Re: As usual -- to account for these events, follow the money.

[maury <maury@webtexas.com>]

I do not at all deny the existence of good environmental science as well

as quality science in most scientific fields. This is true for work on ozone

depletion as well as references Jim Dukelow suggested regarding health

effects of the dioxins. The fact remains, however, that there also is plenty

of work done ranging all the way from silly to excellent.



It is also the case that, even though I cannot recall the exact instances,

I recognize that Malloy has published a few very dubious contentions.

And, of course, we can always entertain doubts about who funded the

research and were the conclusions biased by the source of the money

whether the source be public or private. I do recall specifically that

through more than a couple of budget cycles, NASA would release "new

and startling data" showing how we were further endangering the ozone

layer and the ploy worked every time.



Ruth, I cannot cite specific publications, but believe I have read journal

references in the past few years which have moderated earlier

conclusions about ozone depletion. Likewise for dioxins, anthropogenic

influence on global climate, and other topics of interest to me. I really

feel apologetic about this, but I understand fully how meaningful and

important a good solid literature review would be. However, I can no

longer feasible do those and it does bother me every time I try to post

on the radsafe and riskanal lists.



I believe (note: subjective opinion) that the data accumulating in the

environmental areas are tending more and more to find that

anthropogenic influences are less than earlier thought and that a variety

of non-human natural processes are more influential than originally

thought. I was an argumentative turkey in graduate school and have

remained a skeptic all my life -- more fun to do experimental research

and find that something is not what it once seemed. I tend to believe

that what we think we can do to the global environment borders on

presumptuous assumptions about human capabilities.



In any case, I'll try to retrieve some of the data suggesting strongly that

ozone depletion is not simply a principal function of freon, high altitude

jet aircraft, and so on. I think you know, Ruth, that I do not take lightly

your knowledge of a number of these areas. Hope I can retrieve one set

of ozone data which was correlated (by itself certainly not cause and

effect) with world production of cfc's -- it showed that even after freon

production ceased in the US and ozone depletion improved

(decreased), world production of freon was reaching at an all time high.



And the fact remains that I do appreciate learning of particular research

that suggests how intriguing it might be to sniff up a different trail. I

continue to be increasingly impressed by how terribly much I don't

know and I sincerely appreciate your educational thrusts.



Best wishes,

Maury            maury@webtexas.com

================================

RuthWeiner@aol.com wrote:



> I must take issue with one of Maury's contentions!  The science regarding then "ozone hole" (actually, depletion of the ozone layer between the stratosphere and the tropospher, is very good.  McElroy et al published a paper in SCIENCE in 1978 correlating ozone layer depletion with world production of CFC aerosols, and Rowland and Molina received a Nobel prize for elucidating the depletio mechanism, which involves photochemical formation of a CF2Cl. free radical that sequesters atomic oxygen from the ozone/atomic O-molecular O2 equilibrium.  The same mechanism holds for reaction of NO in the stratosphere with ozone.  There is an excellent article about this by Rowland in Scientific American about 6 or 7 years ago.

>

> There IS good environmental science and we do ourselves no favor at all by lumping really good science with junk.  The science that went into ozone depletion is better than the science of global climate change

>

> Ruth

> ruthweiner@aol.com

> --

> Ruth F. Weiner

> ruthweiner@aol.com

> 505-856-5011

> (o)505-284-8406

>



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

It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag,

and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to

burn the flag.                                  Charles M. Province





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/