Ozone Poll

In 1930 your risk of developing melanoma was 1:1500 people. Today it is 1:75, due in large part to decreasing protection from our chemically shrunken ozone layer. Skin cancer rates are increasing by about 3% per year.

Do you or does anyone you know apply sunscreen (or put on a hat) every time you/they leave the house?

View Results

Music: The Muffins :: People In The Snow

5 Replies to “Ozone Poll”

  1. Mark –

    You keep posting links from the same publication – a publication with a clear right wing / libertarian bent, filled with adjectives and editorials. These are the kinds of publications that post content from writers who are masters of spin – they almost sound convincing when they fly in the face of 10,000 scientists by quoting a few scientists who disagree. But worldwide, researchers DO NOT disagree about the effects of CFCs on the ozone. Heck, see what our own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has to say:

    http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/Pubdocs/StratO3.html

    McManus spend the entire first half of his document complaining about how expensive and inconvenient it will be to eliminate CFCs. It’s very very clear that he is more interested in protecting business than he is in protecing the earth.

    Writers like him are very dangerous. Like Rush and ilk, they can make almost any argument sound convincing, no matter how much evidence contraindicates, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how much common sense they lack. Writers like McManus and blow-hards like Rush can be thought provoking, but be very cautious – they are masters of spin, and will never show you both sides of the coin. They’re more interested in protecting their agendae than the are in finding the truth.

  2. It bears remembering that in 1930 people wore more clothes, too, so very little of the skin of even a working man was exposed to the sun. I’m not disputing the chemical destruction of the ozone layer, but I do think those statistics don’t tell the whole story about skin cancer.

  3. hmmmm…. dunno that a right wing publication would be any worse a source of “facts” than a company trying to sell you sun protection.

    and how are YOU not a spin doctor?

  4. If 10,000 scientists agree that the hole in the ozone is chemically induced while 3 disagree, the spin doctor is the one who argues that the 3 are correct, the 10,000 wrong. That’s why I’m not the spin doctor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.