|Various other environmental concerns24-09-2016 05:00
|If AGW was fabricated, how about DDT? Or the ozone layer? Were those legitimate concerns that caused real problems, or were they, like AGW, pseudoscience that was possibly created to further a political goal?
"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.
I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
|Into the Night★★★★★
In the case of DDT, it was largely fabricated, but there WERE some actual problems with it.
DDT effects on the environment was poorly studied. It is assumed that it stays in the environment a long time, gathers in fatty tissues and liver, and similar dire consequences of using it (all described by the EPA using assumptions from Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring.
The experiments conducted on how DDT harms birds, for example, were manipulated to produce the desired data for banning DDT.
DDT is still used in the world, and to great effect. It is especially effective at mosquito populations. It can produce a population of insects resistant to the pesticide though, a problem with all pesticides. Seems bugs can adapt over time to withstand a pesticide.
The best way to handle this problem is to constantly switch pesticides in use. I do not believe DDT is the horrible agent the EPA (and Rachel Carson) make it out to be.
The ozone layer 'problem' was pure fabrication. It depended on the general public (and lawyers and politicians) not knowing how the chemistry for ozone or CFCs worked.
In other posts I have described how ozone is created and destroyed naturally in our atmosphere. The basic ingredients are sunlight and oxygen. If you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.
The holes occur at the poles (rather than over the industrialized nations where the CFCs are used) because the poles see the sun set and not rise again for many days (about two months).
No sun...no ozone. Who cares? No sun, no sunburn!
What was mysterious about the ozone scare is the timing and the substance blamed on it, specifically freon (the CFC), or R-12 refrigerant.
Not so mysterious when you find that DuPont, which had a patent on R-12 that was running out and could no longer be renewed, occurred at the same time. The replacement, R-134a, was under a brand new patent.
R-12 was banned, R-134a is no in widespread use, and the ozone hole is hardly ever mentioned (except for the occasional stupid comment from NASA).
The general reasoning is that CFCs break down releasing chlorine. This can act as a catalyst for the destruction of ozone (which actually destroys itself naturally anyway), and thus 'accelerate' ozone loss. The problem is that chlorine is a very reactive gas. It will very likely react with something else before it has a chance to get high enough to do any damage.
Of course all this ignores the fact that the hole develops over either pole in that pole's winter, and not over the industrialized nations.
The DDT ban was for primarily political reasons.
The Ozone hole and the resulting R-12 ban was due to monopolistic reasons by DuPont using the government to maintain its monopoly. Here I agree with you. There is such a thing as evil corporations in the world.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
|Mobile carbonalyser: an app to estimate your mobile environmental impact
|Nancy, an oil tycoon's daughter is kidnapped by a cultish environmental group who's ready to wage
|Crown Capital Management Environmental Reviews 16 Things That Colleges are Doing to Help the Environment
|Objectivity of Environmental Science
|Wisconsin DNR secretary: Climate change an environmental justice issue
|Appendix C - China's Environmental Crisis