FREE ESSAY ON IMMORTALITY

IMMORTALITY

The Ozone Layer: a Hole in the Theory.
Some scientists have proclaimed that the human race is slowly depleting the layer of
ozone which protects us from ultra violet light. In reality, humans have very little
control of the world in which we live. Scientific evidence has shown that there is very
little depletion in the ozone layer and the contributions the human race makes towards
this depletion is and always will be insignificant compared to nature. The theories of
the depletion and what it would cause are flawed and contradictory.
Where and when did this global killing threat begin? It all began in the mid 1960's when
the United States government began pursuing super sonic transports. These would be planes
which would travel in the stratosphere, very close to the ozone layer. The first
environmentalist complaints were actually of the noise factor. These large planes would
be traveling in excess of the speed of sound. Subsequently there would be sonic booms
heard on the surface (Singer). The arguments fell on deaf ears in Washington. The next
objection came in the form of ozone depletion. A fleet of over 500 of these planes would
ultimately destroy the ozone. This would allow more ultra violet radiation to fall to the
earth and in turn skin cancer rates would sky rocket. That was more than enough for the
federal government to get involved, they immediately canceled the project. At that time
there was no study done to investigate these claims, but there has been since. The
initial estimation was that a fleet of 500 SSTs would effectively reduce the ozone layer
seventy percent. In the 1970's that number fell to ten percent. With the emergence of the
Concorde, which is a SST, in the 1980's, studies were done that show the emissions from
these planes actually insulate the ozone layer and prevent it from being depleted
(Singer). There is irony in the fact that the initial claim of ozone depletion, actually
turned out to aid it. This isn't the only piece of irony when it comes to the ozone.
The second part of the initial claim said that ultra violet light would fall on the earth
and cancer rates would go up. One could claim that melanoma rate have gone up within the
past years because melanoma rates have increased 800% since statistics were first
collected in 1935. Unfortunately there has been no corresponding change in the ozone
layer or the amount of UV light reaching the surface. To the contrary, UV levels have
been on the decline at every test center (Singer). Also the fact that indoor workers have
a twenty-one percent higher chance to get melanoma than outdoor workers, further supports
the fact that UV rays themselves do not induce melanoma (Howard). Another piece of irony,
the SSTs cause ozone depletion, which in turn cause UV rays to increase. And UV rays
equal cancer, right? 
Paragraph on the current measurements of the ozone and what scientists believe cause the
changes in thickness.
When SSTs were no longer an issue the scientific community was still concerned about this
claim of depleting the ozone layer. They began to look at what else could cause this
depletion and at this time compiled a list of ozone gases. Ozone gases have now become a
term associated with those awful gases which destroy the human race's only protection
from the sun and it's deadly UV rays. What are these gases though? Where do they come
from? The most commonly referred to of gases are CFCs. These gases are Fluorocarbons.
CFCs come from commonly used items such as aerosol cans, refrigerators, and air
conditioners. Believers in the depletion theory believe that humans release these gases
and they go into the atmosphere and neutralize the chemicals that hold the ozone
together. Thus holes begin to emerge and in turn the whole world is doomed. One study in
1959 stated that if the fluorocarbon industry continues to grow at it's twenty-two
percent rate between 1960 and 1972, then by 1995 the ozone would be depleted by over
forty percent (Ponte). Well the industry grew at over twenty-two percent during those
years and yet there hasn't been a forty percent decrease in ozone. Not even a thirty, or
even a fifteen and even ten is too large. In actuality the measurements now show a six
percent increase (Bidinotto). Yes an increase! The other amazing fact is that in 1976 an
Alaskan volcano spewed 570 times the worlds CFC production (Begely). That means in a
matter of days this one volcano produced more CFCs than the human race has in the last
570 years. Some scientists argue that volcanoes can't actually propel these gases far
enough into the atmosphere to cause any damage. If this is truly the case, how am I then
supposed to believe that my little can of deodorant actually can? In trying to defend
their claim they actually disprove what it was they were saying in the first place. The
other major gas claimed to deplete the ozone layer is chlorine. This claim is very easy
to discredit. Chlorine gas weighs two and a half times more than air. It would take
tremendous amounts of force to put it high enough into the air to effect the ozone
(Singer).
These facts, long hidden from the public's eye, didn't discourage politicians from
creating regulations on CFCs. In 1978, the United states and other western nations,
unilaterally banned the use of CFCs in all aerosol products (Ponte). This didn't last
long though. The Japanese and the Europeans were not ready for this ban yet, due to two
main reasons. Number one was the great cost to replace CFCs in all it's applications. The
second was there was no replacement for CFCs in many of it's applications. But times
change and technology advances, and thus in the early 1990's up sprung the Montreal
Project (Howard). This was a multi-national project to reduce the amount of CFCs used in
the world. There was a 300 page study done showing the negative effects of CFCs on our
environment. This was a much awaited study by the scientific community. Many scientists
wanted to embrace the cause, while others were ready to dispute it. After many of the
countries involved signed their name to the project the study was to be released.
Unfortunately after it's approval the study was amazingly lost. So the first bit of irony
in this case is the only scientists to read the study, were the scientists that wrote it
(Bidinotto). This didn't prevent the countries from adopting this policy though. Now that
the Montreal Project has been adopted and set to begin in the year 2000, what does that
mean? The first thing to look at is the cost of replacing the CFCs. If the United States
government would decide to pay for the replacement of the CFCs in the United States, then
this would be the equivalent of doubling the federal deficit. Not only is it costly, but
it is also hazardous. The replacements for CFCs just happen to be toxic and corrosive
(Howard). This not being bad enough, they are also vastly inferior to CFCs (Howard).
Robert Watson, head of the ozone trends panel and a supporter of CFC banning said,
Probably more people world wide would die from food as a consequence of inadequate
refrigeration than would die from the depleting ozone. How can this even be considered.
People are actually going to die because of a lost, unproven study.
The next effect the depleting ozone layer will have is in aiding the green house effect.
The green house effect says that when there is a hole in the ozone layer, harmful UV rays
are allowed onto the surface of the earth. These UV rays would effect plants in a way
that they end up producing too much CO2. This CO2 then goes into the atmosphere and
begins to insulate and create ozone. This insulation causes the temperature of the earth
to increase (Howard). Sounds believable, almost. The problem in this claim is once again
in the claim. If the basis for the greenhouse effect is that there is a hole in the
ozone, then CO2 being released into the atmosphere and creating ozone seems awful
contradictory. Not only that, but the United States government believes that a CO2
increase would actually increase agricultural productivity (USA). This would mean an
increase in CO2 absorbing plants, which in turn would mean CO2 levels would fall back
down.
But you've heard about the ozone hole over the antarctic right? If this hole does exist
what does that mean? Nothing unless you live in the antarctic. Scientists have proven
there is a hole over the antarctic, but they have also proven that this hole can not
expand out of the antarctic region, due to unique meteorological conditions(Bidinotto).
But how did the hole get there? The first thing you need to know is that when the first
reading of the ozone layer was taken, there was a hole (Singer). It hasn't suddenly
appeared due to human's inappropriate use of anything. Where scientists claim holes
occupy, there are natural factors which account for the holes entirely (Lutgens). So it
seems the so called hole is earth-made not man-made. 
The scientific community very rarely agrees one hundred percent on anything, but what are
the percentages? The Gallup Poll of February 1992 polled climatologists and atmospheric
physicists and found that seventeen percent say they believe the ozone hole is real while
eighty three percent disagree (Howard).Dr. Derek Barton, a Nobel prize winning chemist
says there's so much propaganda, I don't believe it (Begley). Dr, Fred Singer, the man
who invented the device to measure ozone, says the threat of depletion is vastly
exaggerated (Singer). Only seventeen percent of scientist believe in the green house
theory (Haimson). So the scientific community definitely does not see a ozone depletion.
The ozone depletion theory began in an attempt to prevent a fleet of SSTs from being
implemented. The theory has changed as the times and evidence produce contradictions. The
new theory has become as much political as it has scientific. One of President Clinton's
top advisors recently said, We have to follow this greenhouse effect issue even if it is
wrong. We will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy
(Limbaugh). With all the contradictory evidence how is it we still believe? Humans have a
need to know that they can effect the environment around them. Scientists and politicians
have fed off this and given us a sense of control. In reality though we have no control
over the ozone layer.
Source Cited 
Begely, Sharon. Is the Ozone Hole in Our Heads? News Week October 11, 1993: pg. 71.
Bindotto, Robert Ozone and Objectivity Online. November 20, 1996
Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming? United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1983 
Limbaugh, Rush. See I Told You So. New York: Pocket Books a division of Simon and
Schuster Inc. 1993
Lutgens, Fredrick K. and Tarback, Edward J. The Atmosphere NJ Prentic-Hall, Inc. 1986 pg.
189- 195. 
Singer, Fred, S. Ph.D. My Adventures in the Ozone Layer. Online November 18,1997 
Ponte, Lowell. The Cooling NJ Prentice- Hall Inc., 1976 
Haimson, Lepnie, Oppenheimer, Michael, and Wilcove, David The Way Things Really Are
Online. 
Bibliography
Source Cited 
Begely, Sharon. Is the Ozone Hole in Our Heads? News Week October 11, 1993: pg. 71.
Bindotto, Robert Ozone and Objectivity Online. November 20, 1996
Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming? United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1983 
Limbaugh, Rush. See I Told You So. New York: Pocket Books a division of Simon and
Schuster Inc. 1993
Lutgens, Fredrick K. and Tarback, Edward J. The Atmosphere NJ Prentic-Hall, Inc. 1986 pg.
189- 195. 
Singer, Fred, S. Ph.D. My Adventures in the Ozone Layer. Online November 18,1997 
Ponte, Lowell. The Cooling NJ Prentice- Hall Inc., 1976 
Haimson, Lepnie, Oppenheimer, Michael, and Wilcove, David The Way Things Really Are
Online.