Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ozone Hole Getting Smaller

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the things-looking-up dept.

snark42 writes "According to Reuters and some other sources the hole in the ozone layer shrank 20% this year to a mere 9 million square miles. Of course scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about."

4 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. Hope this isn't used as an excuse... by kentmartin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While this is good news, I hope it isn't seen by governments as an excuse to ease their environmental burdens in favour of bowing to economic/corporate pressures, and, I really hope it isn't seen as yet another excuse by the US government to duck out for even longer on signing the Kyoto Accords.

    I realize the above accords don't directly affect the ozone layer, but, ask anyone on the street - the hole in the Ozone layer and the "Greenhouse Effect" are the same thing right? Maybe the hole lets more heat in or something...

    It is a sad state of affairs when one feels so cynical, that the first thing that occurs when a hint of good news comes along, is, how will those in power exploit this?

  2. Re:Kyoto isn't ment to work by jeffehobbs · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Please tell me how exempting the fastest growing, most poluting economy on the face of the planet will make one bit of difference.

    Progress that's not all-encompassing still continues to be progress.

    ~jeff

  3. Re:hrmmm by k98sven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody ever proposed such a thing.

    First, if you're going to be a smart-ass perhaps you should get your facts right. Volcanos don't spew CFCs. They spew other chemicals (mostly sulphur compounds) which destroy the ozone layer.

    You're argumenting that since volcanos damage the ozone layer, it's OK if we humans contribute further to the destruction.

    That's stupid. We can't do anything about the former, we can certainly do something about the latter. Why shouldn't we? UV radiation has been an increasing problem in the polar regions.
    I live in Sweden. The skin cancer rate here has tripled since the 50's.

    By the same rationale, we shouldn't bother about nuclear waste either. After all, there's natural background radiation out there which causes cancer too.

  4. Scientific Bias by Zoc_All_Alone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, lemmie get this straight:
    The hole gets 2% bigger, scientists freak out, instantly blaming pollution and saying we need to change. Then, when the hole shrinks by 20%, "scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about."

    Is it just me, or does it seem these scientists are protraying the facts in such a way to continue their funding?