Slashdot Mirror
Nanotechnology Could Save The Ozone Layer
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."
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.
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...)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.