cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.192324.22019@uvm.edu> work@emily.uvm.edu (Steven S. Work 1st) writes: > " _NASA space shuttle destroys the ozone layer_ > Despite all the coverage given to the growing hole in the ozone layer, > little or no attention has been paid to Dr. Helen Caldicott's claim that > the space shuttle is one of the ozone layer's biggest destroyers. According > to Cadicott, 250 tons of hydrochloric acid are released into the air every > time a space shuttle is launched. With each launch, one quarter of 1 > percent of the ozone is destroyed. So far, claims Caldicott, the space > shuttle has destroyed 10 percent of the ozone. > In addition, Two Soviet rocket scientists have warned that the solid- > fuel rocket boosters used on the shuttle release 187 tons of ozone- > destroying chlorine molecules into the atmosphere with every launch, as > well as seven tons of nitrogen (another ozone depleter), 387 tons of carbon > dioxide (a major contributor to the greenhouse effect), and 177 tons of > aluminium oxide (linked to Alzheimer's disease). Other solid-fuel rockets, > such as the U.S. Delta rocket, the U.S. Titan, and the French Ariane V, > also contribute to ozone destruction." My understanding of the ozone problem is that the chemical interactions only affect the portion of ozone that is below the layer of production, that is the ozone that would naturally be safe from uv destruction. Thus it would be impossible to wipe all ozone protection from uv to the surface due to its rapid formation by sunlight. Ozone holes would thus only occur in darkness and in the worst case the bulge in the vertical distribution that frequently forms due to subsidence at high altitudes would be diminished. Am I the only person unconcerned about ozone depletion being a danger at mid and low latitudes? (I also don't worry about global warming) I attended the recent international science fair in Orlando and was educated as to the effect of metallic aluminum on creating Altzheimers affects in worms (stupid behavior plus concentrations of aluminum in the equivalent of their brain tissue). From now on we only use coated aluminum pots in our house! Although I would surmise that normal ground level exposures would far exceed that thrown out by rockets, it would be good to have someone put a pencil to it. At least a decade ago I witnessed a NASA attempt to suppress a report written by Art Aiken of Goddard Space Flight Center that estimated that the one a week Shuttle schedule then proposed would create enough nitrous oxides to wipe Florida's orange crops. It seems to me that quantitative estimates of the effects of such gases are in order from unbiased sources. Although I am not normally paranoid about governmental suppression of facts, the present administrative climate would seem to caution that one should pay some attention to plausible warnings, if it is possible to sort them out from hysterical rantings from those environmentally polarized. Joseph Cain cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu cain@fsu.bitnet scri::cain
rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) (06/27/91)
cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain) writes: >In article <1991Jun25.192324.22019@uvm.edu> work@emily.uvm.edu (Steven S. Work 1st) writes: >> " _NASA space shuttle destroys the ozone layer_ >> Despite all the coverage given to the growing hole in the ozone layer, >> little or no attention has been paid to Dr. Helen Caldicott's claim that >> the space shuttle is one of the ozone layer's biggest destroyers. According >> to Cadicott, 250 tons of hydrochloric acid are released into the air every >> time a space shuttle is launched. With each launch, one quarter of 1 >> percent of the ozone is destroyed. So far, claims Caldicott, the space >> shuttle has destroyed 10 percent of the ozone. >> In addition, Two Soviet rocket scientists have warned that the solid- >> fuel rocket boosters used on the shuttle release 187 tons of ozone- >> destroying chlorine molecules into the atmosphere with every launch, as >> well as seven tons of nitrogen (another ozone depleter), 387 tons of carbon >> dioxide (a major contributor to the greenhouse effect), and 177 tons of >> aluminium oxide (linked to Alzheimer's disease). Other solid-fuel rockets, >> such as the U.S. Delta rocket, the U.S. Titan, and the French Ariane V, >> also contribute to ozone destruction." > > My understanding of the ozone problem is that the chemical >interactions only affect the portion of ozone that is below the layer >of production, that is the ozone that would naturally be safe from uv >destruction. Thus it would be impossible to wipe all ozone protection >from uv to the surface due to its rapid formation by sunlight. Ozone >holes would thus only occur in darkness and in the worst case the >bulge in the vertical distribution that frequently forms due to >subsidence at high altitudes would be diminished. Am I the only person >unconcerned about ozone depletion being a danger at mid and low >latitudes? (I also don't worry about global warming) > > I attended the recent international science fair in Orlando >and was educated as to the effect of metallic aluminum on creating >Altzheimers affects in worms (stupid behavior plus concentrations of >aluminum in the equivalent of their brain tissue). From now on we only >use coated aluminum pots in our house! Although I would surmise that >normal ground level exposures would far exceed that thrown out by >rockets, it would be good to have someone put a pencil to it. > > At least a decade ago I witnessed a NASA attempt to suppress a report >written by Art Aiken of Goddard Space Flight Center that estimated >that the one a week Shuttle schedule then proposed would create enough >nitrous oxides to wipe Florida's orange crops. > > It seems to me that quantitative estimates of the effects of >such gases are in order from unbiased sources. Although I am not >normally paranoid about governmental suppression of facts, the present >administrative climate would seem to caution that one should pay some >attention to plausible warnings, if it is possible to sort them out >from hysterical rantings from those environmentally polarized. > >Joseph Cain cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu >cain@fsu.bitnet scri::cain YEA YEA YEA!!!! there is finally another conservative viewpoint out there!!!! --- Dan Remember: " Buffalo never Oink " Seen on a South Dakota travel brocure. Advertisment: Try the Railway Post Office , a railfan BBS ! (612) 377-2197. UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!rambler INET: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org