🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 22:47:23 GMT, eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig
Ebeling) wrote:

>Since Doug Bashford, in his epic  "middle-of-the-road extremist"
>eco-nazi enviro-whackos, vs the evil nature-hating Limbaughists
>struggle to the death, seems to be a little confused, I have reposted
>with an appropriate title to the thread.
>
>bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>
>>Ebeling's main argument is "storm in a teapot", which I interpret
>>to mean: "ozone bans are bad".  
>
>Actually the expression is meant to imply that ozone depletion is
>unimportant, and I give the reason: that it causes no harm.
ng the debate unless he states firmly
>>that if his claim "Ozone depletion does NOT cause biological harm" 

(Sorry if this sounds too much of a tree hugger but maybe its more
like keeping a habitable earth)

Heres the  facts:

     Ozone (O3) is alot like Oxygen (O2) except for that extra O.
When Ozone is exposed to radiation such as stuff on the UV bandwith,
ozone absorbs the radiation by taking in the impact.  This causes
little "fragments" that recombine back together after time.  I hope
this is not debated in the scientific community cause if it is, were
screwed :).  

     Chlorine is not nature in the state that we use today *duh*.  It
is usually combined with something like sodium to form chlorides like
salt.  Chlorine is mainly used in pools, killing off bacteria in
drinking water, bleaching things such as laundry and paper pulp (that
creates dioxin *YUCK*) , and in producing CFCs.

     CFCs stands for chloroflurocarbons.  If you disect the word, you
find out what CFCs are.  CFCs are chlorine + fluorine + carbon and
thats why its abrv CFCs.  CFCs have many uses such as creating
styrofoam, packaging fluff, aerosols, refridgerents, ect.  CFCs do not
break down easily but they do over time into their original elements.
Chlorine and fluorine are highly noxious chemicals to be around in
concentrated forms and they are highly destructive in the ozone layer.
They form chlorine oxide which inhibits the natural ozone cycle.

     Frogs and fishes are declining in number.  This is due to the
delicate environment and balance needed to complete reproduction.  If
you live by the country side, you might notice clear translucent eggs
by streams.  If you watch them for a while, they start to have little
swimmy things inside.  These are frog tadpoles.  They are very fragile
and sensitive to ecological imbalences due to the fact that they are
literally fetuses dumped into the water and exposed to open
environment.  Because of this, they make excelent indicators of UV
radiation and presence of pollution.  
  
     Frog and fish populations are declining over time.  Frogs and
fish habitats that are not exposed to pollution that would harm them,
are being destroyed on a global scale.  This has much to do with the
factor that they are HIGHLY sensitive to UV radiation expecially
during the reproduction cycle.  

     Frogs are a big part of the eco system by controling insect
populations and keeping them in check.  Because most "bad" insects
develop resistances to pesticides fast (and they have) and "good"
insects dont adapt so fast, the "bad" insect population has been
growing.  Withought the presence of frogs, the "bad" insect population
would have a baby boom and wipe out our crops, wreck havoc on our eco
system, and spread deadly diseases.

     Fish are much like frogs in the sense that the female lays eggs
down and the male sprays sperm ontop to fertilize the eggs.  Fish are
also sensitive to radiation.  In habitats deviod of chemicals to
affect them, (like the frogs) they are declining in number globaly.
Much of our food supply comes from fishies and I just dont mean in the
state of "fish".  They come in protein powders, fillers, nutrition
supplements, and even ICE CREAM!!.  Some places in the world depend on
fish as their main diet and sometimes entirely on fish.  Fishing also
is a big industry that pays and ranks in mega $$$ and is an important
food supply for the vision of an over populated world which is comming
closer.  

     Recently there are many scares about cancer.  Cancer is really
cells that are really mutated a bit and grow crazy.  Because of this
they are "immature" and just interfere or totally wrek havoc on your
body.  Skin cancer is something that hits many people in the world and
is so easy to get.  It has been linked to exposure to UV rays and is a
very deadly disease. 

The Economics:

Heres a quote from Grieg:
"Any amount of money, spent on something unimportant, is too much."  

I agree with that.  Infact im very penny pinching and I even offer
financial advice to other people.  Since fishing is a very VERY
profitable job and practically employs countless numbers of people all
across the globe and FEEDS so many hungry mouths, we cant possibly
lose soch a valuable resource like fish.  Infact I just had a dinner
where over 1/2 of the food present is fish.  Our global economy is
being slowly wrecked and so is our food supply.  In normal terms,
people are loosing thier jobs, their livelyhood, and their lives over
the loss of fish.

     Skin cancer is a major problem in the world.  Tons of money is
spent on curing or helping to curb skin cancer.  This is a major
economical and ethics drain.

     The use of CFCs can be curbed.  Instead of using foam cups, you
can always use plastic, paper, wax, or styro that isnt blown up with
CFCs.  Air conditioners and refridgerators can use ammonia (which is
natural) or other chemicals to drive the cooling process.  The cost of
not using CFCs in styro cups and instead blowing with air or some
other chemical or not blowing at all is not a great impact since styro
is so increadibly cheap.  Styrofoam should be getten rid of all
together since it doesnt decompose within SEVERAL geneartions,
produces noxious stuff when burned, and is hard to recycle.

Conclusion:
It is a moral, social, and economic problem and should be done away
with.  Yes it does cost money to impliment the solution but like many
eco sound solutions, you end up protecting a valuable resource and
SACVING the costs of the absence of the resource.

My background:
I guess environmental issues appeal to me is because im so penny
pinching and money analyzing.  Many eco sound ideas are also budget
sound ones and can even bring in more money.  If you noticed, im
horrible in grammer and spelling so PFMHG+S.

http://nnews.simplenet.com