Quote:You call yourself an environmental scientist and you don't even know that the concentration makes the poison? The chlorine in the atmosphere is mostly in the form of NaCl and HCl, but even if it were all in the form of free chlorine the concentration is insignificant health-wise. The NaCl and HCl in the atmosphere is still way more abundant than CFCs.
The whole idea of CFCs contributing ozone depletion is that they are carried into the upper atmosphere where UV breaks them down.
The CFC molecule has no effect on ozone, which is what I originally stated. The CFC has to be broken down to create free chlorine in order to deplete ozone (so does NaCl and HCl).
But what should be an alarm bell for you is that the CFC=evil claim came about just at the time that Dupont had created a new fully-patented replacement (the freon patent had expired). Funny coincidence, no? And what's even funnier is that the replacement also has chlorine in it.
Another "alternative" fact by someone who doesn't understand chemistry.
CCl<sub>3</sub>F (this is the CFC molecule) (undergoes reaction when sunlight (hv) strikes the molecule) ---> CCl<sub>2</sub>F<sup>.</sup> + Cl<sup>.</sup>
<sup>Chlorine radyl Cl* is then able to to react with O3: Cl* + O3 ---> ClO + O2 </sup>
Chlorine
monoxide then reacts with O2, and frees up the Chlorine radical which is then free to start the catalytic destruction of ozone process all over again:
ClO + O --> Cl* + O2
Quote:Fact? Where did this become a fact, and when?
Who factualized it? Care to elaborate?
From fracking which cause a noticeable increase in seismic activity since 2013.
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-08/why-oklahoma-can-t-turn-off-its-earthquakes'>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-08/why-oklahoma-can-t-turn-off-its-earthquakes</a>
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entryname=EARTHQUAKES'>Actually, Oklahoma experiences approximately 50 earthquakes per year</a>.
Stop reaching you may pull something.
Your article does not mention whether or not Oklahoma lies on a tectonic plate or fault line, just an overview of the state's earthquake history.
Quote:
Another "alternative" fact by someone who doesn't understand chemistry.
CCl<sub>3</sub>F (this is the CFC molecule) (undergoes reaction when sunlight (hv) strikes the molecule) ---> CCl<sub>2</sub>F<sup>.</sup> + Cl<sup>.</sup>
<sup>Chlorine radyl Cl* is then able to to react with O3: Cl* + O3 ---> ClO + O2 </sup>
Chlorine
monoxide then reacts with O2, and frees up the Chlorine radical which is then free to start the catalytic destruction of ozone process all over again: ClO + O --> Cl* + O2
And how is this anything different than what I just said? Y
ou are the one who said that the CFC destroys ozone, yet your chemistry demonstrates that it is free chlorine, which is what I said. You're the one who doesn't understand chemistry in this argument.
The same effect can be had if the reaction is HCl ---> H+ + Cl- or NaCl ---> Na+ + Cl-. You still get the free Cl to catalyze the destruction of ozone, but the source is natural.
Quote:And how is this anything different than what I just said? Y
ou are the one who said that the CFC destroys ozone, yet your chemistry demonstrates that it is free chlorine, which is what I said. You're the one who doesn't understand chemistry in this argument.
The same effect can be had if the reaction is HCl ---> H+ + Cl- or NaCl ---> Na+ + Cl-. You still get the free Cl to catalyze the destruction of ozone, but the source is natural.
Neither hydrochloride or sodium chloride are in significant quantities in the atmosphere Also how do you plan on breaking the bond between sodium and chloride, to free the chlorine radical with just sunlight? Lastly CFCs can persist in the stratosphere for decades, natural sources of free Chlorine radicals do not.
Solid snake, I am squarely in the "only enough knowledge about fracking to be dangerous" camp...but doesn't 14 destroyed houses and 2 injuries seem like a minuscule price to pay for far greater energy independence, lower energy costs, large economic boost, and a ton of full time, high paying jobs?
There's a trade off for every type of impact that man makes on the environment which increases our livelihoods, and all in all fracking seems like it skews heavily toward the positive side to me.
Quote:Solid snake, I am squarely in the "only enough knowledge about fracking to be dangerous" camp...but doesn't 14 destroyed houses and 2 injuries seem like a minuscule price to pay for far greater energy independence, lower energy costs, large economic boost, and a ton of full time, high paying jobs?
There's a trade off for every type of impact that man makes on the environment which increases our livelihoods, and all in all fracking seems like it skews heavily toward the positive side to me.
Is all the oil going to be kept domestically or is a certain percentage going to be sold abroad? Also if reports are true, there will be more geologic instability and a higher risk of water contamination. Let me ask you this....what if this was your neighborhood? How much do you value your own health and life? What of your significant other or your children?
Quote:Is all the oil going to be kept domestically or is a certain percentage going to be sold abroad? Also if reports are true, there will be more geologic instability and a higher risk of water contamination. Let me ask you this....what if this was your neighborhood? How much do you value your own health and life? What of your significant other or your children?
1. Sold abroad would be a net positive too right?
2. I'm not sure what kind of contamination they have proven recently, but I know the Pennsylvania water catching on fire was roundly debunked.
3. Personally, I would gladly sacrifice and move if it meant it benefited an untold number of people. I've moved a dozen times though so it would be an easy choice, I know lots of people would disagree.
Quote:1. Sold abroad would be a net positive too right?
2. I'm not sure what kind of contamination they have proven recently, but I know the Pennsylvania water catching on fire was roundly debunked.
3. Personally, I would gladly sacrifice and move if it meant it benefited an untold number of people. I've moved a dozen times though so it would be an easy choice, I know lots of people would disagree.
And what if you couldn't move?
Here's what I would like to understand better. CFCs are much more dense than air so you would think they would sink and settle to the ground instead of floating to the top of the atmosphere. The explanation is that air currents carry the CFCs up there but most of the hairspray and stuff from the 80s was used inside i would think. Wouldn't the CFCs be on the floor or in the carpet then?
I don't fully understand the science behind this sort of thing but it seems fishy to me that something heavier than air would be reaching the upper atmosphere without any kind of propulsion.
Quote:Here's what I would like to understand better. CFCs are much more dense than air so you would think they would sink and settle to the ground instead of floating to the top of the atmosphere. The explanation is that air currents carry the CFCs up there but most of the hairspray and stuff from the 80s was used inside i would think. Wouldn't the CFCs be on the floor or in the carpet then?
I don't fully understand the science behind this sort of thing but it seems fishy to me that something heavier than air would be reaching the upper atmosphere without any kind of propulsion.
There are hundreds to thousands of papers on this topic. I'll summarize:
4. COMMONLY ENCOUNTERED OBJECTIONS
4.1) CFC's are 4-8 times heavier than air, so how can they reach
the stratosphere?
This is answered in Part I of this FAQ, section 1.3. Briefly,
atmospheric gases do not segragate by weight in the troposphere
and the stratosphere, because the mixing mechanisms (convection,
"eddy diffusion") do not distinguish molecular masses.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://zebu.uoregon.edu/text/ozone'>http://zebu.uoregon.edu/text/ozone</a>
Quote:There are hundreds to thousands of papers on this topic. I'll summarize:
4. COMMONLY ENCOUNTERED OBJECTIONS
4.1) CFC's are 4-8 times heavier than air, so how can they reach
the stratosphere?
This is answered in Part I of this FAQ, section 1.3. Briefly,
atmospheric gases do not segragate by weight in the troposphere
and the stratosphere, because the mixing mechanisms (convection,
"eddy diffusion") do not distinguish molecular masses.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://zebu.uoregon.edu/text/ozone'>http://zebu.uoregon.edu/text/ozone</a>
Right, that's basically what I read too, but it's not like we are out spraying hairspray outside into the wind, it's inside and it settles to the floor.
Quote:Right, that's basically what I read too, but it's not like we are out spraying hairspray outside into the wind, it's inside and it settles to the floor.
Not all of it. You could do an experiment and easily test this. Some will settle, some will drift up. Ask yourself this...why does smoke rise?
Quote:Not all of it. You could do an experiment and easily test this. Some will settle, some will drift up. Ask yourself this...why does smoke rise?
Because the warm smoke is less dense than the surrounding air, same as a hot air balloon. CFCs are more dense than the surrounding air. If you were heating the CFCs, maybe they would be less dense and behave like smoke, but unless we are talking about pyromaniacs using aqua-net as a blowtorch, this isn't typically what we do.
Since the smoke is less dense than the air it rises and the CFCs are more dense so they fall and settle... this seems to prove my concerns about the CFCs in the atmosphere more than disprove it. Even if some escaped someones home and got picked up by wind currents, I can't see how that is enough to effect things on a large scale. \
Edit: Upon further examination, smoke isn't less dense, but even smoke eventually settles.
Quote:And what if you couldn't move?
Assuming you are implying that I lack the financial means to pick up and move then I would gladly take one of the full time, high paying jobs and rake in the 100k+ salary until I could move (or I would just stay and risk it).
I have done some charity work with Chick-fil-A in some of the very poorest counties in the country an hour east of me in the Appalachians. Those people would loooooove to be cursed with an economic boon like that, especially since the coal industry has been dismantled like it has been.
1989). At least two factors reduce the impact of HCl, chlorine appears to be preferentially released during low-levels of volcanic activity and thus may be limited to the troposphere, where it can be scrubbed by rain. Hydrogen chloride may also condense in the rising volcanic plume, again to be scrubbed out by rain or ice. Lack of HCl in ice cores with high amounts of H2SO4 (from large eruptions) may indicate ambient stratospheric conditions are extremely efficient at removing HCl. Thus, most HCl never has the opportunity to react with ozone. No increase in stratospheric chlorine was observed during the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.