=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #152
—October 22, 1989—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
BETTER LIVING THROUGH CHEMISTRY.
The ozone hole over the south pole during September and October,
1989, surprised scientists, who had predicted a mild year for
ozone destruction. Instead, this year has been as bad as any
previously recorded, matching 1987, which was the worst on
record. In the region 10 to 11 miles above the earth, ozone
depletion this year is almost 100%.[1] Throughout the entire
“hole,” the loss averages 50% this year, just as it did in 1987.
The extreme losses in 1987 prompted scientists to argue then that
it was an unusual occurrence because their theories had not
predicted it. This year’s recurrence of the 1987 losses has
prompted those same scientists to admit that their theories need
to be revised because the situation is clearly worse than they
thought.
The ozone “hole” is not small; this year it covers 12 million
square miles, more than three times the area of the continental
United States. Furthermore, the “hole” is not the only place
ozone is being depleted; the hole is merely the center of the
most severe depletions. The stratospheric ozone depletion over
the whole planet is now about 3%, averaged over the entire year;
above the heavily populated regions of North America, Europe and
Asia, the average ozone depletion is now 5% in winter but less
severe in summer.[2]
The ozone layer in the stratosphere–6 to 30 miles above the
earth’s surface–filters out ultraviolet radiation, shielding the
earth from this cancer-causing form of sunlight. Loss of the
earth’s ozone shield leads to measurable increases in ultraviolet
light striking the surface of the earth; each 1% loss of ozone
leads to a 2% increase in ultraviolet light striking the earth.
The increased ultraviolet light is expected to have several
important effects on humans and other forms of life. Increases in
skin cancer and eye cataracts are the principal effect on humans.
In other creatures the principal effects will be genetic
mutations and growth disturbances. For example, phytoplankton,
the tiny plants that form the lowest layer of the ocean’s food
chains by converting sunlight and water into carbohydrates–have
their growth reduced by increased ultraviolet light. So do pine
trees. Unlike humans, insects see ultraviolet light, so the world
will look different to insects as the ozone layer becomes
thinner. Several reputable scientists have suggested that the
loss of stratospheric ozone will disturb the earth’s climate in
unpredictable ways, but the only way to tell whether this is true
seems to be to wait and see.
The chemicals mainly responsible for destruction of the ozone
layer are chlorine released by chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs (Freon
11, 12, 113, 114 and 115, which are used in refrigeration and air
conditioning systems, in rigid polyurethane insulation, and as
solvents in the computer chip industry), and by carbon
tetrachloride and methyl chloroform (with many uses), and bromine
released by Halon-1211 and Halon-1301 (fire extinguisher agents).
The U.S. and several other nations signed a treaty in late 1987
(see RHWN #60) to curb ozone destruction. However, the treaty
would allow stratospheric chlorine levels to triple during the
next decade (from their current 3 parts per billion [ppb] to 10
ppb), so it is now clear to everyone working on this problem that
the treaty is inadequate. In Helsinki, Finland, last May, signers
of the treaty met again and agreed unofficially to phase out CFCs
by the year 2000, and to phase out the other ozonedepleting
chemicals (Halons, etc.) as “soon as feasible,” though no one
seems to know just what that means.
The ozone-depleting chemicals already in the stratosphere have a
very long lifetime, ranging from 25 years to 380 years. As a
consequence, even if all production of ozone-depleting chemicals
stopped today, it would be several centuries before the
stratospheric ozone layer returned to normal.
Meanwhile the first treaty restrictions on CFCs went into effect
July 1, 1989, and within a month the price of CFCs had risen 30%,
while the cost of production remained the same. Before the
phaseout is finished, the price of CFCs may rise five-fold. As a
result, DuPont and Allied-Signal, the largest producers, are
expected to make “several billion” extra dollars in the final
years of CFC production–a windfall profit of at least $2 billion
during the first two years of the phase-out alone.[3]
The CFC producers are now in a rush to produce alternative
products. They seem bent on selling substitutes, called HCHFs,
that are highly questionable. Naturally, there will be a big (and
rapidly growing) market for CFC substitutes. They are in a rush
because they didn’t start looking for substitutes until 1986 when
it became 100% clear that the U.S. government was seriously
promoting a treaty that would curb CFC production.
The first technical paper predicting destruction of the earth’s
ozone layer by CFCs was published in 1974. It created immediate
and intense interest among scientists and among government
officials. In the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences
immediately convened a blue ribbon panel to study the problem and
in a year or so the panel reported that, yes, this appeared to be
a very serious problem. Why did the CFC producers not start
looking for substitutes in 1976? Why did they wait until 1986?
C&EN [Chemical & Engineering News], a publication of the American
Chemical Society, has answered that question: “Until it was clear
that restrictions would be placed on the existing CFCs, companies
had no incentives to invest in more expensive alternatives.” The
fact that their products were setting the stage for massive
increases in cancer and eye cataracts among humans, disrupting
the oceans’ food chains, causing genetic damage and growth
disturbances throughout the animal kingdom, interfering with the
ecological balance of insect life, and possibly dislocating the
earth’s climate and weather-none of these things by itself was
sufficient to cause DuPont and Allied-Signal to start a serious
search for alternatives. There wasn’t enough money to be made
until the world situation got really desperate. Then they could
cash in.
Such events throw a shaft of intensely revealing light on the
nation’s chemical companies. An anecdote comes to mind. In 1973,
William Walker, a hydrologist with the Illinois State Water
Survey, reported a conversation in the journal Ground Water:[4]
A few years ago the plant chemist of a large industry in
east-central Illinois requested advice from the Illinois State
Water Survey on underground disposal of toxic chemical waste from
their manufacturing processes. According to the chemist, the
plant, located in a densely populated part of town, had for
several years burned about 700 gallons per week of a very toxic
chlorinated hydrocarbon (polychlorinated biphenyl [PCB]) in a
local garbage dump. Strict antiburning regulations being
initiated by the State Department of Public Health were to
prohibit further disposal in this fashion…. The plant chemist
was hopeful that permission could be obtained to dispose of the
toxic material in a pit on the plant property.
…When the chemist was asked if the toxic chemical wastes would
blend with native ground water and thereby become diluted to a
nontoxic level, he quickly replied, “Oh no, this material is a
hydrocarbon–it will not mix with water but will float on top
instead.” A further question concerning possible deterioration of
the toxicity of the material with time was answered, “6000 years
from now it will still be as strong as it is today,” and,
finally, when asked what the effects would be on a person who
might drink ground water contaminated with the toxicant several
years in the future, the chemist replied, “It would kill him!”
The people who brought you ozone depletion are cut from the same
cloth as the people who brought you your neighborhood Superfund
dump. And they both did it with eyes open. Our job–and we have
only about a decade to do it–is to bring these people under
control. It will not be easy.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
===============
[1] R. Monastersky, “Arctic ozone hole unexpectedly severe,”
SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 136 (October 14, 1989), pg. 246..”
Descriptor terms: ozone depletion; atmosphere;
chlorofluorocarbons; superfund; landfilling; groundwater; water
pollution; air pollution; skin cancer; eye cataracts; cfcs;
health effects; methyl chloroform; bromine; policies; treaties;
economics; carbon tetrachloride; hchfs;