Science: Annual Drops in Ozone Levels over the Earth's Poles Less ozone in the

stratosphere allows more harmful UV radiation to reach the earth’s surface. Alayer of ozone
in the lower stratosphere keeps about 95% of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation
from reaching the earth’s surface. Measuring instru ments on balloons, aircraft, and satellites
show consid erable seasonal depletion (thinning) of ozone concen trations in the
stratosphere above Antarctica and the Arctic. Similar measurements reveal a lower overall
thinning everywhere except over the tropics. Based on these measurements and
mathematical and chemical models, the overwhelming consensus of researchers in this field
is that ozone depletion (thin ning) in the stratosphere poses a serious threat to hu mans,
other animals, and some of the sunlight-driven primary producers (mostly plants) that
support the earth’s food webs. Science: What Causes Ozone Depletion? Widespread use of
a number of long-lived chemicals has reduced ozone levels in the stratosphere. Thomas
Midgley, Jr., a General Motors chemist, dis covered the first chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) in
1930. Chemists soon developed similar compounds to create a family of highly useful CFCs,
known by their trade name as Freons. These chemically unreactive, odorless, nonflam
mable,nontoxic,andnoncorrosivecompoundsseemed to be dream chemicals. Inexpensive to
manufacture, theybecamepopularascoolantsinairconditionersand
refrigerators,propellantsinaerosolspraycans,cleaners for electronic parts such as computer
chips, fumigants for granaries andshipcargoholds,andbubblesinplas tic foam used for
insulation and packaging. Between 1960andtheearly1990s,CFCproductionrosesharply. But it
turned out that CFCs were too good to be true. In 1974, calculations by chemists Sherwood
Rowland and Mario Molina at the University of California–Irvine indicated that CFCs were
lowering the average concentration of ozone in the stratosphere. They shocked both the
scientific community and the $28-billion-per-year CFC industry by calling for an im mediate
ban of CFCs in spray cans (for which substi tutes were available). Rowland and Molina’s
research led them to four major conclusions. First, CFCs remain in the tropo sphere because
they are insoluble in water and chemi cally unreactive. Second, over 11–20 years these
heavier-than-air compounds rise into the stratosphere mostly through convection, random
drift, and the turbulent mixing of air in the troposphere. Third, once they reach the
stratosphere, the CFC molecules break down under the influence of high
energyUVradiation.Thisreleaseshighlyreactivechlo rine atoms (Cl), as well as atoms of
fluorine (F), bromine(Br),andiodine(I),whichacceleratethebreak down of ozone (O3) into O2
and O in a cyclic chain of chemical reactions. As a consequence, ozone in some parts of the
stratosphere is destroyed faster than it forms. Fourth, each CFC molecule can last in the
strato sphere for 65–385 years, depending on its type. During that time, each chlorine atom
released during the breakdown of CFC can convert hundreds of O3 mole cules to O2.
According to Rowland and Molina’s calculations and later models and atmospheric
measurements of CFCs in the stratosphere, these dream molecules had turned into global
ozone destroyers. The CFC industry (led by DuPont), a powerful, well-funded adversary with
a lot of profits and jobs at stake, attacked Rowland and Molina’s calculations and
conclusions. The two researchers held their ground, expanded their research, and explained
its meaning to other scientists, elected officials, and the media. After 14 years of delaying
tactics, DuPont offi cials acknowledged in 1988 that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer
and agreed to stop producing them once they found substitutes. In 1995, Rowland and
Molina received the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work. In awarding the prize, the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences said that they contributed to “our salvation from a global
environmental problem that could have catastrophic consequences.” Measurements and
models indicate that 75–85% of the observed ozone losses in the stratosphere since 1976
are the result of CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals (ODCs) released into the
atmosphere by hu man activities beginning in the 1950s. Learn more about how
chlorine-containing compounds destroy stratospheric ozone at Environmental ScienceNow.
Science: Effects of Ozone Depletion During four months of each year, as much as half of the
ozone in the stratosphere over Antarctica and a smaller amount over the Arctic is depleted.
http://biology.brookscole.com/miller11 383 In 1984, researchers analyzing satellite data
discovered that 40–50% of the ozone in the upper stratosphere over Antarctica disappeared
during September and November. This observed loss of ozone above Antarc tica has been
called an ozone hole. A more accurate term is ozone thinning because the ozone depletion
varies with altitude and location. MeasurementsindicatethatCFCsandotherozone depleting
chemicals (ODCs) are the primary culprits. Whenpartial sunlight returns in October, huge
masses of ozone-depletedairaboveAntarcticaflownorthward
andlingerforafewweeksoverpartsofAustralia,New Zealand, South America, and South Africa.
This raises biologically damaging UV-B levels in these areas by
3–10%andinsomeyearsasmuchas20%. In 1988, scientists discovered that similar but usu
ally less severe ozone thinning occurs over the Arctic from February to June, resulting in a
typical ozone loss of 11–38% (compared to a typical 50% loss above Antarctica). When this
mass of air above the Arctic breaks up each spring, large masses of ozone-depleted air flow
south to linger over parts of Europe, North America, and Asia. Models indicated that the
Arctic is unlikely to develop the large-scale ozone thinning found over the Antarctic. They
also project ozone depletion over the Antarctic and Arctic will be at its worst between 2010
and 2019. Science: Why Should We Be Worried about Ozone Depletion? Increased UV
radiation reaching the earth’s surface from ozone depletion in the stratosphere is harmful to
human health, crops, forests, animals, and materials such as paints and plastics. Why
should we care about ozone loss? Figure 16-17 lists some of the expected effects of
decreased levels of ozone in the stratosphere. With less ozone in the stratosphere, more
biologically damaging UV-A and UV-B radiation will reach the earth’s surface. It will give
humans worse sunburns, more eye cataracts (a clouding of the eye’s lens that reduces
vision and can cause blindness if not corrected), and more skin can cers (see Case Study,
below). Science Case Study: Skin Cancer Exposure to UV radiation is a major cause of skin
cancers. Research indicates that exposure to the UV-B ionizing radiation in sunlight is the
primary cause of squamous cell (Figure 16-18, left) and basal cell (Figure 16-18, cen ter)
skin cancers. Together, these two types account for Natural Capital Degradation Effects of
Ozone Depletion Human Health • Worse sunburn • More eye cataracts • More skin cancers •
Immune system suppression Food and Forests • Reduced yields for some crops • Reduced
seafood supplies from reduced phytoplankton • Decreased forest productivity for
UV-sensitive tree species Wildlife • Increased eye cataracts in some species • Decreased
population of aquatic species sensitive to UV radiation • Reduced population of surface
phytoplankton • Disrupted aquatic food webs from reduced phytoplankton Air Pollution and
Materials • Increased acid deposition • Increased photochemical smog • Degradation of
outdoor paints and plastics Global Warming • Accelerated warming because of decreased
ocean uptake of CO2 from atmosphere by phytoplankton and CFCs acting as greenhouse
gases Figure 16-17 Natural capital degradation: expected ef fects of decreased levels of
ozone in the stratosphere. Critical thinking: which five of these effects to do you believe are
the most serious. 95% of all skin cancers. Typically, a 15- to 40-year lag separates excessive
exposure to UV-B and develop ment of these cancers. Caucasian children and adolescents
who experi ence only a single severe sunburn double their chances of getting these two
types of cancers. Some 90–95% of these types of skin cancer can be cured if detected early
enough, although their removal may leave dis figuring scars. These cancers kill 1–2% of
their victims,