#redirect haloalkane
I think this article exaggerates the dangers of CFCs. The concept of an "ozone hole" implies that CFCs greatly increase the passage of UV light, like a hole in a roof letting in rain. Unlike rain, which can be kept out 100% by a roof, UV light isn't kept out 100% by ozone. There is a steady amount always coming through, which is sought after by suntanners and avoided by customers of sun-block. Specific suggestions: #This article should mention the amount of UV radiation which already comes through, and then say how much more was found to come through when CFCs were allowed. #It should also provide figures on UV-caused cancer, as well as how much the cancer rate changes (or is projected to change) as a result of varying CFC levels. User:Ed Poor, mathematician The concept of an ozone hole was only used because it is well known, what this really means is explained on the ozone hole. It is generally accepted that CFCs are damaging -hence the banning (you don't think businesses would stop using this extremely useful and cheap chemical if it wasn't doing something). The exact effect is hard to quantify. Their unreactivity means that much is still left in the lower atmosphere, and much is still reacting with ozone. By all means add figures on the effect that they have had - my source did not provide them. User:sodium I know that it's "generally accepted" -- but an encyclopedia should provide scientific information and not only repeat the viewpoints that most people accept. If CFCs cause damage, we should say how much damage. Were ozone levels in the stratosphere going down 3% a year? How much effect did that have on UV radiation reaching populated areas (say between 60N and 60S)? And how much did that affect skin cancer rates? If the only result of increased CFC use is that people apply suntan lotion with a higher block rate, then I don't see what all the fuss is about. Let's separate environmentalism (the advocacy of various positions) from science (the description of the environment). User:Ed Poor By "generally accepted" I meant the position that most environmental scientists would take. If you don't "understand what the fuss is about", do some research - there are a lot of arguments out there (changing weather patterns etc...). Really, the effects of depletion of the ozone layer don't belong on this page, which is about CFCs. They should go (and a lot are) in the ozone hole article. User:sodium ---- From main page: :''How much cancer? This is like saying driving on the interstate causes fatal crashes.'' Ed, most scientists *do* agree (1) CFCs cause depletion of the ozone layer, (2) that less ozone layer lets through more UV light, (3) and that more UV light gives increased numbers of skin cancer cases; this is why I did not bother to do this. If you do want this in the article: find a reputable source that most scientists agree on; present the summarized data in the article; write a summary of the accuracy/conclusions drawn from this research. Don't expect other people to do it for you. User:sodium *But sodium, without specifying how much depletion of the ozone layer, how much more UV light and how much increased numbers of skin cancer cases there is no way to draw conclusions from the research. *Science deals in facts and measurements. *Propaganda and advocacy make unquantified and unverified claims. *If no one can find these things and add them to the article, I am going to label the cancer-risk viewpoint the "environmentalist" position. Something like, "Environmentalists fear that the increased UV will cause skin cancer and therefore have advocated, etc." User:Ed Poor ---- I labeled the anti-CFC viewpoint as "environmentalist" pending addition of either: #information from named scientists quantifying the CFC-cancer link #other evidence that scientists "generally" believe in the link Don't get me wrong: I'm just as much opposed to skin cancer as the next man. I just want to see proof before I label something as "science". The popular media often get science wrong, so we can't just go with what we see on TV or read in a short news article. In an encyclopedia, we need a statement from a scientist like, "I measured it and it was so and so. And that correlated with thus-and-such. This supports/contradicts the XYZ hypothesis. --User:Ed Poor ---- I have reverted your changes. You are questioning whether the release of CFCs results in more cancer. The proof is already present in wikipedia in this way: *The CFC page gives the mechanism through which CFCs catalyse the destruction of ozone - it is a fact that CFC is a very potent ozone-destroying catalyst, although the extent to which it is happening in the atmosphere is question. *The ozone layer page describes (though admittedly not in much detaiol) how one of ozone's most important features is its absorbance of UV light. *The radiation page lists how ionizing radiation (including UV light) can cause mutations leading to cancer. Non of these is under question by anyone - environmentalists/anti-environmentalists whatever. By simple cause and effect It is fine to say "The increase in CFC levels will cause an increase in skin cancer levels", and it is probably unnecessary to cite any figures. If you were going to say "the increase causes a large increase" you have to start quoting, but this was not mentioned. User:sodium ---- As you yourself point out, one of the things that is under question is the extent to which CFC destruction of ozone is happening in the atmosphere. Would you mind if I mentioned this in the article? User:Ed Poor ---- Yes (there is no need to ask -I am in no position to decide what goes in to articles, especially compared to other people here :-) ). But it is important that the general scientific consensus (I understand) thinks the effect is significant. Mention other research, but this should be the basis of anything that goes in, taking any other tone would be misleading. User:sodium No, that's precisely my point: there is no general scientific consensus. There is a journalistic and political consensus only, just as in the global warming issue. User:Ed Poor My understanding that there is a consensus comes from reading scientists in articles from New Scientist etc... who claim there is. I myself am in no position to claim whether there is or not, but I never considered it that controversial. I think you are in the same (but reversed) position, so if you feel that strongly that I am wrong both you and I should defer to scientists who properly know what they are talking about, and agree not to edit articles on this topic. User:sodium Any intelligent layman can easily determine whether a hypotheses fits the facts. We do this every time we beep the car horn to see whether the batteries dead. Hypothesis: the battery is dead. Related fact: when the battery's dead, the horn will not sound. Test: beep the horn. Observation: the horn beeped. Conclusion: the battery's not dead. (Note that this doesn't work the other way around; if the horn does not sound it doesn't prove that the battery's dead: the terminals might be loose, broken wire, etc.) If a scientific theory predicts increased levels of X in 10 years, and levels of X haven't risen 10 years later, anyone (scientist or not) can see that the theory is incorrect. It's as simple as that. And that's the basis by which I edited the global warming article away from its one-sided pro-Kyoto advocacy toward NPOV. Global warming should warm the troposphere. The troposphere isn't warming. Hence, there is no global warming. It's "elementary", my dear Sodium, so please don't react and get salty with me (grin). User:Ed Poor {This talk page is now far too long so this is my last comment.) The reason I suggest we defer is because it *is* much more complicated than that. Global warming is not defined as "the increase in temperature in the troposphere" it is a much more general phenomenon and the evidence is diverse. You say that it is as simple as looking at a hypothesis and deciding whether it is supported by the evidence. Ignoring that there is not just one test of whether GW is occuring, I suspect *you* did not look at the data - somebody else interpreted the data collected and concluded that it showed that global warming was not occuring. You may agree, but you would have to be an environmental scientist to determine fully whether it was a reasonable conclusion (whether the data is relevant etc...). I suspect environmental scientists are learning *something* in the 4 years of university + x years in the field, and the very fact opposing views exist suggests it is not that simple. User:sodium Ah, but I haven't checked the astronomers observations or done the math on Kepler's laws of motion, yet I believe that planets go around the sun in ellipses. (I did double-check some of the calculus relating to F = g M m / r^2), and in college I replicated Galileo's inclined plane experiment. But I'm surpised that you misunderstood me: I never said Global Warming is "defined as" a warmer troposphere, did I? The global warming hypothesis (as advanced by its principal advocate, the IPCC) entails a warmer troposphere. The fact that the troposphere shows no significant warming trend is just one disproof of the hypothesis. There may be more. Reasonable educated people will continue to disagree, until it becomes clear that one view is right. User:Ed Poor Ed, I don't completely understand your point of view. We can all say that plantets have oliptical orbits beause it has been proven by experts in that field. The same is true for the issue of chlorofluorocarbons. Experts have proven that they break down ozone in the atmosphere. Ozone blocks out UV-B rays which are knowns to cause skin cancer. Do you think that the United Nations would ban a highly useful product without substantial scientific evidence that it was harmful? A quick look inside any chemistry textbook would show that the generally accepted scientific viewpoint is that CFC's destroy ozone. Point me in the direction of a reputable source that disagrees with this viewpoint, I would be very interested to read it. It seems to me that this whole argument is an exercise in inflating your ego (nobody gives a toss what you did in college). == free radical reaction of ozone & chloroflourocarbon == I was wondering if someone can add/find out how long a chlorine atom would remain in the atmosphere for, and approximately how many ozone's it could potentially destroy during this time period. - User:RoyBoy[ User talk:RoyBoy] 22:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with CFC:
CFC
CFC
CFC-12
CFCF
CFCL
CFCM
CFCM_(television)
CFCN
CFCs
CFC_(disambiguation)
CFC_ban
CFC
#redirect haloalkane
CFC
I think this article exaggerates the dangers of CFCs. The concept of an "ozone hole" implies that CFCs greatly increase the passage of UV light, like a hole in a roof letting in rain. Unlike rain, which can be kept out 100% by a roof, UV light isn't kept out 100% by ozone. There is a steady amount always coming through, which is sought after by suntanners and avoided by customers of sun-block. Specific suggestions: #This article should mention the amount of UV radiation which already comes through, and then say how much more was found to come through when CFCs were allowed. #It should also provide figures on UV-caused cancer, as well as how much the cancer rate changes (or is projected to change) as a result of varying CFC levels. User:Ed Poor, mathematician The concept of an ozone hole was only used because it is well known, what this really means is explained on the ozone hole. It is generally accepted that CFCs are damaging -hence the banning (you don't think businesses would stop using this extremely useful and cheap chemical if it wasn't doing something). The exact effect is hard to quantify. Their unreactivity means that much is still left in the lower atmosphere, and much is still reacting with ozone. By all means add figures on the effect that they have had - my source did not provide them. User:sodium I know that it's "generally accepted" -- but an encyclopedia should provide scientific information and not only repeat the viewpoints that most people accept. If CFCs cause damage, we should say how much damage. Were ozone levels in the stratosphere going down 3% a year? How much effect did that have on UV radiation reaching populated areas (say between 60N and 60S)? And how much did that affect skin cancer rates? If the only result of increased CFC use is that people apply suntan lotion with a higher block rate, then I don't see what all the fuss is about. Let's separate environmentalism (the advocacy of various positions) from science (the description of the environment). User:Ed Poor By "generally accepted" I meant the position that most environmental scientists would take. If you don't "understand what the fuss is about", do some research - there are a lot of arguments out there (changing weather patterns etc...). Really, the effects of depletion of the ozone layer don't belong on this page, which is about CFCs. They should go (and a lot are) in the ozone hole article. User:sodium ---- From main page: :''How much cancer? This is like saying driving on the interstate causes fatal crashes.'' Ed, most scientists *do* agree (1) CFCs cause depletion of the ozone layer, (2) that less ozone layer lets through more UV light, (3) and that more UV light gives increased numbers of skin cancer cases; this is why I did not bother to do this. If you do want this in the article: find a reputable source that most scientists agree on; present the summarized data in the article; write a summary of the accuracy/conclusions drawn from this research. Don't expect other people to do it for you. User:sodium *But sodium, without specifying how much depletion of the ozone layer, how much more UV light and how much increased numbers of skin cancer cases there is no way to draw conclusions from the research. *Science deals in facts and measurements. *Propaganda and advocacy make unquantified and unverified claims. *If no one can find these things and add them to the article, I am going to label the cancer-risk viewpoint the "environmentalist" position. Something like, "Environmentalists fear that the increased UV will cause skin cancer and therefore have advocated, etc." User:Ed Poor ---- I labeled the anti-CFC viewpoint as "environmentalist" pending addition of either: #information from named scientists quantifying the CFC-cancer link #other evidence that scientists "generally" believe in the link Don't get me wrong: I'm just as much opposed to skin cancer as the next man. I just want to see proof before I label something as "science". The popular media often get science wrong, so we can't just go with what we see on TV or read in a short news article. In an encyclopedia, we need a statement from a scientist like, "I measured it and it was so and so. And that correlated with thus-and-such. This supports/contradicts the XYZ hypothesis. --User:Ed Poor ---- I have reverted your changes. You are questioning whether the release of CFCs results in more cancer. The proof is already present in wikipedia in this way: *The CFC page gives the mechanism through which CFCs catalyse the destruction of ozone - it is a fact that CFC is a very potent ozone-destroying catalyst, although the extent to which it is happening in the atmosphere is question. *The ozone layer page describes (though admittedly not in much detaiol) how one of ozone's most important features is its absorbance of UV light. *The radiation page lists how ionizing radiation (including UV light) can cause mutations leading to cancer. Non of these is under question by anyone - environmentalists/anti-environmentalists whatever. By simple cause and effect It is fine to say "The increase in CFC levels will cause an increase in skin cancer levels", and it is probably unnecessary to cite any figures. If you were going to say "the increase causes a large increase" you have to start quoting, but this was not mentioned. User:sodium ---- As you yourself point out, one of the things that is under question is the extent to which CFC destruction of ozone is happening in the atmosphere. Would you mind if I mentioned this in the article? User:Ed Poor ---- Yes (there is no need to ask -I am in no position to decide what goes in to articles, especially compared to other people here :-) ). But it is important that the general scientific consensus (I understand) thinks the effect is significant. Mention other research, but this should be the basis of anything that goes in, taking any other tone would be misleading. User:sodium No, that's precisely my point: there is no general scientific consensus. There is a journalistic and political consensus only, just as in the global warming issue. User:Ed Poor My understanding that there is a consensus comes from reading scientists in articles from New Scientist etc... who claim there is. I myself am in no position to claim whether there is or not, but I never considered it that controversial. I think you are in the same (but reversed) position, so if you feel that strongly that I am wrong both you and I should defer to scientists who properly know what they are talking about, and agree not to edit articles on this topic. User:sodium Any intelligent layman can easily determine whether a hypotheses fits the facts. We do this every time we beep the car horn to see whether the batteries dead. Hypothesis: the battery is dead. Related fact: when the battery's dead, the horn will not sound. Test: beep the horn. Observation: the horn beeped. Conclusion: the battery's not dead. (Note that this doesn't work the other way around; if the horn does not sound it doesn't prove that the battery's dead: the terminals might be loose, broken wire, etc.) If a scientific theory predicts increased levels of X in 10 years, and levels of X haven't risen 10 years later, anyone (scientist or not) can see that the theory is incorrect. It's as simple as that. And that's the basis by which I edited the global warming article away from its one-sided pro-Kyoto advocacy toward NPOV. Global warming should warm the troposphere. The troposphere isn't warming. Hence, there is no global warming. It's "elementary", my dear Sodium, so please don't react and get salty with me (grin). User:Ed Poor {This talk page is now far too long so this is my last comment.) The reason I suggest we defer is because it *is* much more complicated than that. Global warming is not defined as "the increase in temperature in the troposphere" it is a much more general phenomenon and the evidence is diverse. You say that it is as simple as looking at a hypothesis and deciding whether it is supported by the evidence. Ignoring that there is not just one test of whether GW is occuring, I suspect *you* did not look at the data - somebody else interpreted the data collected and concluded that it showed that global warming was not occuring. You may agree, but you would have to be an environmental scientist to determine fully whether it was a reasonable conclusion (whether the data is relevant etc...). I suspect environmental scientists are learning *something* in the 4 years of university + x years in the field, and the very fact opposing views exist suggests it is not that simple. User:sodium Ah, but I haven't checked the astronomers observations or done the math on Kepler's laws of motion, yet I believe that planets go around the sun in ellipses. (I did double-check some of the calculus relating to F = g M m / r^2), and in college I replicated Galileo's inclined plane experiment. But I'm surpised that you misunderstood me: I never said Global Warming is "defined as" a warmer troposphere, did I? The global warming hypothesis (as advanced by its principal advocate, the IPCC) entails a warmer troposphere. The fact that the troposphere shows no significant warming trend is just one disproof of the hypothesis. There may be more. Reasonable educated people will continue to disagree, until it becomes clear that one view is right. User:Ed Poor Ed, I don't completely understand your point of view. We can all say that plantets have oliptical orbits beause it has been proven by experts in that field. The same is true for the issue of chlorofluorocarbons. Experts have proven that they break down ozone in the atmosphere. Ozone blocks out UV-B rays which are knowns to cause skin cancer. Do you think that the United Nations would ban a highly useful product without substantial scientific evidence that it was harmful? A quick look inside any chemistry textbook would show that the generally accepted scientific viewpoint is that CFC's destroy ozone. Point me in the direction of a reputable source that disagrees with this viewpoint, I would be very interested to read it. It seems to me that this whole argument is an exercise in inflating your ego (nobody gives a toss what you did in college). == free radical reaction of ozone & chloroflourocarbon == I was wondering if someone can add/find out how long a chlorine atom would remain in the atmosphere for, and approximately how many ozone's it could potentially destroy during this time period. - User:RoyBoy
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
C
CA | CB | CD | CE | CF | CG | CH | CI | CJ | CK | CL | CM | CN | CO | CP | CR | CS | CT | CU | CW | CX | CY | CZ |Words begining with CFC:
CFC
CFC
CFC-12
CFCF
CFCL
CFCM
CFCM_(television)
CFCN
CFCs
CFC_(disambiguation)
CFC_ban
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
Untitled Document
| Linki sponsorowane | Tani hosting | Pozycjonowanie |
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
