Talk:Ozone hole

Old talk

Please relate the ozone hole to increases in cancer, and provide figures. Otherwise, this article will be biased toward the environmentalist anti-CFC point of view instead of being neutral. User:Ed Poor Here is some information I found on the web. Perhaps it can be added to the article: User:Ed Poor External references: The amount of ozone above a point on the earth's surface is measured in Dobson units (DU) - typically ~260 DU near the tropics and higher elsewhere, though there are large seasonal fluctuations. [1] It's ironic that at ground level, ozone is a health hazard - it is a major constituent of photochemical smog. However, in the stratosphere we could not survive without it. Up in the stratosphere it absorbs some of the potentially harmful ultra-violet (UV) radiation from the sun (at wavelengths between 240 and 320 nm) which can cause skin cancer and damage vegetation, among other things. The Ozone Hole often gets confused in the popular press and by the general public with the problem of global warming. Whilst there is a connection because ozone contributes to the greenhouse effect, the Ozone Hole is a separate issue. The first global agreement to restrict CFCs came with the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 ultimately aiming to reduce them by half by the year 2000. Two revisions of this agreement have been made in the light of advances in scientific understanding, the latest being in 1992. However, unlike the sudden and near total loss of ozone over Antarctica at certain altitudes, the loss of ozone in mid-latitudes is much less and much slower - only a few percentage per year. Many of these findings have since been reinforced by a variety of internationally supported scientific investigations involving satellites, aircraft, balloons and ground stations, and the implications are still being quantified and assessed. I have found one website at NASA that list the ozone layer as absorbing 95-99% of UV radiation. It listed a study that claimed that since 1969, total worldwide stratospheric ozone had declined 5.5% which should led to an 11% increase in UV-B reaching the surface and a 20% increase in basal carcinomas and 30%increase in squamous-cell carcinomas[Graedel&Crutzen]. These are the most easily cured skin cancers and there is less evidence relating melanoma to UV-B exposure. The site also listed another article which pointed out that a 10% increase in UV-B could be achieved by moving 60 miles south from any location. S.F.Singer Ozone, skin cancer and the SST Aerospace America July 1994. S.Fred Singer is director of the Science&Environmental Policy Project. --rmhermen Thanks for the info. Now, for the hard part: adding that to the article. --User:Ed Poor There are two problems with this article: Advocacy and science are mixed together and need to be separated. If there is a real connection between CFCs, ozone depletion and increased surface UV -- leading to more cancer cases -- let's document the science. Or at least quote some scientists. We need to reduce the overlap between the article and ozone depletion and CFC. User:Ed Poor (William M. Connolley 19:47 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)) I've added links to the ozone faq - which everyone should read :-) - and Jon Shanklins Ozone page. I've removed some skeptical text *from certain places*. Now for some pontificating: there is no scientific doubt about the connection between CFCs and Antarctic ozone depletion. None at all (once you ignore far-out loonies). One way to see this is to look at the weakness of the doubts raised on the page: doubt number 1 is that when the satellite data was first processed, there was an artificial low cut-off, so the hole wasn't seen! This is feeble indeed (and I've added a note about it). *However* where there is room for doubt (IMHO) is the link between ozone depletion and biological effects. So if you want to be doubty, focus on that. Good for you. One sad consequeence of NPOV is that we spend far too much time on wacky lies shamelessly peddled by quacks in the pockets of corporations with vested interests. You can all quote me on that. -- Tarquin 20:39 25 Jun 2003 (UTC) I agree completely. However, in my edits, I did not want to remove the objections completely, because somebody would only reinstate them in the insidious form in which every mainstream and well-attested piece of science was attacked all the way through the article. I instead moved them instead into a separate section of their own, so that they get an airing as required by NPOV, but with suitable caveats about Dr Singer, because his credentials really are very poor. On the subject of credentials, I note that William M. Connolley (who further toned down the objections, which I welcome) is a scientist at British Antarctic Survey. Hopefully his viewpoint as expressed above will be given due weight. User:Ed Poor says above "Let's at least quote some scientists" -- well now we have one! --Trainspotter 11:20 26 Jun 2003 (UTC) I'm a scientist (I confess) but I claim no special credentials on the ozone hole: I'm only an informed layman on that (who happens to be able to walk down the corridor and ask two of the co-authors of Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin '85 what they think...). To be fair to EP, he was asking for the article to quote scientists who were involved in the research (William M. Connolley 11:48 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)) Dr. Connolley, please write from a neutral point of view when describing scientists with whom you disagree. If Fred Singer has said something which other scientists have contradicted, please point out the contradiction rather than saying Singer is wrong. Otherwise, I'm going to start citing you personally as a scientist who disagrees with Singer, rather than letting you "contribute" to the article posing as a disinterested editor. --Ed Poor Points for swiftness... However, you should be watching your own objectivity. Anyway: I thought what I'd added was clear enough. I'll add some more to "beat it to death". On second thoughts, lets try it here. I'm presuming that you object to the "controversial" bit, not the "percolate" bit. Singer says: "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer" this is not controversial "become well-mixed in the atmosphere" nor is this ", percolate into the stratosphere," nor is this, if you say "are transported" rather than percolate, S's own page says "Contrary to the claims of some skeptics, CFCs do indeed reach the stratosphere..." "and there release chlorine." Not controversial either. So: could you please clarify what you are complaing about? (William M. Connolley 09:51, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)) No answer? Merge proposal There's considerable overlap between ozone depletion and ozone hole, and somebody already deleted ozone depletion theory. So I think a merge is needed. Let's try to cover the following ideas: ozone's protective role - keeps too much UV from reaching the surface destruction of ozone - by CFC (mostly) but also sunlight, et al. connection of ozone depletion to increased UV at surface and harmful consequences of it We may or may not choose to keep ozone hole as a separate article, but anything about the three points above should go primarily in another article. I think we need at least articles, something like: ozone depletion -- research on theory and actual observations of how stratospheric ozone has been going down each year -- no controversy, no politics: just the facts (heavy on peer-reviewed articls) ozone depletion theory -- argument or "theory" relating CFC to ozone loss to UV increase to cancer increase + extent to which this theory has been (a) accepted and/or (b) actually proven (good place for Singer's objections) -- good place to mention Montreal Protocol Care to have a go, William? --Uncle Ed 15:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) (William M. Connolley 21:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)) User:Deglr6328 appears to be hacking it around at the moment and its getting late... I'll rty to look tomorrow before I go on hols again.

I believe this should have it's own article. 'Ozone hole' is an important scientific topic for today and there's a difference besides ozone depletion. Wethar555 (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep merge with Ozone depletion - or not?

There's considerable overlap between ozone depletion and ozone hole, and somebody already deleted ozone depletion theory. So I think a merge is needed.

Let's try to cover the following ideas:

1. ozone's protective role - keeps too much UV from reaching the surface
2. destruction of ozone - by CFC (mostly) but also sunlight, et al.
3. connection of ozone depletion to increased UV at surface and harmful consequences of it

We may or may not choose to keep ozone hole as a separate article, but anything about the three points above should go primarily in another article.

I think we need at least articles, something like:

• ozone depletion -- research on theory and actual observations of how stratospheric ozone has been going down each year -- no controversy, no politics: just the facts (heavy on peer-reviewed articls)
• ozone depletion theory -- argument or "theory" relating CFC to ozone loss to UV increase to cancer increase + extent to which this theory has been (a) accepted and/or (b) actually proven (good place for Singer's objections) -- good place to mention Montreal Protocol

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Chabrillat (talk • contribs) 04:51, 5 March 2013

(--Simon Chabrillat (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)) 'Ozone hole' is indeed a more specific topic than ozone depletion which also covers the fate of ozone in the upper stratosphere and outside the polar regions. The words "ozone hole" are more oriented towards the general public, which may justify a separate article using more mundane language.

I like the idea of redirecting to "Ozone Depletion." That article is easy enough to understand, and better written than this one. It should at least be clear in this article that that one exists. (Wayne Bosma, 19 Aug 2014)