CFC Skeptic vs. CFC Believer (or Politician vs. Scientist)

First of all, I do not give a lot of credence to the source of the first quote for our class http://www.timetracts.com/The%20Ozone%20Controversy.htm.

Although eloquently written, the article makes no reference to scientific or academic sources. Given the religious content of the website, one can assume that the website is most likely theoconservative. Furthermore, the natural emmission of chlorine into the "atmosphere" does not often reach the outer stratosphere. Chlorine from the oceans and most volcanic eruptions (exception is very large, explosive, sulfur-rich, vertical eruptions) is washed by rain in the troposphere and does not reach the stratosphere. What we're talking about here is stratospheric ozone depletion, so I laugh at the comment, "...let's make decisions that are not based on panic, but on good science."

About the article assigned to read, it was last updated May 30, 2001. Really, what data has been collected since then? Perhaps some of the arguments and data (or lack thereof) are no longer relevant.

Regarding whether or not the amount of ozone depletion is significant enough to warrent goverment regulations of CFC's:

1. Singer's arguments about the cost to refit and replace industrial equipment is certainly a valid concern. However, it has been reported that the retrofits since the Montreal Protocol have been lower in cost with some economic benefits. It also looks like more research has provided more information about the ratio of CFC to ozone depletion. Finally, Singer's reputation is that of a skeptic of scientific findings, and he served in several governmental positions, which makes him politically motivated (interpret that in whatever way works best for you).

2. Zurer provides plenty of scientific evidence to support the stance that it is beneficial to regulate CFCs. There is data collected from nearly 50 years, as well as supportive lab simulations that are reproducible.

Whether or not the additional amount of UV exposure would be significant to humans:

1. When Singer indicates that there is not enough evidence to link ozone-depletion with UV-increase, how much information does he need? I found several studies on the internet, so how many studies would be satisfactory to draw a conclusion? Singer also states that UVB is not known to be a carcinogen, but according to the World Health Organization, UVB is a known carcinogen for lab animals. I am sure that Singer would not propose that we run lab experiments on humans, but since I have personal experience with the "easily cured basal-cell and squamous-cell carcinomas," let me tell you that the cure of cutting out your skin in a large area around the cancerous cells is not fun. If you're lucky, the cancer is small, and you can have stitches and a small mark. If you're lucky, it won't be on your face, which is a commonly exposed part of your body. Try having a chunk of flesh cut out of your face and see how you like the "easy cure". Skin cancers would be the least of our concerns anyway.

2. Zurer refers to evidence and correlations, so she does not make as compelling of an argument as in the CFC regulation stance. However, in performing further research on Zurer's comments, one can find a considerable amount of supporting documentation for her arguments. More data has become available and proven since the original publish date of the article.

Conclusion
I am skeptical of the skeptic (and politician), Singer. I find myself personally more aligned with the practical scientist, Zurer. Although hasty, the decision to regulate CFCs was a good judgement call. All in all, the CFC controversy hit a trifecta, because media and politics forced regulation with limited scientific evidence. I think that we were lucky that later evidence proved our international powers correct in forging ahead.

Overall, my opinion has not waivered. If there is something that we (humans) do to affect the natural balance of the environment (proven with man-made CFCs and statospheric ozone depletion), then we must get it back into balance. We have stepped outside of acceptable limits and must repair and recover, no matter how large or small the consequences.