Philip Me in teal. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Paul D Then you must be much younger than I (I'm 67 years old today) and suffered a bad education system.. Did you know that in the 40's every student had a subject, the name escapes me, where in it was required before 3rd grade to know most of the important bones and organs of the human body. Can't remember the organs but I'm pretty certain I did not learn the bones ...I can remember elocution, however I did get elocution lessons at the SA convent where I spent my first six months. Nothing like that however in the VIC state school system for the remaining nine years. that was another essential subject no kid today would know of. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philip. Paul the page you sent me to contradicted nothing that I said. I had in mind your statement that Freon lies in a hole whereas the reference (I've extracted the bits I thought relevant -- see below) talks about rapid entry to the atmosphere, diffusion to the stratosphere. This is hardly a hole in the ground. Then breakdown to chlorine etc. half life 63/122 years, reacts with ozone, lead to a chain reaction resulting in continual destruction of ozone (theoretical) Further it concerned Freon 113. .. the major refrigerants of current concern to Australia were freon 12 R12 in most if not all domestic refrigeration, and freon 22 , R22 used in commercial refrigeration. This completely slipped under my radar -- how very unobservant of me. However I grant that the base elements namely carbon, chlorine and fluorine are the same.. therefore we accept that after the heavy F12 sinks to the sea or swamp, it breaks up or degrades chlorine and fluorocarbon, but they are still heavier than air. First up Chlorine will always hover near the ground as a pale yellow gas till it is dissolved in water or burns in a fire . the bonding of carbon to fluorine is too hard to break naturally and so the molecule alone also has a combined mol weight greater than air and would rarely get to the 15k + high ozone layer Perhaps a tornado or water spout hmmm but none of these are in my kitchen where I canned my flies. I did not expect to have to revisit this already well debunked hoax, but I will see what I can find. Ozone is caused by UV reaction with oxygen. Granted. All of the UV is filtered out. Hardly -- if it did we wouldn't get sunburned! Ozone is the result .. 3O2 + ^radUV <-> 203.. This reads like Greek to me I'm afraid. Its an unwanted left over.. In fact if it did not decay back to O2 then we would be in trouble. If you are seriously interested in a reason for increase in UV damage, look to (once again) changes in the frequency spectrum of the sun, and its changes (up frequency) where there is an increase in the higher frequencies of the UV band, which are not as much affected by O2 .do a search The sun is swinging.. Ozone has little if any effect on UV filtration. Its a poison, get rid of it all .. Your sunburn will not change. Meanwhile.. the page mentions two manufacturers of freon.. I am sure there are/were many more around the world, all licenced to Du pont.. at least till the patent run out, and then it became illegal for any one else to bother.. I can find a court case if you like where someone tried it under a variable structure and name.. I don't have any dispute over what companies do to each other in their efforts to survive and thrive. You'd better hope they survive -- you can't build most of what we need to continue our technology based lifrstyle with cottage industries. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Couple of items I found while looking for long term variation in solar output (which I didn't find btw -- though there is info on short term variation) below. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Types of UV Radiation UVA: Not absorbed by the ozone layer. UVB: Mostly absorbed by the ozone layer, but some does reach the Earth's surface. UVC: Completely absorbed by the ozone layer and oxygen. UVA and UVB that reach the Earth's surface contribute to the serious health effects listed above. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The amount of UV-B light recieved by a location is strongly dependent on: proximity to an industrial area because of the protection offered by photochemical smog. Industrial processes produce ozone, one of the more irritaiting components of smog, which aborbs UV-B. This is thought to be one of the main reasons that significant ozone losses in the southern hemisphere have not been mirrored in the northern hemisphere. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ III. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE A. Environmental Release Greater than 99% of the 24.6 million pounds of freon 113 released in 1992, was into the atmosphere (TRI92 1994). Only 1916 pounds and 9028 pounds were released to surface and ground waters combined and to land, respectively (TRI92 1994). Due to the high volatility of the chemical, the small amount released to land or ground or surface waters would be expected to enter the atmosphere quickly. Once in the atmosphere, freon 113 diffuses from the troposphere into the stratosphere (U.S. EPA 1983; HSDB 1994). Between 1973 and 1980, freon 113 concentrations in rural and urban areas of the U.S. ranged from 28 ppt to 220 ppt, respectively (HSDB 1994). C. Transformation/Persistence 1. Air - Freon 113 is relatively inert in the troposphere; however, once in the stratosphere, the chemical is degraded by direct photolysis or reaction with excited atomic oxygen (U.S. EPA 1983). Photolytic degradation accounts for 84-89% of breakdown with a stratospheric half-life ranging from 63 to 122 years (U.S. EPA 1983). Photodissociation releases atomic chlorine which reacts with ozone to yield chlorine oxide and oxygen. This can, in theory, lead to a chain reaction resulting in continual destruction of ozone (U.S. EPA 1983). V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS C. Abiotic Effects Freon 113 moves slowly through the lower atmosphere into the stratosphere. Photodegradation of freon 113 in the upper atmosphere releases chlorine atoms which react with ozone. Stratospheric depletion of ozone increases the amount of ultraviolet-B radiation that reaches the earth's surface (U.S. EPA 1983). Increased, surface UV radiation can adversely affect human health and the environment. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philip I don't think the UV/Ozone was anything more than a side issue. I'll accept that you've studied it more than I. Your observation concerning ozone depletion not being heard about recently was a bit of a shock but you are right in that. I also noted in retrospect your statement - Let me leave aside the question of global warming in general, because that is a distraction , none is denying, but the reasons alone are disputed. To which I replied - This is a clear statement behind which I can get!!! (Shades of WC!). I'm still interested in your assertion that temperature increase began "many years" before the IR however. Paul D _________________________________________________________________________________ How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html