Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanotechnology Could Save The Ozone Layer

Posted by timothy on from the so-it's-not-all-bad-news dept.

Liz writes "Whilst experimenting with nanospheres and perfluorodecalin, a liquid used in the production of synthetic blood, researchers at Germany's University of Ulm have stumbled across a phenomenon that could ultimately help remove ozone-harming chemicals from the atmosphere. See this article for more details."

21 comments

  1. The second step? by kruetz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wow! This would be great news in the battle against global warming. Down here in Australia, the recent discovery of a convict's sea-height log from the early 1800s or thereabouts showed that the sea level has increased by a moderate amount over the last 200 years.

    Perhaps this could relieve the pressure slightly on Earth, when countries like the USA and Australia won't sign on the Kyoto agreement.

    The second step he mentions - actually REPAIRING the ozone layer would be a phenomenal achievement, but it may in fact worsen global warming, if the afore-mentioned countries think "Hey! We don't need to worry about global warming! Let's just keep going on as before!"

    Kudos to the University of Ulm!

    --

    This sig intentionally left bla... dammit!
    Who's got the whiteout?
    1. Re:The second step? by Rxke · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ozone layer has little to do with global warming, it blocks U.V., not infrared, the greenhouse effect is caused by the exhaust of CO2, that blocks reflected heat from the surface, while letting solar heat pass through (roughly speaking) of course, as you stated, all good eco news can be an alibi for governments to keep spewing CO2, logic being not always the main drive in governmental behaviour (and i am being VERY polite here...)

    2. Re:The second step? by Psion · · Score: 1

      Here's a site that discusses, among other related issues, the very mark you mention. In fact, the webmaster had begun writing about it over a year ago, with somewhat different conclusions than those reached by alarmists recently.

      Still Waiting

    3. Re:The second step? by cp99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      John Daly, is a joke.

      He cherry picks his data to support his conclusions. If he was so certain of his results, he should submit them for peer review, but like virtually all psudoscientists, scientific peer review is a hurdle too high.

      For example, his dismissal of the modelling is simply a head in sand approach. Pretty sad in my opinion. If he has specific criticisms with their analysis he should make them (I suspect that Daly has very little expert knowledge, and therefore doesn't know where to start).

      He also ignores the major source of old data; Thomas Lempriere collection of tidal data for the years 1841 and 1842. These mesurements used the mark as a base point. That Daly relies on a single data point taken in 1888 (here's a hint, a single tidal data point is pretty much useless), while ignoring 2 years worth of data collection, is a pretty good indication that Daly is cherry picking the results that he wants.

      Daly also uses his own single data point (which he obtained by rowing out there one day), vs. 2 years of data collected from modern tidal gauges.

      A similar situation occurs when Daly and the scientists team try to estimate the rate at which the land has been rising or sinking. One group looks at some pictures of the Island, and says that because these look like modern photographs, the land can't have changed that much, the other launchs a major study of Tasmania's geology, using ancient shell beds. I'll leave it upto you to guess whether it was Daly or the scientists who did a real study on the rise and fall of Tasmania.

      --
      Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
    4. Re:The second step? by Psion · · Score: 1

      What you refer to as "cherry-picking", I refer to as pointing out information that is consistantly overlooked by the public media. And that's the full reason I submitted his site for consideration on this matter: he had an opposing view with different conclusions. Daly is a commentator with an understanding of scientific methodology who is pointing out flaws, so expecting him to go through peer review is asking a bit much, isn't it? Or is that the idea, maybe if he has to wait a few months before each of his articles gets published, we won't hear so much of him?

    5. Re:The second step? by cp99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By "cherry-picking", I mean that Daly looks for data that supports his case, while ignoring data that fails to support his case.

      He does his science like a lawyer presents a case (tries to downplay or ignore any evidence which is damaging to his case), not as a scientist presents a theory (tries to explain all of the available evidence).

      An example of this, is his graph of sea levels at Tuvalu (sp?). He presents some raw data, which is extremely difficult to interpret, and from this concludes that the sea levels are not rising. What he omits is that real analysis of the data (as opposed to just eyeballing it) some that the sea levels are rising.

      Asking somebody to go through peer review isn't too much. There is no reason why he couldn't submit some of his criticism to a scientific journal, while publishing a more basic version on website.

      As for you submitting his site for consideration, that's fine. But like any pseudoscientific source, expect it to be judged harshly.

      --
      Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
  2. hmm by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

    We release enormouse amounts of enviroment unfriendly stuff, and each year this amount increases. We would need enormouse amounts of this nanostuff to remove it. And who is going to pay for that? The oil-maffia? Better spend that money on developing enviroment friendly energy.

  3. Sweet! by Omkar · · Score: 1

    That's a great first step. What we need to do next is:

    1. Find renewable energy sources

    2. Plant forests and create 'superforests' - massive C02 removers

    1. Re:Sweet! by ApharmdB · · Score: 1

      Hey, maybe these forests could also remove pollutants from the soil! And there could be giant, multi-eyed bugs that inhabit and take of the forest.

      We'd need to be careful though. We might need to wind up genetically enhancing people as well so that they could survive the trace amounts of pollen from the forests that would spread around the world. Of course, you'd still need a mask if you actually went into one of the forests. We couldn't modfiy people THAT much.

  4. I'm surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't it claimed that the ozone layer is already saved due to the ban of the ozone-dissolving gases ?

  5. someone brought up the point of... by C21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    who is going to pay for this nanotech ozone repair gas, well...on the other hand, who is going to pay to overhaul the car manufacturing plants, car repair stations, remove the gas stations, install hydrogen fuel stations, overhaul highways so as to attempt to funnel massive amounts of water runoff from tailpipes, etc. The answer is YOU, as a taxpayer (and a car buyer/owner in this case). The same applies to this ozone deal, once we have found a solution the economic problem will be dispersed evenly throughout everyone.

    --
    this is not a sig.
  6. Ozone layer already being saved. by Veramocor · · Score: 1

    To little, to to late.

    Concentrations of ozone depleting chemicals are already begining to level off, the ozone layer should start to heal itself afterwords.

    --
    Veramocor
  7. Ozone Layer Doesn't Need Saving by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bans of CFC's that deplete ozone have already essentially stopped ozone depletion and in fact ozone levels are expected to slowly recover over the next 50 years or so.

    http://www.hvacmall.com/news/article_00020.htm

  8. Drop that HEPA filter! This pollution is sentient! by Tsar · · Score: 1

    "Sommer says that if tests confirm the predictions from the simple model system, the result could be a practical strategy to stop, or possibly even repair, one of the two potentially most destructive global problems caused by mankind. He reckons scientists could use space technology to carry large amounts of specially designed non-toxic nanoscale particles into the heart of the ozone hole."

    I can't wait for CleverNickName to comment on this. Something must be said about modifying the deflector dish to interface with the sensor array and emit a nanoscale particle pulse. I would myself, but I'm too shy.

  9. Re:someone brought up ...Tailpipe runoff by dmanny · · Score: 1
    Are you really concerned about the amount of water coming out of the as yet non-viable hydorgen vehicles? You might want ot check your expectations for volume. Compared to a modest sprinkle of a rainstorm it would be nothing.

    My own concern with the boosterism for a "hydrogen economy" is, that for most of the public audience, there is no consideration as to how the hydrogen will be generated in a usable form. Away from mainstream media we see more attention being paid to non-fossil fuel sources of the primary energy.

    --
    All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used. :-(
  10. An unrealistic application by juushin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While I found Liz Kalaugher's article to be well written, there are serious issues with the science that is being reported AND the unrealistic application of using this technology to clean up CFCs.

    First - the self-assembly of solids at the interface of perfluorodecalin and water is not a new system - this area was pioneered by researchers at Harvard University. Thus the group at Uln is clearly reporting a phenomenon that is clearly not new. Add to this that they haven't even clearly characterized the phenomenon that they are claiming, which makes things more uninteresting.

    Second - since when are CFCs anything like perfluorodecalin? This would be on par with comparing apples and oranges. If one compares the physical characterics of these molecules such as the dipole moment, solvation energy, etc.., it would become clear that they would be chemically unsimiliar and would hence behave differently.

    In all reality this report represents yet another example of nano pie-in-the-sky.

    Thanks to those that have clearly posted that regardless of whether this system could be used to clean CFCs it would be of little use - CFCs have been banned in most developed nations for years.

    Let's see some articles on real nano work by those that are clearly pioneering this area - Charles Lieber, Hongkun Park, or Paul Alivasatos.

    1. Re:An unrealistic application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This would be on par with comparing apples and oranges.

      Apples and Oranges -- A Comparision

    2. Re:An unrealistic application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apples and oranges are apparently quite similar - I stand corrected!

  11. Using MEMS to process CO2, CH4 in upper air by Randym · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Why release gases when we could engineer small micro-devices -- floated aloft by tiny helium balloons -- that would, using catalysts and solar energy while floating about in the upper atmosphere, grab CO2 or CH4 [methane] molecules, collect the carbon (coiling it into a chain of carbon) and split off and release the O2 or H2. Eventually, the devices, weighted down with carbon, would sink into the lower atmosphere where, using RFID technology, they would be collected at various points, cleaned and relaunched until the levels of CO2 and CH4 had sufficiently declined. The pure carbon could be reused in industry.

    Problem: if too small, they may be mistaken for food by birds as they drift down.

    --
    DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
  12. It would still be nice if it worked... by siskbc · · Score: 1

    Granted, it probably won't for the reasons you elaborate. But finding a good CFC scavenger (other than ozone, obviously) would still be useful. First, while the industrialized world doesn't use them anymore, most of the world isn't industrialized! Second, the lifetimes of CFC's mean that they'll still be around for a while. So it would still be good to clean them up.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat