Basic HTML Version
AEROSOLARMAGEDDON?
What do supersonic transports,
aerosol sprays. and nuclear weap–
ons have in common? All produce
chemical agents capable of pene–
traling and decomposing the pro–
tective ozone umbrella of the
earth 's atmosphere. Without the
ozone, all living things could die
from exposure to the worst of the
sun's ultraviolet radiation.
Tbe chemical agents in question
are oxides of nitrogen, released
into the upper atmosphere by the
jet engines of supersoníc transports
(SSTs) and by nuclear explosions,
and free chloríne, derived from
propellants used in aerosol cans.
Relatively small amounts of these
agents are sufficient to destroy
large quantities of ozone, itself an
extremely unstable molecuJe.
SSTs and Nuclear Bombs
Thc potential dangers from SSTs
and nuclear explosions are stag–
gering. Both the SST and nuclear
bombs inject nitrogen oxides into
the atmosphere that can signifi–
cantly reduce the protection af–
forded by the ozone layer .
In
fact ,
a recent National Academy of
Science report concluded that nu–
clear war might cause more devas–
tation through the destruction of
the ozone layer than by atomic
blast or fallout!
Catastrophlc Catalysts
Yet the most alarming threat is
probably the aerosol can.
Tbe aerosol propellants are
largely inert to chemical reaction.
But in cenain cases, ultraviolet
light can cause decomposi tion, and
a ' 'catalytic" reaction may then oc–
cur in the a tmosphere which de–
stroys ozone.
An estimated 10 b illion pounds
of aerosol gases a re a lready
present in the atmosphere. and
every year nearly a billion addi–
tional pounds are being dissipated
in to the environment from spray
cans and industrial applications.
60,000 Deaths Annually
40
Sorne authoriti es assert that within
20 years the ozone layer may be
depleted by as much as 16% result–
ing in 500,000 to 1.5 million addi–
tional cases of skin cancer and
20.000 to 60,000 deaths annually.
"The irony," says famed as–
tronomer and ex-biologist Carl Sa–
gan, "is that every spray of your
deodorant may contribute to an at–
mospheric catas trophe.... We
may be the best smelling dead
men in history."
Other Dangers
The effects of increased radiation
on vegetation are less clear. An in–
creased incidence of muta tion has
been observed in certain experi–
mental strains, and there a re sorne
indications that increased radi–
ation will interferc with the growth
of plankton in the ocean. Ozone
depletion might also produce cli–
matologica l cffects. An increase in
ultraviolet radiation might, for ex–
ample, lead to an increased melt–
ing of pola r ice. Alternatively, a
redistribution of ozone in the at–
mosphere might reduce the aver–
age global temperature.
Scenario of Dlsaster?
Yet before mankind lapses into
hysteria over " Ban the can," per–
haps we should remember tha t the
earth's sophisticated life-support
sys tem often has a remarkable ca–
pacity to recover from even the
most ill-conce ived blunders of
mankind, and quite possibly a
weakened "ozone fi lter" wilJ cause
ozone to be produced at a signifi–
cantly higher rate.
On th e other hand, aerosols
have probably already doomed
more people than were killed by
th e a tomic bomb dropped on
Hiroshima. The threat is very real,
and it's not just a bad joke.
"We are talking," says space sci–
entist Thomas M. Donahu e ,
"about the end of the world -
doomsday in 25 years."
Aerosols? Ozone? Doomsday?
The irony is overwhelming. Our
Aerosol Armageddon may yet
come to pass, not with a bang, but
with a pssst!
- R. A. Ginskey
T hen, the re was the me rcury
scare. In Japan, mercury poisoning
killed a number of people and se–
verely maimed others by affecting
the bra in. There was a very large
mercury poisoning outbreak in Iraq
severa! yea rs ago. There's no ques–
tio n that o rganic mercury com–
pounds do have very bad effects on
people.
Currently, there is the vinyl chlo–
rid e scare - aga in, perfectly legiti–
ma te. The people in the vinyl
chloride plants are getting angiosar–
coma of the liver. But they a ren' t
getting it until 20 yea rs or so
after
ex posure lo it.
a.
What about asbestos?
A.
Aga in, the asbestos scare seems
to be perfectly legi tima te. People
wo rking in asbes tos p lan ts a nd
brea thing in the fibers are devel–
oping lung a ilments and other ma l–
adies. At the same time, the re may
be other scares which may prove to
be less haza rdous.
Man has developed the ability to
co ntamin a te hi s environmen t in
ways we are only beginning to un–
derstand, and he is finding out that
a lot of these contamina tions do
have dele terious effects on a longer
time scale . The reason we're having
so many scares is that we've ignored
it for so long.
a.
Why were we so ob1ivious to the
dangers?
A.
Twenty-five years ago, a mea–
surement of one pa n per million
was a very good scientific measure–
ment; now we a re routin ely doing
analyses in the one part per trillion
range - that's one pan in a million
million. Since many of these pollu–
tion problems are below the parts
per million leve l, we simply couldn' t
detect them, even if we had thought
to try.
a.
Are we sure there are not other
ways of taking these aerosol propel–
lants out of the environment, ways
that would not involve the destruc–
tion of ozone?
A.
These molecules of fluorocarbons
a re very inert and tend to stay in tbe
a tmosphere for periods of up to a
hundred years. Sorne of the mole–
cules do freeze out in Anta rctica,
and a sma ll fraction do disso lve in
the oceans, but only very minor a t–
mospheric sinks have been found .
T he recent discovery of chlorine ni-
The
PLAIN TRUTH December 1976