While RoHS does call for the elimination of the fire retardents you've listed, it in now way should be interpreted as to exclude ALL fire retardents. Not all fire retardent additives are polybromides. Those are plentiful, effective, and cheap. But there are others.
In general, government authorities do not regulate against immediate safety in favor of environmental (long term safety) unless there is a viable alternative. Usually (but not always), the regulation is deemed necessary to overcome the economic incentive to keep using the commonly accepted materials and methods.
But, if you acknowledge the logical reality, you can't "edumacate" and call other people "beyatch".
Most of these arguments are based on selective data :
"Biggest since 2000" "increasing since 1976"
and reinforced by anecdotal evidence :
- entire flocks of sheep on some southern island are blind (testifying to the increased UV radiation) - skin cancer increasing hundredfold over the past 30 years
The way I understand it, the ozone layer is still measured the same way Dobson first discovered it.
-Records indicate that the hole was actually larger in Dobson's time than it is even now. Looking at the entire record of the ozone layer thickness, it appears nearly cyclical.
- Informed scientists report that there will always be a 'hole' at the south pole, even if there were NEVER any human involvement. This is because of the nature of the solar mechanism of ozone generation, and the rotation and flow around the globe.
- The sheep that are so often cited in the stories are actually blind genetically, due to decades of inbreeding (they're on a small isolated island, after all).
- Skin cancer increases : of course it's increased since 1950 ! More leisure time in general, and lax attitudes toward body exposure since the 1950s has increased our exposure to the sun. Take a look at the size of the swimsuits today versus history, as well as the popularity of beaches, beach resorts, cruises, tanning booths, etc.
I'm totally against pollution and needless use of harmful chemicals, but the environmentalists have no more scruples than the capitalists - they will LIE about whatever it takes to achieve the desired end.
Cut pollution for sure - but don't make up scary lies just to convince the public that we need to pass laws to restrict industry. Be honest about the reasons. People (usually) can tell when they're being bulshitted.
Sorry, I was recalling an article some years ago that was an interview with one of the top guys on a committee to recommend a position to G. Bush on ozone - or something.
I don't hav it, but it turns out I was WAY off on the timeline - Dobson did his study in the 50's. And now I find that the article I read was probably mis-stating the Dobson measurements.
I just read a faq explaining :
-----------------------------
Subject: 6.) But I heard that Dobson saw an ozone hole in 1956-58...
This is a myth, arising from a misinterpretation of an out-of-
context quotation from a review article by Dobson.
In his historical account [Dobson 1968b], Dobson mentioned that
when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured,
he was surprised to find that they were about 150 DU below
corresponding levels (displaced by six months) in the Arctic.
Springtime arctic ozone levels are very high, ~450 DU; in the
Antarctic spring, however, Dobson's coworkers found ~320 DU, close
to winter levels. This was the first observation of the _normal_,
pre-1980 behavior of the Antarctic ozone layer: because of the
tight polar vortex (see below) ozone levels remain low until late
spring. In the Antarctic ozone hole, on the other hand, ozone
levels _decrease_ from these already low values. What Dobson
describes is essentially the _baseline_ from which the ozone hole
is measured. [Dobson 1968b] [WMO 1989].................................................. ............
So that's what I get for believing what I read - (and I won't necessarily make the same mistake with the above quoted FAQ either...)
Sorry about spreading hearsay -
I remember reading about this nearly ten years ago, and what I remember is that the data often presented by the protagonists is carefully selected. As I recall, they choose to show trends in short periods - like ten years - that tend to support the scare. The reality is that due to the rotation of the earth, axis, jetstreams, etc. there will ALWAYS be an ozone hole of some size over the south pole (well, not the pole exactly, but...)
The guy who invented the method of measuring the thickness of the ozone layer in 1930's took data in scatterred areas around the globe. His data showed a larger 'hole' than there is today (I thin this was in 1993) And - at least in 1993 - the method of measuring had not improved since the 30's, so it's not just bad initial data.
BTW - it's really ony a thinness to the layer even today
The other evidence often presented is anecdotal and mis-represented. The blind sheep often referred to at the tip of South America are supposed to be blind as the result of overexposure to UV. The truth is that they are isolated on an island and centuries of inbreeding have led to the blindness - not UV. (I wonder what that says about the farmers ?)
I think the environmentalist groups latch on to issues like this (as well as the acid-rain issue) because it's a tangible, scary tool that facilitates the funding of legislative efforts.
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be much more responsible about pollution in general - especially water and air pollution, but these inflammatory issues are just lies being used to further a noble cause. They're doing the wrong thing as a means to a good end.
We should have a society that is mature enough to do the right thing for the sake of it - not only in response to immediate danger.
DaveL
Slashdot Mirror
While RoHS does call for the elimination of the fire retardents you've listed, it in now way should be interpreted as to exclude ALL fire retardents. Not all fire retardent additives are polybromides.
Those are plentiful, effective, and cheap. But there are others.
In general, government authorities do not regulate against immediate safety in favor of environmental (long term safety) unless there is a viable alternative.
Usually (but not always), the regulation is deemed necessary to overcome the economic incentive to keep using the commonly accepted materials and methods.
But, if you acknowledge the logical reality, you can't "edumacate" and call other people "beyatch".
Most of these arguments are based on selective data :
"Biggest since 2000"
"increasing since 1976"
and reinforced by anecdotal evidence :
- entire flocks of sheep on some southern island are blind (testifying to the increased UV radiation)
- skin cancer increasing hundredfold over the past 30 years
The way I understand it, the ozone layer is still measured the same way Dobson first discovered it.
-Records indicate that the hole was actually larger in Dobson's time than it is even now.
Looking at the entire record of the ozone layer thickness, it appears nearly cyclical.
- Informed scientists report that there will always be a 'hole' at the south pole, even if there were NEVER any human involvement. This is because of the nature of the solar mechanism of ozone generation, and the rotation and flow around the globe.
- The sheep that are so often cited in the stories are actually blind genetically, due to decades of inbreeding (they're on a small isolated island, after all).
- Skin cancer increases : of course it's increased since 1950 ! More leisure time in general, and lax attitudes toward body exposure since the 1950s has increased our exposure to the sun. Take a look at the size of the swimsuits today versus history, as well as the popularity of beaches, beach resorts, cruises, tanning booths, etc.
I'm totally against pollution and needless use of harmful chemicals, but the environmentalists have no more scruples than the capitalists - they will LIE about whatever it takes to achieve the desired end.
Cut pollution for sure - but don't make up scary lies just to convince the public that we need to pass laws to restrict industry.
Be honest about the reasons.
People (usually) can tell when they're being bulshitted.
Sorry, I was recalling an article some years ago that was an interview with one of the top guys on a committee to recommend a position to G. Bush on ozone - or something. I don't hav it, but it turns out I was WAY off on the timeline - Dobson did his study in the 50's. And now I find that the article I read was probably mis-stating the Dobson measurements. I just read a faq explaining : ----------------------------- Subject: 6.) But I heard that Dobson saw an ozone hole in 1956-58... This is a myth, arising from a misinterpretation of an out-of- context quotation from a review article by Dobson. In his historical account [Dobson 1968b], Dobson mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, he was surprised to find that they were about 150 DU below corresponding levels (displaced by six months) in the Arctic. Springtime arctic ozone levels are very high, ~450 DU; in the Antarctic spring, however, Dobson's coworkers found ~320 DU, close to winter levels. This was the first observation of the _normal_, pre-1980 behavior of the Antarctic ozone layer: because of the tight polar vortex (see below) ozone levels remain low until late spring. In the Antarctic ozone hole, on the other hand, ozone levels _decrease_ from these already low values. What Dobson describes is essentially the _baseline_ from which the ozone hole is measured. [Dobson 1968b] [WMO 1989] .................................................. ............
So that's what I get for believing what I read - (and I won't necessarily make the same mistake with the above quoted FAQ either...)
Sorry about spreading hearsay -
I remember reading about this nearly ten years ago, and what I remember is that the data often presented by the protagonists is carefully selected. As I recall, they choose to show trends in short periods - like ten years - that tend to support the scare. The reality is that due to the rotation of the earth, axis, jetstreams, etc. there will ALWAYS be an ozone hole of some size over the south pole (well, not the pole exactly, but...) The guy who invented the method of measuring the thickness of the ozone layer in 1930's took data in scatterred areas around the globe. His data showed a larger 'hole' than there is today (I thin this was in 1993) And - at least in 1993 - the method of measuring had not improved since the 30's, so it's not just bad initial data. BTW - it's really ony a thinness to the layer even today The other evidence often presented is anecdotal and mis-represented. The blind sheep often referred to at the tip of South America are supposed to be blind as the result of overexposure to UV. The truth is that they are isolated on an island and centuries of inbreeding have led to the blindness - not UV. (I wonder what that says about the farmers ?) I think the environmentalist groups latch on to issues like this (as well as the acid-rain issue) because it's a tangible, scary tool that facilitates the funding of legislative efforts. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be much more responsible about pollution in general - especially water and air pollution, but these inflammatory issues are just lies being used to further a noble cause. They're doing the wrong thing as a means to a good end. We should have a society that is mature enough to do the right thing for the sake of it - not only in response to immediate danger. DaveL