Slashdot Mirror
Laughing Gas Is Major Threat To Ozone Layer
Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that according to new research, nitrous oxide, the colorless, sweet-smelling gas with a long history as a medical and dental anesthetic is the next big threat to Earth's protective ozone layer. Its role in destroying ozone has long been recognized, as well as its role as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas but the new study puts nitrous oxide's ability to deplete ozone into numbers comparable to those used for other ozone-depleting gases covered by the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The researchers note that the health of the ozone layer has been improving since the adoption of the protocol and that nitrous oxide looms large today as an artificial destroyer of the ozone layer, in part because the emissions of other harmful chemicals have been so sharply reduced." (Continues.)
"Globally, Earth's ozone layer has thinned by 5 to 6 percent since 1980, before CFCs and their ilk came into wide use, according to Akkihebbal Ravishankara, who led the study. He and his colleagues note that 6 percent may appear to be a small number, but it still can lead to significant effects on organisms at Earth's surface. The researchers did not make any policy recommendations in light of their finding. 'It is not for us to gauge how much risk there is,' says Ravishankara. In any event, Ravishankara says, at the moment researchers could not say with confidence 'how much nitrous oxide comes from where.'"
Turns out it *is* a laughing matter.
Are you sure you want your car to suddenly start laughing when driving on a highway at 100 mph in the rush hour?
Ezekiel 23:20
I am quite sure that the use in the medical and racing field are of no threat to the ozone layer. Those are intentionally created sources. The major threat is from general pollution that creates N2O. It is interesting to note, also, that according to Wikipedia, 70% of N2O is created naturally in soil and in/from the ocean.
...at the moment researchers could not say with confidence 'how much nitrous oxide comes from where.'
That would probably be because it isn't regulated. It's actually legal to own despite its recreational properties. As an oxidizer it has many industrial uses. And like all oxidizers, yes, when it gets into the upper atmosphere Bad Things Happen(tm). We may need better methods of containing it (it is a gas at room temperature, of course) when used in an industrial setting, but that's about the extent of what we can do to contain the problem -- it's a very basic chemical with a wide range of applications, many of which aren't amiable to being changed to using another agent.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Of course, the political response will be to pass a bill that places it on a restricted-chemicals list. Industry has a blanket exemption, but no personal/recreational use allowed...
(There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
propofol is already one of the most widely used anesthetics (if i remember correctly, its actually a hyponotic, but thats beside the point). Using a mixture of gases and injection reduces the dosage required for any individual drug drastically, meaning less of a reaction to any given drug. It spreads it around so to speak.
I'm not sure how much medical usage really can effect the ozone layer, because it is contained by the anesthesia machine and metabolized by the body, meaning it isnt released into the atmosphere. I don't know a lot about its other uses though. I'm just familiar with it in the operating room.
Even laughing gas is no fun.
Nobody's talking about laughing gas, the anesthetic and geek enhancer. They're talking about artificial and natural shit -- let the new round of hilarity begin.
Dear Planet Earth:
I'm really sorry for all those whippets I did in college.
Fixed that for you.
propofol is already one of the most widely used anesthetics (if i remember correctly, its actually a hyponotic, but thats beside the point). Using a mixture of gases and injection reduces the dosage required for any individual drug drastically, meaning less of a reaction to any given drug. It spreads it around so to speak.
Not why. In surgery, some drugs are "background" drugs to keep you always anesthesized. Some are stronger and shorter-acting, and are meant to keep you actually half-dead, requiring closer monitoring. But the background drugs ensure that you're still on something when they back off of the serious ones.
Nitrous and Propofol are in the 'background' drug category. Longer acting and less strong.
Any global agenda behind which there is a "political will" is innately corrupt, bullshit, or something that they stand to benefit or gain personally from. Our politicians aren't trying to fix world hunger are they? No? But we care SO MUCH about a prediction that at our current use something which will kill off life on this planet in hundreds of thousands of years?
You can't honestly stand here and believe that the most corrupt people in the world give a shit about the ozone layer or global warming -- before anything "bad" happens as a result of any man-made climate problems (even if they are true -- though largely unproven), they, their children, and children's great great grandchildren will be all dead and gone. All they care about right now is having power and getting wealthy. "Cap and Trade" is not a constructive tax -- it is destructive. We have technologies other than coal and oil to produce energy, but it is far too expensive to implement privately, we NEED a $1 TRILLION bill to kick-start it, but congress isn't willing to toss that one down, but they'll gladly punish us for using the only cheap and available technology that will keep this country running. Why do you think that is? Because they can sit here and tax the US citizens for using oil, and quite dramatically at that, to get lots and lots of money -- but do you honestly think any of that money will come back to us? $2 Trillion in deficit spending already has gone *poof*... the trillions to come trickling out of our GDP from this tax will disappear just as well, and with absolutely no liability to anyone in congress while they kick back and enjoy the gold linings in their pockets.
It's just the next buzz-word in politics: "omgs, it might destroy human life on the earth in a few hundred years in a worst case scenario!!"... As far as self-preservation goes, these politicians ought to be worried more about disrespecting and angering the citizens that give them power, after all, if they continue down this path, it'll be the French Revolution all over again, and I'll bring my guillotine with me.
Ha-Ha!
Natural absorption is also 20x man's production
TFA says that the ozone layer is improving anyway. So it appears that NO, while bad for the ozone layer, is not present in sufficient quantities to actually be causing a problem. No action should be required.
Or in different terms, it may be the most significant cause of damage to the ozone layer, but it is not a cause of significant damage to the ozone layer.
NOx == nitric oxide - this stuff, when hit with sunlight, causes smog - or low level ozone.
N2O == Nitrous oxide - the stuff we are talking about
I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. There seem to be an endless number of internet ninjas promoting claims like this, despite the fact that CO2 hasn't risen above 300ppm in the last 650,000 years. But then we come along and the concentration skyrockets to 380ppm in a matter of decades, which is 35x faster than any increase in the last 650,000 years.
As other posters have remarked, natural CO2 production and absorption aren't relevant to the current CO2 problem because they balance each other. Our emissions and volcanoes are the only sources of CO2 that aren't balanced, and humans emit 100x more CO2 than volcanoes.
Despite the Montreal Act, CFC114, which is also a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02, is leaking from Paducah Uranium Enrichment facilities into the atmosphere through hundreds of kilometres of cooling pipes. The average is 1 million pounds (thats 453,592.27 kilograms) PER YEAR since the bans began. That is 8 618 255.03 kilograms (8 Megatons) of CFC114 *since* they were banned. That's the equivalent of 172,365,100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the enrichment process alone and does not include the 1 Gigawatt of coal fired power used to run Paducah.
One thing that is not immediately obvious from the destruction this compound causes to the ozone layer is the eventual effect on Phytoplankton which creates more breathable oxygen than the Amazon. The assertion is examined in these links production of oxygen in the oceans is at least equal to the production on land if not a bit more
and Field studies indicate a dramatic decrease in photosynthetic oxygen production can be measured after exposure to solar radiation
and Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment. Sure it's 10 years old, but that's an extra 10 million pounds of CFC114 resultant from enrichment operating, I don't imaging it's got any better.
Going after nitrous oxide emissions is the proverbial trying to plug a hole in a dam with your fingers while it is bursting elsewhere. CFC 114 is still used for enrichment today, and the Nuclear industry is the number one industrial emitter of CFC's in the United States. We can expect up to 1 million pounds of CFC114 to leak into the atmosphere per year whilst enrichment continues.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Thanks. As you say, the climate changes naturally. The graph immediately below the one you're talking about shows temperature reconstructions over the last 1000 years that support what you're saying. These natural climate changes establish a range of natural variability, and current measurements show that the climate is now changing much faster than can be attributed to natural causes.
It's quite simple. You argue "why is it that in OUR country, which is nothing like your country, doing this worked (well didn't impact our tax rates anyway!), but in yours, you think it wont?!"
I don't know how uneducated you are but grab a map or a globe and check out relative sizes. Not good enough? Numbers: USA - 9,161,923 KM^2... Sweden - 449,964 KM^2. That's 20.4 : 1. Population? USA - ~307,269,000... Sweden - ~9,263,872... That's 33.2 : 1. And let's just completely for sake of simplicity IGNORE the climate differences because that has a huge factor.
Now, actual energy consumption numbers? Let's see....
USA
Sweden
Ok. Sweden's total energy consumption in 1999 was 51094 units. For reference, the USA consumed 2269985 units. 44.4 : 1. The USA produced enough renewable energy to completely power all of Sweden... boy.. a CO2 tax wouldn't be very expensive there now would it? But do you notice something about how much CO2 emitting fuels we use here in the USA because it is TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE to power this entire country on anything else with the grid being powered primarily by private corporations. A CO2 tax here is imposed and is completely unfair because we're one of the highest renewable energy producing countries ON THE PLANET, yet we're still not completely green -- and the country is SO MUCH BIGGER than sweden that a much larger portion of the population must commute, and a huge percentage of those vehicles burn a petroleum product -- producing CO2.
We'd have no problem with a CO2 tax... IF the government would spend equally in that sector and to make *SOME* effort to help the country move toward the government's goals. Cash for clunkers -- bad move, good for banks (the ones the gov. now owns).. and the motor companies (which it also now owns.. lol..). Hundreds of billions of $ in stimulus -- building roads, money disappearing in pork projects, most of it completely invisible to citizens -- bailing out insurance companies, banks, motor vehicle companies, etc etc etc. A TRILLION DOLLAR healthcare bill -- when the existing system would be *FINE* if everyone didn't have to pay so much for energy (taxing it won't help). Where's the "stimulus" towards renewable energies? Towards R&D in vehicle technology that will make very high mileage vehicles CHEAP? Nowhere... but a very willing government to make us pay for producing CO2 when it's our lifeline at this point in history.
We all want to pursue fission, it's less waste producing that burning coal but you've got fanatic green fucktards who lobby against it... we want fusion (lol, that would power THE PLANET).. but no government investment there.. we'd like to all power our homes with solar panels and turbines.. stipends here and there but no real public push or incentive from the government. Nothing. NOTHING. But tax our consumption practices because "change" is desired.
You see, liberals hit a brick wall here with this one. Complete hypocrisy. On the one hand, when the economy is failing, we're gonna pump money into banks and corporations who have shown an inability to run their company successfully (ie, why they're failing). That's FINE, encourage those bad practices which are economically DISASTROUS... but CO2 emissions? Oh, we need... TR.. TR.. TRUH.. TRILLIONS of dollars.. to implement a "green" energy grid -- which nobody has!!... well.. fuck you guys, we'll make you PAY MORE MONEY TO US, the FUCKING government of the USA, because we're the big daddys baby, we're YOUR FUCKING DADDY, give us your money.. because we'll re-invest it in helping you do what is good for this country!! (Lol). Taking money from companies that you want to turn around and invest money in renewable energy is completely counter-productive and counter-intuitive.
Your argument is inherently flawed. L