Monday, June 28, 2010

Lies versus the truth - environmentalist quackery

I haven't seen this topic discussed here for a while, but the
thinking, the epistemology, behind it lies at the heart of the
enrivonmentalist movement.

The lie:

http://environment.about.com/od/ozonedepletion/a/whatisozone.htm

"The Benefits of Good Ozone

"Small concentrations of ozone occur naturally in the stratosphere,
which is part of the Earth's upper atmosphere. At that level, ozone
helps to protect life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet radiation from
the sun, particularly UVB radiation that can cause skin cancer and
cataracts, damage crops, and destroy some types of marine life."

The truth:

(Incredibly, the truth is found at the page cited above)

"The Origin of Good Ozone
Ozone is created in the stratosphere when ultraviolet light from the
sun splits an oxygen molecule into two single oxygen atoms. Each of
those oxygen atoms then binds with an oxygen molecule to form an ozone
molecule."

Does anybody besides yours truly see the immediate discrepancy between
these two stories?


The first story gives us the "shield" theory of ozone, for example:
http://www.theozonehole.com/goodozone.htm

"In the absence of this gaseous shield in the stratosphere, the
harmful radiation has a perfect portal through which to strike Earth."

So we can easily imagine a kind of shield surrounding the earth with
UV radiation bouncing away, using little arrows to depict the motion
of the harmful UV rays.


However, this picture is contradicted by the story of how O3 is
created in the first place. Note carefully:

There is O2 floating around in the upper atmosphere. UV rays contact
this O2, splitting it into separate oxygen atoms which then combine
with O2 to create O3, "good" ozone.

By the correct theory, there is no such thing as "good" ozone, just
good old oxygen we breathe. By the correct theory, there is no shield
of ozone shield protecting us from harmful UV rays. There is just good
old oxygen absorbing UV, and in the process, recombining with O2 to
create O3 as a byproduct of this process.

The epistemological method being perpetrated by the environmentalist
movement is that of the Big Lie. As with any Big Lie, it has been told
so many times that it is in the very air we breathe, the "air" of our
culture. That is why nobody bothers to question it. Or if somebody
does notice the discrepancy between the two stories, nobody wants to
rock the boat.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

The "truth" is just an elaboration of the "occurs naturally" part of what you call the "lie". There is no conflict. Since O2 is the most stable molecule of oxygen, the supply of O3 in the stratosphere must naturally be constantly replenished somehow. The problem with things like freones is that they change the dynamic balance of ozone creation and destruction, resulting in levels of ozone being much lower than they would normally be.

Do you think it's completely irrelevant what happens to ozone after it is formed?

Anonymous said...

The ozone is a shield that protects the earth. The ozone's unique oxygen molecules are formed by -literally- absorbing the UV rays. UV rays hit the molecules, atoms get excited and change their normal properties as electrons move about differently, then bond into O3 molecules. The UV rays then do not penetrate earth because they have been absorbed by those atoms. This happens trillions and trillions of times, over and over again. This is what forms the ozone layer.
The environmentalist movement is based on observed scientific research. The people arguing for it are established, well-educated scientists. I am sorry if i seem to not grasp what exactly you are criticizing, but it appears that you feel that the environmentalist movement's thinking is based on lies.
I am not sure how much research you have done, in the field of chemistry.
what is/was your major?

Cavewight said...

The relevant question is not "what is your major." What I would like to know is, if O3 itself blocks or shields or absorbs or zaps any UV rays, then what percentage gets zapped?

Stephen Moran said...

Hi dude, like the blog so far but unfortunately you are demonstrably wrong about this.

The splitting of the O2 occurs in a different part of the UV spectrum than is absorbed by the O3 molecule (although they do overlap a bit).

The UV spectrum encompasses 100nm - 400nm (wave length). UVB is the type that can cause cellular and genetic damage and that is 315-280nm.

The O2 separation (photo-disassociation) occurs at wavelengths shorter than 240nm and the O3 molecules absorb at between 310 and 200nm. The shorter wavelengths are damaging too but there is less concern about these as there is a large enough amount of 02 in the atmosphere to reduce the levels, where as the levels of O3 are mainly confined to a small band and are destroyed by catalytic reactions with halo-carbons.

As you can see the actual generation of ozone doesn't absorb any of the remaining harmful part of the spectrum, so it wouldn't contribute at all.

As far as the percentages, it depends on how much O3 you have as to the percentage. Ideally we want a small amount to get through as we use it to produce vitamin D, however too much causes cancer.

All of these details can be easily verified using google, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_B is a good starting point.

Hope this helps.

Adriana I. Pena said...

Sir, have you EVER taken a chemistry course? Haven't you learned that different formulas mean different substances? Oxygen is O2 while Ozone is O3. To say that ozone is oxygen is like saying taht there is no water, only hydrogen and oxygen.

Ozone is being both continually created, and continually destroyed. Now, if someting causes it to be destroyed faster than it is created, it disappears. As the equation x+1-2 tends to zero no matter what the initial value of x. That's elemental calculus.

Please take some science courses and only THEN comment on the subject.