Hole in "Ozone" layer or Hole in the Head

Four companies controlled the patents for CFC's, the fundamental ingredient for refrigeration. These patents started running out in the late 80's and as chemical factories of the developing world started to take over market share a world wide campaign was initiated to ban CFC's. Why? The developing world is in dire need of refrigeration; the food industry and health industry are just two examples.

Massive profits can be made. But those in current power want those profits and looked for a reason...they decided that the CFC'c cause the ozone layer to deplete. And the hoax, backed by massive amounts of money has worked.

Massive amounts of money are at play and the aforesaid four companies have patents on the replacements. Nothing can cause a hole in the ozone layer...ask any proper scientist, not the opinion mongerers and the media hungry and of course the media itself.

I could understand if illiterate, uneducated, uninitiated masses were the culprits for this massive fraud...no, the campaign is aimed at the intelligent, educated status conscious fools. Those who can repeat what they have heard from 'informed sources' and further influence opinion. Those who never stop and question whether they actually understand or even have the basic knowledge to understand the topic in question.

Question anyone you meet who 'believes' in this myth and you will soon discover they are repeating other 'authentic', 'reliable' authorities. It is such a travesty for us in the developing world to be treated in this manner..but we are the root cause because we never see where the self-interest of others lies and do not question the benevolence of others who are 'looking out for us and for the planet'.

Here is why there is no such thing as a 'Hole in the ozone layer':

A molecule of oxygen has two oxygen atoms. In the upper atmosphere, high energy ultra violet rays split this molecule to create free oxygen atoms. These combine with a molecule of oxygen to create a three atom molecule of oxygen called Ozone. This is an ongoing process at an altitude of about 30 km above the earth and these mlecules sink and move around to create a layer from about 17 to 30km above the earth.

Now how would you even create a case for CFC's to affect this process?

The idea is that when CFC's are released they rise into the atmosphere, are split open by the same UV rays and a free chlorine atom is released. This chlorine atom combines with one of the three oxygen atoms of ozone to create Chlorine monoxide and a normal two atom oxygen molecule.

That is it...the entire process...that has launched this massive campaign. Now is this process possible and is it significant.

Let us look at some examples of chlorine releasing from natural events:

i) Ocean spray + thunderstorms release 600 million tons per year
ii) Volcanoes release 36 million tons per year
iii) other natural phenomenon: 14 million tons per year

Compared to this, leakage of CFC chlorine is 7.5 tons per year.

Now, this chlorine from all these events has to rise 30 km so that UV rays can split off the chlorine atom which then has to come into contact with the ozone molecule etc...Only 2% of the CFC's get as high as 30km because of the thermal inversion layer. The number of interactions is therefore even more limited..in other words, if you cannot get there, you are unlikely to meet.

Further there are 136 million oxygen molecules for every 'free' chlorine molecule..so the replenshing of the ozone layer continues unabated. It is an ongoing process..never changing.

To illustrate further, one volcanic eruption puts out over 100 million tons of chlorine into the atmosphere..or the equivalent of 15 years worth of CFC's....imagine the past when active volcanoes were legion...the ozone layer is there today.

Then of course we have the 'increase in skin cancer' argument. Australia seems to have the highest incidence of skin cancer..but it is virtually unheard of among the aborigines. Globalization has allowed people to move away from their natural habitats and this creates new dangers. For example the incidence of death by drowning goes up as you get closer to the equator...it is not the water that is more lethal, it is just that people do not go swimming in the arctic. The same applies to the 'skin cancer ' argument. Enough said.

I want to go into the 'Hole' over the south pole..but I will leave that for another day...digest this so far.