I used to like this thread, but you're all arguing! 

Row, row, row!

Yes,  I know, dogs, the point of this thread is to talk of politics! I know, how about some cookies, chaps? Then we can forget all about climate change.*

* No, I'm not telling what side I'm on. 

Before I get into the Hole in the Ozone Layer buisness, I'm going to make a quick remark--

Ever notice that while the Government rants on about how housewives using dishsoap and people driving family cars is ruining the planet, they never seem to mention all those atomic bombs they let off around WWII???? Countless bombs. Just let off randomly in the ocean.

End of Quick Remark.

There is not really a 'hole' in the Ozone layer. But there is something there.

Okay. NASA has been monitoring ozone levels over Antarctica for several years, and they have conclusively demonstrated that there is a hole in the Ozone layer. 

Ozone concentration is measured using the Dobson unit, name for the scientist who developed the first technique for meausuring ozone.

On a graph, one can see represented an area of lower-than-normal ozone concentration. It is not really a 'hole', it is just an area of lower concentration levels. 

In a series of experiments, scientists eventually connected this lower ozone concentration to chlorine in the stratosphere. They found that under certain conditions, chlorine can break ozone down into oxygen, and they found such chlorine atoms in the ozone layer above Antarctica.

So what's the source of the chlorine? There are many sources that put chlorine into the atmosphere, but one of the most important sources is a class of substances called 'chlorofluorocarbons' (klor' oh flor' oh kar' buhns) or CFCs. These substances are human-made. and incredibly useful.

The CFC known as Freon (registered trademark) can be used in refrigeration and air-conditioning. Other CFCs are used in surgical sterilizers, and others in firefighting agents. In all applications, these chemicals are significantly more efficient than what was used before CFCs.

CFCs are also non-toxic. They are so inert that they do not react with the bodies of people or animals. In fact, they do not interact significantly with any living organism. Since they are so useful and at the same time non-toxic, they became very widely used only a few years after their invention.

Since scientists linked the ozone "hole" to chlorine, and because they determined that a significant scource of chlorine came from CFCs, people immediately called for the elimination of CFCs. Many world leaders signed a treaty called the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, which called for the elimination of CFC production and consumption. Depending on the CFC and the specific circumstances of a given country, this was to take effect between 1996 and 2010. George H.W. Bush actually required the U.S to move ahead of that schedule, and U.S. CFC production was halted by the end of 1995, except for small amounts needed for specific health and safety equipment.

Now that CFC production is eliminated in the U.S. and other countries, lives will be saved, right? After all, if CFCs are destroying the ozone layer, the disposal of CFCs will save lives!

Believe it or not, the elimination of CFCs will most likely result in a significantly larger loss of human life. Let's do a simple cost/benefit analysis:

When CFCs are eliminated, the ozone 'hole' will decrease and lives will be saved, they say. But the ozone "hole" is caused by chlorine atoms under certain conditions. You see, the 'hole' was discovered by Dobson back in 1956.

At that time, Dobson noticed that, from August through November, the amount of ozone in the layer over Antarctica was much lower than during most of the rest of the year. This 'hole' was filled up by November, bringing the ozone layer back to full strength. 

First of all, it is important to note that when Dobson first discovered the lower ozone amount, CFCs were not widely used. Thus the ozone 'hole' cannot be traced completely back to CFCs.

It seems to be, in part, a natural phenomenon. However, over the years, the 'hole' has gotten deeper and deeper. The concentration of ozone in the layer over Antarctica during the months of August to November is significantly lower than it was when Dobson discovered it. Obviously then, something has been happening to make the  'hole' worse than it was.

At the same time, however, the concentration of ozone in the layer over Antarctica during the rest of the year has not changed. In other words, even though the 'hole' is deeper than it used to be, it is only deeper for a few months of the year. How can this be?

The phrase "under cetain conditions" is the key. In early August of every year, a weather phenomenon known as the polar vortex occurs. Winds blowing across the South Pole prevent warmer air from entering the South Pole region, and the result is constant low temperatures, as low as -90 degrees Celsius (-130 degrees F) and a steady rush of wind blowing upwards. Under these conditions, water droplets freeze into tiny particles, and the winds puch them up into the stratosphere. If these tiny ice particles happen to have trapped any molecules containing chloride atoms,and if that chloride survives the trip to the stratosphere, certain chemical reactions occur on the surface of the ice particles. These reactions remove chlorine from chlorine-containing-molecules, and the result is chlorine that can destroy ozone. By late November, however, the polar vortex is gone, and with it the conditions that produce ozone-destroying chlorine in the stratosphere. 

In the end, then, the ozone 'hole' is a seasonal phenomenon that happens only a few months out of the year. Also, the ozone 'hole' is centered over Antarctica, because that's the only place in the world where a strong polar vortex exists. A weak polar vortex exists in the North Pole, but it's effects are very small. 

Now let's think. How many people are living in Antarctica? Not many! Thus, the CFC ban will reduce the depth if the ozone 'hole' (it won't eliminate it because it was there before CFCs existed) for a few months of the year over a region of the world where few people actually live. As a result, the CFC ban won't save many (if any) lives.   In fact, though scientists expect that ozone depletion could result in higher rates of some diseases (like skin cancer) they have been unable to demonstrate any direct link between the ozone 'hole' and these diseases. So it is not clear that elimination of CFCs will even improve anyone's life!

So what about the costs of the CFC ban? As before mentioned, CFCs are the most efficient refrigerants, surgical sterilizers, and firefighting agents in the world. As a result, people will probably die. Fires will last longer before they are extinguished, resulting in loss of property and death. Surgical procedures will be less sterile, probabl causing more infection, which causes sickness and death. Finally, refrigerators will be less efficient, resulting in food poisoning and possibly even starvation. Even one of the big supporters of the CFC ban (Robert Watson) has admitted that "probably more people will die from food poisoning as a result of inadequate refrigeration than would die from depleting ozone" (Environmental Overkill, Dixie Lee Ray, Regnery Gateway, 1993, p. 45).

Hey Mei! :D

What I think Pearl is trying to say is this:

It's not that racism or sexism are okay-- they're not. At all.

But it has been proved, time and time again, that nothing we are trying to do to prevent either is working.

Many laws have been passed and decrees made. Is anything, really, different?
People are going to think what they like--and nobody can stop them.

Just because we disagree with something someone says or thinks does NOT mean we somehow have the supreme right to deny them their own opinion.

For instance--just because I disagree with you on Climate Change does not mean that I have the right to order you to stop believing what your do, or to stop voicing your opinion.

The Government can't do magic. If one could change people's minds and solve any one of the world's problems by simply saying that they should be changed or solved, this Earth would be a very different place.

This does not mean that we should pretend that racism and sexism don't exist--they do. But we should face these problems ourselves.

When you say that you can still remember racist and sexist things having happened to you, you speak as though this proves your point.

I'm very sorry that these things have happened to you--truly sorry--but the fact is that these things happen to everyone. Sometimes every day. (Remember, it is not only whites who behave in racist ways.) Having things done and said to you that are unsatisfactory or offensive is part of living on Planet Earth. 

In your previous comment, you also mentioned that these things happened to you even within what you called a safe haven against racism. If that was not enough to guard you from racism or sexism, is that not proof that the imposition of such a safe haven in the larger world is not working? Does the sentiment "If it doesn't work on the small level, it must definitely work on the large one" hold water?

People nowadays seem to think that they should be able to pass through life without ever having their views challenged or their feelings hurt--as though their views and feelings are worth more than those of the people they disagree with. To be sure, it is not what I'd call a fun experience having one's feelings hurt--in the way that being struck by lightning is not a fun experience-- but should we really pass laws and impose enormous fines over hurt feelings?

If we live within a perfectly sheltered world in which no one ever disagrees with us or teases us or offends us--in which we never have a chance to grow stronger and to defend our own views-- what sort of a life are we living? Not a real one, that is certain.

Racism and sexism bans, and most other Liberal ideas, are full of noble sentiments, to be sure. But since when did sentiment accomplish anything?

Mei, please don't be angry with me. I intend no offence. I have the greatest respect for your views and your culture, and I like you a lot as a person.

If I am mistaken on any points, please tell me so :)