'Book Review: Trashing the Planet by Dixy Lee Ray Essay\r'

'In Trashing the Planet, Dixy Lee cock marshals the evidence of knowledge to perforate the fragile hot air balloons of the global warming, ozone reduction, and acerbic rainwater theorists. With scientific facts and sound philosophy she also pulverise the nonsensical arguments behind the hysterical crusades against pesticides, alar, dioxin, PCBs, atomic count 86, asbestos, and nuclear power. fewer of us have escaped the green propaganda attempt unscathed; virtually everyone has been victimized with needless worries everywhere alleged dangers lurking in the just ab come out common and kindly substances in our homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods. Few of us have the schoolman background, the access to the scientific data, and the time to investigate the cogency of the continuous outpouring of environmental dooms daytime scenarios.\r\n ir radiation therapy covers a wide range of environmental topics, including acid rain, the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, pesticides, et c. She attempts to use available scientific data to â€Å"clarify environmental issues, to separate facts from factoids, to unmask the doom-crying opponents of all progress, and to re-establish a sense of reason and rest with respect to the environment and modern technology.” (Merline, 14) In the business of this exercise, several(prenominal) interesting facts argon presented, among them (Merline, 2001): \r\nThe amount of unseeable radiation reaching the earth has decreased since 1974, contrary to what one would expect if the earth’s protecting(prenominal) ozone layer (which filters out most of the sun’s ultraviolet rays) has been depleted from the use of chlorofluorocarbons. \r\n \r\nSeveral cognise carcinogens, such as arsenic, cadmium, and chromium, are found course in human cells. As spear argues, â€Å"it is the pointâ€the size or amount of exposure [to carcinogens]â€that is important.” (Lee Ray, pg. 58)\r\nIn addition, 11% of the radi ation we are exposed to comes from our admit bodies. A total of 82% of our exposure to radiation comes from natural blood lines, including radon, cosmic rays, elements in the earth, etc. The stay 18% comes from man-made sources such as aesculapian X-rays (11%), nuclear medicine (4%), consumer products (3%). All other sources, including nuclear power, account for less than 1% of our exposure to radiation. (Lee Ray, 1991)\r\n \r\nConcerning radon gas, Ray notes that energy conservation as urged by the U.S. establishment will approximately double the number of cancer deaths due to exposure to radon gas, because â€Å" seal up a home for the purpose of energy conservation inevitably leads to higher(prenominal) takes of indoor radon.” (Lee Ray, pg. 69) heretofore despite this, no warnings have been issued about the dangers of this formulate of energy conservation. In fact, as Ray points out, â€Å"our government has actively promoted energy-efficient homes with everything from do-it-yourself literature to tax breaks for insulating your home.” (Lee Ray, pg. 78)\r\nRay’s three assertions-that ozone would be produced in the dispirit atmosphere regardless of human activity, that it is produced by the fundamental interaction of sunniness and hydrocarbons, and that those hydrocarbons are largely produced by positions-are, respectively, a technical truth hiding a falsehood, a sloppily garbled half-truth, and a bit of these 2 mixed with an outright lie. Specifically, sea-level ozone is formed when sunshine splits due north dioxide into nitric oxide and atomic atomic number 8. The atomic atomic number 8 contradicts with molecular oxygen to form ozone.\r\nNow it is technically true that, in nature, oxides of nitrogen are produced by certain bacteria, forest fires, and lightning, so that a handsome amount of sea-level ozone would thusly be produced in the absence of human activity. However, the main source of oxides of nitrogen in so uthern California is combustion: nitrogen combining with oxygen at high temperatures. So whether it’s from gas wet, heaters and ovens, coal-fired power plants, or automobiles, most of the nitrogen dioxide in the air-and, thus, most of the sea-level ozone-is today produced by human beings. (Lee Ray, 1991)\r\nAs for Ray’s second claim, hydrocarbons contri providede to increasing the level of ozone in smog by a very substantiating route. Ozone in the lower atmosphere a great deal reacts with water to form hydroxyl radicals. These hydroxyl radicals will every react with impurities in the air to break them ware or react at night with nitrogen dioxide to form nitric acid, which is either washed out of the atmosphere by rain or dispirited worst by sunlight the next day into hydroxyl radicals, nitric oxide, and atomic oxygen (Merline, 2001).\r\nIn L.A. smog, the soupy mix of unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons reacts with hydroxyl radicals and oxygen to form orga nic peroxides. These, in turn, react with nitric oxide to form nitrogen dioxide. By generating even more than nitrogen dioxide than was produced by combustion, these peroxides contribute more of the source material that sunlight will turn into ozone (Lee Ray, 1991). Thus, the ozone level goes up when hydrocarbons are added to the soup, but ozone is not created by a simple interaction between sunlight and hydrocarbons, as Dr. Ray asserted.\r\nAs for Ray’s third claim-that hydrocarbons come from trees-here she was particularly devious. Her characterization of hydrocarbons as those wonderful things that you smell coming off ache trees is technically correct to the degree that the terpenes, which are indeed given off by trees, are a family of hydrocarbons. ( one of these terpenes is pinene, which gives pine trees their pleasant smell; terpenes also react with oxygen and ozone to form a bluish overcast in forested areas.)\r\nHowever, hydrocarbons comprise a large family of com pounds, encompassing everything from methane (natural gas) to such plastics as polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene (Styrofoam) (Lee Ray, 1991). Just as the hydrocarbons in smog are not from Styrofoam, neither are they from trees; they are, in fact, unburned gasoline vapors-compounds such as ethane and ethylene. Moreover, pinene reacts with ozone to form pinol, which combines with water to form a hydrate that has a melting point higher than the boiling point of water. (Merline, 2001)\r\nAs for my assertion to the thoughts substantial by Dixy Ray that acid rain releases plant nutrients and is thus practiced to forests, this is a sterling model of twisting the truth. The acidity of rain does, indeed, break down silicates and oxides, converting them to clay and sandy soils, and releasing ions of such beneficial metallic elements as sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and manganese in the process.\r\nHowever, when the rain is too acidic, it not only burns the leaves of trees but can also release aluminum ions, which are toxic to fish, into rivers and lakes. Much of the concern voiced by environmentalists stems from a belief that technological advances are fouling our nest. The writer takes pains to point out that technology often improves our environment, making it safer and cleaner for humans to live in. One example is with food jibe. Deemed harmless by several heath groups, including the World Health Organization, irradiation helps to go through microorganisms that can cause food spoilage. Despite the axiomatic benefits to consumers from low spoilage rates, many consumer groups have fought irradiation for health reasons. \r\nReferences\r\nLee Ray, Dixy (with Lou Guzzo). 1991. Trashing the Planet: How Science rump Help Us Deal With Acid Rain, Depletion of the Ozone Layer, and atomic Waste (Among Other Things). Regnery Gateway. Retrieved on October 6, 2006.\r\nMerline, J.W. 2001. Trashing the planet. Consumers’ Research Magazine. Re trieved on October 6, 2006.\r\n'