Re: Mystery virus ravages UK frogs

Posted by Dale on Feb 02, 2002 at 09:45

Re: Mystery virus ravages UK frogs (Natalie L. Smith)

Your CFC sources are from widely ranging dates.

Yes, indicating how uncertain the measurement and predictions are. We were recently told by the reigning experts that it would take 50 years just to stop the increase so we should expect the ozone holes to keep increasing in size until then. But last year we get a study that says the level has stared to decrease 50 years ahead of schedule yet the size of the holes continue to increase. If I didn’t know better I’d think either the data was faulty or the prognosticators wouldn’t know their ozone from a hole in the ground. :)

As for the effect of the UVB, I was referring to the work done by the Oregon State University team. I haven't seen the detailed description of the method (guess I'd need to read the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science for that), but from the short description in the article posted, it sounds as if they made a good attempt to have a properly controlled experiment that showed a strong connection between increased exposure to UVB and deformities and embryonic mortality. Interesting, that's all.

If you are thinking of the ’97 study of UVB on salamander embryos, they left a “control” group in the sun and shielded another group from all UVB. In the group in the sun, 85% died and of the 15% that survived, only 4 animals were not deformed. In the shielded group, 98% survived and there were few deformities. An 85% mortality rate sounds too good to be true for the environmentalists. Sounds like they baked some eggs in the sun and left the others in the cool shade.

I think the correlation between increased UV and deformities should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the subject. Radiation causes deformities. UV is different from gamma radiation only in the frequency and energy level. Both are expected to cause genetic changes. That isn’t disputed. What is disputed is that there is a significant increase in the UV level anywhere other than in the Antarctic and, to a much lesser degree, the Arctic. Proving that UV (which has been a part of our lives as long as we have been here) causes deformities is meaningless if you don’t prove an increase in UV that could have lead to an increase in deformities.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]