Joined: 18 Jan 2006
|Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: The Ozone Hole Scam Rolls On.....
By Rolf Martens - 2006-08-28
In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was a massive international propaganda campaign saying that there was "a dangerous and widening ozone hole" over the Antarctic and also "global depletion" of the stratospheric ozone layer, which prevents excessive amounts of ultraviolet radiation from reaching the earth's surface. The "cause" of these purported phenomena was said to be the use of the chemicals known as CFCs (or freons) in refrigerators, air conditioners etc. This propaganda supported the enacting of international bans against these substances, decided on in 1987 (the Montreal protocol) and in the following years on the initiative of the US imperialists above all, and still in force today.
That "ozone hole" and "ozone depletion" propaganda was a big hoax. There was and is no actual environmental reason whatsoever for banning these substances, which are particularly efficient for their purposes and particularly cheap to produce. The bans against them are hitting hard above all the refrigeration industry in the poorer, internationally-oppressed and exploited countries, important for making it possible to store and transport vital foodstuffs and medicines. Thus they are causing further misery and deaths in these countries, which was obviously a main and arch-reactionary intention behind these bans from the beginning on.
As time has passed since these bans were enacted, it has become increasingly difficult for the ruling reactionaries to cover up the fact that there has been no "depletion" at all of the global ozone layer and that the Antarctic "ozone hole" is only a seasonal phenomenon. That "hole" was discovered already back in 1956 when there was practically no CFC use, and has not increased since then. In "reports" to the contrary, various tricks have been used, such as changes of definition of "the ozone hole" and of methods of measuring it. A detailed discussion and refutation of this propaganda hoax readers can find for instance in my "UNITE! Info #166en", part 1/8 etc, of 20.03.2002.
Since the actual continued ozone measurements more and more clearly show that the CFC bans are quite unjustified environmentally, the "ozone hole" propaganda has ceased almost completely. But it still crops up now and then, intended to "justify" the upholding of these very reactionary and harmful bans.
In early 2005 for instance, there was an attempt, with "reports" in several mass media, to make people believe there was an "Arctic ozone hole" too. I wrote about this in my Info #228en.
More recently, the same old scare was "warmed up again" with an article in the newspaper The Scotsman on 19.08. It was headlined "Skin cancer fear grows as ozone layer gets thinner" and said i.a.:
"The ozone layer above Scotland is thinner than at any point in the last ten years, according to new research which has prompted fresh concerns over skin cancer rates.
Cancer experts warned yesterday that the results meant it was more important than ever for people to take precautions when in the sun."
In early July, there was a similar scare attempt in some Swedish media too. But this is particularly ridiculous, firstly because at the latitude of Scotland and Sweden, the ultraviolet radiation is so weak - only one-eighth of that at the Equator - that it's a lack of it and certainly not an excess of it that actually causes health problems, and secondly because the proposition that the ozone layer over any of these countries "has become thinner", whether at some point in this year or indeed at any time in the last few decades, demonstrably is quite false.
At the website of the Swedish meteorological institute the SMHI, measurements of the ozone layer over Norrköping in this year and in the period from February 1988 to the present are shown and compared to measurements for nearby Uppsala from 1951 to 1966, in two continually updated graphs. The graph for this year, 2006, shows how the Norrköping ozone layer's thickness has varied with the seasons so far, which has been precisely within those bounds which were found back in 1951-1966. The long-term graph, from 1988 to July of this year, shows that the mean thickness of the ozone layer over Norrköping - and thus at all other points on the globe which have the same latitude - has been precisely constant. Its variation has been ±0.0% per decade in that time, and there has not been a decrease after the 1951-1966 Uppsala measurement period.
[Note, 28.08.2006: Actually, the (level) trend line for Norrköping 1988-2006 in the long-term graph lies 2% lower than that for Uppsala 1951-1966, indicating a slightly (2 %) lower mean ozone layer thickness in the later period compared to the earlier. But if there in fact had been ozone depletion, that Norrköping line would have shown a negative trend and would not have been perfectly level, showing no change at all in 1988-2006.]
Supposedly, according to the "ozone hole" propaganda, the global ozone layer would "continue to be depleted" for several decades also after the CFC bans of 1987 etc, since these substances would "continue to reach the stratosphere" - indeed, the "very worst depletion" would occur "around 2000-2002", this propaganda said. The SMHI measurements, as everybody can see, clearly refute this, and refute the entire proposition that a "global ozone layer depletion" has occurred after the 1950s-60s. (This does not prevent some false "ozone hole" propaganda from being disseminated by the SMHI website too.)
It obviously was because this hoax is so very difficult to "uphold" today that the US government's "official" propagandists on this subject recently tried an "assuaging" angle. In a statement on 23.08 headlined "Global Response to Ozone Hole Is 'Unprecedented' Success", referring to and intended to "justify" the continued bans against the CFCs, they said that the "Antarctic ozone hole" seemed to be "no longer[!]" widening, that however it "could close [only] sometime after 2060[!]" and that "CFCs last from 50 years to 100 years in the atmosphere, so it will take that much longer for the ozone layer to recover[!] even after decreasing CFC emissions."
Since there never was any "dangerous Antarctic ozone hole" nor any "damage to the global ozone layer" "caused by" CFCs, this was completely mendacious too. The continued harmful bans against these substances should be exposed and combated as one part of the imperialist bourgeoisie's "green" warfare against the people in all countries.
|Within what limits are variations in the UV radiation level
OK? Concerning this, there's reason to note first of all that
much more UV radiation always reaches the earth's surface in
the tropics, near the equator, than at higher latitudes.
This is because all radiation from the sun of course comes in
more or less vertically there, while it comes in more ob-
liquely towards the higher latitudes and thus has a longer
way there through the various layers of the atmosphere, in-
cluding the ozone layer.
At the equator, 50 times as much UV radiation reaches the
earth's surface as at the poles. For every 10 km you ap-
proach the equator, from higher latitudes, the UV radiation
increases by 1 percent. Moving from Oslo (at 60 degrees
North) to Panama (at 30 degr. N) for instance represents an
increase in UV exposure of 300 percent. All this according to
the 1992 book mentioned above, "The Holes in the Ozone
Scare", which none of the scare propagandists have contradic-
ted on that point.
The equator passes through Brazil, the DR Congo, Kenya and
Indonesia, for instance. Do people, animals or plants fare
badly in these countries on account of the high levels of UV
radiation there? Of course not. For agriculture, for in-
stance, these countries quite on the contrary have the very
best conditions. White-skinned residents and visitors of
course should take care not to expose themselves to too much
sunlight. And there in such countries is as great a need for
air-conditioning of houses and workplaces as there is for
heating for instance here in Sweden. Such installations on a
large scale require cheap and plentiful energy, and CFCs too.
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
|Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject:
|Here's an article on the Ozone layer v CFCs which is how I always understood the scare.
But first, on the skin cancer story.
A Dr friend told me this story about skin cancer figures in Australia. When the skin cancer scare started the Gov encouraged the doctors to remove any skin cancer potential moles etc and they'd pay the $75 per mole.
The Dr's had a field day, you could make $500 in an hour!, and the figures came out that the most likely person to get skin cancer was the gnarled old farmer who'd spent most of his life outdoors. Next was the surfer who'd spent the endless summers and finally the city office dweller.
The Gov then realised that this was costing a fortune so they changed the directive and made the doctors authenticate the cancerous mole with a pathology test.
The figures changed immediately. The least likely was the gnarled old farmer, next was the surfer and the most likely was the office worker who took off to Hawaii twice a year and turned pink then red.
here's the Ozone article.
|The Ozone Lie
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:55:27 +0100 From: "Rowena Thursby"
Article for consideration.... RT
THE OZONE LIE
The hole in the ozone layer has more to do with politics than
deodorants, a respected French scientist told reporters recently.
Outspoken Haroun Tazieff claims that the disintegration of the ozone
layer by the infamous CFC gases "Is a complete lie," he told me
vehemently, when we met in Paris recently. "The ozone hole is a natural
hole which appears above the Antarctic at the beginning of October and
has disappeared by the end of December. In Europe, I think I'm the only
person to refute it, and I have never been officially contradicted,
neither by ecologists nor by scientists."
Yves Cochet, spokesman for the French ecology party, Les Verts, admits:
"Although the majority of scientists say that DFC gases probably have a
lethal effect on the ozone layer, nothing has been proved." He adds:
are obliged to talk of an ozone hole in the media, because then people
get a very visual impression, but of course, it is much more diffuse
than that." At 80, Tazieff remains as clear-thinking as ever. He argues
that many of France's leading ecologists have no scientific background.
A former boxer, he trained first as an agronomist and then as a
geologist, which led to a lifetime study of volcanoes.
One of the founding fathers of the French ecological movement and a
former minister for the prevention of major natural and technological
risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He
has been adviser to most of France's environment ministers over the
decade. Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a
"campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary
problems they espouse have led to millions of pounds being directed
towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of
pollution. It seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated
above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when most deodorants were
sprayed in the northern hemisphere.
He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of
reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years
before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the
hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists
claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he
says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the
mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather
Tazieff believes that these dramatic images have been used to hoodwink
the public. He believes that the hole is due to the low levels of
ultraviolet rays (which are necessary to produce ozone) over the
Antarctic at the end of the year, and that the large and swift
of air masses around the continent also play their part. On September
1987, there was a relatively large reduction of 0.1 per cent in the
levels of ozone over a surface of three million square kilometres near
the Palmer peninsula in the Antarctic. Tazieff is convinced there is no
way that the CFCs could have broken down so much ozone in such a short
space of time.
Even if CFCs do have an effect, he asserts that it must be an
insignificant one. After all, it is alleged that it is the chlorine in
the CFCs which breaks down the ozone molecules. However, only 7,500
of chlorine are released from the breakdown of CFCs every year, against
600 million tons from the evaporation of seawater and 36 million from
volcanoes. What is more, the effect of chlorine is to break down the
ozone into oxygen plus by-products, and it simply requires the presence
of ultraviolet rays to transform the oxygen back into ozone.
Large chemical companies wanted to keep their monopoly on the market.
After half a century of being protected by patents, CFCs were on the
point of falling into the public domain. To keep the whole of the pie
themselves, what better way than to have them banned, requiring the use
of a replacement gas, which is difficult to produce and thus remains
exclusive to large companies which possess the technical know-how.
Additionally, this initiative has required the abandonment of
tried-and-true refrigerants in automobile air conditioners, in favor of
expensive experimentation with "refrigerants" which are ineffective,
damaging to equipment, and excessively costly. This has not only had
effect of causing unesessary expenses and hardship on car owners in the
U.S., but also has inflicted poverty and starvation on poorer nations
which have to maintain food stocks in climates demanding refrigeration.
With the "illegality" of their old-fashioned regrigeration units, the
UNEP is effectively mandating tyranny and increased poverty in
third-world countries. Wherever people are screaming inexplicably over
an unprovable issue, you will eventually find "money" at the back of
and in the most vile of manifestations.
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
|Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject: Hole in the Ozone hoax
|The weight of scientific evidence is that the Hole in the Ozone scare is a hoax
For one thing, these low levels of ozone were recorded by Dobson in the 50s
and also by a French team even before Dobson the results of measurments
these scientific teams took at that time have been ignored altogether since
they indicate extremely low levels of ozone at the South Pole and this was
twenty years before chloroleurocarbons came into widepread industrial use
The entire theory is ridiculous.
a chlorofleurocarbonmolecule has nver
been experimentally identified in the ionosphere -
it is a computer model theory - excel spread sheets gone wild - it is mania
there are two types of chlorofleurocarbon molecules - one weighs four times more than air
the other weighs eight times more than air - so WHAT happens when you spew
these cholorfeurocarbon molecules into the atmosphere? -
they fall to earth and you step on them;
they dont float 21 kilometers up through the troposphere
At the time they ran the ozone hole scam all the 3rd world countries
had cholorfleurocarbon manufacturing facilities alreaddy installed
making clean efficient refirigerant. The busted all these plants in the chops
in the name of arresting ozone deterioration - a blatant in your face scam
that may provide clues how the "Economic Hit Men" plan their operations.
"It is through beauty, that one proceeds to freedom." - Friedrich Schiller
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out
|Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject:
|Keith Kloor, The Sciences
IT MAY NEVER ATTRACT THE KIND OF high rollers who wager on the outcome of the Super Bowl, but every year a few atmospheric scientists place their bets on a quite different event: the reappearance of the ozone hole over Antarctica. Like Vegas bookies, the atmospheric physicist Richard D. McPeters and several of his colleagues at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, lay odds on everything about the hole: how wide, how thin, when it will appear. No money changes hands, but the stakes couldn’t be higher—for all of us.
This time, everyone guessed wrong. The ozone hole showed up earlier than expected, and it was wider and thinner. It appeared in mid-August, about two weeks ahead of schedule, and on September 19 reached the record size of 10.5 million square miles, more than three and a half times the area of the forty-eight contiguous United States. The hole—actually a thinning of the ozone layer—was also at a near-record thinness.
Ozone, a bluish gas whose molecules are made up of three oxygen atoms, occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, where it acts as a kind of cosmic sunblock, protecting life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. For aeons equilibrium prevailed: the sun’s rays destroyed some ozone, but there was no net loss because ozone regenerated itself from stray oxygen atoms and molecules.
At least since 1985, however, that delicate balance has been upset. An Antarctic ozone hole now forms from September to November each year, caused by man-made pollutants that destroy ozone in the atmosphere. The hole has been getting progressively larger.
The culprits are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), once used ubiquitously as coolants. The chlorine atoms from CFCs react with ozone and destroy it [see “Cool Operators,” by Tomas Kellner, September/ October 1998; see also the letters to the editor on page 5 of this issue]. Sunlight splits off chlorine from CFCs, and the chlorine-ozone reaction takes place most readily on the surface of ice crystals. Thus when the sun returns in the Antarctic spring (September to November), ice crystals that had formed the winter before are in place to speed the reaction. Investigators are blaming the record size of the most recent ozone hole on unusually chilly temperatures at the South Pole last year.
To refer to it as a 'hole' has been junk science from the very beginning. The term was even used by scientists themselves, which was a junky thing for them to do, whether they intended it or not. This is like portraying a low pressure weather system as a 'hole in the atmosphere that bad weather gets sucked into'.
It comes down to AFFECTATION (likely true, once the chlorine atoms is liberated from the heavier than air CFC molecules, they do float up and do its dirty work.
CAUSATION is where things really start spinning. As one who dislikes swimming pools because those chlorine atoms become liberated in my nose and bring a headache into my brain, I muse whether the case of CFC causation was undertaken in a sort of agenda-driven vacuum: how many lay people actually know all of the various mechanisms by which chlorine escapes from our industrialized world? And if any of these causation arguments, or even the process by which ozone conditions are historically established (or assumed) are off by a magnitudes rather than a fraction... perhaps it is best to just start over, using real numbers this time.
Then there is JUDGEMENT. If refrigeration of medicine and food in Third World countries is a point of survival, given some reasonable data on impact and consequence... just as with all things it is a RISK THAT MAY OR MAY NOT NEED TO BE TAKEN.
I believe, based on the relative thickness of ozone elsewhere on the planet, that CFCs are a risk that must be taken to ensure global health. A choice not unlike others we have made, to the detriment of the planet -- but to the progress of our species' need to evolve.
Just as I believe we do need to continue to evolve, at any cost, even (short term) planet be damned... so we may yet reach the level at which we are philisophically able to avoid or at least cut through junk science and self-serving rhetoric, technologically capable to instigate wholesale industrial proccesses aimed at healing the damage we have done -- such as production of replacement ozone, absorption of any level of carbon dioxide or reactive methane that is considered to be in dangerous excess.
I am evenly balanced on this: at this point I am just as likely to assume the Ozone Scare was amplified (not necessarily created) as a means to reap profit through recall and remanufacture ... as I would assume it was agenda driven to keep people downtrodden with high mortality... at the tipping point but I have not tipped.
In Washington D.C. in the United States', private interests are right there on the level with the New World Fascists, in terms of lobbying power. I'll even bet at times, the private interests let the evil overlords win.
For another interesting causation/judgement issue, check out the relationship between DDT and malaria mortality ... the toxicity of DDT perhaps overstated, the danger of drop-in replacements like malathion (now banned for even better reasons) et cetera ... the take of many in the Third World is that DDT is 'worth the risk' ... but it is a case of judgements being taken some distance away from the people those judgements affect.
This is the only way. And those healing processes can only occur through expeniture of massive amounts of energy. So cheaper energy is at the core of this (and every) environmental and Earth-scientific quandary.
If saving the planet was a really a simple matter of moving backwards, having fewer children, driving a putt putt instead of a varoom, then too many would bail out of the argument and take another track entirely: birth control not being enough to rely on, apply science fo the task of method that eliminates as many people as possible, at once. My contacts in the defense industry assure me impressive progress is being made on this front; if naught else, in the end the problem will be solved.
I sit in my cubicle, here on the motherworld.
When I die, they will put my body in a box and
dispose of it in the cold ground.
And in all the million ages to come, I will never
breathe or laugh or twitch again.
So won't you run and play with me here among the
teeming mass of humanity?
The universe has spared us this moment.
~ Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, credited as 'Anonymous, Datalinks'
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Location: A Wonderful World
|Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:57 am Post subject: Re: Hole in the Ozone hoax
|Rosalinda, have you read DR Frank R Wallaces 'Neo Tech Discovery' ?
||All times are GMT - 5 Hours
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum