×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Scientists Baffled By Unknown Source of Ozone-Depleting Chemical

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the i-blame-the-schools dept.

Earth 303

schwit1 writes: Scientists have found that, despite a complete ban since 2007, ozone-depleting chemicals are still being pumped into the atmosphere from some unknown source. "Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), which was once used in applications such as dry cleaning and as a fire-extinguishing agent, was regulated in 1987 under the Montreal Protocol along with other chlorofluorocarbons that destroy ozone and contribute to the ozone hole over Antarctica. Parties to the Montreal Protocol reported zero new CCl4 emissions between 2007-2012. However, the new research shows worldwide emissions of CCl4 average 39 kilotons (about 43,000 U.S. tons) per year, approximately 30 percent of peak emissions prior to the international treaty going into effect. "We are not supposed to be seeing this at all," said Qing Liang, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study published online in the Aug. 18 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. "It is now apparent there are either unidentified industrial leakages, large emissions from contaminated sites, or unknown CCl4 sources."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Easy, India or China (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716243)

Who else would, unapologetically, give the middle finger to the environment?

Re:Easy, India or China (1, Insightful)

dosius (230542) | about 3 months ago | (#47716289)

I can think of a certain group of American Republicans who would do exactly that...

Re:Easy, India or China (4, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about 3 months ago | (#47716319)

and I can think of a certain group of American Democrats who despite whatever noises they make at the end of the day are equally mega-corporate bitches same as the Republicans. Obama and 90% of Democrats in Congress for starters....

Re:Easy, India or China (3, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#47716353)

So why has every environmental initiative in the past 40 years been pushed by the Democrats and resisted by the Republicans?

Why did "mega-corporate bitch" Obama introduce new carbon emissions rules in June that will cost energy producers a fortune?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/politics/epa-to-seek-30-percent-cut-in-carbon-emissions.html

Re:Easy, India or China (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47716423)

Can we just agree on greed being the culprit? Democrat, Republican, where's the difference? As long as there's money to be made by ignoring the law and as long as breaking a law and getting caught is cheaper than heeding it, greed trumps "doing the right thing" any time.

Re:Easy, India or China (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716723)

Easy.

Democrats are right-center moderately pro-buisness, socially liberal.

Republicans are corporate whores controlled by a handful of privately funded think tanks that are actively out to destroy the wealth, social mobility, rights, and lives of anyone who's not rich. They are literally trying to upturn the last few hundred years of social progress and establish a modern aristocracy. They use religion and fear-based propaganda to whip up an uneducated voter base. They are monsters. Manipulative. Amoral. Evil in the purest sense.

The former has problems that can be solved. The later will be the end of everything you love and hold dear.

Re:Easy, India or China (3, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#47716761)

Democrat, Republican, where's the difference?

That was literally the entire point of my post that you're replying to.

Re:Easy, India or China (0, Troll)

ArcherB (796902) | about 3 months ago | (#47716471)

So why has every environmental initiative in the past 40 years been pushed by the Democrats and resisted by the Republicans?
You mean like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Odd. I didn't know Bush was a Democrat.

What about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Where are the Democrats pushing this bill and Republicans opposing it?

And although I'm stepping outside your 40-year limit, who created the Environmental Protection Agency in the first place? I'll give you a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Easy, India or China (5, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#47716759)

So just because a bill is called the Clear Skies Act, you think it helps the environment and hurts corporations? Apparently you're the reason that consultants like Frank Luntz make the big bucks. My friend worked for him when he came up with that name. It was a total giveaway to corporate interests. That does nothing to contradict my post.

Nixon was much more centrist and pragmatic on a lot of issues than people remember. Also, that EPA bill was passed by a Democratic Congress. The GOP really started their anti-environment push with Reagan- who immediately had the solar panels removed from the White House. It went into high gear starting in 1994 with Newt Gingrich.

Re:Easy, India or China (3, Interesting)

gargleblast (683147) | about 3 months ago | (#47716877)

The Clear Skies Act 2003 was a failed attempt by Republicans to INCREASE the amount of allowed air pollution. It would have done exactly the opposite of its title. It is a textbook example of doublespeak. It was never passed. It was an abysmal failure on so many levels.

Old George and Tricky Dicky weren't quite so brazen as Dubya. But: HW's sulphur cap and trade program took another five years to start, and was less successful than conventional regulation in Europe.

Re:Easy, India or China (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47716915)

You should really read those links. Seriously dude, just linking something you don't actually understand as some sort of proof just mkas you look foolish.

The first one made it worse:

The law reduces air pollution controls, including those environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, including caps on toxins in the air and budget cuts for enforcement. The Act is opposed by conservationist groups such as the Sierra Club with Henry A. Waxman, a Democratic congressman of California, describing its title as "clear propaganda."

Among other things, the Clear Skies Act:

Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.
Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68% more NOx pollution.
Delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.
Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.
By 2018, the Clear Skies Act will supposedly allow 3 million tons more NOx through 2012 and 8 million more by 2020, for SO2, 18 million tons more through 2012 and 34 million tons more through 2020. 58 tons more mercury through 2012 and 163 tons more through 2020 would be released into the environment than what would be allowed by enforcement of the Clean Air Act.[2]

In August 2001, the EPA proposed a version of the Clear Skies Act that contained short timetables and lower emissions caps [3]. It is unknown why this proposal was withdrawn and replaced with the Bush Administration proposal. It is also unclear whether or not the original EPA proposal would have made it out of committee.

The second one--Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on December 17, 1963

The third one-- Nixon combined existing groups into one, for budget reasons.
However, I would argue the the Pubs of the 60's and 70s are vastly different then the pubs of today. Post religious right control.

Re:Easy, India or China (3, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about 3 months ago | (#47716475)

haha, under what president was the EPA created? and the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Environmental Pesticide Control Act, and the Endangered Species Act become law? DDT banned? why Tricky Dicky Richard Nixon, of course.

HW Bush made Clean Air Act tougher and that reduced acid rain and smog at the time

  Obama is for fracking, some key Democrats just pulled support for anti-fracking laws, Obama allowed starting drilling in sensitive arctic areas, Obama caved in and didn't allow new smog/ozone levels as being too expensive on industry (even though Bush in 2008 made tough new ground level ozone/smog standards)

Re:Easy, India or China (1, Offtopic)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 3 months ago | (#47716503)

Facts and political debates never go well together.

Re:Easy, India or China (3, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#47716683)

Who controlled Congress for all of those things?

Re:Easy, India or China (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47716953)

Well, all the initial groups where created by LBJ, and then Nixon consolidated them
The clean are act did no such thing and created looser standards.

please, Please, PLEASE read up on the stuff.

DDT had never been shown to do what the speculation is SIlent Spring claimed it did. It was pure FUD.

There is nothing wrong with fracking. Saying Obama is for fracking is like saying Obama is for factual evidence based decisions. I know you can't handle a politician that doesn't just spout nonsense that happen to support your uneducated biases.

Re:Easy, India or China (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 3 months ago | (#47717021)

The alternative sources of carbon based fuels doesn't increase pollution, just changes where we're getting the goods. Domestic production provides for some flexibility and reduced dependency upon middle-east and other traditional and problematic sources. It would have been nice to deal with the pollution thing too, but at least it was a step forward on other issues.

Re:Easy, India or China (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47717055)

"haha, under what president was the EPA created?"

As an outsider looking in, why does it matter which person was president? It seems to me that as the current presidency has illustrated, who is president is a small factor in whether something passes. It is much more important who has the majority in congress.

So for your example Acts, which party had the majority in congress?

Re:Easy, India or China (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716589)

Perhaps because Republicans believe that it will be more effective to protect the environment in other ways. Government is not always the correct answer.

Re:Easy, India or China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716737)

If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:Easy, India or China (2)

ohieaux (2860669) | about 3 months ago | (#47716713)

Why did "mega-corporate bitch" Obama introduce new carbon emissions rules in June that will cost energy producers a fortune?

I'm pretty sure the "fortune" will be paid by the common folk, and go to the corporations making green products. And, I'm guessing these "green" companies are held by the 1%

Re:Easy, India or China (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716357)

Point being that this is done in America aswell as India and China. (and plenty of other places)

Re:Easy, India or China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716477)

Actually, that is not the point. From the article: "Parties to the Montreal Protocol reported zero new CCl4 emissions between 2007-2012."
I believe the United States is a party to the Montreal Protocol, which effectively refutes your 'point.'

Re:Easy, India or China (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 3 months ago | (#47716557)

Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] states that all members of the United Nations, the EU and a few other states have ratified it, for a total of 197 countries. As the USA is a member of the UN, you are correct in saying that it's a party to the Montreal Protocol.

Re:Easy, India or China (3, Funny)

sjames (1099) | about 3 months ago | (#47716417)

They probably rigged their SUVs to actually manufacture CCl4 and immediately release it into the atmosphere just because.

Re:Easy, India or China (2)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47716551)

They probably rigged their SUVs to actually manufacture CCl4 and immediately release it into the atmosphere just because.

Oh c'mon now, no one (over the age of 2) would behave that petulantly [autoblog.com] , right?

Re: Easy, India or China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716425)

You forgot to to blame former President Bush too.

Re:Easy, India or China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716451)

I can think of a certain group of American Republicans who would do exactly that...

No money or control of a nation in it. So not likely in this case.

Re:Easy, India or China (5, Insightful)

Dorianny (1847922) | about 3 months ago | (#47716631)

I can think of a certain group of American Republicans who would do exactly that...

Privately there are many Republicans that do believe in the scientific method and would like to see action on climate change but are reluctant to admit it because of fear of being labeled as traitors. On the Democratic camp there are many that realize that cap and trade, and so called "renewables" cannot be a complete solution to halting global warming but are simply afraid to support low or 0 carbon, but uncool power generation technologies, such as Nuclear for fear of being labeled the same.

Re:Easy, India or China (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47716961)

Really, if the pubs actually all got together and said, yep, it's real then they whole party would change and they would have little to fear.

Re:Easy, India or China (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716323)

Who else would, unapologetically, give the middle finger to the environment?

Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, US, UK, Sweden, Argentina, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, Poland, and probably quite a few others.

But not Canada. Canada would apologize.

Poland *probably* wouldn't, & why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716445)

I was there in 2010 & have family there who have farms. The storks come from Africa (iirc) every year for 1,000's of yrs. for 1 thing: The place is COVERED in frogs (this is indicative of CLEAN earth & water)... & the dirt? It's BLACK (like potting soil here, I kid you not) & it grows *anything* extremely well.

That "all said & aside":

I also commented on the dirt AND frogs!

(Since in the fields it's actually TOUGH to not step on the zillions of tiny frogs everywhere, & storks crap all over folks' roofs there, lol, disgusting white like chicken crap (pure frog recycled no less) but it's considered "good luck" to have one on your roof - I thought otherwise, but there ya go)

In reply response I was told:

"We keep our land clean since we're primarily farmers & the Ukraine and Poland are the 'breadbaskets' of europe, and we steer clear of factories and chemical production pollution in excess as much as we can because of it"

So... they're much like our midwest in the USA is basically (garden of the world or @ least THEIR part of the world). Makes sense after the crop yields I saw, the soil fertility (avid gardener for decades here is why, 'somewhat' of an 'authority' with a bit of experience), & of course, those storks there migrating every year throughout time basically for those frogs (which DO signal clean earth & water).

APK

P.S.=> Is this 100% undeniable fact? No, of course not. I am not an authority on this. I can only report what I saw. Should others have contrary information that can "set me straight" or enlighten me? I'll listen & thank them for it... apk

Re:Poland *probably* wouldn't, & why (0)

Misagon (1135) | about 3 months ago | (#47716943)

The Polish soil is fertile because Poland has used a lot of fertilizer .. an excess of fertilizer .. which is flushed into the rivers that lead into the Baltic Sea.
Large parts of the Baltic Sea is dead, the cause leading back to this overuse of fertilizer.

Not that the other countries around the Baltic Sea are that much better in controlling their agriculture.

Re:Easy, India or China (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716413)

Or nobody. This is un-sourced nonsense.

Exxon, Dupont, and many others american precious's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716415)

Trolls will be trollin tho. Unless they are really that fucking stupid?

Re:Easy, India or China (0, Troll)

Richard Dick Head (803293) | about 3 months ago | (#47716457)

I can think of some more skeptical reasons.

Or the Ozone layer is perfectly fine now, and repairing itself, albeit slowly, and said scientists currently have their hand out and need to come up with an excuse to fill it.

Or, the "Ozone Hole" was a natural occurrence all along, and had nothing to do with CFCs, because CFCs are so flipping heavy whoever construed all of it isn't on the ocean floor is a dunce...etc

Re:Easy, India or China (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47716975)

Non of that actually makes any damn sense.

This stupid scientist make things up for money meme need to really fucking stop when every expert in the field agrees.

Fuck, you're stupid.

china did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716249)

and then lied about doing it

Re:china did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716355)

Yes, A China official said not long ago about Chinas air pollution, that the west started it, and that it's not their problem.

Re:china did it (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47716437)

"The west" started Chinese air pollution? So the smog around Chinese cities is our fault? They must be really desperate for excuses...

Re:china did it (5, Funny)

Narcocide (102829) | about 3 months ago | (#47716469)

Its called "setting a bad example." This got my little sister out of trouble almost every single time.

Re:china did it (3, Insightful)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 3 months ago | (#47716531)

Well Corporate Americas is definitely at fault. They move the manufacturing to countries that have No EPA, No Unions, No OSHA. No labor laws.

Re:china did it (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47716981)

Some fault probably belongs to the countries that don't have those regulations.

Self-destructive people (-1)

gweihir (88907) | about 3 months ago | (#47716257)

My guess is some people that are stupid and self-destructive enough that they just do not care. Some parts of the human race really do not deserve to live.

Re:Self-destructive people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716295)

So... China then?

ignorance (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 3 months ago | (#47716303)

a more reasonable assumption would be use in parts of the world that don't know all of a chemical's properties. You would not be able to produce a list of ozone harmful chemicals from memory either

Re:ignorance (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 3 months ago | (#47716925)

As they actually have to produce the stuff to set it free, that is not a plausible scenario.

Re:Self-destructive people (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47716435)

Can't we just do what we usually do? Kill them all and call the ones that don't deserve it "unfortunately unavoidable collateral damage"?

North Korea? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716267)

Cuz ozone ronery.

Re:North Korea? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47716447)

Can't be. Great Leader invented the Ozone Layer.

Old drums leak (4, Insightful)

Noir Angellus (2740421) | about 3 months ago | (#47716279)

and there are a lot of old drums of this stuff sitting around old industrial buildings because it costs money to have it disposed of safely. There's probably a degree of it being released by the new generation of workers who have no idea what's in those old rusty drums, and the older workers have plain forgotten, and are just dumping it into drains to get rid of it and make space in the chemical storage room.

Re:Old drums leak (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 months ago | (#47716779)

If that was the case, it would be showing up in tests when they see what the composition of the waste is. I haven't heard of any places in north america where concentrations of CCl4 is showing up.

Maybe Dr. Smith left the cap off the bottle again? (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 3 months ago | (#47717031)

http://irwinallentvseries.wiki... [wikia.com]
"Don and John come out of the ship asking about carbon tetrachloride. Smith says he uses it to remove stains--he's used it and left the top off. John asks him if he has any thoughts besides his immediate needs---without the carbon tetrachloride they will lose their food supply. They use it as food preservation (NOTE: how is a mystery---it is highly toxic). They will have to eat only non-perishable items and now face a food shortage (what about the hydroponic garden?). ..." :-)

Will Robinson saved the day on that episode, but he had to come all the way to Earth via an alien matter transporter to do it.

Kidding aside, you make a great point!

Ooh, ooh I know! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716283)

It came from humans! Humans that don't give a shit!

Re:Ooh, ooh I know! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716309)

Constipation causes ozone depletion?

Re:Ooh, ooh I know! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716383)

Well, if I am constipated I am certainly liable to care a little less about the environment.

Re:Ooh, ooh I know! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47716507)

And lack of constipation causes global warming. We're screwed either way, it seems.

Re:Ooh, ooh I know! (2)

Rosyna (80334) | about 3 months ago | (#47717051)

Well, of course it came from humans. There is no natural source of CFCs on earth. They aren't a naturally occurring substance.

Source is HVAC Contractors (5, Interesting)

fibrewire (1132953) | about 3 months ago | (#47716285)

I know because it's happening all over the Coachella Valley. I have seen cut rate guys NOT reclaiming or pumping down coils - jettisoning 10+ pounds each time. This occurs at least 50 times a day here in the desert that I know of. Even top paid contractors like callthegeneral.com just don't care because their commission is based on number of visits per day, and it takes an extra 15-25 minutes to pump a system down before removal. The wholesale houses even pay a couple $$$ per pound of the reclaimed stuff, but commission rates ensure blowing off straight to atmosphere every time.

Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (1, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 3 months ago | (#47716329)

ensure blowing off straight to atmosphere every time.

Its a liquid. Please make arguments that at least show that you have a clue.

Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (1)

fibrewire (1132953) | about 3 months ago | (#47716349)

Water is a liquid as well, yet I'm breathing it as humidity every day

"Prior to the Montreal Protocol, large quantities of carbon tetrachloride were used to produce the chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants R-11 (trichlorofluoromethane) and R-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane). However, these refrigerants play a role in ozone depletion and have been phased out." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (0)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 3 months ago | (#47716941)

Water is a liquid as well, yet I'm breathing it as humidity every day

When I open up the tap in my kitchen sink, am I "blowing off water straight to atmosphere" ???

Of course not, showing us all that you didnt know that Carbon tetrachloride was a liquid while making your first post blaming a bunch of people that you clearly have other different issues with. You assumed that this stuff was a gas and because you have such a great track record with assumptions you didnt even both to verify it. This seems to be a repeating pattern in your life because for some strange fucking reason its not important to you to be informed before opening your fucking mouth..

The correct order of operations is (1) Theory, (2) Evidence, (3) Conclusion. It is not what you have been doing which is (1) Conclusion, (2) Evidence, (3) Theory.

Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | about 3 months ago | (#47716989)

You are, yes. Any water you use will end up in the atmosphere, because evaporation is inevitable.

Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716455)

Please make arguments that at least show that you have a clue.

Clueful posts on slashdot? That would be like Naples without garbage, traffic, and whores.

Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (1)

sjames (1099) | about 3 months ago | (#47716497)

I believe he was thinking of R22. Certainly a related problem.

Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47716389)

Nope. CCl4 is not used in HVAC systems. You are thinking of freon [wikipedia.org] , which is not what TFA is about.

Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716671)

There are lots of kinds of freon; are you sure none of them contain or decompose into CCl4?

Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716473)

This people must be pretty dumb you get good money for used R22 and R12. Which also isn't the chemical being discussed.

Check your local fracking mixture (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716297)

I would not be surprised at all if it is a component used in the fracking fluids associated with the process.
Since nobody will tell us what is used under "trade secret" lala, all naysayers to my possibility assertion are preemptively kaput.

bullshit asshattery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716391)

bullshit. Carbon tetrachloride is way too expensive to be used in that manner.

oh, and it wouldn't be leaking out that fast.

Re:Check your local fracking mixture (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47716459)

I would not be surprised at all if it is a component used in the fracking fluids associated with the process.

That is extremely unlikely. In addition to being illegal, it would also not be effective. CCl4 is not soluble is water, and would not make hydrocarbons more mobile or more soluble. It would however, readily dissolve in hydrocarbon fluids, where it would be difficult and expensive to separate.

Conspiracy Tinfoil Engaged (0)

drpimp (900837) | about 3 months ago | (#47716305)

Chemtrails ....

No data, so choose your favorite villain (4, Funny)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | about 3 months ago | (#47716333)

Since the source is completely unclear, most posters will blindly assume it is the fault of whichever group is their bête noire. Some favorites will likely be China, North Korea and Russia, but use your imagination folks. There is just as much evidence that it is caused by evil bankers, genetically modified foods, pedophiles or US militarism.

Re:No data, so choose your favorite villain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716369)

Repent, ye of loose morals, repent.

captcha: satiric

Re:No data, so choose your favorite villain (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47716463)

Any chance to pin that on the content mafia or patent trolls? C'mon, at least ONCE such a story has to hit someone we can uniformly hate and not be controversial.

Re:No data, so choose your favorite villain (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 3 months ago | (#47716527)

Any chance to pin that on the content mafia or patent trolls? C'mon, at least ONCE such a story has to hit someone we can uniformly hate and not be controversial.

So long as you don't blame it on Tesla, Bitcoin, or Starts with a Bang, everyone here will cool with it.

Re:No data, so choose your favorite villain (3, Insightful)

blue9steel (2758287) | about 3 months ago | (#47716559)

Well as long as we're blaming people without evidence then I choose environmentalists. They're already responsible for global warming since they blocked the transition from fossil fuels to nuclear. I'm sure once we dig into the issue it's likely to be caused by the banning of disposable bags or the manufacture of electrical vehicles or some other process which sounds good on the surface but has unintended bad side effects.

Re:No data, so choose your favorite villain (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about 3 months ago | (#47716637)

Christians. They're cooking some weird god food or storing CCl4 for the second coming or something.

It's got to be them.

If not them then it's the Joos. Israel is trying to burn off the ozone layer. Again.

Bastards.

<sarcasm you dolts/>

From the wikipedia (4, Informative)

mveloso (325617) | about 3 months ago | (#47716337)

Not sure how accurate this is, since it's from wikipedia, but the reference seems legit.

In 2008, a study of common cleaning products found the presence of carbon tetrachloride in "very high concentrations" (up to 101 mg/m3) as a result of manufacturers' mixing of surfactants or soap with sodium hypochlorite (bleach).[18]

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10... [acs.org]

FTA:

"By mixing surfactants or soap with NaOCl, it was shown that the formation of carbon tetrachloride and several other halogenated VOCs is possible"

Re:From the wikipedia (4, Informative)

Smallpond (221300) | about 3 months ago | (#47716533)

Clorox had $5.6B in sales last year, of which 10% was laundry products according to their annual report. A gallon of bleach sells for $2, so if all their sales generated 275M gallons of bleach-containing chemicals = 1M m3 x 101 mg/m3 = 100,000 gm. Nope. That amount is negligible compared to what the study reports.

Re:From the wikipedia (1)

slowdeath (2836529) | about 3 months ago | (#47716587)

"By mixing surfactants or soap with NaOCl, it was shown that the formation of carbon tetrachloride and several other halogenated VOCs is possible." So every time I do a load of laundry and put bleach into it to make my undies sparking white I'm adding carbon tetrachloride to the atmosphere unintentionally. So time to ban bleach. Or washing machines. Or white undies.

Re:From the wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716803)

Give me spots on my undies
But leave me the birds and the bees

Re:From the wikipedia (2)

Technician (215283) | about 3 months ago | (#47717035)

I'm wondering how much is a false detection for a similar chemical, or as the result of another chemical reaction. At work our Lead detection kits respond the same to Copper. This has led to missdiagnosis in copper plating.

Chlorinated hydrocarbons abound in the environment. Could this be by products of burning recycled PC parts and old monitors and wire. The copper and other metals theft and recycling may be the cause.

Meh. (1)

Larryish (1215510) | about 3 months ago | (#47716345)

Actually it turned out to be koala flatulence.

Turns out digesting eucalyptus releases that type of gas.

Comment Subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716367)

Time to blame random entities and get angry at groups of people without any proof of anything.

China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716385)

Mystery solved.

Politicized (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716397)

This statement: "It is now apparent there are either unidentified industrial leakages, large emissions from contaminated sites, or unknown CCl4 sources." Destroys the credibility of this. "Unknown sources" is the proper scientific admission, the rest is polarizing nonsense. I believe humans are causing climate change and our pollution is largely the cause, but it only feeds the deniers when this kind of soapbox garbage sneaks into the observation.

Baffles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716431)

Baffles. They should make less of them. Because scientists always get baffled.

Come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716439)

It's obvious where it's coming from... China and all those other "cheap labor" part of the world who don't give a damn about the environment.

Re:Come on... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#47716549)

It's obvious where it's coming from... China and all those other "cheap labor" part of the world who don't give a damn about the environment.

You know the world has changed when the USA gets listed under "all those other 'cheap labor' parts of the world" and China gets top billing....

Damn cars (1)

cyberspittle (519754) | about 3 months ago | (#47716499)

All the ozone from the exhaust of cars is the culprit. We just can't make enough ozone. Time to rev the engines.

Re:Damn cars (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#47716535)

All the ozone from the exhaust of cars is the culprit. We just can't make enough ozone. Time to rev the engines.

You'd need to make flying cars lucrative first... ones that could make it all the way to the ozone layer. Down here in the lower levels of the atmosphere, ozone is known as pollution.

North Korea? (1)

DMJC (682799) | about 3 months ago | (#47716635)

Why would they bother to support a UN treaty? They're like the biggest rogue state on the planet.

Re:North Korea? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716693)

Why would they bother to support a UN treaty? They're like the biggest rogue state on the planet.

The continental United States is physically larger than North Korea. They are not the biggest rogue state.

Most likely a combination of things (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 3 months ago | (#47716695)

Partly a few rogue countries, but it's more likely high level photochemical reactions above high pollution zones over China where the level of pollution has gone way beyond safe levels. Throw some electrochemical processes and a highly unregulated "military" sector of Chinese companies and you've got a ready source.

Lightning cares nought for your political boundaries. Neither does pollution.

It's a secret (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716867)

They won't know what's happening until next year, when I publish my description of the Tetranimous, the tetrachloride-releasing worm that lives in Arctic shorelines, far from the tropical reefs which researchers prefer to visit.

Massive Environmental Damage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716949)

Despite all the bitching, moaning and finger-pointing/pulling above, the real issue has not been addressed. Where is all the harm that these chemicals are supposed to have caused? Please introduce me to someone whose lifestyle has been affected.

Re:Massive Environmental Damage (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | about 3 months ago | (#47717009)

Well, California is pretty hot this year and they're just itching for someone to blame.

Not accusing anyone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47716973)

...but if you need a place to start looking... https://www.google.com/maps/pl... [google.com]

I don't know .... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47717005)

.... where it all comes from. But that stuff works great for cleaning the soot off the ground-based NOAA sensor enclosures.

The fact they won't say is pretty damning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47717075)

If they don't want to blame someone, that proves they're the ones responsible. Why else would they protect a group that is attacking the planet in such a horrific way unless they themselves were the criminals.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?