels --outside the infamous hole in Antarctica-- has not changed AT ALL, beyond the natural fluctuactions from one hour to another, day to day, week to week, from one station to another, as recorded by all UV recording instruments all over the world. No arguing possible here.

But the scare and the hoax must be mantained in working conditions, because the amount of money involved is huge. Presently, the production of CFCs is well and alive, esoecially in China and India (besides France and other western countries) and the black market created by the CFC ban is greater than the weapons trafficking, lagging not too far behind the narcotraffic business. Money talks ... and the fools listen. ;) :D

guthrie

06-15-06, 05:02 PM

Edufers position will be the same. Edufer is a noted anti-environmentalist.

Edufer

06-16-06, 06:57 PM

Four years have added a lot of garbage to the yellow press: they make up regularly “press releases” (science by “press release”, the fashionable way to promote hoaxes) to keep alive the scare and the fake science. They need that because the Ozone hole hoax is needed to perpetuate the idea that “scientists” are right when giving alarming news and predictions about the future climate or the long lasting life of the CFC molecules in the stratosphere –even they are well below the 0.01 ppb and well below the region where there is enough energy to split apart those ultra stable CFC molecules.

Take a look at the ozone level and UV-B values records around the world and you will find a seasonal variability, and cyclical trends up and down. So there is nothing new, really. Only the same crappy science used to promote the old scare.

BTW: Environmentalist's position will always be the same: they are noted anti-human, especially anti dark-skinned people living in underdeveloped countries.

I am human, so I will defend myself and my fellow species neighbours from aliens that call themselves "environmentalists". :p

Edufer

06-16-06, 07:10 PM

I thought that you would be interested to learn some scientific facts about the ozone scam. Here are some links:

Amazing calculations (English version) http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES-2/AmazingOzone.HTML

And South American (Patagonian) ozone levels:
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ozo/vortex.html

Enjoy the reading and be grateful for the new knowledge.

Skylark

06-16-06, 10:40 PM

Edufer’s stance that ozone does not block much UV makes pretty good sense but doesn’t ozone block a particular wave length that oxygen or nitrogen miss?

Actually Edufer's stance suggests a lack of basic understanding of chemistry. Beer's Law, Chem 101. It's been discussed on these boards before:

http://www.sciforums.com/printthread.php?t=7017&page=1&pp=40

Scroll down to the beautiful graph posted with the absorbance spectrum of oxygen showing that only some UV wavelengths are absorbed by oxygen.

Edufer

06-16-06, 11:57 PM

Yes Skylark, go back to the graph and see that oxygen absorbs the real dangerous UV radiation wavelengths. And should I remember you that studies by R. Setlow, et al. 1993. "Wavelengths Effective in Induction of Malignant Melanoma," Proceedings of the Nationel Academy of Sciences, Vol. 90 (July). pp. 666-667, and J. Moan and A. Dahlback, 1995. "Ultraviolet Radiation and Skin Cancer. Cutaneous Malignant Mslanoma," in Ozone, Sun, Cancer; (see note 10) proved that melanoma is caused not by UV-B but by UV-A, of longer wavelenght -and that sunblock creams didn't block UV-A until dermatologists discovered this fact and remodeled the sun creams?

But the scaremongers have kept the myth that UV-B causes malignant skin cancers, and UV increased because of chlorine from CFCs and all that rubbish.

Frank Sinatra used to say: Wake up to reality. Good advice.

guthrie

06-17-06, 02:51 AM

Thats itneresting, Wikipedia says its both UV A and B that cause cancer. I can find nothing online confirming Edufers assertion that it is only UVA that is the problem. I can find plenty of website ssaying it is both of them that cause problems.

Skylark

06-17-06, 08:10 AM

Yes Skylark, go back to the graph and see that oxygen absorbs the real dangerous UV radiation wavelengths. And should I remember you that studies by R. Setlow, et al. 1993. "Wavelengths Effective in Induction of Malignant Melanoma," Proceedings of the Nationel Academy of Sciences, Vol. 90 (July). pp. 666-667, and J. Moan and A. Dahlback, 1995. "Ultraviolet Radiation and Skin Cancer. Cutaneous Malignant Mslanoma," in Ozone, Sun, Cancer; (see note 10) proved that melanoma is caused not by UV-B but by UV-A, of longer wavelenght
The graph shows oxygen absorbing at wavelengths below 200 nm. The Setlow paper (p. 6666-6670) concludes that "90-95% of melanoma induction may be attributed to wavelengths > 320 nm" in the model they used, "heavily pigmented backcross hybrids of the genus Xiphophorus (platyfish and swordtails)".

Look up some of the more recent work with mouse models and melanomas. For example:
De Fabo et al. 2004. "Ultraviolet B but not Ultraviolet A Radiation Initiates Melanoma" Cancer Research. 64:6372-6376.
Perlis & Herlyn. 2004. "Recent Advances in Melanoma Biology" The Oncologist. 9(2):182-187.

Edufer

06-18-06, 10:27 PM

Skylark,

This is a study of the kind that Stewart and Randi love to expose, as they did with Dr. Benveniste a decade ago or so. The link of the entire study is at:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/18/6372

I extracted this just as a small sample:

Materials and Methods

Neonatal HGF/SF-transgenic mice were irradiated with a specialized optical source which coupled UV interference or cutoff filters to a 2.5 kW xenon lamp (6 , 7), to produce either isolated UVB or UVA wavebands or solar simulating radiation containing UVB, UVA, and visible radiation in proportions approximating sunlight. Neonatal transgenic animals were also irradiated with F40 sunlamps, which produce UVB and UVA radiation and visible light.

The spectral outputs of the sources used are given in Fig. 1 and the doses delivered are listed in Table 1 . Following treatment, animals were monitored weekly over 14 months for lesion and tumor development and melanomas were histologically verified as described previously (2 , 4) . Time to development of the first lesion that subsequently became a melanoma was determined for each animal and used in survival analysis (see Results). In agreement with previous studies (2 , 4) , by far the majority of melanomas produced by irradiation with any of the effective sources had a junctional component with a variety of pathologies that closely resembled the histopathology of human melanoma. No melanomas were observed in wild-type animals either unirradiated or irradiated with any UV source.

I have highlighted in red the important part of this study. HGF/SF-transgenic mice are mice especially developed to have the highest possible predisposition for cancer. You stare at them intensely and they develop cancer. :p So there is no mystery for the melanoma cancers in those mice. Had you given aspirine to them and you would have also induced cancer.

However, when they exposed normal, good old wild animals (as human beings) with any kind of UV radiation, they couldn’t get melanomas.

I rest my case.

Billy T

06-19-06, 06:10 PM

Does anyone know what is the mimium wavelength light which is still capable of stimualting vitamine B in normal white human?

Reason I ask is wife does no longer takes vitamin B pills because she has some bone loss, which probably is caused by parathryroid tumor as her PTH and blood Calcium are high, but radiological scan looking for it was negative.

We have read and been told that vitamin B is not advised in this suituation even though normaly it helps fix calcium in the bones (I think the idea is that the over active parathyroid will just try harder to take calcium out of bones and it will win over the small vitamin B effect.)

Anyway she is taking sun to promote "natural vitamin B." I have expressed the idea that Vitamin B is vitamin B, regardless of the source even though not sure that is true and persuaded her to take her sun lying on the floor in our house. (The window is closed and I assume that she is not really making vitamine B in glass filtered sunlight.)

We have better radiological scan scheduled and operation to follow immediately if positive results, but I want to know if I should try to talk her out of her "natural B" or just continue as I am now to think she is not making any behind the window filtered sun and thus if she wants to sun this way, there is no harm in it as she is behind the glass filter. - I do like to glance at her when she is doing this - she is shapely, so I would just as soon she continues if there is no vitamin B actually being made. I fear if I tell this "behind glass suning" is probably not productive she will want to get unfiltered "natural Vitamin B." She is a big believer in all things "natural" and not too trusting (nor am I) in what MDs say. (Many are too busy to keep up and just repeat what they remember from medschool.)

Skylark

06-19-06, 08:31 PM

HGF/SF-transgenic mice are mice especially developed to have the highest possible predisposition for cancer. You stare at them intensely and they develop cancer. So there is no mystery for the melanoma cancers in those mice. Had you given aspirine to them and you would have also induced cancer.
The paper you referenced as proof that UVA causes melanoma uses a fish model. They take two differenct species of Xiphophorus and breed them. They then take the those offspring and breed them in a backcross. One quarter of those offspring will have a recessive condition that makes them 1) overly pigmented and 2) highly predisposed to melanoma. Those are the fish they used to "prove" that UVA causes melanoma. So what's the rationale for you not being a big, fat hypocrite?

The mice in the study I referred to are predisposed to cancer. I don't know of anybody using wild-type models to study cancer. And if they did, I doubt they would have the statistical power or money to run the exposures with the enormous numbers of animals they would need to prove anything caused cancer. Not to mention the need to run significantly longer studies. I don't have a problem with using these animal models as long as someone doesn't point to one study, jump and down, and declare it definitively proved anything. Use cumulative evidence from multiple models combined with a mechanistically-based molecular understanding of the cancer's etiology to surport your risk assessments.

Additionally, those mice do not have the highest disposition towards cancer. There are studies out there that do use those types of animals. They are used to screen anti-cancer drugs where you want a really high background incidence of the cancer you are studying. Further the control mice in the study as well as those mice exposed to UVA radiation had low levels of melanoma incidence (7% and 0% respectively), so staring at them does not cause cancer.

Edufer

06-19-06, 09:22 PM

Billy T,

I guess there is some misunderstanding in your part. Vitamin D is the one that fixes calcium to the bones. Vitamin B (and all their cohorts, B6, B12, etc) have different uses in the body. Vitamin D is is taken by the body from our food and beverages, exudated to the skin and sythesized there by UV-B rays. When ready it is absorbed trhought the skin again and sent to the bones where it helps fixing calcium in the bones. The same mechanism is used for absorption of synthesized Vitamin E on the skin by UV-B rays.

I am not a MD but have some longtime knowledge about physiology. I guess your doctor will advise you much better than I could.

Edufer

06-19-06, 10:08 PM

The paper I referenced was from 1993, and it is still referenced in today’s scientific literature on the subject, if you care to take a look at references in most recent studies. So it is still a valid peer reviewed paper.

You said: “So what's the rationale for you not being a big, fat hypocrite?” Perhaps the same that makes you point to the study that uses especially created mice for making them develop cancer and blame anything for it. Are you a “big, fat hypocrite”? I guess not –just a big, fat ignorant.

Why is anyone now NOT using normal old-style mice for cancer studies? Because they run the risk of not getting cancer when testing for a given substance that “must” be found guilty of causing cancer. There is much money involved in research that “must” prove cancers or other ailments in humans. If they used “normal” animals (even human beings) then it would be almost impossible to show that a given substance causes cancers at levels found in the environment. That is something that nobody wants to fund. They already know that most substances in the environment will not induce cancer at doses or levels found in everyday life. And for showing that a substance causes cancer –and therefore must be “regulated” or banned, they must feed or inject special rats with huge doses (several thousands or hundred thousands times higher than usually found in our homes, for instance) for having a cancer develop in those poor animals.

What's worse, rats are not little human beings, so the results of those tests cannot be extrapolated to humans. That’s a scientific fact, no doubt about it, but corporations, foundations, companies manufacturing special rats, the EPA, FDA and other agencies (not to mention researchers avid of grant money) don’t want to hear about it. It would ruin their excellent business.

Cancer etiology? Who know anything for sure about cancer etiology? They think they are starting to see a light at the end of the dark tunnel –but that could be an express train coming at full speed.

But we were speaking about people getting melanomas because the increase of the ozone hole in Antarctica, especially those babies in Punta Arenas, Chile, reported by Al Gore back in the early 90s. They reported that babies had developed melanomas due to the ozone hole. As you know, melanoma, and other types of cancer takes several years to develop, as it does with radiation. Gore also lied about rabbit and sheep getting blind in Patagonia because the ozone hole. Gore hid from the public the fact that the blindness of sheep was caused by ashes from Mont Hudson's eruption in 1991, that provoked an incurable case of bacterial conjunctivitis.

They were lying to the public, this man Gore was a liar, and he is still lying today with his recent movie on global warming. And he wanted to be president of the USA! Sometimes I ask myself if it wouldn’t have been much better for the world if Gore had won the election. I wonder if with an economically destroyed USA we who live outside the USA would have a much better life, or we would be subjected to new criminal environmental laws as the DDT, PCBs and CFCs bans.

Skylark

06-19-06, 10:54 PM

The paper I referenced was from 1993, and it is still referenced in today’s scientific literature on the subject, if you care to take a look at references in most recent studies. So it is still a valid peer reviewed paper.
I never claimed otherwise. I only pointed at the similarities between it and the paper I pointed to. As I said I have no problem with the usage of these animal models. If you do not think they are appropriate then do not refer to them as proof of something causing cancer.

You said: “So what's the rationale for you not being a big, fat hypocrite?” Perhaps the same that makes you point to the study that uses especially created mice for making them develop cancer and blame anything for it. Are you a “big, fat hypocrite”? I guess not –just a big, fat ignorant.
Sorry, between the two of us, you are the only one claiming something has been proven to cause cancer. I am, however, blaming you for using a double standard. If the animal model fits your pet hypothesis, then it's OK. If it goes contrary to your personal belief system, then it's bad. You can call me ignorant until you are blue in the face, I don't care, my posts speak for themselves.

What's worse, rats are not little human beings, so the results of those tests cannot be extrapolated to humans. That’s a scientific fact, no doubt about it, but corporations, foundations, companies manufacturing special rats, the EPA, FDA and other agencies (not to mention researchers avid of grant money) don’t want to hear about it. It would ruin their excellent business.
Don't forget pharmaceutical companies. They develop drugs with those animal models.

Skylark

06-19-06, 11:06 PM

What's worse, rats are not little human beings, so the results of those tests cannot be extrapolated to humans. That’s a scientific fact, no doubt about it
OK, so cancer in rats is totally different than cancer in humans. Different mechanisms, different disease, different causes. If you can't extrapolate from rats to humans, it stands to reason you also can't extrapolate from humans to rats right? So most human carcinogens don't cause cancer in rats? Or ... pretty much all human carcinogens cause cancer in rats?

Edufer

06-20-06, 12:09 AM

OK, so cancer in rats is totally different than cancer in humans. Different mechanisms, different disease, different causes. If you can't extrapolate from rats to humans, it stands to reason you also can't extrapolate from humans to rats right? So most human carcinogens don't cause cancer in rats? Or ... pretty much all human carcinogens cause cancer in rats?
You are being disingenuous, showing you have run out of arguments. You are speaking nonsense and twisting arguments to fit your theory. I never said cancers in humans and rats are different. You said it. I never said there are different mechanisms. diseases, etc, because no one knows if there are.

What I insist on is on the known fact that when animals are given doses of chemicals at levels as found in the environment they almost NEVER develop cancer. The "almost" are the exceptions of highly carcinogenic substances as Aflatoxin-B and other highly carcinogenic natural toxins. Even so, it takes quite time to develop a tumor at those "natural" doses. Other potent toxins immediately kill test animals before allowing them to develop any tumor.

Extrapolations from one species to another is something hotly debated nowadays, as species differ from others in many ways, not just morpologically. You are putting words in my mouth that I have never expressed. That's the typical tactic of those losing the high ground and trying to reverse the outcome of the battle.

Go back to previous posts and see that I posted that scientists (not me!) say that melanoma was caused by UV-A: "... and J. Moan and A. Dahlback, 1995. "Ultraviolet Radiation and Skin Cancer. Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma," in Ozone, Sun, Cancer; (see note 10) proved that melanoma is caused not by UV-B but by UV-A, of longer wavelenght..."

It is not me who claimed that, but those wacko scientists that dare to defy the Establishment and the politically correct Nomenklatura that has determined (almost as a holy gospel) that CFC go up to the srtatosphere, then liberates chlorine that destroy ozone, and this allows UV-B to increase and cause melanoma in furry cats in Australia. Allow me to smile.

Billy T

06-20-06, 11:51 AM

... Vitamin D is the one that fixes calcium to the bones.... sythesized there {in skin} by UV-B rays. When ready it is absorbed trhought the skin again and sent to the bones where it helps fixing calcium in the bones. The same mechanism is used for absorption of synthesized Vitamin E on the skin by UV-B rays...Yes I meant D, don't know if it was memory confusion, or my dyslexia that got me. Are UV-B the shorter or longer UV rays, I forget. Do they pass thru ordinary window glass? I forget exactly where that cut off is, but recall it is not very far into the UV. Thus reasonable sure that if UV-B is the short wavelength one, they will not be passing thru the glass window and wife can safely sun in the glass filtered sunlight on the floor - making us both happier. Thanks for the correction.

---------------------------new subject, more to thread----------------
Years ago when demonstrated cancer production, regardless of dose, forced product removal from market became law, one of the first, if not the first, artificial sweetener was removed from the market because of the new law.

I do not remember the dose required for it to induce cancer, but it was huge - like 10% of body weight eaten each day. I liked that sweetener, so I wrote, only half in jest, to company and suggested that they add a little arsenic to the product, so it would be impossible for anyone to demonstrate the sweetener produced cancer. With arsenic added, it would be legal to sell once more.

Edufer

06-20-06, 01:11 PM

Billy T,

The sweetener was potassium cyclamate, one of the many products that came down the sickle of the prohibition fashion that raged in the 80s. The actual dose for getting a cancer was eating about 2 tons of cake with cyclamate, or about 270,000 cans of Pepsi Diet EVERY DAY, DURING A LIFETIME (70 years).

However, cyclamate has been vindicated and has been withdrawn from FDA ban regulations. They also tried to ban saccharin but failed. The basis for banning cyclamate (as all other chemicals) was –and still are- those flawed experiments on animals being fed huge doses of a certain chemical and blame the resulting tumor to the substance.

Those scientists and the agencies will never tell the people about the myogenesis effect, that is, the uncontrolled multiplication of cells caused by the abnormal excess of a chemical substance. This phenomenon was explained by Dr. Bruce Ames and Dr. Lois Swirsky Gold, from UCLA at Berkely, long time ago in the late 80s, who insisted that natural carcinogens are 99,99% of the total carcinogens stalking man in the environment, and not the 0.01% of synthetic chemicals used by the industry.

Their study say this (just as a hook for catching your interest) which gives a clue to the idiocy behind those EPA thresholds used in its regulations on chemicals:

"If TCDD is compared with alcohol it seems of minor interest as a teratogen or carcinogen. Alcoholic beverages are the most important known human chemical teratogen [43]. In contrast, there is no persuasive evidence that TCDD is either carcinogenic or teratogenic in humans, although it is both at near-toxic doses in rodents. If one compares the teratogenic potential of TCDD to that of alcohol for causing birth defects (after adjusting for their respective potency as determined in rodent tests), then a daily consumption of the EPA reference dose of TCDD (6 fg) would be equivalent in teratogenic potential to a daily consumption of alcohol from 1/3,000,000 of a beer. That is equivalent to drinking a single beer (15 g ethyl alcohol) over a period of 8,000 years."

TCCDD is dioxin (or tetra-chloro-para-dibenzo-dioxin).

Their study (National Proceedings of the NAS) is here (worth reading): http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/AmesSynth.html

Perhaps this article will be of interest to you, related to carcinogens in our diet: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Risks/hollidayDinner.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
About UV-B, its wavelength is comprised between 286-320 nanometers (or 2860-3200 angstroms), so it is between UV-A (320-400 nm), and UV-C (40-286 nm). Of course, the chemical action of those wavelength differ, but a photon having 280 nm (UV-B) has about the same energy (and chemical action) that a photon of 291 nm (UV-A). But scientists had to trace a line (the thin red line?) somewhere.

UV-B cannot pass through a 2 mm thick common glass, so you can stay a day long sunbathing behind a window and will not get a suntan –neither the beneficial effect of UV-B over the skin. The so called “UV filters” used in photography are simple pieces of 3 mm thick glass. Other filters (as Wratten 80B, if I don’t recall badly) are light salmon colored to offset the bluish effect in pictures taken in the snow. The bluish effect is not given by UV radiation, of course, but from reflection of the blue sky over the great white surface of the snow.