>:
>:
>: I'll have to agree with Gene, I work in the scientific community and
>: there are alot of people that just want the money for their half baked
>: ideas. Interesting thing about the ozone layer is that ham radio uses
>: the ozone layer for bouncing signals off. Surprisingly the radio
>: propagation is dependent on sun spot activity which is virtually nill
>: right now, but in a few years propagation is supposed to increase
>: because the sun spots will return. At the same time there are
>: scientists who say the ozone hole will be reducing by the year 2000
>: because of all the steps taken for CFC removal. Makes you wonder!
>:
>Wrong. Ham radio signals bounce off the ionosphere, not the ozone
>layer. Ozone is transparent to radio waves.
>And the crackpots are those still claiming CFCs don't destroy the ozone,
>in spite of overwhelming hard data, accepted theories, and a Nobel Prize
>to the originators.
I'll keep it simple, but you can always research it yourself:
1) CFCs have been found in the ozone layer
2) high energy emissions break down CFCs
3) what goes up also comes down
4) its a good thing for number 3 or volcanic emissions would have killed us
all, because one year (don't remember the year) volcanic emissions completely
eliminated the ozone layer over the South Pole (It came back, possibly due to
the theory that such emissions are rained out of the atmosphere. In my
opinion both scenarios are happening)
5) ozone reacts with free Cl from CFCs being broken down
6) the resultant ClO is also broken down an ClO or ozone is re-formed
7) ozone in the ozone layer is not static, but is constantly being broken down
and reformed
8) ozone levels have been measured for less than 50 years, and the methods of
measuring it have changed within the last ten years
9) If high energy makes it past the ozone layer, the high energy will cause
reactions at lower levels in the atmosphere, which cause the energy to be
dispersed anyway.
Opinions:
1) CFCs may marginally affect the ozone layer, but not nearly to the extent
that natural emissions do
2) The CFCs in the atmosphere will be broken down when they enter the ozone
layer, where it will be broken into its base elements which will eventually
move out of the ozone layer and be rained out of the atmosphere
3) This hasn't been studied globally for nearly long enough or consistently
enough to make scientific decisions (studies have been location or spot
studies, not comprehensive atmospheric analyses). Study the scientific method
if you disagree.
4) Somebody jumped the gun on banning CFCs, although I definitely believe in
recycling and conservation
5) Don't believe everything you read (including my stuff; go research it
yourself. The rags don't count. I heard that Bob's racing forum said that
CFCs are bad for the environment around the eyes because the cold blast can
freeze the suckers right out, and was taken out of context and printed in the
New York Times as 'informed sources reveal that CFCs are harmful to the
environment'. BTW the preceding sentence was a story, an example. It was not
true. Read professional journals and realize you are getting biased opinions
even then. Read enough and you can form an intelligent opinion, not
regurgitate headlines. This is not meant to be a slam on anyone.)
6) global warming or cooling as a result of CFCs is a myth. I believe massive
scale deforestation without replanting (China, the Amazon, etc) would be a
more likely culprit
One journal I read really slammed CFC vs. ozone research because grants were
only being issued for studies on 'how CFCs contribute to the depletion of the
ozone layer'. One sided study is predujicial.
--
my opinions are mine and not necessarily those of my employer
--
