From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:47:57 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov17.215924.829@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
>> > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. writes:
>> >Ozone depletion (caused mostly, in the U.S., by auto air
>> >conditioners) threatens, and has already initiated, an epidemic of
>> >skin cancer, blindness, etc.
>
> 
>    Just a few facts......
>
> Volcanic eruptionsput out 1,000's upon 1,000's more ozone depleting
>chemicals than we humans have ever done. Since volcanoes have erupted
>for 1 billion years I think our ozone level is just fine.

Volcanos put out lots of REACTIVE chloring compounds, along with sulfates. 
Mostly these go into the troposphere where most of them are removed before ever
having a chance to reach the stratosphere (occasionally are really large
volcanic eruption may inject some chemicals directly into the stratosphere). 
CFC's, on the other hand, are not  very reactive (that's one of their big
advantages for refrigeration and industrial applications).  They have a very
good chance of reaching the stratosphere before being scavenged.  Hence pound
for pound, they present a MUCH larger threat to the ozone than do volcanic
compounds.

> Sun creates ozone, you wanna destroy the ozone layer you gotta destroy 
>the sun. How are you gonna do it? >

You might consider taking a chemistry course or two.  While it's true that
eliminating ALL the ozone from the stratosphere would require shielding the
atmosphere from the ultraviolet radiation, reducing the concentration
dramatically requires nothing so drastic.  All one has to do is increase the
rate of the 2O3 => 3O2 back reaction.  By supplying a catalyst, for example.

You should simply have asked Vandeman to supply some of the evidence for his
claim that increased UV levels have already cause epidemics of blindness and
skin cancer.  Had you done so, he almost certainly have:
    1)	Pointed to statistics on incidence of skin cancers.  Of course, given
	the latency of such cancers, such statistics typically reflect exposure 
	from a decade or so ago.  He would, of course, deny that the tanning
	craze of that era could possibly have affected skin cancer rates.  And
	of course, he wouldn't be able to produce figures relating skin cancers
	to exposure to solar UV, taking into account the fact that local
	pollution in, e.g., the Los Angeles basin can have as much of an effect
	on incident UV as the variability in the ozone layer.
    2)	Some claims that sheep in a certain part of South America are going
	blind.  Of course, the fact that the blind sheep all came from a
	relatively small area and that sheep elsewhere in South America that
	would've received higher doses of UV are *NOT* going blind doesn't
	matter to Vandeman in his attempts to get rid of automobiles by any
	means he finds convenient.  The distribution of cases of blindness in
	the sheep supports a hypothesis of a bacterial infection as the
	causative agent much better than it does UV exposure.
But to Mike, lying is perfectly justified as long as there's a chance it might
get rid of cars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.