Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Thu 22 Dec 2005, 01:51:49**

Hidden From the Unsuspecting Visitors: The Dangers of Exposure to Excessive UV Radiation in New Zealand An Open Letter to New Zealand's Prime Minister:
The Management School of Restorative Business (MSRB) notes with growing concern a new advertising campaign for New Zealand tourism broadcast through the cable TV networks throughout South East Asia under the Orwellian rubric of “Pure NZ!”

Unfortunately, the ads fail to carry the vital health warning:
1. Non-melanoma skin cancer. One in 29 people in New Zealand is diagnosed with skin cancer each year. New Zealand is the second worst hotspot for skin cancer in the world.

2. Melanoma. The potentially fatal melanoma incidence rates in New Zealand are about 10 times higher than in other countries. At lease two-thirds of all melanoma cases are directly associated to UV radiation exposure.

3. Immunodeficiency. Exposure to the excessive UV radiation in New Zealand impairs human immune system; it causes genetic mutations, increases risk of diseases from the human immunodeficiency virus HIV- 1, herpes viruses, malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, dermatitis, and E. coli as well as several blood diseases.

4. Cataracts. The exposure to excessive UV radiation in New Zealand results in increased incidents of cataracts (as well as other eye damage).

NZ authorities are acting dishonestly and reprehensibly by preying on unsuspecting foreign tourists, students and new immigrants, while failing to inform them about the dangers of exposure to the excessive UV radiation in New Zealand.

MSRB anticipates that NZ Parliament would enact legislation:
1. Mandating detailed health warnings concerning the dangers of exposure to the excessive UV radiation in New Zealand on all advertising, including radio, television and Internet, prepared by or broadcast for govt. agencies especially NZ Ministry of Tourism, NZ Ministry of Education and NZ Immigration Services as well as the tourist industry forthwith.

2. Allocating a substantial fund for compensating the foreign visitors, students and recent immigrants whom NZ authorities failed to warn about the dangers of exposure to the excessive UV radiation in New Zealand.

Signed
The Management School of Restorative Business (MSRB)

Posted: **Sat 24 Dec 2005, 03:53:12**

MSRB wrote:NZ authorities are acting dishonestly and reprehensibly by preying on unsuspecting foreign tourists, students and new immigrants, while failing to inform them about the dangers of exposure to the excessive UV radiation in New Zealand. ....
1. Mandating detailed health warnings concerning the dangers of exposure to the excessive UV radiation in New Zealand on all advertising, including radio, television and Internet, prepared by or broadcast for govt. agencies especially NZ Ministry of Tourism, NZ Ministry of Education and NZ Immigration Services as well as the tourist industry forthwith.
2. Allocating a substantial fund for compensating the foreign visitors, students and recent immigrants whom NZ authorities failed to warn about the dangers of exposure to the excessive UV radiation in New Zealand.

Are you anti-kiwi by chance? And whats all this about compensating the tourists? What about the locals that are equally un-aware (not anymore though, so i guess a thanks is in order?) like myself?

MSRB wrote:NZ Ministry of Education

Thats the only thing thats come remotely close to the concerns of people already living in NZ. I smell bias.

Posted: **Sat 24 Dec 2005, 18:28:52**

Hidden dangers of UV, hmmm... Must be the reason why every weather forcast gives out the UV level. Looking at the NZ Metreological Service forcast for Christchurch, it notes that

UV Forecast - Clear Sky - 11 - EXTREME
Reschedule outdoor activities for early morning evening. Seek shade between 11am 4pm. Re-apply sunscreen regularly.

Scale of UV readiation is 0 to 11, with aplogies to Spinal Tap. Hardly news. Slip Slap Slop.

Also, this article may be of vague interest, illustrating that the issues are not hidden or misunderstood. Update - I've just read THE POISONING OF NEW ZEALAND on your website, and you're claiming that PO.com is anti china, how anti-NZ are you guys?

Posted: **Sat 24 Dec 2005, 20:08:03**

IMHO I'd leave this guy with his anti-nz opinions alone. Keeps folks away from NZ (which may be a good thing)

Who knows? Maybe it's his ultimate reason anyway!

Posted: **Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:40:04**

Good call.

I spent most of the sixties in New Plymouuth, so I probably glow in the dark

Posted: **Fri 20 Oct 2006, 18:34:57**

One has to read in between the lines to get the real news

There's the usual talk about pollution destroying the ozone layer, but I came across this gem:

Temperature variations in the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones. This year, the lower stratosphere was about 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) cooler than average.

The 'global warming' types have got it all wrong. We're headed towards a mini ice age.

Posted: **Fri 20 Oct 2006, 18:39:12**

I doubt that Woods Hole has "got it all wrong."

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/vie ... o?id=10149

Posted: **Fri 20 Oct 2006, 19:33:05**

Idiot. This has already been predicted. Greenhouse gas forcing causes the lowest reaches of the atmosphere (troposphere) to warm while the stratosphere cools.

The chemistry needed to destroy ozone workes best at very cold temperatures, and occurs in the stratosphere, which will grow colder as the surface warms. Ironic, this bit of evidence is further proof of GW.

Good grief, why don't you join rockdoc and disparage the models too.

Posted: **Fri 20 Oct 2006, 20:21:22**

The chemistry needed to destroy ozone workes best at very cold temperatures, and occurs in the stratosphere, which will grow colder as the surface warms. Ironic, this bit of evidence is further proof of GW.

actually not exactly simply because the stratospheric cooling is in larger part related to the holes in the ozone (i.e. less ozone to absorb radiation). And the holes in the ozone are related to CFC's and halons not CO2. The former being pollutants (thanks to all those women with big hair) and the latter being the stuff of life. Interestingly enough the surface temperature in Antarctica has been extremely stable for the last 50 years over about 95% of the continent.

Before you attack peoples opinions on things, like, let's say climate models you probably want to do some research into how all of the climate mechanisms might interact.

Posted: **Fri 20 Oct 2006, 21:24:48**

From what I've gathered, visible and IR make up the majority of em radiation/energy the Earth gets, so trapping lower wavelength IR cools the stratosphere much more than the difference in heat due to the reduction in UV interacting with ozone.

Posted: **Fri 20 Oct 2006, 22:01:58**

rockdoc123 wrote:actually not exactly simply because the stratospheric cooling is in larger part related to the holes in the ozone (i.e. less ozone to absorb radiation).

Actually ozone loss due to heterogeneous reactions on polar stratospheric cloud aerosols (the ozone "hole") occurs primarily below 25 km and at very high latitudes inside the polar vortex. When the vortex breaks up in spring high values of ozone from midlatitudes are mixed by planetary scale Rossby waves into the "hole" and obliterate it. The ozone "hole" is a localized effect that has a trivial effect on the temperature distribution of the stratosphere.

Chlorine species contribute to ozone loss in the upper stratosphere through gas phase reactions. But increased CO2 in the stratosphere leads to enhanced IR cooling to space which lowers the temperature and leads to increased ozone concentrations (it changes the O3 equilibrium level to higher values for a given level of Cly). This partially offsets the CO2 induced cooling.

rockdoc123 wrote:And the holes in the ozone are related to CFC's and halons not CO2. The former being pollutants (thanks to all those women with big hair) and the latter being the stuff of life. Interestingly enough the surface temperature in Antarctica has been extremely stable for the last 50 years over about 95% of the continent.

Is this supposed to be some sort of "proof by contradiction" attempt? Global warming is not some math theorem that claims that every point on the surface of the planet is supposed to experience increased temperature. As long as sea surface temperatures around Antarctica don't undergo big shifts the glaciers will remain intact and surface temperatures will not change significantly.

rockdoc123 wrote:Before you attack peoples opinions on things, like, let's say climate models you probably want to do some research into how all of the climate mechanisms might interact.

Follow your own advice.

Posted: **Fri 20 Oct 2006, 23:13:43**

rockdoc123 wrote:
Before you attack peoples opinions on things, like, let's say climate models you probably want to do some research into how all of the climate mechanisms might interact.

Oh come on RocDoc, don't forget where you ARE. These people attack ANYTHING which doesn't instantly and easily slot into either "We're running out of oil tomorrow and we're gonna die!" or "We're silly humans are killing the earth and we're gonna die!" or "The government is gonna kill us to protect the neocons and we're gonna die!"...did I cover most of the bases around here?

I mean seriously, people around here quote Kuntsler and Ruppert as though they are science guru prophets rather than book selling, non scientific authors who latched onto Peak as only the most recent excuse for their brand of <fill in silliness listed above>.

Posted: **Fri 20 Oct 2006, 23:38:12**

did I cover most of the bases around here?

It's the [insert racial or ethnic or religious group]'s fault! Bomb 'em all!

Posted: **Sat 21 Oct 2006, 10:02:58**

mekrob wrote:
did I cover most of the bases around here?

It's the [insert racial or ethnic or religious group]'s fault! Bomb 'em all!

Nothing wrong with taking over a few odd foreign countries and propping them up when you are the US, its not like its been particularly DIFFICULT or anything.

Posted: **Sat 21 Oct 2006, 12:12:46**

yeah! yeah!! yeah!!!!
Go! fight!! win!!!
war pigs.....
pigs....

War pigs - sabbath - images - pnac - war - pigs

Nothing wrong with taking over a few odd foreign countries and propping them up when you are the US, its not like its been particularly DIFFICULT or anything.

tribute video

Wonder how many people are losing/have lost their loved ones.
We wonder whats wrong with people..........even those that live..........................die

Posted: **Mon 23 Oct 2006, 17:15:30**

I believe that the hole in the ozone layer varies primarily with only one phenomenon: the strength of the South Polar electro-magnetic field. It has done so for billions of years and will do so for as long as there is a planet earth. Ozone is an electrovalently unstable molecule. The South Polar electro-magnetic field always has and always will cause the ozone molecule to break up. If it was caused by human activity, the last place it would appear would be over the South Pole. Most of our confusion about the hole in the ozone layer comes from the fact that our satellites only detected it in the last thirty-ish years. Then we made the wildly unfounded assumption that that its appearance is a recent development. It amazes me that this discussion has gotten past the high school chemistry level and gone on for so long.

Posted: **Mon 17 Dec 2007, 10:41:43**

Ozone Collapse

Looks like this collapsing ozone phenomenon will increase over time with the decrease in ice cover at the arctic making it difficult for the planet to syphon away particulate pollutants.

"Ozone is the source for the 'vacuum cleaner of the atmosphere' - the molecule OH. So if we don't have as much ozone, we can't make as much hydroxide. If we then pump pollutants from mid-latitudes into the Arctic, they may just stay there," explained Dr Bottenheim.

Whereas stratospheric ozone is depleted though an unnatural process involving chlorine; the ice-level ozone falls victim to reactive bromine atoms released quite naturally from briny Arctic waters. In perfect conditions, the chemistry produces an explosion of bromine oxide (BrO), which is detectable by over-flying satellites.

Maybe should have added this to the converging catastrophes thread but wasn't sure.

Posted: **Mon 17 Dec 2007, 10:55:53**

More particulates---wouldn't that increase global dimming and therefore slow down global warming?

Posted: **Mon 17 Dec 2007, 10:58:19**

Heineken wrote:More particulates---wouldn't that increase global dimming and therefore slow down global warming?

yes I thought that just after posting so maybe a happy nice feedback loop.

However there would be more lead about in the atmosphere which I think a bad thing.

Posted: **Sun 23 Dec 2007, 20:32:59**

Here's a mercifully short article outlining what might happen during a so-called Hydroxyl Collapse in the atmosphere.

http://www.exitmundi.nl/hydroxyl.htm
"Evil noxious gases like sulphuric and nitrogen oxides would pile up. No hydroxyl, and smoke and soot would accumulate in the atmosphere."

Gotta love the banner-ad for the Oreck Air Purifier at the bottom.

The interaction between global warming and global dimming is complex enough for me. Throwing this in the mix yields complexity that's far beyond my ability. Then consider half of the russian tundra melting along with the arctic ocean and most of our glaciers. Don't forget that some of our major ocean currents could shut down around the time we'll be switching to coal, ramping up deforestation, and probably throwing a few nukes around.

I feel a bumpersticker coming on...

"This is not your Grandfathers Dust Bowl."

I don't think that Hydroxyl Collapse will contribute very much to global dimming because global dimming is caused by high-altitude particulate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but low-altitude pollution (including particulate) usually yields haze, not persistent (and highly reflective) cloud cover. What correlation exists between smog/haze and temperature?

We'll be at solar maximum again around 2012. Solar UV output varies quite a bit with the solar cycle. Will increased UV leave us with more hydroxyl or less hydroxyl?

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

THE Ozone Thread (merged)

THE Ozone Thread (merged)

Re: Press Release: Deadly Dangers of Ozone Depletion

Re: Press Release: Deadly Dangers of Ozone Depletion

Re: Press Release: Deadly Dangers of Ozone Depletion

Re: Press Release: Deadly Dangers of Ozone Depletion

Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone layer

Re: Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone l

Re: Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone l

Re: Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone l

Re: Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone l

Re: Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone l

Re: Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone l

Re: Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone l

Re: Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone l

Re: Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone l

Re: Colder temperatures cause the destruction of the ozone l

Ozone collapse - A feedback loop

Re: Ozone collapse - A feedback loop

Re: Ozone collapse - A feedback loop

Re: Ozone collapse - A feedback loop