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.'"

22 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. Ozone depletion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Turns out it *is* a laughing matter.

    1. Re:Ozone depletion... by TriZz · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's ok, it balances out since laughter is the best medicine!

      --
      No matter how hot a girl is - some guy somewhere is sick of her shit.
    2. Re:Ozone depletion... by Bake · · Score: 4, Interesting

      European here,

      I've had a couple of minor procedures requiring anaesthesia for the past 8 years, last one this spring.

      I have resistive trypanophobia, a fancy term for a fairly extreme phobia towards needles and restraint (if I know there's a needle heading my way to inject me with something my heart starts racing and my body goes into "fight or flight" mode), which happens to be rather inconvenient when you're about to get a needle stuck in your hand to administer anaesthesia.

      So in order to prevent me from entering this basic survival mode my anaesthesiologists have given me a nice and healthy dose of laughing gas which leaves me without a care in the world.

      The fact that it seemed fairly routine for the anaesthesiologist to give me laughing gas seemed to indicate that they do use it fairly often for situations like my own.

    3. Re:Ozone depletion... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So if I've read the summary correctly (RTFA? What?), laughing gas isn't becoming an increasing problem, it's just becoming an increasing proportion of the problem because we're reducing the use of other harmful gases. In fact, the situation is actually improving. We've drastically reduced our use of CFCs in recent years, so the 5-6% thinning of the ozone layer is actually being reversed.

      Therefore the suggestion that this is actually a problem is laughable.

    4. Re:Ozone depletion... by tirefire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No mind-altering drugs? Ever? Really?

      You've never drunk coffee? You've never taken a prescription or OTC sleep aid? Never taken an antihistamine allergy medication?

      What are you, amish?

    5. Re:Ozone depletion... by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually no, I have never dunk coffee. Medications, yes. But those are hardly what most people would think of as "mind altering drugs".

      No, not Amish, I just have no interest in distorting reality.

    6. Re:Ozone depletion... by Anarchduke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you a complete fucktard? Chlorofluorocarbons were most certainly damaging the Earth's ozone layer, and banning those same CFC's is certainly benefiting the ozone layer. All the scientists are saying is that Nitrous Oxide is currently the most damaging pollutant to the ozone layer.

      I mean really, there was never any real doubt about the impact on the ozone layer by CFC's, and the scientists are saying that some of the damage to that layer is repairing itself. You can doubt what the end result of a damaged ozone layer would be, but the fact that ozone levels began to rapidly deplete isn't in doubt. Neither is the fact that the ozone layer insulates the surface of the planet from UV-B radiation.

      Sorry, but the scientists weren't making it up, and the fact that you are so filled with ass-hat ignorance as to be certain of some bullshit conspiracy among scientists should help to convince anyone on the fence about global warning that people like you are just idiots without a freaking clue.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    7. Re:Ozone depletion... by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He didn't directly say the CFC issue was bogus. He did highlighted a major problem with science in the US. The only way to get grant funding is scare tactics, or to blindly support a political agenda that's willing to pay to have their pet theories proven.

      Besides, there is still some lingering doubt about the effect of CFCs. There's actually a stronger correlation between the ozone densities in the lower stratosphere and things such as solar outputs. Some contradictions that have not been explained are the ozone "hole" (not really a hole) getting smaller before the atmospheric CFC levels declined. The upper stratosphere is generally unaffected even though most current CFC theories say it should be. The initial baseline we keep comparing too was probably the high point of a cyclic process. We see the size of the hole cycling up and down through the year, its reasonable to assume it also has a long cycle.

      The next scare tactic out there is carbon emissions. That's certainly a politically charged arena. Just ask Al Gore who's getting rich off it. The global temperature change tracks quite nicely with solar output levels, which happen to be cyclic. The politicians and scientists are making the tragic assuming that the earths temperature is supposed to be constant, and ignoring that it probably cycles up and down over a hundred year cycle. Are we affecting it? Possibly, but we are certainly not the dominant or controlling factor.

  2. Re:only one solution by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  3. Re:Haha by markdavis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Haha by Donkey_Hotey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...)
  5. Re:Haha by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. The sad, empty lives of liberals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Even laughing gas is no fun.

  7. Mislead much? by Perp+Atuitie · · Score: 5, Informative
    Hate to break into the hilarity fest, but the post makes a propaganda point and a lame joke by leaving out the core of the report:

    Nitrous oxide has a range of natural and human-made sources. The largest man-made source is agriculture, where the gas gets emitted after bacteria in soil break down the nitrogen in chemical fertilizers as well as in manure-based fertilizers. Nitrous oxide also comes from burning fossil fuels and from burning biomass.

    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.

  8. Re:Oh noes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Planet Earth:

    I'm really sorry for all those whippets I did in college.

    Fixed that for you.

  9. Re:Haha by treat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:To the Global Warming naysayers by jmerlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Not a problem. No action required. by Morty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:NOx is not N2O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    NOx == nitric oxide - this stuff, when hit with sunlight, causes smog - or low level ozone.

    N2O == Nitrous oxide - the stuff we are talking about

  13. Re:and natural CO2 production is 20x mans by khayman80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and natural CO2 production is 20x mans ... but it damn well won't stop the "consensus" train. The only good thing about N2O is that its not something you can tax the population over, at least directly. Can't wait to see who the N2O bogeymen are going to be.

    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.

  14. Number one emitter of CFC 114 in the US by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Number one emitter of CFC 114 in the US by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The average is 1 million pounds (thats 453,592.27 kilograms) PER YEAR since the bans began.

      You say that like it's somehow significant, yet give no indication whatsoever that it is in any way significant. Your entire post consists of "OMG LOOK REALLY BIG NUMBERS!!!!"

      Is there any reason to believe that a mere 0.5 Mg of this stuff is in any way bad for the atmosphere, which is after all 5e15 Mg?

      Big numbers aren't scary. Stupid people are. You kinda scare me.

      Please come back when you have an actual argument. In the meantime, please note the fact that the ozone layer is thickening just now, so the eventually damage this stuff might do is less than whatever damage was done by the original problem with CFC's, which is no surprise given North American emissions are down to a few percent of their peak values.

      Oh, and I'd also recommend putting things in grams rather than kg, as that will make the numbers BIGGER, and apparently you think that is important for some reason.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.