Give 'em hell, Ron!!!!!

 

Ive always been bothered by statements like this. Although I dont hang onto every publication of the science briefs and what not to give lots of fancy quotes, there is solid evidence that r-12 and other clorine based refrigerants damage the ozone layer. The refrigerants act as a stable carrier for the clorine where, once in the upper atmosphere, its broken down by the high engerfy ultraviolet photons and the clorine is freed to do its work. This is a pretty well established phenomenon and its pretty closed minded to disregard it. Granted venting x-oz. of cfc's out of one cooling system wont do any damage, if everyone does it, then its a problem. The common mentality to these things is the thought that 'hey im jsut one person, what harm can it do?' but most people fail to realize that they are part of the problem when they do such things.

 

The Nonsense That is Ozone-Depletion by Ken Ring

"Cancer threat as deadly UV rays build up” reported the NZ Herald on September 10th. Referring to a “disturbing new study” the writer reported a finding that “increases in UV radiation over summer have occurred because of ozone depletion caused by pollution”. The article contained three assumptions:

1) UV has increased long term,
2) Ozone protects us from UV (and less now means less protection),
3) That ozone depletion is caused by humans polluting our natural environment.
Unfortunately, these claims are false on all counts. In order to simply understand the relationship between UV(sunlight), ozone and oxygen (air), think about what you see when you go to the beach.

The order of things is--Water - Surf - Beach

The boundary where the water hits the beach is called surf, and in the upper atmosphere, the boundary where the sunlight hits the air is termed the ozone layer, because in that region ozone is produced as a result of the UV acting on the oxygen, in other words where the sunlight hits the air.

Sunlight – Ozone - Air

Just as the surf cannot in any way protect the land from the sea, ozone cannot ‘protect’ the air and our environment that is below it from UV. A result cannot be defined as a protector. To lament that ozone depletion is taking away “our protection” is the same as crying that surfers are wearing down the surf, and as the surf is all there is holding back the ocean, when the surf goes (due to human behavior) the water will flood over the land and destroy mankind.

As with so many theories, threads are tied together to build a case. The case is then launched to the media to attract attention. The attention is then added to by ‘further findings’, ‘disturbing new studies’ and ‘concerns’ The end result is the willing granting of research funds to research “the problem”. If the Cancer word can be attached, so much the better for the case. The public will donate any amount of money for cancer research. It only wants to see the case for it spelled out in a conclusive-sounding way.

The Case

We do know that ozone exists. We know that there are two ozone depletion zones: over each of the Earth’s poles. We know the depletion zone over Antarctic is bigger than that over the Arctic. We have found that CFCs which are man-made substances commonly used in refrigeration and aerosol cans, contain chlorine. And we know that chlorine can destroy ozone.

At this point let’s revisit school science. We breathe in oxygen and expell it as carbon dioxide. 02 is two oxygen atoms stuck together. Given sufficient energy applied, now and then three oxygen atoms will stick together, making an 03 molecule, which is called ozone. The energy required for this can come from electrical discharge through the air, such as lightning, or from the sun in the form of UV sunlight. You can smell ozone if you sniff around an electric motor that has arcing around the brushes – the pungent smell is the 03.

When in space the Sun’s energy races down here to meet Earth’s rising air, a certain amount of 03 is produced. But like the surf, it is merely the result of the photo-chemical process between oxygen and UV light. But it is the photo-chemical process itself which protects us; the ozone is a mere by-product. The air itself absorbs most of the UV radiation and disperses it. As the air contains ozone, so the ozone also combines with the UV. In the same way, if you dropped a cup of ink into the sea it would spread out and disperse. And if either the air or sunlight pack up, we will have long since suffocated or frozen to death before we start developing cancer.

There is not a ‘layer’ of ozone at all, any more than there is single layer of air; and ozone doesn’t protect us from anything. The Sun's rays hit us at exactly the same time as they hit the ozone. Therefore, protection is impossible. In the same way, 'hard' water molecules, H3O, doesn't prevent anyone from getting wet. If we could snap our fingers and make every single last molecule of ozone disappear, it would have absolutely no bearing on the amount of UV light reaching the Earth.

Now, back to the poles, where there are indeed observed ozone-depletion zones. How come? Well, there happens to be two places on Earth where UV light doesn’t meet rising warm air molecules: where the Sun shines less and where it is cold – at the Poles! Because the Earth is tilted, there is a wide area of depletion around both poles, and NZ happens to be under the southern depletion zone for much of the winter. In fact the “hole” gets bigger towards spring, because the highs and lows of the effect are modified by Earth’s wind systems and subsequently the flow of warm and cold air. That is why you see glaring headlines on sudden discoveries about ozone depletion around NZ around NZ’s springtime. But by December the hole is much smaller, and that's when NZ has its summer, when the skin cancer risk from the sun is higher.

Bricks Don't Float Up

Despite all the information you may have read, there is not one shred of supportable evidence that CFCs have found their way 40 miles up above the Earth. No one has ever found any up there because they are roughly five times heavier than air. They are like a brick in a swimming pool. It is not often that you will see a brick floating to the surface of your pool. CFCs are so dense that even as a gas you could fill a bucket with it and pour the contents of one bucket into another. Secondly there is no evidence that they can destroy anything because they are very stable and unreactive substances. Most dictionaries and chemistry books describe them as inert gases.

Faced with this rather unfortunate logic, some researchers extend the plot, claiming that in the upper atmosphere the intense UV light is sufficient to break down the CFCs, releasing chlorine which then does the damage. If that actually could happen though, then the “ozone layer” would just get replaced by the CFC layer, which would then further “protect” us from UV radiation.

There is, too, another difficulty with the theory: the fact that all the CFCs in the world are insufficient to even dent the known amount of ozone. The factor is 1 in 100,000. So we get told of yet another scenario – that in some imagined chain reaction, chlorine would keep on getting released by the UV until all the ozone was destroyed. But even if we supposed that this could happen, then all of these reactions going on would only further absorb UV, protecting us even more. We would right now be dying from lack of UV light and vitamin D deficiency.

There is no evidence that such a chain reaction would occur. Also, it is a long jump and unscientific to say that if a reaction could occur, then it would. Furthermore, there are some 192 known chemical reactions and 48 photochemical reactions occurring in the stratosphere(the ozone area) all the time. How would it be that chlorine and ozone, which are only in minute quantities anyway, should be able to carry on this reaction to the exclusion of the other 241 known reactive processes?

And who says that the “holes” are getting bigger? In 1988 NASA’s Nimbus satellite appeared to show that the southern hole was increasing. Here was supposed proof that man was aggravating the situation. The fact that the following year’s results showed the hole smaller than ever previously recorded went totally unannounced, except in obscure journals. Neither was it reported that the variation in depletion-area size seemed to correspond with increases in sunspot activity, which throws out more UV radiation.

Where did all this nonsense start?

The “CFC Depletion Theory” was first published in 1974 by F. Sherwood Roland and Mario J. Molina, University of California. Their work was treated as a joke by the world’s scientific community until the mid-80s, when suddenly there were plenty of funds available for the study of such things.

There are genuine experts concerned at the erosion of truth. In 1986 the prestigious science journal “Geophysical Research Letters” asked forty-six of the world’s leading climatologists and meteorologists to submit individual papers on their research and findings on the subject of the “Antarctic Hole” The overview of those findings includes..”despite the number of public announcements, no clear link between manmade pollutants and ozone depletion over Antarctica has been established; indeed, a number of papers in this issue present serious alternatives to and constraints on the suggested chemical scenarios..The appearance of the South Polar total ozone minimum(the Hole) and higher values at mid-latitudes in the spring has been observed since the late 1950s, well before man-made pollutants could have had important impact on the stratosphere.” The introduction went on to suggest that the hole was apparently a natural phenomenon, affected by climatic shift in the upper atmosphere.

Dr Joseph Scotto, of the Biostatics Branch of the US National Cancer Insititute has found that UV light levels reaching the ground has decreased at the rate of 0.7% a year over a ten year period in the northern hemisphere, at the same time as ozone depletion has been recorded. It is a different story according to Dr Richard McKenzie who claims that “sunburning UV has increased 15% since ozone depletion began in the late 1970s.” So who is one to believe?

Perhaps in the case of increased melanomas found to have been occurring in NZ; the increase in population is a factor to be considered and the obvious fact that less per capita than in years past now spend their working lives in the open air, resulting in a decreased average immunity for NZ skins. Also, family doctors used to instruct young mothers to put the baby in sunlight for longer and longer periods, to build up melanin which would function as an immunity. These days doctors tell everyone to cover themselves with cream and to stay indoors. The population no longer has a natural immunity as a result. And that has nothing to do with ozone.

One Hole is Larger than the Other

Let’s look at one last factor, so often reported; that the Antarctic hole is larger than the Arctic one. One would think that even if inert heavier-than-air substances could make it up into space, that they would do it more around the densely populated regions of earth – the northern hemisphere; and affect the Arctic Hole more than the Antarctic. No one is disputing that the hole over the Antarctic is definitely much bigger. The Southern hemisphere has a longer winter than the Northern hemisphere because Earth is further from the sun in July than in January. Longer winter means bigger hole. But also maybe, some chlorine is coming from some other source, instead of CFCs. Let's look around.

Aha! Just a few miles upwind from the Antarctic camp where all the readings about ozone-depletion originate from, is a rather large hill called Mt Erebus. Mt Erebus is an active volcano, which first erupted in 1982 (coincidentally about when the bigger hole was discovered). Mt Erebus spews out over 1,000 tons of active chlorine every day. Go there and look - it is puffing away all the time. This chlorine, far from being as cold as CFCs, comes out as superheated gas which shoots straight up into the stratosphere. This chlorine does break down the ozone. And Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, in a decade than all the cars and aerosol cans on earth could do put together.

It is a little tidbit of science that esteemed experts seem to have overlooked. Moreover, Erebus is not the only active volcano in the world. There are hundreds, thousands, throwing chlorine upwards every second. We can't cap all the volcanoes.

Let’s get it in perspective.

Imagine if in every supermaket in the country, the shelves were totally filled only with cans of flyspray. Imagine further, that they could be triggered magically all at once. Picture how much CFC would be involved, to be released into the atmosphere, supposedly to destroy ozone. Now cast your mind to a jumbo jet streaking across the city sky. The unfortunate truth is that every time one jet takes off and flies somewhere, it destroys more ozone than you could ever destroy by squirting all those spray-cans. We are talking 80 tons of pollutant per plane; a volume of exhaust emission equivalent to the volume of Waitemata Harbour. And that is just one jet. Tens of thousands of flights occur around the world every day. Is anyone researching an electric aeroplane?

I've saved the best till last. The Sun shines, in NZ, from the north. That's why all the houses mainly face north; to catch the day's warm sunshine. NZ is therefore south of the Sun, at all times. The South Pole is south of NZ, at all times. For the Sun to shine through the ozone hole in the south-polar skies and onto NZ to cause skin cancer, is utterly impossible unless the Sun scoots around under the south pole or Antarctica races up to sit next to Fiji. Never mind the ozone thing; what great headlines that would make. Hard as it may be to believe, no-one's ever noticed that occurring.

What we seem to have is a very handy designer-Hole, capable of being over whichever country scientists who are seeking research funds desire it to be. Is there a connection to the Moon? Yes, the average size of the hole varies with the 18.613 year lunation cycle. Has ozone a shelf-life? Yes, incredibly short. O3 converts very quickly back to O2. It is getting made all the time as the Sun hits warm air. The total amount stays constant so it is continually destructing.

Finally, a word from a reliable expert. Robert Pease, Professor Emeritus of Physical Climatology at one of America’s leading universities, sent a disclaimer about what he called the “media-endorsed ozone-depletion theory” to many United States newspapers. Only a handful published it.

Here are some excerpts:

“..The ozone layer self heals. Ozone molecules in the atmosphere are constantly being replenished, created when energetic ultraviolet light splits normal oxygen. In addition, the ozone layer is replenished by upward diffusion of smog-induced surface ozone.

The belief that CFC molecules will rise and collect in the stratosphere is incorrect. Even if they did, there is a low probability of enough CFC decomposition necessary for ozone depletion. Based on Professor Rowland’s own calculations, there will be one CFC for every 136 million normal oxygen atoms in the ozone layer at 25 km altitude.

Clear-cut evidence of ozone depletion is lacking. The entire theory is based on the supposition that somehow heavier-than-air CFC molecules rise into the stratosphere unimpeded.

In no way can manmade destruction of the ozone layer be accepted as fact. Eventually a scientific debate may take place, and this ozone depletion scare might finally be laid to rest.."
(R.Pease)


Ron

 

Ron, these statement(s) arnt directed toward you, just the author of this

Hmmm... last time i checked thats the whole purpose of the ozone layer. The ozone itself is a POTENT absorber of ultra violet light. It protects all that is beneath it from the UV radiation. Without it, theres a good chance life wouldnt of evolved on this planet. Thats one of the biggest loads of **** to come down the pike yet...





mmm... no, while some things in the atmosphere do absorb the uv radiation. The ozone layer is still the primary absorber in the atmosphere




Wrong again... The atmosphere is differentiated. Thats been proven again and again. And, to add to that, light has both particle as well as wave attributes and its speed is finite. If the photon is interjected before it reaches the earths surface, it wont get there, simple as that.

 

Not done yet...

At least there is a kernel of truth in that statement somewhere

dust doesnt have much trouble getting aloft in the air and its at least thousands of times heavier. To add to that, UV breaks jsut about anything down, including water, CO2, etc.




Chlorine isnt consumed in the reaction, it can, in theory, break down ozone indefinatly.

Im not going to go through the rest of this but its misinformation in its worst form. While the threat of ozone depleation may be less then what its made out to be, it still occures. And, further more, CFC's catalitic reaction can break down ozone faster then its formed. This is equivelent to 'conventional oil is jsut as good as mobil one/amsol synthetics' statements.

 

]]]]]]]]]] OZONE CHICKEN LITTLES ARE AT IT AGAIN [[[[[[[[[[
By Robert W. Pease (3/26/1989)


From The Wall Street Journal, 23 March 1989, p. A24:3

[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]

(Mr. Pease is professor emeritus of physical climatology at the
University of California, Riverside.)

The news earlier this month that several European countries
and the U.S. have agreed to phase out the use of chloro-
fluorocarbons by the year 2000 brings before us yet again the
questionable theory that CFCs cause depletion of the ozone layer.
Atmospheric chemist F. Sherwood Rowland [1], of the University
of California, Irvine, formulated the theory in the early 1970s.
His speculations, quoted widely in reports about this month's
international conference hosted by Margaret Thatcher in London,
have gained so much momentum over the years that they have now
become the basis for decisions that would deprive us of the only
inexpensive and effective refrigerants we have for refrigeration
and air conditioning. This is not because of scientific proof,
but the result of the constant reiteration of disaster scenarios
that range from skin cancer to DNA damage.
Pronouncements in the past few weeks give the impression that
all atmospheric scientists are believers, which is far from true.
Many of us are still skeptical because of incompatibilities
between the theory and what we know about the ozone layer:
* The Rowland theory ignores the equilibrium nature of ozone
in the layer. The ozone molecules are constantly being created
and destroyed -- both quite naturally -- by the very short
wavelengths of ultraviolet light from the sun. The amount of
ozone in the layer depends upon an equilibrium between the two
processes. This equilibrium varies markedly both over the globe
and throughout the year.
At very high altitudes a disrupted equilibrium is restored in
a matter of minutes; at lower levels in the stratosphere, in a
matter of weeks or months. In any event, repair takes place
rather quickly. Depletion of ozone can occur only by reducing
the equilibrium density of ozone molecules. This makes for
relatively insignificant depletions. No doubt many CFC molecules
have reached the ozone layer, but it is unlikely both that they
are depleting the ozone to the extent the activists say, and that
such damage, even if it existed, would take centuries to repair.
* Since the same narrow band of ultraviolet light breaks down
both CFCs, releasing their ozone-destroying chlorine, as well as
oxygen, creating ozone, there is a ``competition'' between the
two processes for this necessary solar energy. The probability
that an oxygen molecule will be broken apart, rather than a CFC
molecule, depends upon the relative abundance of the two gases in
the ozone layer. Calculations based on high-altitude CFC
samplings and data supplied by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration show 60,000 ozone molecules are
created for every chlorine atom released from a CFC molecule.
With this probability, how can the equilibrium density of the
ozone layer be materially reduced? In other words, the paucity
of measurable proof of depletion may be because depletion is not
actually occurring. It is of interest to note that surface
measurements by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration indicate that the total amount of ozone above the
U.S. is actually increasing.
* Unable to measure depletion in an unambiguous manner,
advocates of the theory have taken the ``hole'' in the layer over
Antarctica as indirect proof of loss of the layer over
midlatitudes. However, papers at last summer's international
ozone conference at Snowmass, Colo., cast doubt that this
phenomenon is a mirror of global ozone decline. Perhaps the
erosion of this ozone during the polar night is due to the same
interaction of the solar wind with the Earth magnetic field that
causes the auroras. It has been observed that this combination
can destroy the ozone. Solar wind is the product of solar
flares, which are becoming more frequent as sunspot activity
waxes.
Let us not blindly follow those environmental activists who
cry, ``The sky is falling,'' but let's continue to study the sky
until we know enough to make a sound decision regarding the
phasing out of our best refrigerants. Remember, before CFCs,
toxic ammonia and sulfur dioxide were used in our home
refrigerators.

-------------------

Don't worry 'dimented24x7' I'm not taking any of this as personal attack, and nor should you. I think it great your responding to the argument. I just want to make sure there's fuel for both side of this argument, and to let fellow 3rd geners make up there own mind.

Ron

 

This is the vanity plate I'm thinking of putting on my Z28 when it gets the 383:

 

So how's the cam swap coming?

 

I guess we know who stands where. Lol, I love that plate. Ive been running catless while i tune my ecm/engine (no need to risk a cat on some dumb mistake) and its great to see some of the things people do, like 'daintily' waft their hands past their noses, shoot me a discusted look, and roll up their windows when im idling next to them. C'mon people, breath it in, enjoy it while it lasts, its the smell of v8 power.

 

Good point, the background noise sort of drowned him out. Did you finish the swap? If so, how does it run?

 

You can do you own here:
http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/ch...ator/index.php

I've been having fun with the church sign generator!

 

I was away for a few days so I haven;t got to work on the car. The cam is in and the intake is boed (may have seen my post on the TBI board). All that is left is to put everything back on. Should be running the car by the end of next week. So far so good and I haven't had any diffulculties. I was going to reuse the stock timing chain because of its low mileage but it has a bit of slack in it after I reinstalled it. I am not sure how much is to much but I am going to replace it to be on the safe side. The side flexes in about .25". So that only sets me back an hour or so to go to the store and replace it.

 

Shifty,

Yep did that on mine also. I was surprised at the amount of play the new one had also. But it was less than the old one.

Hoping to get mine on the roud this coming week.

 

Excellent! I guess I can turn the crank a few times and make sure that the dots line up consistantly.

 

Shifty,

Are ya up and running yet?

 

The holiday weekend put me a little behind. Today the new valve seals go in and the valve train will be put back on. After that I need to spend some time to clean all the gasket surfaces and put the timing cover and intake back on. After that I will fire her up and board member Chuck! and I are going to do some chip burning. Should I coat the timing cover gasket in RTV? What about the water pump gaskets? Or can these be installed dry? These are about the only two questions I have left.

 

I believe we used RTV on both of those. Anywhere there is a possibility of a water or oil leak its probably a good idea to use the RTV. Atleast that sounds logical to me.

 

DAMN IT!! Im laggin behind!! I havent even walked out to the garage since ive been home. Not good, not what I wanted!! I need to start working!!

 

I think I am going to RTV the whole gasket. I don't feel confortable putting the timing cover back on dry. Well I at least have to put it down by the oil pan seal. Maybe that will be enough since the stock gasket didn't have any RTV on it.

 

A thin coat of RTV on each of the gasket's surfaces should be more then enough. Youll definatly want to go to town on the corners of the TC cover, though, if you have to snip the corners off to reinstall it.

 

I did. I sniped off the corners as well as cut off that lip and upon test fit it goes on a lot easier. it is funny how easyily it came off but is almost imposible to put back on. Can I use RTV on the bottom of it where the timing cover just presses against that oil pan seal? Doesn't seem like there will be enough pressure there without any RTV to keep it from leaking.