Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More ozone news

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    RR

    It is entirely the UV light energy that does it. It is actually very complex, but you can consider that there is a resonance in the oxygen molecule that absorbs the UV energy at a given frequency and this energy is sufficient to break down the covalent bond between the two oxygen atoms to liberate them from each other. The "loose" atoms of oxgen the beetle around until they find an oxygen molecule, with which it combines to form an ozone molecule. This happens at typically 12 to 50 km altitude, but the main effect is at 20-40 km, Below 20, there is already sufficient UV filtering that the energy levels tail off: above 40, there is less oxygen for chance combinations of O and O2 to occur.

    As ozone is an unstable gas, it is constantly forming (in daytime) and decomposing, and a natural equilibrium occurs. Ozone depletion occurs because of chain reactions whereby odd chlorine and bromine atoms attack huge numbers of ozone molecules and thus upset the natural equilibrium.

    The reason for the depletion to be less at the N. Pole is simple: it's a lot warmer there (sea under the ice, instead of land). The Polar Vortex is therefore much less active and the chemical conditions in the upper and middle stratosphere are different.

    One of the best brief laymen's explanations is called Action on Ozone (26 pages) at http://www.unep.ch/ozone/pdf/ozone-action-en.pdf

    An excellent book outlining the problem, very easy to read and even fascinating is 'Between Earth and Sky' by Cagin and Dray, published by Pantheon ISBN 0-679-42052-5. It actually gives the history of CFCs. For example, did you know that both tetraethyl lead in motor fuel and CFCs for refrigeration were developed by the same guy, a Thomas Midgeley, who was not even a chemist, but a mechanical engineer? He suffered badly from lead poisoning, as did many of the early workers handling TEL.

    Midgeley would have had a lot to answer for today, if he were still alive
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

    Comment


    • #17
      Why? There are lots of horrible things that have been invented. The guys who invented them aren't to blame for the fact that in the end they turned out horrible.

      DDT is bad. Agent Orange is bad. At the time, nobody KNEW they were bad - and they were DAMN effective. DDT kills bugs dead, and Agent Orange is about the best defoliant going.

      Some poor guy in a lab somewhere should be held PERSONALLY accountable for all the Agent Orange related health problems? I think not.

      - Gurm
      The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

      I'm the least you could do
      If only life were as easy as you
      I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
      If only life were as easy as you
      I would still get screwed

      Comment


      • #18
        Many would argue that Agent Orange is not responsible for much more than Chloracne. Permitting vets to get benefits from exposure is not based on science, but politics.

        Comment


        • #19
          Blah blah my point is that it's not the fault of the guy who invented it that it turned out to have harmful side effects.

          - Gurm
          The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

          I'm the least you could do
          If only life were as easy as you
          I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
          If only life were as easy as you
          I would still get screwed

          Comment


          • #20
            Yep cfc's and other stuff that really helped develop the refrigeration and other industries, and they could still be used if they are not allowed to leak into the atomsphere and are reclaimed and recycled properly.

            Good inventions , but there time came while back we HAVE to move to new stuff.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Marshmallowman
              Yep cfc's and other stuff that really helped develop the refrigeration and other industries, and they could still be used if they are not allowed to leak into the atomsphere and are reclaimed and recycled properly.

              Good inventions , but there time came while back we HAVE to move to new stuff.

              Sadly we don't know how to recycle fridges in this country the last time I heard. So in the end they'll rust and release the cfc's
              Chief Lemon Buyer no more Linux sucks but not as much
              Weather nut and sad git.

              My Weather Page

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The PIT
                Sadly we don't know how to recycle fridges in this country the last time I heard. So in the end they'll rust and release the cfc's
                And you'll have the wrath of Margot Wallström and the EU descend upon you, with fines far exceeding the cost of a recycling plant ready to be inflicted.
                Brian (the devil incarnate)

                Comment


                • #23
                  One of the down sides to the Montreal Protocol is the banning of CFCs for use as propellants in metered-dose inhalers for inhalation drugs (asthma, COPD, etc.). They are currently quite superior to the proposed replacements with either no propellant or HFA replacement.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Brian

                    There is a global exemption for MDIs where it can be shown that there is no credible substitute. In fact, it was estimated that 7,500 tonnes of CFCs were used in MDIs in 2001. As each MDI uses only a few grams, this means one helluva lot of CFC MDIs are still being made.

                    It is there not true that they have been banned.

                    I suggest you read Chapter 3 of http://www.teap.org/REPORTS/downloads/ATOC2002.pdf to find out the real facts of the matter.
                    Brian (the devil incarnate)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      They are not banned yet, but will be phased out as replacements are approved, as stated in the Montreal Protocol. There are credible substitutes available for most drugs and phase out is not far off. I am directly involved in their phase-out and you won't find many in 5 years.

                      This is an unavoidable and one-way street.

                      Also, your numbers are in error for weight of CFCs used in manufacture of MDIs. The majority of the CFC propellant sold for this purpose, year by year, are being stockpiled by drug companies for use in their CFC inhalers after no more CFC propellants are manufactured. These CFCs are not being used, for the most part, for current MDI manufacture. Also, the number of MDIs being manufactured today has decreased dramatically from that in 2001.
                      Last edited by Brian R.; 26 September 2003, 11:30.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Brian R.
                        They are not banned yet, but will be phased out as replacements are approved, as stated in the Montreal Protocol. There are credible substitutes available for most drugs and phase out is not far off. I am directly involved in their phase-out and you won't find many in 5 years.

                        This is an unavoidable and one-way street.
                        I agree with you, 100%

                        Also, your numbers are in error for weight of CFCs used in manufacture of MDIs. The majority of the CFC propellant sold for this purpose, year by year, are being stockpiled by drug companies for use in their CFC inhalers after no more CFC propellants are manufactured. These CFCs are not being used, for the most part, for current MDI manufacture. Also, the number of MDIs being manufactured today has decreased dramatically from that in 2001.
                        The future availability of CFCs is not in jeopardy, because they are still manufactured for feedstock purposes and are likely to be for many years to come. The small amount required for MDIs could easily be supplied.

                        Stockpiling is useless because, once the one-way street has been passed and suitable substitutes decided upon, then the USE of CFC-containing MDIs will be banned in most countries (we are seeing this coming already in several countries, with legislation in preparation). What will you do with your stockpiles, then?

                        The biggest problem is one made by the pharma companies. The most common aerosol substitute is based on HFC gases. These are considerably more expensive than CFCs, by roughly a factor of 10. However, the quantity of gas is such that the manufacturing cost increase in a single MDI is a matter of a penny or two. Apparently, in some cases, the end-user cost has been increased exorbitantly. This has scared off some developing countries from making the transition, on the grounds that their patients are too poor to pay the difference.
                        Brian (the devil incarnate)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Stockpiling propellants is not useless, otherwise pharma companies wouldn't do it, and they are doing it.

                          The supply of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs will die out long before the refrigerant-grade CFCs. The loss of suppliers of pharma-grade propellants is the reason for stockpiling. The pharma-grade suppliers will stop selling this material when the market reaches less than some critical volume.

                          Although a new supplier of pharma-grade CFC11 and 12 is trying to manufacture for use in the US, no one can guarantee their propellants can meet the specifications/acceptance criteria required for pharma-grade propellants for use here.

                          Last edited by Brian R.; 27 September 2003, 19:55.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Yeah, but that critical volume will ± coincide with a ban on the sale of CFC-containing MDIs. The price will possibly go up in some countries, as the CFCs are taxed, to ease the conversion to HFCs.
                            Brian (the devil incarnate)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Brian Ellis
                              And you'll have the wrath of Margot Wallström and the EU descend upon you, with fines far exceeding the cost of a recycling plant ready to be inflicted.

                              Stuff the EU.
                              Chief Lemon Buyer no more Linux sucks but not as much
                              Weather nut and sad git.

                              My Weather Page

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Brian Ellis
                                Yeah, but that critical volume will ± coincide with a ban on the sale of CFC-containing MDIs.
                                Not likely. The volume of Pharma-grade CFCs used is dropping rapidly and the rate is increasing because the number of approved replacement HFA MDIs and DPIs, as well as those containing new molecular entities are increasing yearly. Many of the old CFC MDIs are getting ready to be withdrawn. Some will never be replaced and they will continually loose market share as MDs stop prescribing them to new patients and transfer old patients to replacements with an equivalent or a more efficacious drug substance.
                                Last edited by Brian R.; 28 September 2003, 12:12.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X