World of Education/World of Education.iso/world_e/envfacts.zip/OZONE.TXT

Text File | 1993-09-11 | 11KB | 190 lines

Excerpts from Fort Freedom BBS, 914/941-1319 -- a pro-science,
pro-technology, pro-free enterprise oasis. Call in, its free!

FIRST HOT AS HELL, THEN MAD AS HELL ─────────────────────────── [93.044]

Industrial  and  commercial air-conditioners are  called  `chillers'.  A
recent  article in the Wall Street Journal implausibly states  that  the
number  of chillers in the world is 112,000, with 80,000 [71.4%] in  the
United States. This figure seems too low. A different source states that
there  are  over 100,000 chillers in large buildings in  the  U.S.,  and
about  430,000 chillers in large buildings elsewhere. Chillers are  used
by  industry, supermarkets and restaurants. The transportation  industry
uses  chillers in both refrigerated ground and sea transports. All these
chillers use CFCs.

It is a  Mandated Truth  that  CFCs destroy the ozone layer.  The United
States is  also  a signatory  to various treaties which  obligate  it to
phase out CFCs by the year 2000.  By  a (moronic) Executive Order issued
in February 1992, U.S. CFC production  is  to  end  by 31 December 1995.
The  replacements  for  CFCs  now  available  cannot be used in existing
chillers (because of  the  replacements'  characteristics  as  solvents,
their  surface  tension and other qualities).  New chillers designed for
the new refrigerants must be used.  Replacing industrial  chillers alone
will cost $8 billion.  Current chiller production is 6,000 new  chillers
each year.  At this rate, assuming only  replacement purchases, it would
take 18.7 years to manufacture  112,000 replacements.  Even  if  chiller
production  doubled  each  year,  it  would  not  be until 1997 that all
chillers would be replaced. And the assumption of doubling of production
capacity is an absurd one. Hence, unless the EPA extends its deadline, a
lot of us are going to be hot at work during many, many summers.

A  cynic  may  observe that the international conventions  against  CFCs
disproportionately affect the United States, and that the economic  harm
to  the  United States is correspondingly disproportionate. (The  beauty
is, the American idiots do it to themselves.)

But  how  can Mr. Cynic be right? Not being motivated by greed  and  the
desire  for profit, our friends in Washington act from purely altruistic
motives.  Al  Gore  wants  to  be  President  not  because   he   is   a
megalomanical,  power-hungry little creep with messianic delusions,  but
because,  like  Ted Turner, he wants to Save The Planet.  Like  all  the
politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, he has no thoughts except for
those about others.

The  two  leading substitutes for CFCs are: HFC-134a (for  high-pressure
chillers)  manufactured  by  DuPont  (as  Suva)  and  Imperial  Chemical
Industries   (ICI)  PLC,  and  HCFC-123  (for  low  pressure   chillers)
manufactured  by  DuPont. In July 1991, an industry consortium  reported
that  at high doses of HCFC-123, female rats developed benign tumors;  a
study conducted in 1992 found that male rats did not develop tumors, but
that some did develop enlarged testicles.

CFCs  cost  $0.50/lb in the early '80s. Today (1993),  they  cost  $7  a
pound,  which  includes a tax of $3.35/lb which  took  effect  in  1993.
Prices  will  increase as production diminishes and hoarding  increases.
The manufacturers of CFCs, which include DuPont, Allied-Signal Inc., and
Elf  Altochem  SA, won't reveal their profit margins. One suspects  they
are profiteering, since they are selling to a captive market.

As  we swelter, we should remind ourselves that the sole purpose of  our
discomfort is the aggrandizement of the EPA, the State Department (which
negotiates the treaties) and the Leviathan State. Rather that  remaining
hot as hell, we must become mad as hell.

                                  More

McMurray, Scott. "Air-Conditioner Firms Put Chill on Plans To Phase  Out
   Use   of   Chlorofluorocarbons".  The  Wall  Street  Journal  [Easter
   Edition], 1993 May 10, p. B3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

            LOTS OF SCIENTISTS AREN'T FALLING FOR OZONE SCARE
               By Ralph A. Zingaro, Professor of Chemistry
[Zingaro  is a professor of chemistry at Texas A&M University, where  he
has taught and conducted research since 1954.]

       [From the Houston Chronicle, Monday, Dec 7, 1992, p. 19A.]
             [A kindly upload by freeman John Alway, 3/7/93]

On  an  almost daily basis we are being bombarded by media reports  that
are  telling us that ozone of the atmosphere is being depleted. The main
culprits,  according  to  these reports, are chlorofluorocarbons,  which
play  a  critical  role  in  medical  inhalors,  air  conditioning   and
refrigerating systems. Is the ozone really being depleted? Are we really
in danger of an increase in the ultraviolet radiation?

In  search of the truth, let's begin with a fish story. Last winter, the
head  of  a NASA scientific team held a hastily called press conference.
He  reported that the ``highest levels of chlorine monoxide -- 1.5 parts
per  billion  by  volume  -- ever measured''  had  been  observed  by  a
converted  ER-2 spy plane at the center of a polar vortex  over  eastern
Canada  and  northern New England. High concentrations of this  chemical
compound  have  been associated with a decrease in the concentration  of
atmospheric ozone.

However,  the  very  same  scientist who  called  the  press  conference
reported  in a scientific article in 1980 that chlorine monoxide  levels
reaching  seven parts per billion were measured in an atmospheric  layer
between  35 and 40 kilometers above the Earth.  Clearly, this individual
was relating a fish story.

This  scientific misinformation led to a frenzy of activity in the  U.S.
Senate. It was declared on the floor of this illustrious body that there
existed  ``an immediate, acute, emergency threat'' and of the  formation
of  an  ``ozone  hole  over  Kennebunkport  (President  Bush's  vacation
home).''  The  Senate, by a vote of 96-0, called upon the  president  to
move  up  the phaseout of CFCs by 1995. The president, as scientifically
naive   as   the  legislators  and  perhaps  afraid  of  the   political
implications of being labelled as ``weak on the environment,'' announced
that the executive branch would comply with the request.

I have been skeptical about the theory of ozone depletion by CFCs I have
spoken  with  a  number  of distinguished scientists;  I  have  spent  a
considerable amount of time studying the scientific literature.  What  I
have learned is that many factors affect the ozone concentrations in our
atmosphere.  It was reported in 1991 that from 1979-1983 a  decrease  in
ozone  concentrations was measured. During the 1983-1985 period no trend
was  observable, and from 1986-1990 ozone concentrations  increased.  In
May  1974  a  publication authored by scientists from the department  of
astro-geophysics  at the University of Colorado reported  that  for  the
period 1957-1990, an upward trend in ozone concentrations was measured.

Let  it be remembered that CFCs were introduced in 1958, and that  world
production in 1974 was about 18 billion pounds. Dr. Kenneth M.  Towe  of
the scientific staff of the Smithosonian Institution has noted that when
atmospheric ozone concentrations are critically examined, no discernable
changes in ozone concentrations can be observed.

The villain in the CFC theory of ozone depletion is the chemical element
chlorine.  Yet  many  natural sources of chlorine exist.  These  include
volcanic chlorine, seawater chlorine and chlorine arising from plant and
animal  life.  These  sources inject into the atmosphere  quantities  of
chlorine  that  dwarf those attributable to CFCs. No legislative  action
can be imposed upon nature's vagaries.

Factors other than CFCs affect the atmospheric ozone. One has to do with
the  vast quantities of sulfuric acid aerosols that enter the atmosphere
during volcanic eruptions. The Antarctic ozone hole is real, but it  has
been  explained  in terms of the enormous temperature  differences  that
exist  over the surface of the South Pole during the winter.  This  hole
is  a  natural phenomenon that reaches a maximum in October but  shrinks
and  reaches normal levels by December. It has, in all probability, been
occurring for millennia -- well before the introduction of CFCs.

I  feel that a segment of the scientific community is guilty of creating
fear and alarm among the lay population. The proponents of the CFC-ozone
depletion  theory  have ignored virtually all of  the  other  scientific
studies  that  are  not  in agreement with their ideas,  and  they  have
succeeded  in  converting  a large segment of the  population  to  their
almost religious point of view. The movement is so strong that they have
succeeded in convincing the public that their theory is believed by  the
``scientific community.'' This is another fish story.

A  large  and  respected segment of the scientific  community  does  not
adhere  to  this  religion. Evidence of this  is  to  be  found  in  the
``Heidelberg  Appeal,''  which  states:  ``We  fully  subscribe  to  the
objectives  of a scientific ecology for a universe where resources  must
be  taken stock of, monitored and preserved. But we herewith demand that
this  stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific
criteria  and  not  on  irrational  preconceptions.''  This  appeal  was
initiated  at the close of the Rio Summit earlier this year  (to  which,
incidentally,  not a single engineer was invited) and initially  carried
the names of 425 scientists, at least 48 of whom are Nobel laureates. As
of  October, the number of scientists who signed this declaration was in
excess of 2,000.

The  cost  of  giving  up  CFCs  can be  enormous.  They  are  excellent
refrigerants.  They  keep our foods frozen at home and  in  the  markets
where  we  shop.  They keep our homes, buildings and  vehicles  cool  in
summer  heat.  They  are non-toxic, they do not  explode  and  they  are
odorless. The cost of replacing existing cooling systems with  new  ones
will  be  enormous. Perhaps the prospect of new business is why we  have
heard no opposition from the manufacturers of refrigerating equipment.

What  I find deeply disturbing about the fanatical environmentalists  is
that  the movement has taken on all of the trappings of a fundamentalist
cult. Differences of opinion are not tolerated. I have been shouted down
by  students in my classes and scoffed at by some of my peers because  I
dare  to  be  a  skeptic about the theory of ozone  depletion  by  CFCs.
Statements  in a number of text-books fail to point out that the  theory
of  ozone  depletion  by CFCs is unproven and that  there  exists  ample
scientific  evidence that no depletion in atmospheric  ozone  is  taking
place.

However,  of greatest importance is that movements driven by  fanaticism
are intrinsically irrational. Fanaticism, be it religious, political  or
environmental, should not be tolerated.